The university is just a year old, with campuses across Surrey and Kent in the south-east of England, and specialises in courses in film, video, animation, photography, fashion and the graphic arts. There's even a degree course in museum curating, which must seem an excellent career option, given the recent rise in attendance numbers. I was proud to be awarded an honorary MA ? 40 years after I took a year off from architectural college to enter journalism, never to return.
All over the country similar ceremonies are taking place, with proud parents cheering from the sidelines as the largest ever number of graduates receives degrees. But what lies in store for the class of 2009? They are the brave flag-bearers for New Labour's dream of better education for all ? the first generation to have paid £3,000 a year in top-up tuition fees. They might be well educated in a dazzling range of disciplines, but their average debt is a whopping £15,700, which, if they are lucky enough to get a job on the average graduate pay of £22,300, will take 12 years to pay off. Set that against statistics which show 44 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds don't save at all, and you can see the burden these graduates carry as they leave college.
Getting a degree has been heavily promoted by Labour as an excellent way of improving your chances of getting a good job. But since the recession, the number of graduates finding work six months after leaving college has dropped to 62 per cent ? and those with degrees in the arts, history, philosophy, computer sciences and physical education are the most likely to be affected. Nevertheless, more than 80 per cent of the students I saw being awarded degrees last week will eventually find work, although they may have to compromise to get a foot on the ladder in their chosen discipline. It's not surprising that applications for places on MA courses have risen by 26 per cent.
Labour can be proud of the increase in numbers at university ? although those coming from the lowest income groups account for only 21 per cent (an increase of a mere 3 per cent), in spite of millions being poured into creating new universities and expanding courses. The vast proportion of people attending university is still from the middle classes ? and with the level of debt involved, is that any surprise? In spite of Gordon Brown's professed aim of education for all, his minister of higher education, David Lammy, is a lightweight who has singularly failed to stand up to the Treasury to protect students from even higher charges.
Last week he announced a freeze in student grants, the first since they were introduced five years ago. At the same time, tuition fees were increased to £3,290, up 2.04 per cent. The Government has also cut financial support for trainee teachers, which seems a bit short-sighted, given the poor levels of numeracy and literacy, and the fact that the Government is planning to spend £25 an hour for one-to-one tuition to try to help struggling children. The Government wants MOTs for teachers, and the Tories plan a new requirement of minimum GCSEs at grade B in English and maths to teach primary school children.
Rather than tinker with what qualifications teachers need, we need to change their training so that they acquire better communication and presentational skills to get their message across. Graduates, too, need to be better prepared for the world of work. Rather than going on to study for MAs and increase their level of debt, many would be more employable if they had the social and literacy skills needed for the working environment. There comes a point when more qualifications aren't necessarily going to get you a better job. What employers are looking for is adaptability, positivity, and an ability to fit in. There's no point in getting a degree in graphics, computer science or animation if you can't communicate your ideas. It might seem petty, but that's the reality in the world of work.
Dark Dawn: Big is rarely beautiful in the media
The appeal of The Vicar of Dibley passed me by, but I love Dawn French ? she's smart and doesn't give a stuff what people think. She surprised people by announcing she thought she'd die young, and I suspect there's a Dark Dawn that's carefully shielded from the public gaze. I loathe the way the media constantly harp on about women's weight ? generally only when they're big ? as if the size of our arses was in inverse ratio to our attractiveness.
Last Sunday poor Charlie Dimmock was the latest female to be castigated for looking double the size of Cheryl Cole, the Twiglet with tits. A picture of the "old" Charlie had the caption "in her heyday". Hang on. Charlie is actually filming a series for ITV at the moment, as well as working with Disney, so she's not exactly in the Anthea Turner waiting room of desperation. Sarah Ferguson, never one to shy away from free publicity, has announced she will be shedding weight on a radical diet for a new ITV show called Fit at 50. What that means is Thin at 50, doesn't it?
I applaud Dawn for the way she champions a woman's right to be big, but I don't buy her explanation for the fact she's now a size 20. She calls it "body blindness" ? surely it's just piggery, plain and simple, Dawn. I'm a chunky size 14 and I didn't get there without a lot of glasses of wine, peanuts, slices of toast and new potatoes.
The sands of time have left these two behind
It's holiday season again, and I roared with laughter at what Charles and Camilla wore to tour beaches in the Scilly Isles. They were photographed standing in the sand, surrounded by minions, looking totally lost. He's probably asking, "Darling, is this powdery damp stuff we're standing on where ordinary subjects spend weeks doing nothing sprawled in deck chairs?"
She's had her hair combed into that slightly overbleached helmet, shovelled on the eye make-up and popped on a knee-length dress with matching jacket and casual beach jewellery, including pearls, bracelet and earrings. He's posing stiffly in a double-breasted Prince of Wales check suit, polished black lace-ups, striped blue and white shirt and tie. Does one ever deign to put on shorts, a T-shirt or loafers? Or is his wardrobe as antiquated as his views on architecture? Charles and Camilla are younger than me, but they seem like a couple of fossils.
View full article here


Comments
...you said it ...satire?...but no commentary on the tragic downgrading of GCEs etc....we have a dumbed down youth....but nice to see you're still a horse with two mouths....as long as you get the honorary degree...lovely...
and electricians are like gold dust.
Just what to all the extra students do? And are young people more intelligent these days than our generation? Surely not?
What worries me is that we have an increasingly "tick box" education system. Students from an early age seem to be prepared for jumping through a series of hoops on an educational conveyor belt. Do they learn to think for themselves? Proper academic rigour demands a willingness to question conventional thinking and to justify your ideas with research and argument.
Our generation was criticised for being stroppy and ungrateful by rebelling against Establishment thinking. But that was a good thing. If young people are not encouraged to ask awkward questions, then as they grow older, they probably never will. As a society would fall into intellectual stagnation and complacency.
Going to university is, or at least should be, a privilege. It seems to me that it has now been devalued and is merely being seen as a smart career move. With so many graduates, even that is becoming devalued.
Yes, we do indeed learn to think for ourselves. In actual fact, we did at school, but were given more opportunity to do so at University.
However, I'm still not sure if it is necessarily a win/win situation today. Setting artificial targets of the number of young people going to university is very useful ofr helpful.
My nephew has just finished training as a tax accountant. He considered university but didn't see he a course he wanted to do. Instead he joined one of the big accountancy firms. He will shortly have a valued qualification and experience of accountancy at the sharp end.
And his younger brother has trained as a joiner, and now runs his own business which is doing well despite the recession. Young people with craft skills will be at a premium - otherwise why do we need the proverbial "Polish Plumber"?
My point is that university is just one way forward for young people. Consider all the options is my advice. My degree didn't find me a career. I became an accountant later in life. I valued my three years for the experience.
I think the best case scenario is to for everyone to get over the idea that University alone afford traditional class mobility and other options on leaving school to be just as valued.
I have a Swiss friend and she said many students, on leaving school at 16 go into apprenticeships, even those destined for University eventually, as this gives valuable work experience as well as further qualifications. She said it is just as well thought of to go into an apprenticeship at 16 as it is to go on to their equivalent of A levels. We need this kind of Calvinist heritige work ethic here I think!
Don't you mean the way 'women' harp on about their weight?
Yes you do!
However you are right about Dawn French. Excusing her weight by blaming others is no way to go about being a fat slob.
Despite what colleges and universities may think, an enquiring mind with enough self-discipline to analyse thoughts constructively is still the gold standard when based with a solid understanding of the foundations of the subject. Far too many university courses atempt to rush over the basics and concentrate on the latest technical fads as this is what students think they need. This is quite pointless as industry moves at such a pace that the latest fad will soon be replaced by another.
Within the last year, I have had to persuade an MSc graduate to reconsider his future as he is totally unable to perform any task given him. He has learnt the skills of talking the talk in 5 years at university, yet no-one until now has actually given him a task that tests his 'knowledge'. He cannot walk the walk; this is tragic since his family have bent over backwards to fund him through university as the first ever in the family.
Is this worse than 30 years ago? I think it is, for as others have said if you're going to get 50% of youngsters through a degree course as opposed to 6-8% in my day, the bar has to be dropped.
When I graduated, we had PhDs which were rarer than hen's eggs, MSc - not common, BSc, HND, HNC, OND and ONC - all a perfectly well understood, well graduated set of qualifications. Why did we ever ditch them ?
Maybe that's true, but maybe it is about opportunity and access as well. As in, there is more opportunity and more paths to access University education than there were.
as for all those student debts, most analyses i've seen suggest that a little less high priced socialising, dancing, music-ing, drinking, drugging, car-owning, travelling (especially those ridiculous gap years) and reliance on fashionable hightech novelties in fully furnished flats and houses would, not surprisingly, result in far less debt...;
starving and shivering in a seedy bedsit whilst having fun and not envying those with rich, generous ( and too often these days criminal) mummies and daddies, could well become fashionable again- a true education in real values!
Take time off after leaving school, and get some life under the skin, and then get in with the OU. It's the way to go!
This euphemistic, bureaucratic jargon is of a piece with an educational system that so babies its students that they are cruelly deceived, never made aware of their failings. The students have been deprived not only of what they need to find a job but of what they need to be even moderately intelligent and sensitive adults. Clearly they have never been exposed to teachers who would make them aware of the beauty and excitement to be found in language. The graduates don't lack a skill, such as sewing or carpentry--they are shockingly, outrageously lacking in what it takes to be human.
Small wonder, for the universities are not in the business of educating people but of taking money, especially from foreign students whose English is even poorer than that of the natives.
Congratulations on your degree, Janet, but do tell--what are the non-creative arts? Or is there a university of the creative non-arts, such as banking?
This didn't happen at the school I went to! We had an awful lot of inspirational teachers. Ditto for my University. Enough so that I've kept studying there, over other choices.
er, "abysmal".
I have friends who study visual arts, and they can spell well, are well read, etc.