The China Effect

[spanner48]

When Tony Blair said send 40% to uni he was absolutely and correct in assuming young folk need the very best higher education. What was somewhat lacking was what to do with all those educated folk. Go to Hong Kong those skills would be snapped up in a week. In this country it could take years. I've seen it happen. China is an incredibly vibrant place. Of course it paid a severe price in the 50s and 60s and 70s. This country is basically gone. Yes unskilled migrants coming from countries ruled by religious dictators think its great. But China is about 50 times more exciting, remember guys saying " back in the day you could punch the boss Friday and get another job monday" well that's china now. The more skilled the better your pay and conditions. There's little safety net, it's work or die, 12 hour shift OK then.

"young folk need the very best higher education" ? Yes, but that does NOT mean necessarily academic education. Many young people - perhaps most - are not inherently academic, but are more interested in developing craft and industrial skills. It's easy to say "university for all" when you're an Oxford graduate having dinner in Granita's restaurant in trendy Islington. Less relevant, if you really enjoy working with your hands . . . .

 

[Eshmiel]

"young folk need the very best higher education" ? Yes, but that does NOT mean necessarily academic education. Many young people - perhaps most - are not inherently academic, but are more interested in developing craft and industrial skills. It's easy to say "university for all" when you're an Oxford graduate having dinner in Granita's restaurant in trendy Islington. Less relevant, if you really enjoy working with your hands . . . .

The main point of sending every child to uni seems to be to turn them into a debt-asset, via the exploitative student-grant scam. Universities are now businesses, rather than educational establishments. Although some academic standards and practices remain useful, many are just a means to capture a child-victim, who is given a piece paper after three years in exchange for that £50,000 or more debt. The piece of paper says "qualified" but in reality its only a badge.

Some are lucky enough to study a useful subject that has good later life effects in terms of not just a technical skill but general life skills, despite the £50,000 debt. But even these may suddenly find themselves redundant in a world where software and AI can suddenly supplant the clever youths' skills with auto-skill 10X faster and cheaper. Ther goes your job. No income and your student debt doesn't need servicing ... but you get nowhere to live and nothing to eat either.

Most remaining apprenticeships have also become a scam. Employers take on an apprentice, get a government grant, use the poor creature for drudge work then get rid to replace with another once their government bung runs out.

I'm happy to report that there some (but few) old-fashioned businesses that are taking on apprentices for a 3 or 5 year period, paying them a decent wage and even providing a career path. These seem to occur in those hidden spots about Blightedland where its still 1955, deep West Wales being one example.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

There was an interesting observation in The Times some years ago. A letter -

When O levels were introduced in the '50s they were deemed suitable for the top 20% of the population, now degrees are deemed suitable for the top 50%. Human intellect has changed very little in the intervening years, so therefore something else has.

 

[artie]

Most remaining apprenticeships have also become a scam. Employers take on an apprentice, get a government grant, use the poor creature for drudge work then get rid to replace with another once their government bung runs out.

A friend, an unqualified general builder come oddjob man made a good living and wanted his son to follow in his footsteps, only better.
So the son starts an apprenticeship with a local firm, after a while he's no longer needed and can't find anywhere he can finish his time, so mate ends up paying his wages for the remainder of his apprenticeship and local firm gets totally free labour.

 

[Jacob]

"young folk need the very best higher education" ? Yes, but that does NOT mean necessarily academic education. Many young people - perhaps most - are not inherently academic, but are more interested in developing craft and industrial skills. It's easy to say "university for all" when you're an Oxford graduate having dinner in Granita's restaurant in trendy Islington. Less relevant, if you really enjoy working with your hands . . . .

Personally I don't hold with the distinction between academic and craft skills. It's just a hang-up from the early days of public education when the motivation came from the ruling establishment's need for suitably trained administrators of one sort or another, needing basic skills in literacy; hence "grammar" schools.
Then when the need came for technical skills they established "technical" schools and colleges... and so on.
Universities should educate/train across the board at all levels.
"University" comes from Latin universitas and meant the "whole" and implied the whole community.
It's normal to find intelligent and skilful people at all levels, even including woodworkers or stone masons! You may see it in the product.
Vice versa it's common to find very stupid people in spite of having top quality education, degrees in PPE etc. (particularly in the upper levels of the tory party!).....and so on!
So universities should be open to all, and free. A massive investment in "human capital" for the benefit of us all.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

"young folk need the very best higher education" ? Yes, but that does NOT mean necessarily academic education. Many young people - perhaps most - are not inherently academic, but are more interested in developing craft and industrial skills. It's easy to say "university for all" when you're an Oxford graduate having dinner in Granita's restaurant in trendy Islington. Less relevant, if you really enjoy working with your hands . . .

The world moves on. Education needs to enable young people to thrive in the world in which they will spend their working lives, not one past.

Whether encouraging "soft" academic skills was right is debateable. But perpetuating traditional craft and trade skills would not have been sustainable without major trade barriers. Generally accepted economic "truth" that these barriers are detrimental to all involved.

We should focus on the economic and societal needs in the coming AI era. Global industrialisation very directly impacted traditional industries - coal, steel, manufacturing etc. AI will similarly threaten traditional white collar professions - law, finance, data analysis etc.

I sympathise with those who regret the passing of traditional trades. But fulfilling the aspirations of those who are drawn towards the craft and practical needs to reflect the future "brave new world", not that gone for ever.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There was an interesting observation in The Times some years ago. A letter -

When O levels were introduced in the '50s they were deemed suitable for the top 20% of the population, now degrees are deemed suitable for the top 50%. Human intellect has changed very little in the intervening years, so therefore something else has.

Human intellect may not have changed, but what is demanded of it has changed massively.

In 1880 education became mandatory for age 5-10, increased to 14 in 1980, and 16 in 1972. For manual jobs a capacity for physical effort was most that was required - as legislation, business practices etc became more complex the intellectual attainment required of workers increased.

The basic concept of "work smarter, not harder" is reflected in the way in which education has evolved.

One could reasonably question whether the subjects being taught are relevant or useful, or whether the practice of giving just about all who take the course a "pass" makes any sense!!!