The Ipod Generation

[grey_war_canoe]

1. Regardless of the fact that  Blair's generation didn't have to pay, it was patently unfair that a plumber who started work at 16 should pay taxes to fund someone else through university. The present system is fair, the previous one wasn't.

2. If this generation didn't have tuition fees to pay back, guess what would happen. They would have more disposable income and property would inflate further. Prices are determined by the money available to house buyers, and I'd rather money went on education than house prices.

3. If university was free at the point of use guess what would happen. Many more useless degree courses would spring up, and useful degrees would be further devalued because everyone would want to go. If you have to pay for it you'll think seriously about the value of your degree, whether it be economic value or its "mind-stretching" benefits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree on your first point- it was unfair that somebody was taxed for being in employment before 18. However, I feel that the present system is far from fair. As Prince Charles said (and for which he was almost universally derided), young people today believe that they can do anything, without applying the requisite amount of effort. The higher education system is a case in point. If you hang about a school long enough, you will be able to pursue higher education. In effect, people consider themselves to have a right to this education, as opposed to seeing a university education as something to be earned! Thus the scenario you outline in your third point already exists- there are a glut of $hit courses throughout the land - perfumery, surfing, cruise liner management are but three of the gems of which I am aware! In effect, we are offering university courses in subjects that might reasonably be considered hobbies, nothing more.

Even at my alma mater (Durham), there was a distinct hierarchy of courses- if you were struggling on course x, you could be transferred to course y, often within the same faculty, and 99% of the time, attaining the same exit qualification. I don't know of anybody who left without a degree (in some cases a 3rd or ordinary)- why is a university going to throw upwards of 20k of funding out?

I'm afraid that your second point is very far from the truth. Seeing student debt as a useful tool to prevent graduate wealth from further inflating the housing market is an incredibly simplistic view. New graduates (excluding Medics/Veterinarians) don't earn great money- I believe the average salary is in the order of £21k. Granted, this does improve in the majority of cases, but a degree is no longer the route to riches it may once have been. A first degree is now seen by many as being a basic qualification for employment, rather than something to set one apart from the crowd- hence wages are not a great deal better.

[Casual Observer]

I'm afraid that your second point is very far from the truth. Seeing student debt as a useful tool to prevent graduate wealth from further inflating the housing market is an incredibly simplistic view. New graduates (excluding Medics/Veterinarians) don't earn great money- I believe the average salary is in the order of £21k. Granted, this does improve in the majority of cases, but a degree is no longer the route to riches it may once have been. A first degree is now seen by many as being a basic qualification for employment, rather than something to set one apart from the crowd- hence wages are not a great deal better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I disagree with that; over the working life of a graduate I think salaries are higher. But leaving that to one side, you have to agree that less disposable income will lead to lower house prices, surely.

[Bucephalus]

IAs Prince Charles said (and for which he was almost universally derided), young people today believe that they can do anything, without applying the requisite amount of effort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Prince Charles is heir to the throne and so should shut up. You don't hear the Queen making such comments do you? If he wants to get involved in politics, he should renonce his claim to the throne and found his own organic luddite party.

As if Prince Charles who had everything handed to him is in any position to tell kids that they have too much of a sense of entitlement.

[Guest pioneer31]

I think Scientific degrees should be subsidised in order to encourage people to do them rather than courses in underwater basket weaving

[Guest pioneer31]

Well, I disagree with that; over the working life of a graduate I think salaries are higher. But leaving that to one side, you have to agree that less disposable income will lead to lower house prices, surely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was true 20 or 30 years ago. It isn't now. Graduates are ten-a-penny...and this has driven their wages down. The only grad jobs that are likely to lead to a good salary are medicine, pharmacy, law and some types of engineering (if you're lucky)

[Casual Observer]

I think Scientific degrees should be subsidised in order to encourage people to do them rather than courses in underwater basket weaving

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But in a perfect market driven economy they wouldn't need to be subsidised. If there were a shortage of scientists, wages would be higher and students would be oversubscribing to science degrees. So why aren't they??

Edited August 23, 2005 by Casual Observer

[Bucephalus]

But in a perfect market driven economy they wouldn't need to be subsidised. If there were a shortage of scientists, wages would be higher and students would be oversubscribing to science degrees. So why aren't they??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a scientist (phd) and I'll tell you what I think

First off, there is no such thing as a perfect market driven economy.

Science has a reputation as difficult and so people prefer media studies.

Scientists are not repected as they once were. Create a drug to help with cancer, most people will just have a go at you for experimenting on mice.

Most scientific jobs are funded by government who don't want to pay more as they have other financial priorities.

THere is a huge pool of very talented indian and chinese scientist very eager to come to the US and Europe.

You are told that as a scientist you do your job for fun (no joke) and that to complain about money is impure.

There is no job security. (three 3 year contracts on average before getting a 5 year contract at the on which they might give you an open ended contract if you are lucky)

You'll probably have to change countries a few time in your 20s and early 30s. Great for families.

even in teh us scientists are badly paid, as some idealist fools will always go into science come what may, loads of chinese will do the job for that price and there are enough very high paying jobs to fool everyone else into thinking they will be very well paid one day (american dream: all the factory workers ar ford think they can be ceo one day: in practice impossible although in theory possible)

Al this makes a high tech economy to compete with china...

rant over.

[VacantPossession]

But in a perfect market driven economy they wouldn't need to be subsidised. If there were a shortage of scientists, wages would be higher and students would be oversubscribing to science degrees. So why aren't they??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I now discover the post above states, (edit) there is no such thing as a perfect market driven economy, and in any case market driven systems nearly always sink to the lowest common denominator when unfettered.

Education has never had a direct link to "profit" because the narrow confines of "perfect market" profits does not count things like wisdom, civility, broad education, or for that matter trains which are affordable or on time.

The assumption that market forces solve everything is absurd, if that's what you were supposing. On the contrary, education under such a system would be geared wholly to production and not wisdom. In extreme societies education is always geared towards efficiency, but a point is reached where efficiency by itself does not answer issues which are much more important.

Good societies are a balancing act between personal greed and the common good. That in some ignorant quarters is interpreted as socialism, but in fact almost all even right wing democracies subscribe to a great extent to restraints on personal greed.

A "perfect market" economy, if such a thing existed, would always result in monetary profit over-riding everything else. Education needs scientists but it also needs thinkers to put a brake on the excesses which scientists create in league with states and businessmen. That is not to say that scientists do not think, but neither do all arts students sit on their arses all day and dream.

VP

Edited August 23, 2005 by VacantPossession

[MrB]

I'd add another reason

i) millions at Uni keep the Unemployment figures down and keep the Uni staff in work

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup. Ingenius New Labour thinking:

Get young people off the dole and pack them off to some third rate university where they pay for themselves (with borrowed money)

and technical skills have all be academicised

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's such a good point. The social engineering that's been taking place in our education system, egalitarianism (read prizes for everybody), nobody can fail etc., has meant hard technical skills have been extinguished by fluffy academic equivalent courses.

I did a Business/IT degree. We never learnt any coding/technical stuff as part of the IT side, it was all pseudo coding and 'learning the principals' rather than the detail.

So when I went for job interviews, questions such as:

Interviewer: "So, Mr B, have you any experience of Visual basic?"

MrB: "Why no, but I can create a pseudo coded application"

Interviewer: "Why have you applied for a VB Programmer's job if you don't know VB, you twit?"

MrB: "Erm, because there weren't any Pseudo Code Programmer's jobs."

Interviewer: "Run along"

MrB exits stage, crying

[homeless]

21k starting salary for a graduate.?

i think you will find its nearer 15k

The biggest single factor i found in asertaining who got a degree and who didint had nothing to do with ability.But more to do with boredom threshold and reliability.

As long as you were able to stick it out to the bitter end like a drone then you recieved the degree, many people are just to free spirited to do this.

I think this has been proving as why girls are doing much better in schools than boys are, simply becuase boys find it much harder to be drones and are much more curious about the world around them, hence why its mainly males that rip apart cars or build mechano sets or wander through the woods disecting spiders.

The same thing can be seen when people start to get into the workplace, the same people that got bored with education also get bored with there jobs quicker, these people though once they find a job that they like will be the best of the bunch no matter what education.

This often tells you why people with degrees do better financially, its simply they were the people able to sit day after day being bored, and are thus often around long enough to get the promotion.

people with low boredom thresholds are much better suited to self employment if they want to make money, or they will often spend there lives going from job to job.

Its the age of the 9-5 drone

[Casual Observer]

As I now discover the post above states, (edit) there is no such thing as a perfect market driven economy, and in any case market driven systems nearly always sink to the lowest common denominator when unfettered.

Education has never had a direct link to "profit" because the narrow confines of "perfect market" profits does not count things like wisdom, civility, broad education, or for that matter trains which are affordable or on time.

The assumption that market forces solve everything is absurd, if that's what you were supposing. On the contrary, education under such a system would be geared wholly to production and not wisdom. In extreme societies education is always geared towards efficiency, but a point is reached where efficiency by itself does not answer issues which are much more important.

Good societies are a balancing act between personal greed and the common good. That in some ignorant quarters is interpreted as socialism, but in fact almost all even right wing democracies subscribe to a great extent to restraints on personal greed.

A "perfect market" economy, if such a thing existed, would always result in monetary profit over-riding everything else. Education needs scientists but it also needs thinkers to put a brake on the excesses which scientists create in league with states and businessmen. That is not to say that scientists do not think, but neither do all arts students sit on their arses all day and dream.

VP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet the original suggestion was that Science degrees should be subsidised, compared to other degrees. That's just a way of artificially creating a market driver, isn't it?

[VacantPossession]

One major problem is that you need a degree for a job that requires no more than decent high school skills, and technical skills have all be academicised (Think nurses.  In the good old days part of the job was to change a bedpan.  Now they have degrees and its not a professional expectation.  Nobody seems to have bothered to invent a role to replace that function!  Bizarrely their wages haven't increased markedly with this professionalisation and a good secretary can earn more than most nurses.) 

The rest of it, I don't really think we are that much worse off apart from housing - we just don't have anything to compare it unless you are old enough to remember it. We just "need" more things.  In the 1970s a landline was not even considered essential.  Now we "need" a landline and a mobile and an iPod and home computer. Funny that we feel poorer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I take the points made, but in fact it could be argued that current nursing qualifications are LESS academised than in the past, since it appears that academic discipline is not what it was.

But a danger in purely "practical" education, if that is what you are implying, is that many practical jobs also require a higher understanding of your fellow man or woman. Which is why a certain amount of what appears at first sight to be unnecessary "padding" can be an asset.

In materialistic terms we are indeed poorer because, for instance, we have access to huge quantities of data (ipods) and accessories of convenience (mobile phones) but the QUALITY of the data, (or conversations flowing from mobiles) fall short of the technology along which they travel..

Yes, I can download and store terrabytes of total rubbish on to my iPod and can have thousands of INANE conversations on a mobile phone. We are poorer because of the lack of improvement in conversation, which is seperate from the technological wizardry which allows such a multitude of inanity.

Coming back to housing, we are a poorer society because we can buy cheaply all manner of hi tech hardware, but we can no longer afford a decent, spacious, roof over our heads. Which is the priority? I know what mine is.

VP

[mustrum_ridcully]

But in a perfect market driven economy they wouldn't need to be subsidised. If there were a shortage of scientists, wages would be higher and students would be oversubscribing to science degrees. So why aren't they??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well Science/Engineering degrees are considered difficult whereas Media Studies where you get a degree for watching TV are considered easy.

If you don't believe me the following questions are apparently from a final year media studies exam paper:

* Outline some of the complexities of thinking about 'genre' as one of the categories in which contemporary Hollywood films get classified

* Discuss the issues raised by the BBFC's official classification of films in Britain.

With questions like that I could probably pass that exam without ever having studied the subject.

Most media studies students probably don't get media jobs and end up working as receptionists or something - not exactly a well paid job.

Also look at what was being said when the A level results came out - more people are doing easy A levels.

Edited August 23, 2005 by mustrum_ridcully

[Casual Observer]

Well Science/Engineering degrees are considered difficult whereas Media Studies where you get a degree for watching TV are considered easy.

If you don't believe me the following questions are apparently from a final year media studies exam paper:

* Outline some of the complexities of thinking about 'genre' as one of the categories in which contemporary Hollywood films get classified

* Discuss the issues raised by the BBFC's official classification of films in Britain.

With questions like that I could probably pass that exam without ever having studied the subject.

Most media studies students probably don't get media jobs and end up working as receptionists or something - not exactly a well paid job.

Also look at what was being said when the A level results came out - more people are doing easy A levels.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But this supports my earlier point. I find it hard to recruit graduate engineers even though the salaries and prospects on offer are higher than the Media Studies grad is likely to earn. Why don't the higher sallaries on offer lead to more students seeing the value of investing in an Engineering degree?

Edited August 23, 2005 by Casual Observer

[Bucephalus]

But this supports my earlier point. I find it hard to recruit graduate engineers even though the salaries and prospects on offer are higher than the Media Studies grad is likely to earn. Why don't the higher sallaries on offer lead to more students seeing the value of investing in an Engineering degree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

because engineering is boring and difficult. And because you don't impress girls by being an engineeer.

So the higher salary is not high enough to compensate for the downsides.

in any case, money is not and will never be the only motivating factor.

[VacantPossession]

Well Science/Engineering degrees are considered difficult whereas Media Studies where you get a degree for watching TV are considered easy.

If you don't believe me the following questions are apparently from a final year media studies exam paper:

* Outline some of the complexities of thinking about 'genre' as one of the categories in which contemporary Hollywood films get classified

* Discuss the issues raised by the BBFC's official classification of films in Britain.

With questions like that I could probably pass that exam without ever having studied the subject.

Most media studies students probably don't get media jobs and end up working as receptionists or something - not exactly a well paid job.

Also look at what was being said when the A level results came out - more people are doing easy A levels.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oddly enough, though I am no apologist for "media studies" it is quite possible that answering those questions could expose you as a empty headed idiot or inspired social commentator, so the examples don't particularly support your view.

Even the most humdrum "efficient" jobs can require judgement and a degree of savvy. I think ANY subject is good to study if it encourages you to think, analyse critically and develop independent thought.

Media studies is not considered a joke because the subject itself is bad, but because it appears that there is a lack of intellectual vigour required by most courses offering that subject.

VP

Edited August 23, 2005 by VacantPossession

[Casual Observer]

because engineering is boring and difficult. And because you don't impress girls by being an engineeer.

So the higher salary is not high enough to compensate for the downsides.

in any case, money is not and will never be the only motivating factor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly - so why bother to subsidise it by abolishing/reducing tuition fees? I've not been convinced that tuition fees should be abolished!

[Casual Observer]

  I think ANY subject is good to study if it encourages you to think, analyse critically and develop independent thought.

VP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And provided that the recipient of those benefits values them highly enough to see them as something worth paying for himself.

[Bucephalus]

Exactly - so why bother to subsidise it by abolishing/reducing tuition fees? I've not been convinced that tuition fees should be abolished!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

personnaly i think tuition fees should be at about £20 000 a year, with appropriate bursaries for the poor.

But to claim that money is not A motivating factor is disingenuous. Pay a graduate engineer £60k a year on graduation and see the poor pulling power argument fade pretty quick...

Make the engineering course free and they will be more attractive than media studies (especiallky at £20k a year)

B.

Edited August 23, 2005 by Bucephalus

[munro]

One major problem is that you need a degree for a job that requires no more than decent high school skills, and technical skills have all be academicised (Think nurses.  In the good old days part of the job was to change a bedpan.  Now they have degrees and its not a professional expectation.  Nobody seems to have bothered to invent a role to replace that function!  Bizarrely their wages haven't increased markedly with this professionalisation and a good secretary can earn more than most nurses.) 

The rest of it, I don't really think we are that much worse off apart from housing - we just don't have anything to compare it unless you are old enough to remember it. We just "need" more things.  In the 1970s a landline was not even considered essential.  Now we "need" a landline and a mobile and an iPod and home computer. Funny that we feel poorer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Degrees - a large part of this is the transfer of training costs from employers to employees. The "degree" bit is a smokescreen so it looks like the employee gets something out of the deal. As for a good secretary earning more than most nurses, that'll be a graduate doing a PA job; hardly surprising they get paid more than many nurses. The PA is probably more highly qualified.

"Need" more things - yes, sometimes. I do freelance work. In the past I could have done this by letter, phone, and typewriter. Now my customers expect to be able to get hold of me to arrange meetings, so I have to have a mobile. A few years ago I had to buy a fax machine because a guy I was doing a lot of work for wanted to get in touch by fax. Now a lot of my work communication goes via e-mail so I have to have landline/internet connection/home computer. What do you expect? Horse and cart? Quill pen?

Its not that we feel poorer, we are poorer. We're just surrounded by cheap junk that frankly adds little to quality of life, and I'd trade it in a flash for room to swing a hamster let alone a cat.

[Once in a lifetime]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously this thread is one close to your heart because you have posted a lot on it.

1. Regardless of the fact that Blair's generation didn't have to pay, it was patently unfair that a plumber who started work at 16 should pay taxes to fund someone else through university. The present system is fair, the previous one wasn't.

If that’s the logic. then take the argument a bit further. All education should be paid for by the students, from the day they start school.

Why should a single person or childless couple pay for education of others?

2. If this generation didn't have tuition fees to pay back, guess what would happen. They would have more disposable income and property would inflate further. Prices are determined by the money available to house buyers, and I'd rather money went on education than house prices.

I don’t think so… House prices during Blair’s (free Uni education) didn’t inflate because of disposable (drink money?)

3. If university was free at the point of use guess what would happen. Many more useless degree courses would spring up, and useful degrees would be further devalued because everyone would want to go. If you have to pay for it you'll think seriously about the value of your degree, whether it be economic value or its "mind-stretching" benefits.

It didn't before. And it’s already happening, Blairs idea is to increase Uni attendance.

When I said I can’t believe it was a Labour Government that introduced tuition fees it’s because I am

Old Labour (Socialist) I left the Labour party just after Blair gained power.

EDUCATION FEES WILL/ DOES DISCOURAGE STUDENTS FROM IMPOVERISHED BACKGROUNDS. HOW FAIRS THAT?

[Golden Shower]

The "young" get screwed because they vote less as a group than the "old". If they voted more, they would be listened to more. I am 27 and always vote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here here. I can see the argument about the young getting screwed over, but if they don't vote, then they are getting what they deserve.

[cprulesok]

I take it then, that you are one of the terribly polite, nice silent majority type of people who agree with the Daily Mail that the English language is not what it was.

VP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I dont like left wing hypocrites, unfortunately i have to with them daily, I have to listen to their anti right , aggressive left wing philosophies, as for polite, judging from your comment, i strongly suspect your a guardian reader !!!!

signed

Non hypocrite

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

It's true that the current young have it much worse than their parents. Heck, many of them wouldn't even think they could afford the iPods, Flatscreen whatnots, etc. The modest array of gadgetry I own I would have saved up for even if they still cost more.

A book that came out a year ago, The Mismanagement of Talent is the best book I've read on the subject of the growth in graduate. It broadly suggests that there is a more educated workforce, but the economy has not real idea on how to use this. It also suggests that the average graduate starting salary is £12.5k(most 'graduate starting salary' surveys trumpeted in the media only measure graduate 'milkround jobs', which only a minority land).

If a given company employs 75% low skilled workers 10% semi-skilled workers, and 15% high skilled jobs, what mechanism enourages them to create more high skilled, high intelligence positions? Nothing. In fact, most organisations have been rapidly deskilling their workforces to cut costs, and stripping out many tiers of management, which traditionally provided middle of the road, decent salary jobs.

When my Uni friends graduated in '99 almost none could land any sort of 'graudate role', although many had work experience and 'valuable' extra-curricular experience. Most were A and B at A Level types. Worse, if you failed to land a 'graduate' opening you were worse off in the job market than a 18 year old thickie with a typing qualification and a year's experience of being an office junior.

Some firends ended up spending yet more money of master's degrees after a year of McJobbing, or end up doing months of unpaid work experience to land fairly low-paid openings. My first 'have to be a graduate' job was 13k in 2001 and in an expensive part of the South East.

Edited August 24, 2005 by CrashedOutAndBurned

[Last Hun Standing]

The call for students to become voters is irrelevant.

Students are typically on the electoral roll wherever their parents live, to prevent the formation of student MP's prepetually elected by each university town. Otherwise the powers that be would have to actually take notice of some of their concerns.....

Could be an interesting effect if you consider the number of university towns and the margin of certain votes.

But then in this banana republic utopia they could always get the boundary commisioners to jerrymander a NUoldNuLAb victory anyway or hold elections during the summer hols when students will be away from their votes. Nothing like statistically disenfranchising a generation..

A majority with a risible share of total eligible voters? Make me laugh.

There should at least be an option to vote "none of the above" and if that vote wins a majority, all defeated candidates have to line up to be severly guatanamoed, tarred and possibly even feathered live on national TV.

Would make election night a little more interesting to watch the clowns sweating before the results officer breaks out the rubber gloves.