UK Politics IX

[Hereward]

Probably not. Easier just to raze it to the ground. Join me. Sensible policies for a happier (southern) Britain.

[Thelonious]

/southernmost British boarder

Wanna bet?

Unless you're from the Isle of Wight or something, in which case congratulations for figuring out the internet.

[MinDonner]

Wanna bet?

Unless you're from the Isle of Wight or something, in which case congratulations for figuring out the internet.

I can see the Channel from my window? Certainly southier than anyone except if they're in Cornwall (in which case the above internet problem also applies)...

[mormont]

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.

Posts, please. There were two quoted there. And three points, plural, (not one question, singular) answered. The lack of ability to distinguish between singular and plural is one thing, as is the sloppy use of vocabulary, but the fact that you need to have the answers spelled out more clearly shows a distinct lack of ability to read for meaning. Are you sure that you're really qualified to be judging the literacy of these graduate applications you mentioned?

[Eurytus]

Posts, please. There were two quoted there. And three points, plural, (not one question, singular) answered. The lack of ability to distinguish between singular and plural is one thing, as is the sloppy use of vocabulary, but the fact that you need to have the answers spelled out more clearly shows a distinct lack of ability to read for meaning. Are you sure that you're really qualified to be judging the literacy of these graduate applications you mentioned?

Amusing to see how the right on crowd get aggressive when someone pushes back against their class based warfare......

This;

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.

Does not answer this;

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

That graduates on average have better quality of life indicators than none graduates (now there's a surprise) in no way provides any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that we have a shortage of graduates overall rather than a shortage in specific graduate qualifications.

Indeed it doesn't answer it at all.

But hey, one strawman is as good as another right?

[mormont]

Amusing to see how the right on crowd get aggressive when someone pushes back against their class based warfare......

:lol:

But hey, one strawman is as good as another right?

Anyway,

That graduates on average ave better quality of life indicators than none graduates (now there's a surprise) in no way provides any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that we have a shortage of graduates overall rather than a shortage in specific graduate qualifications.

Indeed it doesn't answer it at all.

Except that it does. The above benefits apply to all graduates and are, as far as we can tell, a product of the process of higher education. Therefore it's a good thing socially and economically if we have more graduates, and it doesn't particularly matter which field they're in. We could just as well produce lots more in 'specific' fields as overall, of course, and I've never suggested differently: I just said we need more graduates, full stop. By and large it makes no difference what subject they're in, since outside of the professions most graduates don't actually go into a field that's closely related to their degree subject (even in law, IIRC it's now only barely a majority that actually go into the field). This latter point, by the way, you should know yourself if you screen graduate applications, and is anyway pretty much implied by my earlier question about it. You seem to believe that it does matter, because in your view not all degree subjects are of equal quality: but you declined to justify this view. Which is fair enough, I don't expect people to keep themselves informed about quality assurance mechanisms in the UK HE sector: it's pretty boring stuff. I only know about it because I have to. But I suppose if you're screening graduates, maybe you need to know it too. I'd hate to think you were leaving your employer open to accusations of bias in the recruitment process: that's potentially very expensive.

All of this is pretty clear from what I've written already. Honestly, I can only conclude from your demands for a more explicit answer that you just haven't read for meaning, here. There's not a word in this post that is new information, just me repeating myself in different ways.

[Hereward]

I can well imagine that the group of graduates from before the massive expansion in university attendance had significantly better career and lifestyle outcomes than those who didn't. But, let's say for the sake of argument, if we are saying that 40% of people are going to university and they have significantly better outcomes than those that didn't (though I can't see how enough time has elapsed to provide enough data), what is the additional benefit compared to the difference between the top 40% in educational attainment when many of them would have had A Levels and additional career development opportunities in their teens and early 20s, compared with the other 60%. Has a major difference actually been made?

I hope that's clear, I don't seem to have expressed it very well. :worried:

[mormont]

No, I get your point. Without going off and digging up a lot of research links, as I say current understanding is that the majority of the benefits derived actually do stem from the process of higher education itself, not from the characteristics of those who have undertaken it in the past. Longitudinal comparisons are difficult, of course, but you can compare outcomes for those who have a degree and those who don't while controlling for socioeconomic background, qualifications on leaving school, etc.

[Hereward]

I have a vague recollection of a piece in the Economist last year which compared people of above average educational attainment at A Level who went straight to work with those of similar achievement who went to university. I remember their research suggesting that those who went straight to work had better outcomes than the second group, owing to the development of, for want of a better description, a more disciplined work ethic, networking skills, applied experience, etc. Hence my question.

[Eurytus]

Except that it does. The above benefits apply to all graduates and are, as far as we can tell, a product of the process of higher education. Therefore it's a good thing socially and economically if we have more graduates, and it doesn't particularly matter which field they're in. We could just as well produce lots more in 'specific' fields as overall, of course, and I've never suggested differently: I just said we need more graduates, full stop.

No, it doesn't. All of the benefits that graduates obtain which you listed may well apply when they actually succeed it getting good jobs due to their education, but the moment supply exceeds demand that will cease to be the case.

That the current number of graduates generally are "happier" to use a broad term than non-graduates does not indicate that we currently have a shortfall of them and nor does it indicate that vastly increasing the number of graduates would automatically lead to an increase in the number of "happy" employees.

[mormont]

No, it doesn't. All of the benefits that graduates obtain which you listed may well apply when they actually succeed it getting good jobs due to their education, but the moment supply exceeds demand that will cease to be the case.

See... now you're claiming that if you can raise a hypothetical objection to my answer (without bothering to show if that objection is valid), I haven't actually answered your question. That, I'm afraid, is just :bs:.

As it is, I'll merely point out that if the only benefit of a degree were the ability to get good jobs, that would still make the case that more graduates is a social and economic plus. (It isn't, of course, but if it were.) Economies are not closed systems any more, particularly not where graduate jobs are concerned. An economy with many graduates will attract additional graduate jobs. It's not a zero-sum game, at least not on a national level.

If you're really interested in this, why not go off and check out some of the research?

Link1

Graduates were generally less depressed than nongraduates, and reported a sense of well being that was higher than that of people at lower qualification levels. Despite the expansion of the graduate population, there was little evidence of reduced benefits in the labor market for graduates. Graduates were significantly less likely to be unemployed over the period from age 25 to age 30 than were those with lower educational attainment. Graduates were still more likely to show upward social mobility, although this effect was reduced in the later cohort. Graduates were more tolerant toward other races, less accepting of authority, and less politically cynical. As a consequence, graduates were more likely to vote and were more likely to be involved in parent teacher associations. There was evidence that college graduates tended to read more to their children.

Link2

On average, graduates are less likely to smoke, are less obese, have a higher sense of well-being, and read more to their children. They are also more likely to be involved with their children's school's Parent Teacher Association (PTAs), hold more tolerant attitudes towards other races, and are more likely to be involved in their communities through voluntary activities.

They also cost society less. They are less likely to require social security benefits, and their healthier lifestyle places less burden on the National Health Service.

The study found that the benefits of higher education to graduates are evident across gender, age group and social class. On the other hand students who dropped out of higher education before graduation from the 1958 cohort showed a reduction in the indicators of good health compared with those who completed their studies and gained a degree.

If you want to read some evidence about the long-term demand for graduates, there are a bunch of government policy papers on the web.

H: I don't recall seeing that article, but it sounds to me as if it's interesting precisely because it's an outlier. I'd love to read it. Generally, as I recall, the suggestion is that any participation in HE - even non-completion of a degree - is beneficial. And of course, graduates are supposed to develop all those skills once they enter the world of work, if not before. There's very great interest in HE right now in certificating activities that develop those skills - voluntary work and the like - as well as incorporating more work experience into qualifications.

[Eurytus]

I don't know why you are continuing to argue strawmen. Does that usually work out well for you.

I repeat, you claimed that the UK had a shortage of graduates. Posting evidence that graduates are more likely to be happy, healthier etc in no way, shape of form proves that.

[mormont]

1. You made a point about the benefits of higher education actually being down to better jobs: I therefore provided information that shows that as well as this, there are numerous other benefits. Outside of the quoted bits, it also speaks to the issues of participation rates, if you read the whole article (though you might not have access). As I say, if you're genuinely interested in this you have more than enough information to go and google some of the research for yourself.

2. I have never claimed there was a 'shortage' of graduates, but that there was a social and economic rationale behind the policy of increasing participation in higher education. (I even acknowledged that reasonable people could disagree with that case.) That's a whole different thing.

I think I've been more than reasonable here. I've made a point, explained it at length when you didn't get it, and provided arguments, links and evidence. In return you've shifted the goalposts, accused me of bias and any other thing that came into your head, and made claims you decline to back up. I've been accused of ducking questions by someone who has declined to answer any himself, and of using straw men by someone who has done exactly that on multiple occasions. Generally, I'm not seeing any attempt to discuss in good faith here, and I'm not enough of a mug to keep plugging away under those circumstances, I'm afraid. If nothing else, it must be boring the pants off everyone else by now. So I suggest we get back to defining Oop North. :)

[Maltaran]

So I suggest we get back to defining Oop North. :)

Fairly straightforward - Cumbria, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire (plus all the funny little places which used to be Yorkshire, like Cleveland, Tyne and Wear, etc.). Possibly the northern part of Derbyshire too.

[Daeric]

Fairly straightforward - Cumbria, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire (plus all the funny little places which used to be Yorkshire, like Cleveland, Tyne and Wear, etc.). Possibly the northern part of Derbyshire too.

We told all of those places that we didn't want them anymore :P

[Hereward]

Fairly straightforward - Cumbria, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire (plus all the funny little places which used to be Yorkshire, like Cleveland, Tyne and Wear, etc.). Possibly the northern part of Derbyshire too.

Not Nottinghamshire? They've got coal mines, you know. Not Birmingham, they have heavy industry and talk funny.* I think I'll stick to my previous definition.

*I know, risky four days before the wedding, but she's probably busy.

[Maltaran]

I went to university in Nottingham, and it's definitely not oop North. You could make a case for the northern part of the county, same as the northern part of Derbyshire. You'd probably have to throw in north Lincolnshire as well, because Grimsby is clearly northern.

And I live in Birmingham now, and I can confirm that they do indeed talk funny, although there's not so much heavy industry these days.

[zollo]

Not Nottinghamshire? They've got coal mines, you know. Not Birmingham, they have heavy industry and talk funny.* I think I'll stick to my previous definition.

*I know, risky four days before the wedding, but she's probably busy.

You brave, brave man.

[Chaldanya]

Not Nottinghamshire? They've got coal mines, you know. Not Birmingham, they have heavy industry and talk funny.* I think I'll stick to my previous definition.

*I know, risky four days before the wedding, but she's probably busy.

Not that busy. All of my planning has been done. This little remark is going on The List. (also wouldn't recommend saying it in four days time)

N

[Hereward]

Oh bugger.