Should we still be encouraging our children to go to university?

[jollydiane]

Dear DC I am sorry that our politicians have completely screwed up you education, this is what you have to look forward to:

1. Student loans or a graduate tax
2. The demand for university places is outstripping the supply
3. If you don?t go to university then you have very little chance of getting a good job as many employers will not look at your CV without a 2:1
4. Living with your parents as you have no chance of saving for enough for a house.

I cannot tell you how cross I am so tell me I am wrong and everything is fine.

Maybe you misunderstood the thrust of my post, Breton1900. I am in academia myself, so not immune to the idea that there is more to life than money...

I was simply trying to reassure Riven that a degree in science can lead to rewarding work, in both personal and financial terms, and that she shouldn't discourage her DS from going to university because he wants to study science.

Penthesileia - thanks for the clarification.

Riven - I accept your comment but money is not the be all and end all. I found your sentence that "Soo many mumsnetters post they cant afford to have the number of children they want" interesting.

Seems for some people it's all about "I want". Well if that's the case then such people have to recognise that they can't have everything they want and accept they can only have the number of children they can comfortably support. Or have a larger family but accept a much lower standard of living.

'Is money the sole motive for doing anything? '

When you poor/working poor, yes, it's a primary motivator and factor in most things.

yes i will encourage uni for my children.the op is bit fatalistic. uni is a good academic and social experience

money is a pretty big motivator,yes.and in general people who say its only money usually have sufficient.whereas when you dont have a pot to piss in money is a big motivator

academic/social is worth paying for,the social is the coping skills,maturity,and experiential learning one acquires at uni.the academic is the demands of coursework and passing.i didnt take penny from my parents (they couldnt afford it) i worked my way through uni.and frankly children should make some effort to support self through uni

Thank you for all your comments. What has not been touched on enough is the attitudes of employers. This is where we need to change. I think there needs to be more options. Not just vocational jobs but finace jobs etc that allow you to work your way up by performing well.

Mathanxiety - you said that my cousin who stuidied football studies may well be able to get a job in america with Major League Soccer.

Funny you should say that, my brother actually works for Major league soccer in California coaching their youth teams! However, he didn't get that from his degree (he has a degree in Sports Science from Southampton, so a pretty decent degree) - he got that because when he was 18 he gained a class 2 coaching certificate from the FA, and worked in the summer holidays for soccer camps in America.

My cousin has applied to work for Major League Soccer with his football degree, but he can't get anywhere without this certificate, which you gain from volunteering for local football clubs. I think he is planning to do that in the future.

Riven - point taken on putting food on the table etc.

However, is going to University simply an investment to get a well paid job? If education is simply a means to an end then we can bid farewell to all those academic disciplines that have no practical application in the job market.

The other fact is that a university degree no longer leads to a well-paid job. Over the last 13 years or so degrees have become ten a penny. Indeed, a degree today seems to be the equivalent of three two good

The important thing is to encourage and guide our DCs towards the educational opportunities that will both provide them with the skills to get a reasonably-paid job in accordance with their own interests and aptitudes, and equip them with broader social and analytical skills that will enable them to work their way through life and meet its inevitable difficulties calmly and the ability to work through problems rather than expecting others (parents, the State, partners...) to solve them for them.

Don't know what happened there!

As I was going to state.....

A degree today now seems to be the equivalent of three good A levels thirty years ago! Hence employers can now demand graduates for what are really quite lowly jobs simply because so many graduates are out there looking for work. Dumbed down A levels, the sheer number of "degrees" being offered, plus the rise in former Tech Colleges now calling themselves "Universities", has seen a drop in the quality of graduates, especially in all these soft option Mickey Mouse courses that, at the end of the day, aren't worth the paper on which they are printed.

Once an, apparently, elitist qualification is dumbed down to include hairdressing along with tourism and leisure and becomes open to all and sundry it ceases to be elitist and thus loses any kudos.

A degree in "anything" no longer provides any guarantee of future employment. Long gone are the days when an Oxbridge Classics degree provided an entry into the heady world of business.

Employers are looking for skilled employees who can hit the ground running and keep on going for a long time without needing their skills updating.

The world has changed vastly in the last twenty years and so too has the labour market.
Our children will have to compete not only with each other but also from their global peers.

A good degree, from a good establishment, in a good subject, may be the starting point - though only that.

Our children need to understand this.

"Our children will have to compete not only with each other but also from their global peers."

So true - and their global peers will be polyglots.

I already know of Anglo bankers who cannot find jobs in the current climate because they are monolingual.

And it's fast becoming the case that a bachelors degree is not enough -- the next step in the logical progression.

I can't help wondering why the British education system has failed several generations since 1973 when the UK joined the EEC, as it was back then, and still keeps on turning out school-leavers who are not proficient in another language. It's one thing to be leery (however irrational that may be) of European integration, but it's another thing altogether to basically throw money away on under-educating or mis-educating children because 'there'll always be an England' or some such twaddle.

I've just joined this thread and have only read this page, so sorry if I've repeated what people have said.

I was wondering if young people wouldn't be better off spending another year at school. First year under grad work is often now what used to be VIth form standard (altho' I'm not saying things have been dumbed down - there are other reasons for that). At least school is free.

Also, students who have spent a year out of education (GAP) are usually much more motivated when they get there.

Finally one of the biggest problems at uni imo is that on many courses there is so much time without classes, and such long holidays. Some courses need every minute for reading etc - I'm not saying we should shorten those degrees or increase class time for those courses - and some students spend their holidays doing fantastic things like travelling the world, VSO, etc. But there are some courses that could be shortened and intensified, which would keep costs down.

Finally, two of my kids have been to uni and they worked part-time. Parents don't have to bear the whole financial load.

Bonsoir - glad to hear what you say about languages.

manthanxiety - yes, bachelor's degree is often not enough now. But if we kept kids at school/VIth form college for another year?

grannieonabike - I was under the impression that as from last year all pupils commencing Y7 will have to stay at school until sixth form (or attend a sixth form college) where they will be in either vocational or academic education!

So all those disaffected 16 year olds will be compelled to spend another two years in some sort of educational facility where, no doubt, they will bunk off most lessons and, when in attendance, will continue to cause the mayhem they have become accustomed to creating!

I don't know about that - we have a different system in Scotland. But I'm thinking of the people who choose to stay on at school, for them to stay an extra year. Surely no-one would want to keep 'disaffected
16 year olds' at school a minute longer than necessary!

Another thing some unis can do is give prospective students an entrance exam.

In some countries the A level equivalents are competitive. The top X% of students for any subject get to go to uni. (End to discussions about dumbing down, maybe?) Also in some parts of Europe, people go to their local uni, so they don't leave home & save on living expenses (don't know how I feel about that!).

In the US, if a student takes Advanced Placement courses in high school and gets a 4 or 5 in the AP exams (on a 1 - 5 scale), they can skip required university first year courses, and get their teeth into university level courses appropriate to their academic ability right from the start. There is therefore the possibility of graduating in less than the usual four years.

In addition, they can test out of foreign language requirements (which most good universities impose as graduation requirements) by sitting a fairly rigorous test that would reflect at least four years of study at a challenging level at high school plus a couple of years of college level foreign language classes.

Ireland has a very competitive and centralised placement system; the US has a very decentralised placement 'system', but it is nevertheless very competitive, for the flagship state universities and the Ivy League, and the second and third tier universities beneath that level. After that, the element of competitiveness dries up.

GOML - your dd could see if the RAF will put her through Uni; I know there are bursaries for the engineering courses at Southampton. She needs to ask, because they may come up with some money. I know it's not like when the RN paid dh a salary and put him through his degree, but it may be something, even with a return of service attached.

But grannieonabike, you assume that an extra year of school could just be provided free at no extra charge. If there was the money to do that there'd be the money to reduce the cost of going to university, surely?

Do you mean if parents could support someone staying on at school, they could support them at uni?

Or are you saying that if the government were prepared to pay for someone to stay on at school they would also be prepared to support them during the first year of uni?

Either way, yes, I think. Except that in the second scenario the government's money comes from two different pots, and what's available for schools might not be for unis?