On 07/10/2023 19:30, kat wrote:
[I wrote:]

[...] The claim is not that most
nurses /were/ of "below average educational attainment" [far from it],
but that they would be /now/ if you recruited them from non-graduates.

Need they be? Why is it necessary to have any go to university, but
why not take them into the world of study while you work as they did
before, but, expect better A level grades.

That horse bolted a long time ago. 18yos with "better" grades
expect to go to university, and if nursing won't meet that expectation,
they won't [in sufficient numbers] become nurses. You seem to be
asking that nursing be singled out as a profession for which HE is less appropriate and/or that the UK be singled out as a country which
doesn't value HE. Neither of those is going to happen. We have to
compete with the rest of the world. Also worth noting that the world
has largely standardised [mostly on the UK model]; three years of more- or-less full-time tertiary study is virtually what a degree /means/.

Thihis idea that degrees
for ( 50% 0f) everyone is desirable has led to a lot of pointless
degrees not giving people any advantage. The value of a degree has
dropped.

That depends on what you think "the value of a degree" is. If
you see it merely in stark monetary terms of "does it result semi- automatically in a well-paid and high-powered job" then you are no doubt
right. If you see it as the best 3/4/6 years of your life, in which you
learn both career-related and life skills, [mostly] get away from home
without entirely cutting ties, broaden horizons, take up new sports and hobbies, ..., all at virtually no financial cost [remember that student
loans are in reality a very low graduate tax which many graduates don't
have to pay at all] then it remains extremely valuable.

And now apprenticeships are being pushed - I remember even
several tears ago a top acounting firm looking for recruits with top
A levels to train. Are those recruits of lower educational standards
just because they went to work and got paid, and qualified years
earier?

You've moved from lower /attainment/ to lower /standards/. But we
all, inc 18yos, make our decisions, and shouldn't be attacked for choosing
one path over another. But it's perhaps worth noting that apprenticeships mostly tie you in to a specific, and usually local, career path; HE courses are usually more flexible. Most 18yos don't really know what they want to
do with their lives, and they very commonly change their minds.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Boccherini

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9 Oct 2023 at 10:28:16 BST, kat wrote:

You've moved from lower /attainment/ to lower /standards/.

No I haven't - you have. If you can train to do the job you want while working
you end up with the same attainment - and the standard will be just the same -
only you will be better off.

I'd doubt you'd cover some of the analytical and critical aspects of your specialism through 'training'. Of course that may be your point - a job is
just a job?

But we

all, inc 18yos, make our decisions, and shouldn't be attacked for choosing >> one path over another. But it's perhaps worth noting that apprenticeships >> mostly tie you in to a specific, and usually local, career path; HE courses >> are usually more flexible. Most 18yos don't really know what they want to >> do with their lives, and they very commonly change their minds.

IME of university/HE apprenticeships a huge amount of 'simplifying' the assessment, curriculum and teaching had to take place to accommodate non-graduate apprentices. We couldn't cover theory, even at postgrad. Mind,
the lectures were a hoot - they brought some great energy into the classroom discussions.

There are nursing apprenticeships. How is doing a degree to become nurse more
flexible?

A degree is likely to incude subjects not covered in training, and give some space to think about and understand why you do what you do. Training won't
tend to offer that.

Just what benefit is acquired from a degree in Film Studies for example?

Film is one of the major forms of communication, enetrtain and education. It's also a huge employer and wealth generator. Understanding what makes it tick would be a huge asset I'd have thought.

I quite often hear the same 'no benefit' said of Media Studies. Understanding media in these times of pandemics, climate change, Trump and so on must be one of the most important skills in our society?

Anyway, going to university, pursuing an interest, and not having to work 9-5 for a few years, is a nice thing to do for a lot of people.

It doesn't work for everyone. I happen to feel that everyone should be given the opportunity, and without taking on debts.
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/10/2023 20:56, Andy Walker wrote:

On 07/10/2023 19:30, kat wrote:
[I wrote:]

[...] The claim is not that most
nurses /were/ of "below average educational attainment" [far from it],
but that they would be /now/ if you recruited them from non-graduates.

Need they be?  Why is it necessary to have any go to university, but
why not take them into the world of study while you work as they did
before, but, expect better A level grades.

    That horse bolted a long time ago.  18yos with "better" grades expect to go to university,

And the whole point of this discussuon, my bit anyway, was that they shouldn't. Blair decided more should go, not that more needed to go.

and if nursing won't meet that expectation,

they won't [in sufficient numbers] become nurses.  You seem to be
asking that nursing be singled out as a profession for which HE is less appropriate and/or that the UK be singled out as a country which
doesn't value HE.  Neither of those is going to happen.  We have to
compete with the rest of the world.  Also worth noting that the world
has largely standardised [mostly on the UK model];  three years of more- or-less full-time tertiary study is virtually what a degree /means/.

                          Thihis idea that degrees >> for ( 50% 0f) everyone is desirable has led to a lot of pointless
degrees not giving people any advantage. The value of a degree has
dropped.

    That depends on what you think "the value of a degree" is.  If
you see it merely in stark monetary terms of "does it result semi- automatically in a well-paid and high-powered job" then you are no doubt right.  If you see it as the best 3/4/6 years of your life, in which you learn both career-related and life skills, [mostly] get away from home without entirely cutting ties, broaden horizons, take up new sports and hobbies, ..., all at virtually no financial cost [remember that student
loans are in reality a very low graduate tax which many graduates don't
have to pay at all] then it remains extremely valuable.

I had 2 of my kids go, didn't make that sort of difference to their lives I can assure you. Obviously there are degrees which do teach career related skills - a lot of them were previously HNDs or apprenticeships. Life skills? You can learn them anywhere! You might even learn more of those in the outside world than you do in the enclosed and protected environment of a university.

I am not saying kids shouldn't go - I am saying, is it really the only or the best way to go for quite a high proportion of those that do, these days. And for
some careers, are they really any better at the end of the three years than the were under previous arrangements?

        And now apprenticeships are being pushed - I remember even
several tears ago a top acounting firm looking for recruits with top
A levels to train. Are those recruits of lower educational standards
just because they went to work and got paid, and qualified years
earier?

    You've moved from lower /attainment/ to lower /standards/.

No I haven't - you have. If you can train to do the job you want while working you end up with the same attainment - and the standard will be just the same - only you will be better off.

But we

all, inc 18yos, make our decisions, and shouldn't be attacked for choosing one path over another.  But it's perhaps worth noting that apprenticeships mostly tie you in to a specific, and usually local, career path;  HE courses are usually more flexible.  Most 18yos don't really know what they want to do with their lives, and they very commonly change their minds.

There are nursing apprenticeships. How is doing a degree to become nurse more flexible?

Just what benefit is acquired from a degree in Film Studies for example?



--
kat
>^..^<

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/10/2023 11:02, RJH wrote:

On 9 Oct 2023 at 10:28:16 BST, kat wrote:

You've moved from lower /attainment/ to lower /standards/.

No I haven't - you have. If you can train to do the job you want while working
you end up with the same attainment - and the standard will be just the same -
only you will be better off.

I'd doubt you'd cover some of the analytical and critical aspects of your specialism through 'training'. Of course that may be your point - a job is just a job?

Maybe you didn't. I did.

But we

all, inc 18yos, make our decisions, and shouldn't be attacked for choosing >>> one path over another. But it's perhaps worth noting that apprenticeships >>> mostly tie you in to a specific, and usually local, career path; HE courses
are usually more flexible. Most 18yos don't really know what they want to >>> do with their lives, and they very commonly change their minds.

IME of university/HE apprenticeships a huge amount of 'simplifying' the assessment, curriculum and teaching had to take place to accommodate non-graduate apprentices. We couldn't cover theory, even at postgrad. Mind, the lectures were a hoot - they brought some great energy into the classroom discussions.

There are nursing apprenticeships. How is doing a degree to become nurse more
flexible?

A degree is likely to incude subjects not covered in training, and give some space to think about and understand why you do what you do. Training won't tend to offer that.

I expect that is why a 3rd year student nurse wasn't sure about a dressing change on an almost healed wound then. The one she asked barely looked and said fine.

Just what benefit is acquired from a degree in Film Studies for example?

Film is one of the major forms of communication, enetrtain and education. It's
also a huge employer and wealth generator. Understanding what makes it tick would be a huge asset I'd have thought.

That'll be why the girl I know who took it is working in uni admin I expect. There is one I know who has a husband with a company making training videos for companies, she and him actually did drama.

I quite often hear the same 'no benefit' said of Media Studies. Understanding media in these times of pandemics, climate change, Trump and so on must be one
of the most important skills in our society?

I have a daughter who did it as minor, I doubt it made much difference to the world. Her major was TV, Film and Radio, and she just started out at the end of
it as a runner and worked her way up over the last 20 years to Line producer. Just like an 18 year old. A friend dropped out because he couldn't pay the fees
- this being before loans included them - and did what he was always going to do
- he's presenter on the radio - Magic. Didn't need a degree. Nor did my daughter.

Anyway, going to university, pursuing an interest, and not having to work 9-5 for a few years, is a nice thing to do for a lot of people.

It doesn't work for everyone. I happen to feel that everyone should be given the opportunity, and without taking on debts.

Now that part I agree with! As long as it really "educates" rather than merely "attains" some sort of qualification, what's not to like? But we currently live in a country where Universities have to be told to allow discussion of subjects where someone might disagree!


--
kat
>^..^<

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/10/2023 10:28, kat wrote:

[...] Why is it necessary to have any go to university, but
why not take them into the world of study while you work as they did
before, but, expect better A level grades.

     That horse bolted a long time ago.  18yos with "better" grades
expect to go to university,

And the whole point of this discussuon, my bit anyway, was that they shouldn't. Blair decided more should go, not that more needed to go.

Yes, I understood that was your point. But, as I said, that horse bolted a long time ago. The UK was well behind world leaders when Mr Blair
set that target. We are still well behind Japan, the USA, China and others
in levels of HE. We have at least roughly caught up with [eg] France and Germany. If, as you are proposing, we fall back behind, the effect will be that our young people are substantially disadvantaged vis-a-vis Japanese, Korean, ... young people who can wave bits of paper at prospective employers, both in the UK and world-wide. [Max suggests up-thread that possession of a degree could well be a primary filter for job applicants.]

[...]

I had 2 of my kids go, didn't make that sort of difference to their
lives I can assure you. Obviously there are degrees which do teach
career related skills - a lot of them were previously HNDs or apprenticeships. Life skills? You can learn them anywhere! [...]

You seem to be again looking for concrete, utilitarian benefits,
such as higher salaries and subject-related learning from HE. But many
of the benefits are intangible. I'm sorry that your children didn't [to
you] seem to have benefited much from their courses; my experience,
both within my own family and from discussions with former students, is
quite otherwise.

[...] Are those recruits of lower educational standards
just because they went to work and got paid, and qualified years
earier?

     You've moved from lower /attainment/ to lower /standards/.

No I haven't - you have. [...]

"Standards" is your word, see above. My responses to Max and later
to you [see
Message-ID: <ufpa7p$1k0um$1@dont-email.me>
and
Message-ID: <ufs0fd$2fc40$1@dont-email.me> ]
both talked about "attainment". Not that it greatly matters.

There are nursing apprenticeships. How is doing a degree to become
nurse more flexible?

If the degree course goes pear-shaped [as many nursing courses used
to -- see the statistic by Virginia Bottomley from the latter of the above
two messages] then the student has a reasonable chance of switching to some other course at the same university. An apprentice typically can only drop
out from the apprenticeship and restart elsewhere from scratch. But the comment was more general; eg, my department regularly picked up medics
with AAA grades [inc maths] who had dropped out at the first sight of blood.

Just what benefit is acquired from a degree in Film Studies for
example?

Again, you seem to be looking for concrete and utilitarian benefits
of that specific course. Rob has given some suggestions; I wouldn't know without looking at detailed syllabuses. All I can add is that courses are
not added to prospectuses simply to annoy Daily Mail readers; they go
through an extensive evaluation by cross-Faculty and external committees,
who will know much better what the particular course involves, the resources
it will need, how it will be assessed, how many students are likely to be involved, and so on.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Vivaldi

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/10/2023 21:28, Andy Walker wrote:

On 09/10/2023 10:28, kat wrote:

[...] Why is it necessary to have any go to university, but
why not take them into the world of study while you work as they did
before, but, expect better A level grades.

     That horse bolted a long time ago.  18yos with "better" grades >>> expect to go to university,

And the whole point of this discussuon, my bit anyway, was that they
shouldn't. Blair decided more should go, not that more needed to go.

    Yes, I understood that was your point.  But, as I said, that horse bolted a long time ago.  The UK was well behind world leaders when Mr Blair set that target.  We are still well behind Japan, the USA, China and others in levels of HE.  We have at least roughly caught up with [eg] France and Germany.  If, as you are proposing, we fall back behind, the effect will be that our young people are substantially disadvantaged vis-a-vis Japanese, Korean, ... young people who can wave bits of paper at prospective employers, both in the UK and world-wide.  [Max suggests up-thread that possession of a degree could well be a primary filter for job applicants.]

[...]

I had 2 of my kids go, didn't make that sort of difference to their
lives I can assure you.  Obviously there are degrees which do teach
career related skills - a lot of them were previously HNDs or
apprenticeships.  Life skills? You can learn them anywhere! [...]

    You seem to be again looking for concrete, utilitarian benefits, such as higher salaries and subject-related learning from HE.  But many
of the benefits are intangible.  I'm sorry that your children didn't [to you] seem to have benefited much from their courses;  my experience,
both within my own family and from discussions with former students, is
quite otherwise.

Oh they benefited I am sure, but not in any way by learning life skills - they were pretty goood at those by 18 - or in any great way from what they learned. One got a bye in one module of the first year of study for her profession, the other, started at the bottom as she would have at 18.

They didn't take up new hobbies, they didn't participate in sports - both of which they had done plenty of in their school days so if they had wanted to would have. The benefits for a previous generation for whom it was all free are
clear. The benefits of a huge debt, and a low salary seem a lot less.

And concrete utilitarian benefits are one of the things that place the unis where they are in the league tables - how many of their graduates are in work after graduating. If they consider it important who am I to disagree?

[...]  Are those recruits of lower educational standards
just because they went to work and got paid, and qualified years
earier?

     You've moved from lower /attainment/ to lower /standards/.

No I haven't - you have. [...]

    "Standards" is your word, see above.  My responses to Max and later to you [see
  Message-ID: <ufpa7p$1k0um$1@dont-email.me>
and
  Message-ID: <ufs0fd$2fc40$1@dont-email.me> ]
both talked about "attainment".  Not that it greatly matters.

There are nursing apprenticeships.  How is doing a degree to become
nurse more flexible?

    If the degree course goes pear-shaped [as many nursing courses used to -- see the statistic by Virginia Bottomley from the latter of the above two messages] then the student has a reasonable chance of switching to some other course at the same university.  An apprentice typically can only drop out from the apprenticeship and restart elsewhere from scratch.  But the comment was more general;  eg, my department regularly picked up medics
with AAA grades [inc maths] who had dropped out at the first sight of blood.

There are a few Doc Martins around for sure.

Just what benefit is acquired from a degree in Film Studies for
example?

    Again, you seem to be looking for concrete and utilitarian benefits of that specific course.  Rob has given some suggestions;  I wouldn't know without looking at detailed syllabuses.  All I can add is that courses are not added to prospectuses simply to annoy Daily Mail readers;  they go through an extensive evaluation by cross-Faculty and external committees,
who will know much better what the particular course involves, the resources it will need, how it will be assessed, how many students are likely to be involved, and so on.

I possibly know more about the syllabuses for those subjects than you do, as I posted elsewhere.

I mentioned one did TV radio and Film major with Media Studies minor. She is now a Line Producer in tv. But puppet making and a stop motion film, and a dissertation on Scream 3, for example, has been zero use. Especially as at the time she woul dhave preferred to go into radio, those obvioulsly they did some of that too. What might have been more useful for her current position would have been, some sort of accountancy, logistisics, maybe event management!

My friend's daughter who did Film now works in admin in a local university. It's a good job, but nothing to do with her degree.


--
kat
>^..^<

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/10/2023 11:21, kat wrote:

[...] The benefits for a previous generation for
whom it was all free are clear. The benefits of a huge debt, and a
low salary seem a lot less.

If a graduate has a low salary, then the debt is just written off.
You have to be earning ~£33Kpa before the loan repayments are even £1000pa [and if you have two part-time jobs, you could be earning £55Kpa before
the repayments reach that level]. You would bite the hand off a bank that offered those sorts of terms on a mortgage or a business loan.

And concrete utilitarian benefits are one of the things that place
the unis where they are in the league tables - how many of their
graduates are in work after graduating. If they consider it important
who am I to disagree?

No-one was saying that "concrete utilitarian benefits" don't exist
or aren't important; but they're only one part of the student experience. League tables are a bit of froth; any student who goes to univ A rather
than B /because/ A is a couple of places higher in some ranking is a fool.
In the end, there is no decent alternative to visiting A and B, talking to students and staff, wandering around the campus and the city, and making
your own informed judgement about whether this is somewhere you want to
spend three+ years. [If you happen to find yourself in the botch that is Clearing, then there may not be time for that. Which is Not Good.]

[...]

I mentioned one did TV radio and Film major with Media Studies minor.
She is now a Line Producer in tv. But puppet making and a stop
motion film, and a dissertation on Scream 3, for example, has been
zero use. Especially as at the time she woul dhave preferred to go
into radio, those obvioulsly they did some of that too. What might
have been more useful for her current position would have been, some
sort of accountancy, logistisics, maybe event management!

I think you're missing the point. If you know at age 17 [when you start applying to university (or other career path)] exactly what you want
to do when 21, 30, 50, 65, ... then you are very much in the minority and
you are probably wrong. Even if you get the general subject right, it will change, very probably beyond recognition. over your career. You pretty-
much give an example -- your daughter wanted to do radio [for which univ is good, thanks to the number of student radio stations], but wound up in TV
and could have done with accountancy [etc]. Just think how much all those things have changed in recent decades. Education has largely stopped being about specific knowledge, and become how to learn, how to adapt, and so on. Young people need to be prepared to change what they do, perhaps several
times over a career.

Einstein [and no doubt others]: "Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school".

My friend's daughter who did Film now works in admin in a local
university. It's a good job, but nothing to do with her degree.

Another example, then!

A final point, and then I think this discussion has run its course.
The boundaries between degrees, diplomas, certificates, apprenticeships, ... are blurring. The more important thing is that post-18 qualifications be recognised on some standard scale, so that young people can wave their bits
of paper at employers and others and be treated fairly. Look up the Bologna Process for how this can be attempted.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Byrd

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:08:23 UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:

On 10/10/2023 11:21, kat wrote:

[...] The benefits for a previous generation for
whom it was all free are clear. The benefits of a huge debt, and a
low salary seem a lot less.

If a graduate has a low salary, then the debt is just written off.
You have to be earning ~£33Kpa before the loan repayments are even £1000pa [and if you have two part-time jobs, you could be earning £55Kpa before
the repayments reach that level]. You would bite the hand off a bank that offered those sorts of terms on a mortgage or a business loan.

HMRC is getting a cut of the "profits" [aka tax[ as well.

And concrete utilitarian benefits are one of the things that place
the unis where they are in the league tables - how many of their
graduates are in work after graduating. If they consider it important
who am I to disagree?

No-one was saying that "concrete utilitarian benefits" don't exist
or aren't important; but they're only one part of the student experience. League tables are a bit of froth; any student who goes to univ A rather
than B /because/ A is a couple of places higher in some ranking is a fool.
In the end, there is no decent alternative to visiting A and B, talking to students and staff, wandering around the campus and the city, and making
your own informed judgement about whether this is somewhere you want to
spend three+ years. [If you happen to find yourself in the botch that is Clearing, then there may not be time for that. Which is Not Good.]

[...]

I mentioned one did TV radio and Film major with Media Studies minor.
She is now a Line Producer in tv. But puppet making and a stop
motion film, and a dissertation on Scream 3, for example, has been
zero use. Especially as at the time she woul dhave preferred to go
into radio, those obvioulsly they did some of that too. What might
have been more useful for her current position would have been, some
sort of accountancy, logistisics, maybe event management!

I think you're missing the point. If you know at age 17 [when you
start applying to university (or other career path)] exactly what you want
to do when 21, 30, 50, 65, ... then you are very much in the minority and
you are probably wrong. Even if you get the general subject right, it will change, very probably beyond recognition. over your career.

Well I knew pretty well I was going to be techie, and picked my A' levels accordingly [aged 16] and studied physics at Uni'. Ended up in IT, but seeing how that was very nascent when I applied I didn't know that until I got there.

You pretty-
much give an example -- your daughter wanted to do radio [for which univ is good, thanks to the number of student radio stations], but wound up in TV
and could have done with accountancy [etc]. Just think how much all those things have changed in recent decades. Education has largely stopped being about specific knowledge, and become how to learn, how to adapt, and so on. Young people need to be prepared to change what they do, perhaps several times over a career.

Einstein [and no doubt others]: "Education is what remains after one
has forgotten what one has learned in school".

My friend's daughter who did Film now works in admin in a local
university. It's a good job, but nothing to do with her degree.

Another example, then!

Certain subjects only really equip you for a specialised career - e.g. medicine, but if you pick an obscure subject with few opportunities you might end up doing something very dull instead.

A final point, and then I think this discussion has run its course.
The boundaries between degrees, diplomas, certificates, apprenticeships, ... are blurring. The more important thing is that post-18 qualifications be recognised on some standard scale, so that young people can wave their bits of paper at employers and others and be treated fairly. Look up the Bologna Process for how this can be attempted.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Byrd

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)