Should teenagers be allowed to go to University?

[johnofgwent]

So how about making all children leave school at say 16

Starting with this.
Why 16? In what way will university's compensate for having to teach the student to an A-level standard - longer courses? Reduced scope of their current curriculum?

OK I'll take a swing at this one.

There are a number of professions, and annoyingly now a number of vocations too, that see a degree as the ONLY way to join the club.

I do not believe there should be an enforced chuck out at 16.  There seems eminently good reason to run directly from GCe's to A Levels, or the vocational courses my daugter took, or the technical path my brothers took, admittedly in their case in conjunction with an apprenticeship.

It is perhaps mmore sensible to consider a gap at age 18 when the individual is at least legally responsible for their own well being ... How much of a gap is another matter. Again to look back at my own youth, the legacy of harold wilson was a means for those not allowed university entry earlier in life to pursue such through the OU. In todays more online socierty, I see no reason for other establishments to follow a similar pattern.

[Borchester]

Dunno and don't care that much.

Okay, I can't find it within myself to care about something that you yourself don't care about, good evening.

Well, that is the decade ruined

[Nalaar]

Dunno and don't care that much.

Okay, I can't find it within myself to care about something that you yourself don't care about, good evening.

[Borchester]

So how about making all children leave school at say 16

Starting with this.
Why 16? In what way will university's compensate for having to teach the student to an A-level standard - longer courses? Reduced scope of their current curriculum?

Dunno and don't care that much. If the Universities want to stay in being they will have to do what any other business, which is to find out what the customers want and then give it to them.

The point is not what the universities want, but if spending 16 straight years in formal education is good for our children.

[srb7677]

Everyone leaving school at 16 but no one allowed to get any higher education until they are 26 makes absolutely no sense and is idiotic.

It will do nothing but greatly exacerbate shortages in nursing, teaching, etc, forcing us to import many more trained migrants whilst our own youngsters work in McDonalds.

Whatever it is Borchester has been smoking, I definitely do not want any.

On a much more serious point, I do agree that there is an over-emphasis on university and insufficient focus upon vocational training.

This is another legacy of the Blair years with their psychological abandonment of the working classes and their middle class triumphalism. Attending university was the middle class ideal, so in pursuit of us all supposedly being middle class now or at least wanting to be, university education was deliberately maximised to include as many as possible, to the detriment of vocational training. The fact that there were never going to be enough graduate jobs merely means we have a lot of over-qualified degree-holding McDonalds workers whilst we import most of our builders, plumbers and electricians from places like Poland.

We need to start valuing working class trades and professions again and not see them as undesirable options for all our kids because they are not middle class enough. To try and make us all middle class is a typical piece of New Labour social engineering which was always doomed to fail, though the attempt at this has numerous negative consequences, not least for the Labour Party itself which has lost the trust of the working classes it viewed for too long as unthinking ballot fodder.

[Nalaar]

So how about making all children leave school at say 16

Starting with this.
Why 16? In what way will university's compensate for having to teach the student to an A-level standard - longer courses? Reduced scope of their current curriculum?

[patman post]

My thought is that too many are encouraged to go to university. There are other avenues for tertiary education and training in specialised fields. After the basic "three R's" in school, vocational training is probably more useful to 75% of 18-year olds...

[papasmurf]

I was just thinking. Don't worry on it Pappy, that is not something that is anything you are likely to do.

From your contributions to this forum thinking is not your strong point.
Given how few days a year out of 365 that child have to attend schools, and how few hours a day school is, I can't see your point.
They can legitimately take a gap year before going to Uni anyway.

[Borchester]

Comments?

What are you smoking?

I was just thinking. Don't worry on it Pappy, that is not something that is anything you are likely to do.

[papasmurf]

Comments?

What are you smoking?

[Borchester]

In the UK most kids are in school from 5 to 18, which is 13 years. So they have spent the bulk of their lives learning how to sit down, shut up and do as they are told, which may be good training for clerks and such, but leaves them pretty spiritless. And when they do go to uni they are taught by lecturers who are only there because their academic qualifications fit them for little else. But as often or not the kids stick it out because they are so institutionalised  that they are prepared to pile up mega debts in exchange for an as often worthless degree rather than face the outside world.

So how about making all children leave school at say 16 and not allow them to apply for university for another ten years? That will give them the chance to grow up a bit and kick up the dust. They might also discover that most of the courses on offer aren't of much use to the students but exist largely to keep the universities in business.

Comments?