|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Welfarism
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In comps., the bright kids pull the less bright ones up. Not the other way round.
In some comps. I think both effects are possible, and which one you get depends on the overall atmosphere, balance of kids, management and teaching.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
I was thinking over the weekend, and it's not only education that leads to social mobility. When my nephew did some research into family history, he discovered that I am far from being the first in my family to be interested in law. It turns out I had great-uncles and great-great uncles who were solicitors. None of them went to university - in their day, you could join as a very junior employee, get your articles later, and work your way to being a solicitor.
Now it's not only a graduate profession - it's virtually restricted in practice to the graduates of 'good' universities, and the Legal Practice Course costs about £12,000 on top of your uni fees. So the kids at Birmingham City university discussed above, however well taught, have less chance of succeeding, and will have to invest huge sums of money if they even want to try.
You can in theory get in via the ILEX route, and one or two of my students have, but it's very, very hard.
I'm not quite sure how we changed to a society where everyone has to be 'job ready' before they are employed, as employers like to put it. We have moved the cost of training for many professions from the employer to the employee. How has this happened?
[ 22. November 2010, 09:39: Message edited by: Moth ]
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, when I was reading law as an undergraduate in the late 80s, you had to pay your own fees for the professional qualifying course. I always thought that you should only be accepted into the professional course once you'd had an offer of articles/ pupillage, and your future firm/chambers, or the profession as a whole, should pay.
But then when I left school in '85 it was still just about possible to go into a firm with A levels and qualify while working- I knew someone who decided to do that, though I don't know whether or not he succeeded.
Though i would agree that we've seen a shift of risk and cost onto the individual: something which the Browne review ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) will only exacerbate.
[ 22. November 2010, 09:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
In 1981, my local council paid my Bar Finals fees. It was a discretionary grant, but was usually paid, and it included an element for living costs - basically, a student grant. I was also able to claim my travel costs.
Obviously, everything changed during the 80s!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Interesting point from Marvin about diversity. My immediate question is whether this was in an area with a lot of white working class people where members of minorities tended to be either professionals or aspirational business people.
The area was Longbridge, Birmingham - it was (and still is) about 85% white and 90% working class, most of whom were, at the time, workers at the Rover factory. The only members of minorities there were shopkeepers or restraunteurs - it's very much not the sort of area professionals or aspirational business people tend to move to. The closest we had to any form of diversity in my primary school class was a couple of Jehovas Witnesses. The local comps weren't much different, as they only got students from the area.
In contrast, my grammar school drew in top students from across the city meaning there was a healthy mix of white, black, asian, east asian, christian, muslim, hindu, sikh, jew and atheist. It was a revelation.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Though i would agree that we've seen a shift of risk and cost onto the individual: something which the Browne review will only exacerbate.
On the contrary, the Browne Review ensures that graduate repayments will be tightly linked to how much they earn, ensuring that no-one is burdened with unsustainable outgoings as a result of their education. The element of risk (to the student) is completely removed - if they graduate but cannot get a high-paying job, they will pay back less of their loan. If they graduate but cannot find a job at all (or only a very low paying one), they will pay back none of their loan. Where's the risk?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
It sounds reasonable, put like that. But imagine student A comes from a wealthy middle-class family, and will inherit a substantial amount of money and/or property from his/her parents; student B comes from a poor family and won't. Despite a large professional salary, student B is much more likely to struggle in future with mortgage repayments and the like. And the prospect of that will put a lot of prospective students off.
However fair the proposals might be for working-class students, they are not going to redress the imbalance of educational opportunity, and could well do the opposite.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
It's the much higher fees I was thinking of. The Browne reapyment proposals will benefit the best off and the worst off: it's the lower end of middling who will feel the pinch.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It sounds reasonable, put like that. But imagine student A comes from a wealthy middle-class family, and will inherit a substantial amount of money and/or property from his/her parents; student B comes from a poor family and won't. Despite a large professional salary, student B is much more likely to struggle in future with mortgage repayments and the like. And the prospect of that will put a lot of prospective students off.
I disagree that student loan repayments will adversely affect people's ability to get and pay a mortgage. I was approved for a mortgage last year, and my student loan repayments are significantly higher per month than a 'new scheme' graduate earning exactly the same salary as me will be paying.
Also, when I had to detail my debts during the application for said mortgage, they explicitly told me that student loan debts don't count.
To put it bluntly, graduates in the new system will be significantly better off each month than those in the existing system. Stop looking at the headline figure and start looking at the actual monthly impact on the graduate - that is the important figure.
Of course, someone having large familial reserves to fall back on will be in a better position than someone without such resources. But that's true in any system, and cannot be used as an example of a problem with any specific one.
quote:
However fair the proposals might be for working-class students, they are not going to redress the imbalance of educational opportunity, and could well do the opposite.
In terms of making higher education available to everyone who wants it, with absolutely no up-front payments required, the plans are a roaring success. Personal wealth is not a limiting factor in whether anyone can go or not. As for other educational imbalances: well no, proposals concerning higher education funding aren't going to do anything about primary and secondary education. How could they?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It's the much higher fees I was thinking of. The Browne reapyment proposals will benefit the best off and the worst off: it's the lower end of middling who will feel the pinch.
As I just said, a 'new system' graduate earning exactly the same as me will be repaying significantly less each month than I currently have to. If that's feeling the pinch, I'd like to feel it!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
