Useless degrees

He has a point though; my genes are shit. My whole family's genes are shit. Even our family friends have shit genes. The doctor had a look at our genes once and couldn't stop laughing. "Common as muck" was the phrase he used which I don't think is actually a medical term and was quite hurtful. Not as hurtful as it would have been had our genes been better and allowed us to have finer feelings but pretty hurtful all the same.

I like the cut of your jib...

Thanks. I whittled it myself.

Yes, well, Chris Woodhead thinks that HE is for middle-class people because they are cleverer than the plebs and that this is because they have 'better genes'.

He is a knob.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/may/11/education-policy-class-bias

He's also right, despite his conservative leanings.

I fully believe that education should not be a prerequisite to employment, with the obvious exceptions of employment that requires high amounts of education (medicine, dentistry, architecture et).

There are too many people in HE, and not enough money. Too many people go into university for not a good enough reason. It's detrimental to themselves, more than anything else. Either mediocrity is allowed to continue, or people are going to have to pay more for their education. Or less people should be allowed in.

Also, I doubt chris woodhead would say anything about middle class people having better genes, considering he's dying from motor neurone disease. Education is not for everyone, at the end of the day.

And all of this comes from a fucking fine art student for crying out loud!

Alex, I gave you +rep before I read what you said. Just 'cause I thought you were taking the piss out of Gabes with the "ä."

Having now read what you said, I wish I could take it back.

Education should be available to anyone who is interested in it.

ASM; have you read the article cited? Because he does mention middle class people and their superior genes.
It would, for example, have been difficult for my parents to discover their potential because they were never given the chance to; if they were clever (good genes) or thick (bad genes) didn't matter. They were poor working class people in an education system that had them labeled as factory fodder. They weren't expected or asked to excel. Admittedly these low expectations can become internalised and I guess I was lucky that they had more ambition for me than many of my friends' parents had for them.
In the end I turned out a bit of a disappointment because I share Plurabelle's views on what education is for and never used it to get the ''good job" they would have wanted me to.
So overall I find Woodhead a very dubious character.

true, but it also shouldn't be sold to people who don't have any use for it.

At the moment, it is becoming a social stigma to not go to university, in certain areas of society, which is actually detrimental to everyone, because, from my point of view at least, the cost of making education available to everyone seems to be that the first thing to suffer is the education itself.

I'm not advocating educational nazism. I also don't consider myself right wing, at all. But I can only comment on what I experience. Maybe I am wrong to generalize so wildly, but hey, I am a dick like that sometimes.

So let me narrow down my vitriol slighty, to stuff I can comment on with absolute certainty:

University of the Arts London, purportedly the biggest art school in the world, is failing to provide an adequate pedagogical model to a large proportion of it's students, across most of it's disciplines and colleges.

Students are encouraged to go into HE in this country, when it provides little use for them once they leave, and burdens them with a lot of debt (the amount of which is increasing year after year - fees have gone up by about 70 or 80 quid every year since I started my course).

There should be a MUCH MUCH higher emphasis on apprenticeships in many creative disciplines, (and probably others).

And most of all, I think it's desperately wrong that the driving force to increase the number of people in higher education to 50+% is not education. It's money.

Generally agree with you Alex; but I still think citing Woodhead is like sending out someone to picket your own argument.

ASM; have you read the article cited? Because he does mention middle class people and their superior genes.
It would, for example, have been difficult for my parents to discover their potential because they were never given the chance to; if they were clever (good genes) or thick (bad genes) didn't matter. They were poor working class people in an education system that had them labeled as factory fodder. They weren't expected or asked to excel. Admittedly these low expectations can become internalised and I guess I was lucky that they had more ambition for me than many of my friends' parents had for them.
In the end I turned out a bit of a disappointment because I share Plurabelle's views on what education is for and never used it to get the ''good job" they would have wanted me to.
So overall I find Woodhead a very dubious character.

Having talked to the dude I can't help but agree with him, because at ground zero, from inside higher education, much of what he says is painfully true. That guardian article stank of left wing journalism attacking a right wing figure. I don't care about what chris woodhouse says about genes or any of that nonsense, I care about what he says about education, because I can tell that, aside from his context (which is one that, on many levels, I am opposed to), he genuinely cares about education, and he can see that it is suffering, above all else.

The fact of the matter is that I agree with both you and plurabelle. I DO NOT SEE HIGHER EDUCATION SOLELY AS A MEANS OF SECURING A DECENT INCOME. Hence why I chose to study fine art, over a more academic/professional subject. I am jaded by the fact that I have discovered that all of these drives to get more and more people into university do not produce more and more people who have received a worthwhile educational experience. The education itself is reduced and diluted as the numbers increase.

UAL is run by administrators. For example, because of the 'financial crisis', spending has been cut across the board by 4%. Who feel this first? The fucking academic staff. Hours are being cut, and jobs being lost. And guess what, more administrators are hired to sort out the resulting mess. The admin look out for themselves. They have the power to hire and fire the people who actually do the teaching, and as a result the tutors are, on the whole, a miserable bunch of people who live in constant fear of hour cuts and no job.

Bang on.

Why is so much emphasis placed on 'education'?

ASM answers that eruditely.

Yes - education should be available to all, but are our HE institutions really providing this? The numbers will say yes, but what is the point of it all?

Aaargh.

true, but it also shouldn't be sold to people who don't have any use for it.

At the moment, it is becoming a social stigma to not go to university, in certain areas of society, which is actually detrimental to everyone, because, from my point of view at least, the cost of making education available to everyone seems to be that the first thing to suffer is the education itself.

I'm not advocating educational nazism. I also don't consider myself right wing, at all. But I can only comment on what I experience. Maybe I am wrong to generalize so wildly, but hey, I am a dick like that sometimes.

So let me narrow down my vitriol slighty, to stuff I can comment on with absolute certainty:

University of the Arts London, purportedly the biggest art school in the world, is failing to provide an adequate pedagogical model to a large proportion of it's students, across most of it's disciplines and colleges.

Students are encouraged to go into HE in this country, when it provides little use for them once they leave, and burdens them with a lot of debt (the amount of which is increasing year after year - fees have gone up by about 70 or 80 quid every year since I started my course).

There should be a MUCH MUCH higher emphasis on apprenticeships in many creative disciplines, (and probably others).

And most of all, I think it's desperately wrong that the driving force to increase the number of people in higher education to 50+% is not education. It's money.

Bang on.

Why is so much emphasis placed on 'education'?

ASM answers that eruditely.

Yes - education should be available to all, but are our HE institutions really providing this? The numbers will say yes, but what is the point of it all?

Aaargh.

Indeed, the numbers rule everything.

And don't even get me* started* on the fact that nobody who is administering the fine art course has a fucking clue about it's tenets as a discipline!

We are being taught that art is a career. That it's a job. And we are being subtly told that, while it's ok to reject this outright, that by doing so it makes you a pot smoking hippy of no use to society. Liberalism, even in art school, only works if you're willing to buy into liberal society.

It seems that everything these days has to make money. Monetary value overrides all other values. It overrides morality, it overrides learning, it overrides common fucking sense.

Alex, you're critiquing the education system, but putting emphasis on the numbers of people attending. The two things are not inherently related (in the way you're insinuating).

what do you mean?

Are you saying that the numbers of people in education has no effect on the quality of the education?

So where is the benefit in more people being 'educated''?

Alex, you're critiquing the education system, but putting emphasis on the numbers of people attending. The two things are not inherently related (in the way you're insinuating).

you get to participate in 'intelligent' conversations on cycling forums

what do you mean?

Are you saying that the numbers of people in education has no effect on the quality of the education?

Alex, you're critiquing the education system, but putting emphasis on the numbers of people attending. The two things are not inherently related (in the way you're insinuating).

Are you sure you should be in higher education?

(joke!)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. They two do not need to be seen as inherently connected in the way you seem to be arguing (more students = shittier education - "I am jaded by the fact that I have discovered that all of these drives to get more and more people into university do not produce more and more people who have received a worthwhile educational experience. The education itself is reduced and diluted as the numbers increase").

In reality, wouldn't a better quality (higher) education result in fewer students? Is this not what happens already (from tertiary education, to undergrad, to graduate, to post grad?). I'm happy to be the first one to say the level of expectation when it comes to undergraduate education (and graduate in the UK) is not where it should be. However, fewer opportunities for students is not an answer.

MrSmyth, unfortunately, that is just happenstance.

In fact, there is little opportunity for discourse in my university. In fact in fact, to actually get any discourse, you have to really hunt it out. And don't pull the old 'you have to do things yourself in HE.' While that's true, I don't think hunting illegally through archive files to find your tutor's address is really applicable to that statement.

So where is the benefit in more people being 'educated''?

What type of question is that?

I'm guessing having put "educated" in apostrophes is pointing towards a personal view on what education actually is. In which case, there's not much point in me answering the question, as it's hypothetical.

It's in my contract that I have to do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln0q7GH_K6U

Will, can you get rid of the white around that star? God!!

Ah; a meme.
see, education's good for something.

Think you 2 are pretty much saying the same thing.

Of course it's right and beneficial for all that talented people get the opportunity to pursue those talents as far as they possibly can, regardless of their background.

Don't want to put words into asm's mouth but if he feels the same as me, there are a lot of people who would benefit by NOT going into higher education.

Instead those same talents could be better employed elsewhere and generally 'on the job'. Don't get me wrong. NVQ's and the like have their place but a lot of them seem to be taught by people who have no clue. As do a lot of degree courses unfortunately.

The dilution is more on the teaching side than the students.

EDIT - I have the deepest respect for the good teachers / mentors.

i guess i was lucky with the art college i went to, ample resources, excellent staff and the lecturers for our dissertation/theory part were first class.
i have to say that the majority of graduates that come to me asking for work usually have little to show for their 3-5 years study apart from an attitude and some funny ideas about what constitutes hard work and putting some effort/passion into what you do.
in a recent conversation with my old tutor he was telling me that now as soon as you try to pick them up on their work they get their parents involved!
"these are supposed to be adults i'm teaching!?"
i blame society and accountants.

Think you 2 are pretty much saying the same thing.

Of course it's right and beneficial for all that talented people get the opportunity to pursue those talents as far as they possibly can, regardless of their background.

Don't want to put words into asm's mouth but if he feels the same as me, there are a lot of people who would benefit by NOT going into higher education.

Instead those same talents could be better employed elsewhere and generally 'on the job'. Don't get me wrong. NVQ's and the like have their place but a lot of them seem to be taught by people who have no clue. As do a lot of degree courses unfortunately.

The dilution is more on the teaching side than the students.

I think you're right (that we are in more agreement, than disagreement). However, I think the opportunities need to be there for anyone to give university a shot (even retards who fucked up the first 20-or-so-plus year of their education). Opportunities also need to exist for them (and everyone else, especially middle-class fuck wads) to fail.

(And the ones who fail, should have the opportunity to try again).

30+ years ago;

"university? why do you want to go to university?? what for? don't be so stupid lads!"

nowadays;

"but why aren't you're going to university? what are you going to do after school? how are you going to make money?!"