UK Politics IX

[Eurytus]

Lots, as it happens.

No offence, but whenever I hear someone disparaging degrees in certain subjects like this, I know that they have a fair bit of catching up to do before they can offer an informed opinion.

Oh I'm informed enough thanks. But since you're the person claiming we don't have enough graduates perhaps you can explain why, even BEFORE the economic downturn, so many of them were unemployed.

[mormont]

Students with degrees often lack basic literary and numeracy.

No, they don't. To make this claim is to debase the word 'basic' to a point where it's a nonsense term. To further make the claim that therefore an additional two years doesn't matter is simply silly.

And yet you presumably think he/she is going to participate from 14 to 16? Because otherwise, why exactly are you arguing for them to be prevented from leaving? Simply to keep them off the dole?

To give them a fair chance. That's clear enough from my posts, I think.

Oh I'm informed enough thanks.

I'm going to guess that actually means 'I have sufficient information to feel comfortable with my views, and I want no more'.

If not, then perhaps you could explain the distinction, in economic terms, between a graduate with a degree in media studies and one with a degree in English literature? Or explain in what ways the external academic audit system guarantees the teaching standards of courses, and whether you feel this systematically fails in social studies but not in classics? Or maybe just how the QAA works? How about, what percentage of graduates go into a field related to their first degree? Or how many graduates were actually unemployed two years after graduation in 2007 (to pick a date before the economic downturn)?

In response to your later point, a short summary: graduates have a lower lifetime unemployment rate, better health, higher earnings, greater mobility in the labour market, suffer shorter periods of unemployment, and participate more in civil society. Short periods of transitional unemployment and underemployment are becoming more typical post-graduation, but do not overall mitigate these benefits to the economy.

But hey. People think what they want to think, I suppose.

[Eurytus]

No, they don't. To make this claim is to debase the word 'basic' to a point where it's a nonsense term. To further make the claim that therefore an additional two years doesn't matter is simply silly.

I've vetted applications from graduate applicants and their literary is often pretty shocking.

But nice how you've avoided my question. Lets try again.

Do you think its acceptable that someone can reach 14 and NOT have basic literacy and numeracy ironed out?

To give them a fair chance. That's clear enough from my posts, I think.

A fair chance for what? To do a 90 degrees about turn?

How have you decided that 2 years is sufficient for that? Maybe 4 years is needed. Maybe 10 years. With some a life time would not be enough.

Someone who has managed to reach 14 and not reach a basic level of numeracy and literacy has either been completely failed by the school (in which case another 2 years at the same school is unlikely to remedy it) or they have a bad attitude (in which case they are unlikely to improve whilst at the same school).

I'm going to guess that actually means 'I have sufficient information to feel comfortable with my views, and I want no more'.

Assume away.

If not, then perhaps you could explain the distinction, in economic terms, between a graduate with a degree in media studies and one with a degree in English literature? Or explain in what ways the external academic audit system guarantees the teaching standards of courses, and whether you feel this systematically fails in social studies but not in classics? Or maybe just how the QAA works? How about, what percentage of graduates go into a field related to their first degree? Or how many graduates were actually unemployed two years after graduation in 2007 (to pick a date before the economic downturn)?

In response to your later point, a short summary: graduates have a lower lifetime unemployment rate, better health, higher earnings, greater mobility in the labour market, suffer shorter periods of unemployment, and participate more in civil society. Short periods of transitional unemployment and underemployment are becoming more typical post-graduation, but do not overall mitigate these benefits to the economy.

But hey. People think what they want to think, I suppose.

I await you providing evidence that we lack sufficient overall numbers of graduates rather than numbers in specific degrees.

[Yagathai]

I'm terribly sorry to interrupt the scintillating discourse, but shouldn't the description of this thread be "It's grim oop North"?

[Horza]

I've vetted applications from graduate applicants and their literary is often pretty shocking.

Do tell.

[Hereward]

Hate to split hairs, but are you suggesting that shop workers, for example, are not amongst that group? The point being, wherever you draw the divide, this is a policy that will operate along class lines. That's clear.

Possibly some are in this group, but I wanted to differentiate between those families where there is a work ethic and those where it disappeared some time ago. It's not just the children of doctors and lawyers who have parents who instill a need for hard work. Is it?

Bugger, lost the rest of my post. Injudicious highlighting. Too busy to rework it right now. :leaving:

[mormont]

Do you think its acceptable that someone can reach 14 and NOT have basic literacy and numeracy ironed out?

That investing in many more apprenticeships for 16-18 year olds would not achieve everything this policy might achieve and more, without the retrograde step of pulling kids out of school before we've even finished teaching them basic literacy and numeracy?

A fair chance for what? To do a 90 degrees about turn?

The thing is, at age 14 your aptitude tends to be judged on the basis of social expectations to a considerable degree, because you haven't yet had a long enough school career to make a proper judgment. For at least some of these kids, the thing they 'can be good at' might yet be academic in nature. They deserve the chance to find out.

I await you providing evidence that we lack sufficient overall numbers of graduates rather than numbers in specific degrees.

In response to your later point, a short summary: graduates have a lower lifetime unemployment rate, better health, higher earnings, greater mobility in the labour market, suffer shorter periods of unemployment, and participate more in civil society. Short periods of transitional unemployment and underemployment are becoming more typical post-graduation, but do not overall mitigate these benefits to the economy.

At the stage at which all of your points can be answered by simply quoting stuff I've said in previous posts, even I have to admit that the conversation has come to a definite end.

[Eurytus]

At the stage at which all of your points can be answered by simply quoting stuff I've said in previous posts, even I have to admit that the conversation has come to a definite end.

The fact that you think your previous post answered my question when it clearly doesn't shows that literacy requires development long past the age of 14.

[Yagathai]

Scottish fight! Scottish fight!

[Slick Mongoose]

Do tell.

Ouch. :lol:

[Eurytus]

Scottish fight! Scottish fight!

I'm not Scottish. I'm an English b'stad!

[Pebble thats Stubby]

As Someone who left school at 16 to do an apprentiship I can tell you that as far as my carear goes this was a mistake. Part of the reason I never did A levels was because I could get paid to get a different qualification instead. Ask a 14 year old if they would rather get £5 pocket money while attending school or get £100 a week as an apprentice and I bet a lot of those 14 year olds would not think about how it could affect their future lives.

After a 4 year appenticship I was in a job that I can not progess from up the chain without a degree. I can move sidewise or I can leave the company. I can not go up. Yes I get a union negotiated pay rise each year and I've got the closet thing as a job for life that exsists nowdays. and I'm paid very well for what I do. it means I can't leave the company to get a degree and ever earn back the money it would cost me. Out of 100 apprentices in my year only 10 where given the oppotunity to do a degree part time.

My apprenticship is supposed to be one of the best in the UK and is supposed to be recognised by industry worldwide. (I don't know if this is true - but its what we where told) If I was to take a simliar job as to what I was trained for outside of the company then I'd be looking at a 30-50 pay cut. (even if the jobs where out there)

I have a very good apprentiship, but now carear wise I am trapped. I would addvise anyone who is serriously considering an apprentaship to consider what they really want for the future. where they hope to be 10 years after the apprentiship is over.

Morment you said earlier your Stepson is looking for an apprentiship, if you want any particular information or have questions then please PM me. I doubt the apprentice scheeme my company runs is going to be suitable unless your stepson is prepare to move out.

[Maltaran]

I'm terribly sorry to interrupt the scintillating discourse, but shouldn't the description of this thread be "It's grim oop North"?

Not really - "oop North" generally refers to the north of England, not Scotland.

[Yagathai]

Isn't Scotland to the north of England?

[Horza]

There's a difference between to the north of England and the North of England.

[Maltaran]

Isn't Scotland to the north of England?

I'm sorry, I should have said the North of England, i.e. the northern part of England.

[Hereward]

I'm confused. I thought the correct designation for anything north of the Wash was The Barren Wastelands of the North.

[MinDonner]

North of Watford, dear boy. The Wash is practically one of those firths or forths or fjords or whateverthehell they have up there.

/southernmost British boarder

[Hereward]

North of Watford, dear boy. The Wash is practically one of those firths or forths or fjords or whateverthehell they have up there.

/southernmost British boarder

I never liked that definition. Watford isn't north of Watford but is a shithole of the first order. Cambridge, OTOH, is a delightful, and very southern, place. So, a line between the Wash, detouring south of Peterborough, and Bristol works for me.*

*Excluding Bracknell, obviously.

[MinDonner]

Is there any way we can also bend that line to exclude Littlehampton? :unsure: