Tuesday, September 14, 2004
In answer to my sisters question "are there too many students"
Well my sister did ask me did I think there were too many students (said something around were they doing the right courses, as she can't get a sufficiently skilled plumber when she needs on) and suddenly I found this was what I had splurged out. Rather than loose it forever I'll preserve my novel in my diaryblog...
I don't think their are too many students, but I think that students have changed a lot over the last 14 years since I graduated. In my area (where there is a whole anti student thing going on because of them living in one postcode area) there are lots of people whining about too many students - they destroyed a neighbourhood etc etc. That's pooh - if you draw a perimeter 1.5 miles from Leeds city centre and walked round it you would pass through area after area of urban deprivation - where the people on the up in the 1930s-80s moved on out to the suburbs and left behind those who didn't have the finance. Headingley/Hyde Park AKA "student land" was a logical happening, it has fabulous access for all university (and Poly as was) campuses and is a classic example of the poor living near their place of employment. The problem isn't students it's student landlords who want easy money for little or no maintenance, seeing letting to students as a fast buck not a long term investment. This again has become far more noticeable in the last decade as the "me first", "greed is good" culture of Thatcher's children grows. I suspect you will find a similar situation in most cities where the students are concentrated into small areas.
In general I think that deciding to expand higher education was a wonderful way to reduce the unemployment figures. When we went to university 1 in 8 18 - 24 year olds did so (and 1 in 20 did honours degrees ) now 1 in 3 do. Clearly the overall standard has changed, if you look at the jobs papers what once required 2 A levels now frequently requires a 2.2. I think that a degree is not necessarily worth less than it was back then because people are far better trained in learning and studying from an early age. I think it's probably a good thing given that there aren't lots of low skill jobs any more that people stay in education longer, it also helps with the concept that you are responsible for your own learning. It does mean that people question more, are less inclined to switch off their brains and do brain dead jobs so those who do break out in frequently antisocial ways after work hours (or block it out with the use of illicit drugs).
It's a shame that in the 1950s when it would have been more socially acceptable to implement a graduate tax of 1% of a graduates earnings for life was not imposed - the money kept to fund higher education and then we would not have had to have the whole loans situation that now exists. Of course to implement now or at any time in the last 20 years is 50 years too late - it is no longer acceptable, as people have realised a degree is not a ticket to a better paid job, just a more interesting one. What is also very effective is the people management that getting people into debt young does. If you owe money it is a lot harder to think of not working for a while, of finding yourself, of working out what you want, taking time out to question the values of a consumer oriented society - once you are locked into the cycle of servicing your debt you need to go out get a job to at least maintain it. This means you become a tax payer quicker and whilst you may be deferring your student loan there will be the other debts you accrued to pay off that don't have such friendly terms. People who took a bit of time out because they didn't have such massive debts to service in the '60s, '70s '80s and up till my year (the last year before loans were brought in) had the option to be less functional citizens for a while. Look at the difference in attitude between my year (we went to university to put off the decision for 3 years) and as little as 3 years later where most people had the thought of "better job, better money, sooner". It never ceases to amaze me how much older most graduates who are in their mid 20s seem than me. Then I compare them to my friends from university (as I know I'm not the most mature person around) and realise they seem more driven than them. The cycle of debt is a heavy weight.
What is one of the really unfortunate consequences of the current state of education is that the sort of people who would like to become quality tradespeople don't find out at school that they are particularly practical (because the practical element of subjects is very expensive, it's done less at school and so you end up channeled into more book learning) so they do the not so challenging degree courses, and then in their mid 20s realise they would far rather be a plumber/joiner/sparky. Sadly they are over 24 so no one wants to give them the opportunity to do apprenticeships (as they are "too old") and they are locked into the cycle of debt. More so than the brighter ones who are getting the jobs that graduates in our day were getting so have the pay rises and are further on the way to debt free life.
I don't think their are too many students, but I think that students have changed a lot over the last 14 years since I graduated. In my area (where there is a whole anti student thing going on because of them living in one postcode area) there are lots of people whining about too many students - they destroyed a neighbourhood etc etc. That's pooh - if you draw a perimeter 1.5 miles from Leeds city centre and walked round it you would pass through area after area of urban deprivation - where the people on the up in the 1930s-80s moved on out to the suburbs and left behind those who didn't have the finance. Headingley/Hyde Park AKA "student land" was a logical happening, it has fabulous access for all university (and Poly as was) campuses and is a classic example of the poor living near their place of employment. The problem isn't students it's student landlords who want easy money for little or no maintenance, seeing letting to students as a fast buck not a long term investment. This again has become far more noticeable in the last decade as the "me first", "greed is good" culture of Thatcher's children grows. I suspect you will find a similar situation in most cities where the students are concentrated into small areas.
In general I think that deciding to expand higher education was a wonderful way to reduce the unemployment figures. When we went to university 1 in 8 18 - 24 year olds did so (and 1 in 20 did honours degrees ) now 1 in 3 do. Clearly the overall standard has changed, if you look at the jobs papers what once required 2 A levels now frequently requires a 2.2. I think that a degree is not necessarily worth less than it was back then because people are far better trained in learning and studying from an early age. I think it's probably a good thing given that there aren't lots of low skill jobs any more that people stay in education longer, it also helps with the concept that you are responsible for your own learning. It does mean that people question more, are less inclined to switch off their brains and do brain dead jobs so those who do break out in frequently antisocial ways after work hours (or block it out with the use of illicit drugs).
It's a shame that in the 1950s when it would have been more socially acceptable to implement a graduate tax of 1% of a graduates earnings for life was not imposed - the money kept to fund higher education and then we would not have had to have the whole loans situation that now exists. Of course to implement now or at any time in the last 20 years is 50 years too late - it is no longer acceptable, as people have realised a degree is not a ticket to a better paid job, just a more interesting one. What is also very effective is the people management that getting people into debt young does. If you owe money it is a lot harder to think of not working for a while, of finding yourself, of working out what you want, taking time out to question the values of a consumer oriented society - once you are locked into the cycle of servicing your debt you need to go out get a job to at least maintain it. This means you become a tax payer quicker and whilst you may be deferring your student loan there will be the other debts you accrued to pay off that don't have such friendly terms. People who took a bit of time out because they didn't have such massive debts to service in the '60s, '70s '80s and up till my year (the last year before loans were brought in) had the option to be less functional citizens for a while. Look at the difference in attitude between my year (we went to university to put off the decision for 3 years) and as little as 3 years later where most people had the thought of "better job, better money, sooner". It never ceases to amaze me how much older most graduates who are in their mid 20s seem than me. Then I compare them to my friends from university (as I know I'm not the most mature person around) and realise they seem more driven than them. The cycle of debt is a heavy weight.
What is one of the really unfortunate consequences of the current state of education is that the sort of people who would like to become quality tradespeople don't find out at school that they are particularly practical (because the practical element of subjects is very expensive, it's done less at school and so you end up channeled into more book learning) so they do the not so challenging degree courses, and then in their mid 20s realise they would far rather be a plumber/joiner/sparky. Sadly they are over 24 so no one wants to give them the opportunity to do apprenticeships (as they are "too old") and they are locked into the cycle of debt. More so than the brighter ones who are getting the jobs that graduates in our day were getting so have the pay rises and are further on the way to debt free life.
// posted by Bitvacuous @ 8:09 pm 
