Social mobility is the issue of the day. This has been brought into focus because of economic turbulence, even the wealthy and successful are not really going anywhere at the moment, now they know what it's like for the rest! When the economy recovers of course, it will be back to business. But let us take stock, not too earnestly about the difficulties facing the government with an expanding population and growing state burden.
Should we return to the 11 + exam but bring it forward to 13 years? If there was a flat rate of state education from 11-13 in micro-schooling we could create jobs for 11-13 age group in preparation for the exam to lay foundations for maths, space, logic and lateral thinking. I mean, really sitting down in silence to learn stuff in a traditional way, which is what I taught myself to do at University. Breaking the system up may put poor children into great grammar schools, and no-one would have to know they were poor, it would be secret.
The argument against is that the 11+ was just an IQ test that factored out the ability of children to develop later, or develop specific academic talents separate from reading logic diagrams and number patterns. There are a number of very successful 11+ failures who have made spectacular careers in desirable areas.
State comps stick you in streams of ability anyway, so why not just bring in grammar schools? It is not really political to divide society in such a way, in fact, in some ways it is a mechanical socialist ethic running through it, each according to his ability etc. And many top jobs now, and certainly graduate schemes run similar aptitude tests to pool talent along those lines, so once you get to into the job market you will find that after an expensive education you will need to sit your 11+ again to get a good job. So why not lets get used to it and bring it back properly. At least then you will get some bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds going somewhere and we can silence some of the endless debate about 'buying' a good education by using wealth to get close to a good state school.
Tuesday 21 July 2009
Thursday 9 July 2009
No Win Situation
Inroducing No-Fee degrees is a hasty step in the direction of complicating the system even more with opt-out clauses. I wonder how your classmates would feel if you are not paying the same whopping top-up as they are, and getting the same service. How would the lecturers feel?
We know that the new fees are paid after you graduate. The government is taking action so it does not have to go into debt to fund these degrees, because there is going to be trouble in years to come. Equality is going out of the window to make a saving wherever possible which is what is required at the moment, if the state becomes ungovernable, what is the point in educating millions when the money isn't there?
We have lived through some brilliant times. So many people had had a higher education when in yesteryear it would have been scoffed at. However, student loans and fees are really not a sensible idea in the long term. Ok, the individual goes into debt, but there is a huge amount of debt that goes un-repaid. In essence, maintenance loans are just grants from the government in the same way they used to be unless the graduate job market is expanded to accommodate for the pool of higher education talent. Or else, they go abroad and not a penny of repayment is seen again. The conservative idea of private finance appears lucrative but you only have to see how far they have gone with this in the USA, to sample the misery this creates at a time of recession.
However, some poor will genuinely benefit from this development. It is possible to earn quite a lot part-time to cover the smaller costs of living at home. A lot have already sneered at the idea of the no-fee degree, but poor families will benefit from this and may even have a smoother university experience, differentiating from the genuinely stressful live-out experience. This stress comes from circumstances such as difficult housemates, finding part-time work, housing conditions, campus politics and having the confidence to live away from the support of home.
We know that the new fees are paid after you graduate. The government is taking action so it does not have to go into debt to fund these degrees, because there is going to be trouble in years to come. Equality is going out of the window to make a saving wherever possible which is what is required at the moment, if the state becomes ungovernable, what is the point in educating millions when the money isn't there?
We have lived through some brilliant times. So many people had had a higher education when in yesteryear it would have been scoffed at. However, student loans and fees are really not a sensible idea in the long term. Ok, the individual goes into debt, but there is a huge amount of debt that goes un-repaid. In essence, maintenance loans are just grants from the government in the same way they used to be unless the graduate job market is expanded to accommodate for the pool of higher education talent. Or else, they go abroad and not a penny of repayment is seen again. The conservative idea of private finance appears lucrative but you only have to see how far they have gone with this in the USA, to sample the misery this creates at a time of recession.
However, some poor will genuinely benefit from this development. It is possible to earn quite a lot part-time to cover the smaller costs of living at home. A lot have already sneered at the idea of the no-fee degree, but poor families will benefit from this and may even have a smoother university experience, differentiating from the genuinely stressful live-out experience. This stress comes from circumstances such as difficult housemates, finding part-time work, housing conditions, campus politics and having the confidence to live away from the support of home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)