qwertyuiop
Well-Known Member
Successive governments have fostered the idea that the only way in to employment is through higher education.
Want to work in TV? Do a media studies course.
Want to be a lawyer? Do a law degree.
The sad fact is that many of these so-called vocational degrees are next to useless and are taught by people who were not good enough to get a job in these industries themselves. Do you think that the best lawyers choose to earn £40K a year teaching, or £150K a year in practice?
Before the 1960s (when the rot set in many areas), some people went to university (as their chosen profession required it, or they wanted to explore academically and were clever enough to make it worth society funding them to do so), some people did apprenticeships (most lawyers although they called it being articled, accountants, technicians, etc.) and the rest (the great majority) left school at 16 or 18 and got a job. This arrangement worked absolutely fine and suited all 3 groups.
Mass entrance to higher education was a conspiracy created by left-wing liberals (who fancied getting tenure in a UK 2nd rate, globally 5th rate university) and successive governments (who were rather keen to "improve" youth unemployment figures). The victims were those who were conned in to getting worthless degrees rather than finding jobs and learning whilst working, and of course the poor old taxpayer who foots the bill.
As a side note, my employer (a large engineering company) used to recruit most graduates from the UK. Now we recruit the vast majority from overseas. That isn't because they overseas ones are cheaper, or work harder, but they are better than many British applicants on a level playing field (our recruitment centres). When graduates from India have better written English than British ones, you know this country has a serious problem...
Want to work in TV? Do a media studies course.
Want to be a lawyer? Do a law degree.
The sad fact is that many of these so-called vocational degrees are next to useless and are taught by people who were not good enough to get a job in these industries themselves. Do you think that the best lawyers choose to earn £40K a year teaching, or £150K a year in practice?
Before the 1960s (when the rot set in many areas), some people went to university (as their chosen profession required it, or they wanted to explore academically and were clever enough to make it worth society funding them to do so), some people did apprenticeships (most lawyers although they called it being articled, accountants, technicians, etc.) and the rest (the great majority) left school at 16 or 18 and got a job. This arrangement worked absolutely fine and suited all 3 groups.
Mass entrance to higher education was a conspiracy created by left-wing liberals (who fancied getting tenure in a UK 2nd rate, globally 5th rate university) and successive governments (who were rather keen to "improve" youth unemployment figures). The victims were those who were conned in to getting worthless degrees rather than finding jobs and learning whilst working, and of course the poor old taxpayer who foots the bill.
As a side note, my employer (a large engineering company) used to recruit most graduates from the UK. Now we recruit the vast majority from overseas. That isn't because they overseas ones are cheaper, or work harder, but they are better than many British applicants on a level playing field (our recruitment centres). When graduates from India have better written English than British ones, you know this country has a serious problem...
)
