There are many actual examples of it just in this thread. It's not hyperbole
Tories lost the 2019 election among working age adults
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
University isn't the only place to get better than good skills.
Employers need to get good at spotting talent, develop programmes that mould the type of employee they want, and pay them while they learn.... Like an apprenticeship. Why should the tax payer fund all these skills for big business to then use and avoid tax all over the place? Time for them to train their workforce if they need them.
Edit: I've had graduates join my team and their education has not prepared them for most of the tasks at hand, it's down to an experienced member of the team to show them, train them, and develop them to be useful. Most of the time you can do this with anyone with the right attitude straight from school/college.
Do you want to stop and think for a moment about what happens to high-skill, high wage employers, if we don't have a high-skilled workforce here?
Hint : there are plenty of countries that do invest in higher education.
What is classed as high-skill?
I class engineers, mathematicians, surgeons, doctors, physicists, etc as high-skill. Arts, history, other cultural professions also. These require university education, but can also be done other ways to compliment.
I'm saying you can be highly skilled without an academic qualification in a fair amount of disciplines, it's just that business like to put the entry requirements at degree level for the entry roles because, well, it's something?!
You can be a world class programmer without a single qualification for example.
It's time we start asking what are the skills we need, how best to develop and gain interest in them and then get it done.
Just saying people go to uni, get educated (in what?) doesn't make us high-skill. It makes us highly academic and all the skills are on paper. You have to get people in the jobs to hone those skills and prove it, that's down to employers.
I class engineers, mathematicians, surgeons, doctors, physicists, etc as high-skill. Arts, history, other cultural professions also. These require university education, but can also be done other ways to compliment.
I'm saying you can be highly skilled without an academic qualification in a fair amount of disciplines, it's just that business like to put the entry requirements at degree level for the entry roles because, well, it's something?!
You can be a world class programmer without a single qualification for example.
It's time we start asking what are the skills we need, how best to develop and gain interest in them and then get it done.
Just saying people go to uni, get educated (in what?) doesn't make us high-skill. It makes us highly academic and all the skills are on paper. You have to get people in the jobs to hone those skills and prove it, that's down to employers.
They do they pay the money back.
Soldato
+1.
There are a huge number of degrees which don't really result in any 'high skill' jobs etc. Doesn't mean that they don't have intellectual value, but probably does mean we shouldn't be encouraging so many people to go and study certain subjects, especially at certain universities, unless they really want to for personal reasons.
A lot of my university friends have jobs which in no way require a university education, and I went to a relatively well ranked uni. In fact, following a recent career change my current job doesn't require a degree either.
Completely agree about requirements for degrees being unnecessary (possibly even counter-productive) in many fields too - eg a Software company I worked for one summer, all their recruits had to be graduates but there was honestly hardly anything they did that would make use of graduate skills. My team leader commented as much from time to time, having only got a degree later in life after working in the field for some time - he'd quite happily recruit motivated school leavers, but it was just company policy they had to be graduates because that's seen as the bar that has to be met for someone to be 'highly skilled'.
I remain convinced that for many professions University is a terrible way to actually impart useful knowledge too.
Not saying I didn't enjoy uni - it was great, but I think for many people it wasn't an efficient use of time from a work point of view.
So we've established that we need to put people in these disciplines through higher education....so why are we trying to put people off with a lifetime of debt?
Not to even start on the fact that universities have, by necessity, ceased to be primarily centers of learning, and are now businesses, trying to balance the books, as anyone here who works in the HE sector will attest.
For these subjects, I'd argue we shouldn't
* They are necessary and highly valued by our country and others and should probably treated differently. Problem then is how do you keep those people working here?When you get a really expensive cert through some businesses they are happy to pay as long as you stay there for a set period - if you leave you are liable for a portion. Maybe something similar could be done for our required high-skill graduates in return for lower payments overall?
*the implication being maybe we should for others.
That's how a loan is supposed to work yes, you pay the money back with interest but not all will pay back the full amount.
They likely won't have a lifetime of debt. If someone is bright enough to get into medical school they ought to be bright enough to understand how a loan works.
Yes for "commercial" loans.
That's not really true. Voting Tory is mostly predicated on wealth. That's why old people and high earning people vote more for Tories, as per the first post in this thread
I don't think being highly paid counts as a penalty, tbh. And it's unhelpful to think of it as such
I said highly educated, not rich. Especially those who have come from poverty or working class to become highly educated.
I'd be interested in any sources for that. Generally, C2DE votes a little more for Tory (but no more for Labour) than ABC1, but the 'E' portion is retirees, who vote so overwhelmingly Tory that it pollutes the grouping.
That doesn't negate the point that someone needs to pay for the loan...
Caporegime
Which can be done with a flat fee spread over the duration. Akin to a mortgage fee.
It can be done in many ways, that wasn't really the point, someone else was questioning why interest needs to be charged. It's not really akin to a mortgage fee though, there is interest that needs to be covered, if you want that to be fixed then typically that would cost a bit more overall.
Why would we change, just a few years ago, to forcing education to age 18 (16 previously), whilst at the same time increasingly trying to discourage education past 18?
Why is education essential to precisely 18, but a massive luxury thereafter?
Why is education essential to precisely 18, but a massive luxury thereafter?
I dont know what the solution is to the problem.
I know of retirees who have admitted voting for things out of spite "younguns need things to be tougher".
I know of retirees who are heavily influenced by the printed press and lack education.
Of course also the strong grudges held, anti Europe, and 1979 stuck in their heads.
Finally the future which they wont participate in.
If we block voting it will be anti democratic.
The thing that I can never get out of my head which highlights the problem is both brexit and the triple lock situation on pensions.
I know of retirees who have admitted voting for things out of spite "younguns need things to be tougher".
I know of retirees who are heavily influenced by the printed press and lack education.
Of course also the strong grudges held, anti Europe, and 1979 stuck in their heads.
Finally the future which they wont participate in.
If we block voting it will be anti democratic.
The thing that I can never get out of my head which highlights the problem is both brexit and the triple lock situation on pensions.
most of them will never pay off the student loans and they get written off.
School leavers need more support entering work after leaving school, job centres aren't fit for purpose they are punitive not there to help people
Last edited: