Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Author: Janet Street-Porter

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

Get real
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 12:21 am (UTC)
"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."


...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...
Re: Get real
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 11:45 am (UTC)
Do you know that the 'dumbing down' is true, or is that media hype? As someone who came out of school in the early 2000s with the highest exam marks in my Grammar for two of my three subjects, I find it offensive.
Dumbed down Degrees
[info]chinmonkeymetal wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 02:18 am (UTC)
Whats the use of getting an arts degree if there is no job at the end of the course. Its just a waste of the students time and public money. Just manufacturing more dole fodder. Of course the standard of education as been dumbed down. eg, when Bamber Gazza presented University Challenge some years ago I could hardly answer one question. The current one presented by Gerry Paxman I can sometimes answer half the questions. Its not that I have become smarter its because the questions have been dumbed down. Why dont the education authorities advise the Students who want to study for a worthless degree, to switch to learning a trade instead. In this era of high unemployment there is still a skill shortage and good money to be made. I have been waiting 6 weeks for a joiner to fix my back door.
and electricians are like gold dust.
Re: Dumbed down Degrees
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 11:46 am (UTC)
'Whats the use of getting an arts degree if there is no job at the end of the course' - knowledge? I have a good arts degree and I don't have a job in my field, but that's hardly a problem.
Education
[info]over325one wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 06:06 am (UTC)
Our postman and even the bin-men have degrees. How could they operate without one? Most of the morons in public life have degrees.
Devalued degrees
[info]49niner wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 06:12 am (UTC)
When I was at university in the late 1960s when there were just under 9000 fellow students. I was gob-smacked to learn recently the figure has ballooned to 31000.

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.
Re: Devalued degrees
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 11:51 am (UTC)
I suspect it's more to do with the focus - creating opportunity for people to go to University. Society - in socio-economic terms - was still (at least alledgedly) more stratified with regards to class. More emphasis is placed on getting young people to University than before.

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.
Re: Devalued degrees
[info]49niner wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 05:37 pm (UTC)
Ours was the first generation where class did NOT determine whether you went to university, and I am an example of that. The foundation for modern universities was laid in the late 1960s/early 1970s.

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.
Re: Devalued degrees
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 08:14 am (UTC)
I agree with you here. I think the trouble with the current administration - and previous ones, was (like you say) University was seen as a privilige of the middle and upper classes and it was attempted to level this (like what happened to the Grammar schools). However, my problem with the current situation is that other options, like the ones fortuitously persued by your relatives, are not pushed enough. And, again in agreement with you, part of this is to do with having targets for getting school leavers into University.

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!
Hire Purchase Education(Debts and Knowledge)
[info]jimfred wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 07:48 am (UTC)
Higher education keeps people off the dole for a few years and improves the unemployment figures.
Weight a minute!
[info]adullamite wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 07:49 am (UTC)
"I loathe the way the media constantly harp on about women's weight"

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.
Engineering / Computer Science degrees
[info]ottorino wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 08:11 am (UTC)
As a consultant engineer (chartered), who graduated in 1972, I have often taken new engineering and computer science graduates under my wing over the last 35 years. I find MEng/MSc students of today about the same as BEng/BSc students 20 years ago. Their main two weaknesses are their poor ability to marshall their thoughts in a coherent fashion, and their almost total inability to express them clearly in a presentation, be it a report or slide-show or whatever.

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 ?
Re: Engineering / Computer Science degrees
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 11:53 am (UTC)
'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.'

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.
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 09:02 am (UTC)
so where are the (educated?) voices speaking up for university education as not only occasionally offering genuine training for a profession, but mostly simply offering training for good citizenship and personal life-enhancement?: did it occur to you, over325one, that those posties and binmen might well be leading 'better' civic and personal lives than you?;
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!
The Open University is the way to go!
[info]spokespoet wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
This year sees the 40th anniversary of the Open University. The OU offers a huge range of courses whereby students can build up their degrees over time, and without landing up with huge debts. Work and study can be balanced together. I started my OU degree in 1998, in my late forties, and am gradually building it up, having had gaps in between.

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!
Re: The Open University is the way to go!
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 06:23 pm (UTC)
i too enjoy 'open' university courses, and many excellent ones are now available through online distance study; but OU has in my experience betrayed the high ideals of accessibility and excellence of its founders, in its high pricing and especially in its neglect of distant and often isolated students, including many overseas- we were charged the same high fees often in return for minimal tutoring, especially in practical subjects, compared with the practical, field and seminar studies made available to those living in larger towns; and what little tutoring was on offer to me was, to say the least, casual; perhaps things have changed, but for me it was a pretty poor deal compared with what became available from distance learning depts of the more traditional universities; maybe big business with the BBC and publishing has inevitably squeezed out good value for money teaching and left what seemed to me to be little mpre than a rather costly correspondence course!
Call a spade a spade, Janet
[info]rosiembanks wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 01:27 pm (UTC)
So graduates need "communication and presentational skills"? They need "literacy skills"? Would that be speaking and reading and writing, now?

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?
Re: Call a spade a spade, Janet
[info]adullamite wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 08:20 pm (UTC)
I say I did enjoy that comment.
Re: Call a spade a spade, Janet
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 11:55 am (UTC)
'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.'

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.
Thick and arrogant
[info]dontalk2her wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 09:18 pm (UTC)
Most Arts and Soc Science students are dense, appallingly badly read, lack even basic knowledge of grammar and punctuation, and actually expect to be employed after sitting as dumb as a row of suet puddings through 3 or 4 years of tutorials. I feel sorry for the bright students who carry them and provide fodder for their abyssmal jottings. These poor kids are reminded day after unstimulating day what a sin it is to be clever. As for lecturers, most are forced to teach at the lowest level, afraid to criticise, disagree with or howl with derision at the thickies who dominate everyone's agenda.
Re: Thick and arrogant
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Sunday, 5 July 2009 at 10:52 pm (UTC)
hmmm "lack even basic knowledge of grammar and punctuation...... fodder for their abyssmal jottings...."

er, "abysmal".
Re: Thick and arrogant
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 11:57 am (UTC)
What kind of arts?? My arts degree, in English Lit and History was not a bit like that. Then again, Kent Uni is pretty good.

I have friends who study visual arts, and they can spell well, are well read, etc.
'Graduates leave with more debts than knowledge'
[info]cupkatething wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
I don't think that is true! Not from what I've seen. I dislike all the media bashing of graduates.
(no subject) - [info]xiashixiong789 - Friday, 16 October 2009 at 06:07 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]xiashixiong789 - Friday, 16 October 2009 at 06:15 pm (UTC) Expand
games
[info]phpxs wrote:
Saturday, 17 October 2009 at 12:59 am (UTC)
haha~ good
 
Advertisement

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by [info]chasethestars