If your 17 year old wanted to take a day off school to attend the student funding march on Wed would you condone it

[mrswoodentop]

What it says really,ds1 ,17 ,very politically aware wants to attend.Its a school day,independent school so I need to write to say we are authorising him to have a day off.

Dh violently against ,very angry with me for even thinking about it ,treats ds like a naughty little boy.I am more ambivelent,I am proud of him for feeling strongly (dh thinks that because he wouldn't go on his own that he just wants a day off school with his friends),I think that this issue is going to have a profound effect on his life and in a way I am quite proud of him for wanting to have a voice, also proud because he has thought carefully about the issues and wants to hear both sides and yes he wants to experience something big ,something new,to be there if you like.But and and its a big but he has to have day off school,he's not a definate oxbridge candidate ,his grades aren't perfect he can ill afford to miss a lot of school,but one day? I don't know,dh has said no and he's agreed so I suppose its over but perhaps we are doing him a diservice (sorry not sure of spelling)

how would it close down universities?

All the existing universities existed in the 80s (some under different names).

The number of courses may be less, or the number of undergraduate places on some courses.

Where is this money coming from to commit to our HE system? It wasn't there in the 80s, where is it going to come from now?

Personally, I am glad I went to university in the 80s as I feel the system then was much fairer.

I went to a fairly average state school then and all my friends who wanted a university education got it and those who wanted a good job with training or a vocational course got that.

Today they would have to get a degree to get into that same job or vocational qualification which is madness.

Increasing access to university has not worked, but I fear that the feeling that getting a degree is the only route to a good career is now so ingrained that it will never be changed.

The elephant in the room here is that post-1997, as part of the change in HE funding policies, employers were expected to pick up the tab for people to do work based training schemes and work-related foundation degrees, but practically none of them have.

They refuse to invest in their own work force and expect the employees or Government to do it for them instead as well as shoulder the financial burden in the medium to long term as well.

It doesn't help.

Spot on, BoffinMum.

My dad gets quite heated about employer's refusal to take any responsibility for educating their workforce these days. When he left school he entered a very high quality engineering apprenticeship which resulted in a long career as the manager of a foundry. Such placements were plentiful then, now they are almost nonexistent.

Rather than banging on about putting more money into university education, this government should look at measures to force employers to face up to their responsibilities to invest in educating their workforce.

There is a new apprentice scheme, employers pay £2.50 and hour and let them go for day release to college. I won't be advising DD to sign up.

That's not an apprentice scheme, abouteve, it is legalised slavery.

We need REAL apprenticeships with real training and a proper career path.

We don't have them at the moment because employers have been dodging their responsibilities for years.

Without sounding too sentimental, can I just say that I love BoffinMum's posts. They are always well-put, full of information and thoughtful.

Don't get me wrong, I'm anti tuition fees but - judging by the number of expensive weddings that I've attended of my university contempories - plenty of graduates could have afforded to pay back their fees.

And the money would have been better spent on their degree than on their wedding!

I'm hoping that companies will begin to sponsor people through university or offer proper apprenticeships.

I second gingercat.

Yep, thanks for that post about employers/HE schemes Boffin, I didn't know that and it certainly explains a lot about why some very practical or vocational careers might now be 'degree based'.

Excellent post by Boffinmum.

Another consequence of employers refusing to train their workforce is the kind salary inflation seen in the financial sector in particular. Rather than fund training for existing employees, employers "bought in" staff with the skills they needed.

Ironically, the much-maligned public sector has always bucked this trend, enabling people to acquire professional qualifications on the job. Not for much longer though.

Agree excellent posts by Boffinmum.

We need to move from a situation where people expect someone else to pick up the tab (for education/training etc) to one where the party that benefits most from said education (i.e. the individual) is also the one that pays the most.

I don't object to assistance for those at the lower end of the income scale...but I think the majority of people should pay their own way.

Like already happens with cars, mobile phones, computers, and countless other things that enable us to function in the 21st century.

With apprenticeships etc. the employer benefits most. Without an educated workforce they have no business.

But at the moment they pay feck all.

Why do we need to put all the onus on the individual?

All that results then is that those with rich parents go to university while those whose parents have more modest incomes do not.

We used to have an enviable system of free higher education for all those who reached the right academic level.

We have now thrown it away.

It is ok for everyone to say that employers should take responsibility for training...
but can the employers afford it.
Firstly minimum wage has increased dramatically over the last 10 years. £2.50 an hour for a young teenager learning a trade...doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. (I worked in hotel for nothing as a teenager to get experience...on my day off from my job in another restaurant. Training people does take experienced employees time -I'm sure most of the time I hindered more than I helped.)
I'm involved with a playgroup in Scotland. We are facing a £7k loss this year and if something doesn't change next year will be our last year. ALL our staff now have to be 'qualified'. As well as general training (first aid, food hygiene etc etc) you would expect us to pay for the staff's qualifications? We have paid for 2 members of staff to get qualified - they can leave whenever they like and and now are expecting a higher rate of pay...is that fair?
I think the biggest problem is this obsession with 'training' people - someone can do the job very well can't be employed they don't have the right piece of paper...and lets not forget that part of the reason for encouraging training and HE was to keep the youth unemployment figures down... and artificial job creation for the people doing the training...

"We need to move from a situation where people expect someone else to pick up the tab (for education/training etc) to one where the party that benefits most from said education (i.e. the individual) is also the one that pays the most."

It might be the case that the individual who receives the education benefits the most, but that is far from universally true. Our society needs people who are trained to think critically and analytically, to know the history of why the world they live in runs a certain way, to understand how to digest and present complex issues to different audiences, to understand how cultural heritage is a massive force in people's lives, to see how grievances arise, wars start, people misunderstand each other. Not to even mention all those obvious benefits to all of us of training medics and engineers, for which arguments are made for treating as tolerable exceptions.

The idea that higher education is either an indulgence or a route to a big salary overlooks the way it helps everybody live in a better society. It shouldn't be the preserve of the rich. The very people who will be turned away by the fees increase are often the ones who are best placed to understand some of the things I've just mentioned. What kind of government will we get 20 years on from this? How will it ever be representative of the people who live in this country? The injustices of this move will trickle down for generations.

I posted on the other thread about the 'campaign' - I work in the independent sector and there was a surprisingly positive reaction this morning to the student protest. I think the government have misjudged this one, even with their own voters.

Please take note LibDems - I am sorry about what I said yesterday, of course you are not secret conservatives.

I am of course talking about the parents of the children.

Who had a 'surprisingly positive reaction'.

go students go!

i would be proud if my children wanted to get involved...

Certainly these days a degree is not a passport to a well paid career as there are so many graduates.

For instance, nursing is now a graduate career. Not many people would argue that is a well paid career.

A degree is now increasingly seen as a prerequisite for any job at all.

On top of that add a massive student debt burden - the sysytem is not really working is it?

Journalism too. Used to be a mix of graduates and people who had worked their way up from obits and women's institute reports on the local paper. Not any more. The media are largely recruiting people whose parents are well-off enough to support them not only through university but also several lengthy so-called internships - in reality, unpaid work.

I am worried that "having a degree" is now perceived as the only way to earn a reasonable salary and the only way to have respect. Some of the most talented and dynamic people I have worked with/for do not have degrees.

I can see youngsters will get very angry and may ruin their whole life, committing criminal damage and ending up with a criminal record. And all this simply resulting from an adrenalin lead fury that they or their younger friends will become those whose life chances of success end because their family cannot afford to support them or they cannot face a future of £30,000 worth of debt. We really need a campaign in Britain. We need TV programmes, radio programmes and articles in the press celebrating the success/achievement and business acumen of people who do not have a degree; or achieved their degree later in life. We need to send a positive message out there. Gaining a degree is NOT the only route to success.

seeking - we also need a system which gives other avenues to success - ie good company training schemes, vocational courses, apprenticeships etc.

We used to have this in this country.

We need to get it back.

As for the idea that the "individual benefits most", lets say that only those who have attended university are allowed the benefits. (as only the students will be funding the cost for the entire HE sector).

That means the general population is no longer allowed to use bridges, roads or buildings that have been created by engineers and architects. You are not allowed to go to the doctors or pharmacist, (go to a homeopath or 'faith doctor' instead, ha!). You are not allowed any medicines, which have been developed by graduates. You are not allowed to use your computer (software and hardware developed by graduates). You are not allowed any cleaning products, shampoos, cosmetics, plastics (made by graduate chemists and engineers). Your kids must be educated only by the TAs, and must not use any textbooks (written by graduates). etc..

I can really see your point limbo - I cannot challenge the logic of your point. Maybe we could have a royalty system - to be paid directly to graduates, they could offset it against graduate tax/repayments.

Hang on

Wouldn't that be the same as not charging tuition fees????????