Heartland

Hmmm.

I am the only the second University educated person in my family. My Dad was the first. I have a practical degree, in accounting. It was what my Dad wanted me to do...so I could earn real money and take care of myself.

My brother fixes motors for a living. His wife is a dental hygenist. My sister is a window dresser for a department store, my brohter in law is some sort of tekkie and I have no idea what he does. None of them have degrees. They are all valuable memebers of society, and contributing in their own way the talents they have.

The fact that I have a degree of higher learning never tore our family apart or made me snobby to my parents or brother and sister, or their spouses. So Mr. Chris, I'm not sure where you are coming from with your commments regarding that.

The fact is it's not education that makes who you are. It's far more than that, and having an education does not make one intelligent. Not at all.

I think everyone has a talent, and contributes to society what they can...some ppl are scientists, doctors, lawyers, nurses.... accountants

And some ppl make up beds for a living and put the toilet paper in the stalls in the bathroom at work. What would you do the next time you run out of tp in the john at work? I thank the lady everytime I see her! She's very nice too. But you know, she won't talk to just anyone.....Only the ones who say hi to her.

None of us are any better than anyone else when we are standing naked ...

BP

That's not the point that we are trying to make BP. I don't think that you can get a degree in bed making can you? No-one is saying that people without a university education is less valued that someone who does. We are talking about people who go to uni and study something which which give them a job that is needed in society. Here we have a lot a rubbish uni courses that is no benefit to anyone. The debate here, is should we fund such courses or indeed any uni course at all.

Mmmmmm - damn right BP!

My brother makes car mirrors in a factory so that we get less road accidents, I look after a great big f--- off computer network. Which of us makes the greatest contribution to society? Well, we're both pretty much even on that score really.

Sexygoth wrote:That's not the point that we are trying to make BP. I don't think that you can get a degree in bed making can you? No-one is saying that people without a university education is less valued that someone who does. We are talking about people who go to uni and study something which which give them a job that is needed in society. Here we have a lot a rubbish uni courses that is no benefit to anyone. The debate here, is should we fund such courses or indeed any uni course at all.

I took Sex Ed and got a C. Paid for it with my own money. How useful was that in terms of making a living? Well, unless I wanted to be a prostitute, not useful at all. But it met a requirement to graduate.

The answer to your question SG is no, the government should not be responsible for funding higher education. It is the responsibility of the person getting educated. I paid for my education. Took 10 years to pay it all off.


My reply was prompted by what Mr. Chris said, about ppl going off to uni and coming home snobby some how. That really bothered me.

Exactually my point, If people do want to do something which they later won't be relying on in their chosen career, then they should be expected to pay for it. But I also thing that we as tax payers should invest in our future Doctors etc............

Sexygoth wrote:Exactually my point, If people do want to do something which they later won't be relying on in their chosen career, then they should be expected to pay for it. But I also thing that we as tax payers should invest in our future Doctors etc............

So in the case of my music degree, had I become a musician it should have been free, but since I became a journalist I should pay?

If I was a music critic, what then?

ffs, didn't realise this was question time........And no, it doesn't mean I don't have an answer LOL

andymackem wrote:

Sexygoth wrote:Exactually my point, If people do want to do something which they later won't be relying on in their chosen career, then they should be expected to pay for it. But I also thing that we as tax payers should invest in our future Doctors etc............

So in the case of my music degree, had I become a musician it should have been free, but since I became a journalist I should pay?

If I was a music critic, what then?

yes but you don't NEED a degree to become a musician

mh wrote:I was gonna post something else here but quickly realised that it would have gotten me branded a right-winger. Very contentious. In summary, the number of people with academic qualifications these days completely devalues these same academic qualifications, so people feel that they need more and better, and so the vicious circle continues. I won't go into the reasons why I think this was allowed happen though.

Agree with that. The idea that we should send 50% to university regardless of whether they want to go, whether they (or our uni's) will derive any benefit or whether (in some cases) they are up to the academic standards required is patently absurd.

And it happened, IMHO, because education is a closed shop. When you're at school, where do you get careers advice? From your teachers, by and large. Not surprisingly, having gone through the system themselves they tend to endorse the idea that if you don't go to uni you won't amount to much.

Consequently uni is seen as an end in itself, which I'm not convinced it should be. Particularly not for 18-year-old kids.

On the other hand, allowing more access to education later in life (what should be meant by lifelong learning, were it not such a jargon-y buzzword) would be a huge benefit. Give people time to make these decisions, instead of piling it all into their teens. The people I know who have put most into further education have tended to be mature students - possibly because the clue is in the name.

What needs to change is the employer attitude that youth is to be sought after at all costs (how about paying for some experience now and then?) and the attitude at most of the traditional uni's (less so at the former poly's, to be fair to them) which seems to discourage anything other than a seamless progression from A-level to degree. More recognition of non-standard qualifications, and more detailed interviewing to assess the value of non-assessed skills would be a vital start in this, but it's not as sexy as creating specious opportunities for teenagers and makes much less good party political broadcasts.

There is in place a modern apprentice type thing in NVQs and you can pretty much do anything. The only thing is you get less than the dole, but you can learn up to an NVQ 4 standard which is the equivilent to a degree, and you only need to study one day a week, the rest is practical assessments!! These are a fantastic idea, but unfortunatly anyone under 25 cannot apply. But the general idea is good! I fink so anyway

Sexygoth wrote:

andymackem wrote:

Sexygoth wrote:Exactually my point, If people do want to do something which they later won't be relying on in their chosen career, then they should be expected to pay for it. But I also thing that we as tax payers should invest in our future Doctors etc............

So in the case of my music degree, had I become a musician it should have been free, but since I became a journalist I should pay?

If I was a music critic, what then?

yes but you don't NEED a degree to become a musician

But since I'm not an infant prodigy (Mozart got there first) and my particular interest was classical music, I needed some sort of technical training to develop my skills on my chosen instrument (clarinet, if you were wondering).

Similarly there are areas of technical expertise associated with writing music (another area I dabbled in) which are more effectively learned than stumbled upon by chance.

Natural talent will only take anyone so far (including Mozart, as it happens).

Well Paddy doesn't have a music degree and he's $hit hot on the geeeetar (this is the one and only time I shall be nice to you Paddy lol) The thing about artists of any kind is not the education, or even how good you are in some cases, but wether you get the breaks or not!

I still contend the government should not pay for higher education. None of it! It doesn't matter what you study if you want it--- pay for it your self.

I did. All of it. No hand outs from Uncle Sam or my Dad. None whatsoever.

For AndyM...yeah you have a valid point about employers seeking youth. Mine is in the throes of it. They think they know everything, dress as tho they are in a club, they must be given meaningful work...

Holy s**t....I make 3 times what they do...and must do the photocopies and menial labor myself??? Experience does count...and when I am 60 and no one can read or do maths...I plan on entering the consulting business.. and making lots of money to fund my ...LOL trips to see Von in the nursing home.

Sorry I am home with a nasty cold..and it's making me nasty.

Sexygoth wrote:There is in place a modern apprentice type thing in NVQs and you can pretty much do anything. The only thing is you get less than the dole, but you can learn up to an NVQ 4 standard which is the equivilent to a degree, and you only need to study one day a week, the rest is practical assessments!! These are a fantastic idea, but unfortunatly anyone under 25 cannot apply. But the general idea is good! I fink so anyway

are you sure under 25 SG?

I'm doing my NVQ Assessor exam in my sparetime and some of the apprentices are 18-19

... but yes, it's a very good idea. We're training people with a lovely flexible course, that we can tailor specifically to the business needs and to the trainees abilities / expectations .

Doh, sorry....I meant OVER

Yes I did drop my boot in the river

@ andymackem...

I promise you, you'll find precious few teachers subscribing to the 'If you don't go to Uni, you won't amount to much' argument.

a) we're about as badly paid as a graduate can be (oh OK, I was *marginally* more skint running the bar at a music venue in my 20s, but the drugs were better & I got to hang out with a nicer crowd of alcoholic)

& b) we see FAR too many kids going on to Uni for no good reason whatsoever as it is. Most of us, in our selfish, nasty, crabby little hearts are thinking 'But if EVERY muppet in here gets a degree, mine's going to be worth even f***ing less than it is NOW! & I haven't paid me loan off yet...bastards...'

c) our better natures, on the other hand, feel quite sorry for the Nice But Dims, bless 'em, as they embark on a lifetime of debt in exchange for a worthless degree in Basket Weaving, having been sold the lie that everybody needs *some* sort of letters after their name...

It's not a new problem - altho' funding is clearly going to become an ever more prominent problem if we insist on encouraging the buggers. I had a lovely 3 years of it myself, knocking back the cheap booze & occasionally drifting in to an afternoon lecture, before graduating with a less than essential degree in Classics. Several years later I found myself doing a PGCE (teacher training) - an entirely different experience based on an adult decision & some genuine motivation.

I completely agree with you re: mature student opportunities. Possibly universities could benefit from attaching more importance to simply asking 'Why do you want to do this course?' than by tallying up inflated A Level scores.

Carrie wrote:@ andymackem...

I promise you, you'll find precious few teachers subscribing to the 'If you don't go to Uni, you won't amount to much' argument.

a) we're about as badly paid as a graduate can be (oh OK, I was *marginally* more skint running the bar at a music venue in my 20s, but the drugs were better & I got to hang out with a nicer crowd of alcoholic)

Welcome to the public sector! If it's any consolation salaries are woeful in my industry as well. How I enjoyed a starting salary of £9k .... Still, one day I'll win that lottery and I'm proud to announce that the money will change me greatly.

& b) we see FAR too many kids going on to Uni for no good reason whatsoever as it is. Most of us, in our selfish, nasty, crabby little hearts are thinking 'But if EVERY muppet in here gets a degree, mine's going to be worth even f***ing less than it is NOW! & I haven't paid me loan off yet...bastards...'

c) our better natures, on the other hand, feel quite sorry for the Nice But Dims, bless 'em, as they embark on a lifetime of debt in exchange for a worthless degree in Basket Weaving, having been sold the lie that everybody needs *some* sort of letters after their name...

Not entirely what was put across at my school, and an attitude that would have my mother shreiking in despair (but by the sound of things you're a bit younger than her, so it would just be rolled up in the other family favourite of 'young people nowadays'...)

It's not a new problem - altho' funding is clearly going to become an ever more prominent problem if we insist on encouraging the buggers. I had a lovely 3 years of it myself, knocking back the cheap booze & occasionally drifting in to an afternoon lecture, before graduating with a less than essential degree in Classics. Several years later I found myself doing a PGCE (teacher training) - an entirely different experience based on an adult decision & some genuine motivation.

I completely agree with you re: mature student opportunities. Possibly universities could benefit from attaching more importance to simply asking 'Why do you want to do this course?' than by tallying up inflated A Level scores.

As a matter of interest, what is your view on the purpose of education? However people think it should be funded there is a consensus that we, as a society, need it. So what is the goal of education, from someone who actually works in that sector? I'm just asking out of interest - there isn't a point waiting to be scored here, I promise

I think there's as many goals as there are students (using the word in the widest sense of 'one who studies'. Damian, who is currently reading over my shoulder in order to evade finishing his Shakespeare coursework, would undoubtedly tell you there IS no point...3 more months & he's outta here to take over his dad's garage...who am I to argue? (Especially as he's promised me a discount when I *finally* save up enough for that Triumph Bonneville )

If you're putting me on the spot, I'd have to say 'to equip people to do whatever they want to do, to the best of their abilities' & ALSO 'to ensure the continuation/development of a body of skills/knowledge that might otherwise be lost' (I could make an impassioned case for the teaching of Latin in state schools, but I doubt many of my Year 8s would grieve too much if it disappeared from the curriculum tomorrow!)

But that's terribly vague. I do believe that everyone should have a right to the education they need, but what if they don't want it? What if they're disaffected 16 year olds who can't wait to get out & are amusing themselves in the mean time by disrupting lessons & menacing other pupils & teachers?

Ask me in a couple of weeks...it's 3 days till half term & my happy thoughts about 'the purpose of education' are rapidly unravelling!

In most cases, the goal of secondary education is to provide a sense of discipline and responsibility to a generation who are told by everyone else in society that these are unimportant values.

I, personally, could not have destroyed four dinner jackets, six dress shirts, the interior of three taxi-cabs, completed approximately 178 times crosswords, passed out at 65 garden parties and finely fayred down the primrose path to drunken debauchery were it not for the support and help of my teachers at school. To whom I am forever indebted. Keep up the good work Carrie. And spend the half term preparing for the next round of INSET which can only be a couple of weeks away.

@ Carrie

Quite agree about teaching Latin. Having done it to GCSE I can have a stab at an unfamiliar language and make some sense of it simply by finally understanding how European languages are put together. I only speak English and French with a smattering of Russian, but I've deciphered written directions in Flemish (I think) and newspaper reports in Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch and Danish with reasonable accuracy.

I could never have done that without being given the linguistic building blocks that Latin provided.

Icelandic utterly defeated me last summer, though

BTW, is Latin still taught with Metella and Caecillius? "Grumio coquus est. Grumio est in culina." Et cetera ...

In more general terms my education gave me the tools to acquire the information I want / need in life. It didn't teach me much about journalism, but:
English helped me develop my writing skills;
history gave me an insight into building up an accurate picture from a range of sources (then ignoring it to make my point, of course );
geography and languages broadened my world view and gave me an idea of where to look for examples and alternatives;
music gave me pleasure (not to be sniffed at) but also an understanding of different cultures (see also history and geography).
Oh, and CDT taught me not to attempt DIY!

Oddly most of those subjects are precisely the kind of non-vocational subjects that are most often questioned when people look at the value of education. But without studying those I couldn't do my job as effectively as I do.

Go figure ....

Candover Premiere wrote:In most cases, the goal of secondary education is to provide a sense of discipline and responsibility to a generation who are told by everyone else in society that these are unimportant values.

I, personally, could not have destroyed four dinner jackets, six dress shirts, the interior of three taxi-cabs, completed approximately 178 times crosswords, passed out at 65 garden parties and finely fayred down the primrose path to drunken debauchery were it not for the support and help of my teachers at school. To whom I am forever indebted. Keep up the good work Carrie. And spend the half term preparing for the next round of INSET which can only be a couple of weeks away.

I notice this thread has done wonders for your English, my Belgian friend. Or am I just a bit slow on the uptake? As for Latin, do they still teach that in our schools? We had a superb Latin teacher, who, along with Caecillius etc managed to get even the most linguistically challenged interested in what happened on the way to the forum.

[quote="Thrash Harry"]I notice this thread has done wonders for your English, my Belgian friend.[/quote]

Tx, Pudsey. I guess I'm just a fast learner.

[quote="andymackem]

BTW, is Latin still taught with Metella and Caecillius? "Grumio coquus est. Grumio est in culina." Et cetera ...

[quote]

Ita vero!



Mind you, it's all online clever b*llocks now...& if you go to http://www.classicspage.com/caecilius/ you can give that smarmy git Caecilius a right pasting...

@ Thrash Harry - I'm one of three Latin teachers in the state sector in the Kirklees LEA - the other two are both at the same school as me, both retiring in a couple of years, & I'm off on maternity leave in a few months. So as a subject, it's what you might call hanging on by its cracking fingernails...

I'm doing teacher training at the moment, which is my first time back in education since I was 18.

After a ten and a half year gap, I find it very different, firstly I want to be there and secondly my company are paying for it and defacto for me to show up.