mopgoblin on 20/3/2006 at 09:57
I'd say trying too hard to stop them is a bad idea in any case. A lot of the people in my repeat-fifth-form-English class had left by the end of the year, and for most of them that probably wasn't a bad choice. They weren't going to pass the exams or learn anything new, and high school seems to be more about preparing for university than about teaching useful stuff for the real world in any case. I don't think I ever use anything I learned at high school in the real world, except maybe some simple stuff from accounting.
scumble on 20/3/2006 at 10:03
Ultimately, you can't
force children to learn. Chlidren may be compelled to attend school for some years but it doesn't mean they'll get to learn in the best way.
In a way, the current education paradigm is to force kids to absorb certain knowledge to pass exams instead of actually getting them interested in learning.
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
Kids in high school who aren't academically minded can take more practical courses that will help them get good jobs, rather than mostly wasting their time with what they see as irrelevent studies. This is a bit at odds with the current university policy the government has of sending everyone to university to study anything, but as you say, it's in a state of change at the moment.
They've really got this obsession with University. It just shows how disconnected politicians can get from reality. Unless you actually learn something useful there, it really doesn't improve one's job prospects. I mean, one can be idealistic and say it's a chance to learn something esoteric for a bit but it costs so much money - is it worth getting 10 grand or more in the hole to study pop music? These courses do exist. Even my physics degree is of dubious value unless I do teaching, because there aren't that many jobs for physics graduates in the UK.
I don't want to get too utilitarian though. There are ways to combine practical traning and esoteric studies I think, but there is no easy formula.
Paz on 20/3/2006 at 13:20
Quote Posted by scumble
In a way, the current education paradigm is to force kids to absorb certain knowledge to pass exams instead of actually getting them interested in learning.
I concur; and this is a terrible shame. I'm fairly sure most of my exam results have been improved by half a grade or so, simply because I learnt good exam technique. Which is great and everything, but should I be rewarded that much for being half-decent at quick essays? There are probably people who knew a whole lot more about Stalinist Russia but ended up with poorer marks.
However, I suppose this will occur with any system you choose to put in place. The emphasis is on schools/teachers to churn out as many students with results as high as possible - whatever structure is put in place, this will continue to be the goal. It's always easier to measure '50% got an A in science' than '50% have learnt an acceptable amount of basic science' because the latter is pretty subjective.
Quote Posted by scumble
Unless you actually learn something useful [at university], it really doesn't improve one's job prospects.
I'm surprised you jumped so quickly to this remark, though. To me this assumption that universities are training centres for HOT HOT JOB SKILLS is a greater evil than the problem above. Learning for the sake of LEARNING, absorbing the self in knowledge and expanding the intellect is far faaaaaar more important than pressing out another set of identikit plonkers waiting for their big payday.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with someone who has known exactly what job they want to do since they were 7 getting exactly the degree they need to do this job. That's something a bit different.
Also, if you don't understand the HUGE areas of society, culture and psychology that pop music infiltrates, I fear it is you who are disconnected from reality. A degree in the impact of popular music will not mean 'lol let's listen to Atomic Kitten'. It's a fascinating subject which, as I said, potentially touches on many other spheres of study. To be honest, I'd expect it to be more of a module than a full course .. but you know how these things get reported.
scumble on 20/3/2006 at 14:24
Quote Posted by Paz
I'm surprised you jumped so quickly to this remark, though. To me this assumption that universities are training centres for HOT HOT JOB SKILLS is a greater evil than the problem above. Learning for the sake of LEARNING, absorbing the self in knowledge and expanding the intellect is far faaaaaar more important than pressing out another set of identikit plonkers waiting for their big payday.
That's not entirely what I was getting at. In a sense University suffers from similar problems because there is also too much of sitting listening to lecturers and trying to take notes for the sake of passing exams.
I don't think there's anything wrong with learning for its own sake, there is just some uncertainty in the value of financing several years of it full time for this purpose. After university you still have to earn a living, so it tends to look more like an expensive luxury after a while.
Quote:
Also, if you don't understand the HUGE areas of society, culture and psychology that pop music infiltrates, I fear it is you who are disconnected from reality. A degree in the impact of popular music will not mean 'lol let's listen to Atomic Kitten'. It's a fascinating subject which, as I said, potentially touches on many other spheres of study. To be honest, I'd expect it to be more of a module than a full course .. but you know how these things get reported.
I kind of dragged pop music out of the air because one of my sister's previous housemates was studying some odd combination of pop music and something else.
In any case, being skeptical about degrees (or modules) in pop music has nothing to do with its relevance in the world - it is just considering the cost, and the amount of debt young people are getting into for the priviledge of full-time higher education when they may not actually need it, and if there is difficulty finding decently paid work afterwards, it won't help in clearing the debt.
I'm sure there's some middle way with higher education, between leaving school at 18 and being a full time academic for 3 or 4 years. It would help if the system weren't so ossified, as if it were some machine for producing educated citizens in a generally accepted time-frame.
Paz on 20/3/2006 at 14:44
Ok, I misunderstood slightly :)
It is definitely a bit of a gamble to take a degree which doesn't look like it will 'pay for itself', if you like. It's also rather disingenuous of the government to portray university in this way in the first place - "it's ok to pay that much, you'll be making £30,000/year afterwards, wuu!"
This is plainly a lie, unless you've got the connections to become some kind of Merchant Banker in London. Or whatever.
The flipside of this is that you never have to pay back that student loan (at least, that was the situation when I was toddling through the system). I still owe lots of money .. but I never have to pay it back and the debt barely increases. Whenever I'm in some kind of work the Student Loan persons tend to take about £10-15 off my monthly pay packet, but that's hardly an issue.
(I should probably note that I don't literally mean 'never' - just that it can be done so slowly as to be practically invisible with no terrible consequences. I'm fairly sure my brothers are still paying back tiny amounts each month around ten years on from their uni days.)
scumble on 20/3/2006 at 16:44
You do have to pay them back now, I think, after you finish your course. They keep changing the rules. They probably realised they couldn't sustain the previous deferrment rules, so some of us got a good deal and present students are probably paying for it.
I can still defer mine, but if I went above the monthly income threshold I'd be paying about £100 a month, and I don't really have a big amount outstanding compared to some who may have up to 20 grand to pay off. A moderate pay rise would end up with me being worse off in terms of real income.
JACKofTrades on 20/3/2006 at 23:33
For me, college (or university, if you prefer) was more about learning how to learn than learning a particular profession. Although I did pick up some info that has proved useful.
descenterace on 21/3/2006 at 14:08
Quote Posted by Vigil
Aye, but why is that distinction relevant?
To be absolutely honest, the only difference is that possessing A-Levels over GCSEs is going to improve one's chances of finding a job, making one less likely to require the welfare system.
Basically, yeah, the level at which someone drops out of education is probably not grounds for excluding them from the welfare system. It might be a good idea to give them
some incentive, though, such as a reduced level of support.
Of course, the main problem is people who live off the welfare state and don't even try to stand on their own. I have no idea how to solve that problem, since the necessary bureaucracy would cost the taxpayer even more than the problem...
[edit: I'm sure my keyboard is conspiring to cause spelling mistakes]
Convict on 21/3/2006 at 14:23
On a related note, I believe that welfare is not a right. Welfare is given by grace. Therefore it should be received and given as such only.
