Welcome to the Great British Underclass

[fallen-archie]

I was chatting to a young lady who recently completed her teacher training and this week was inducted into the new Primary School where she will commence her chosen career. The school is multi cultural and located in West Yorkshire, it is a deprived area but by no means as bad as some inner city areas. Despite this around 90% of the childrens parents are welfare dependent. Most of the children have been labelled as having some kind of lerning difficulty reading standards among eight year olds is expremely poor.

The young Teacher who comes from a middle class background with a strong work ethic is the only member of the family not to be following a medical career, she has always wanted to Teach and help young children.

So what was her verdict following the three days?

The majority of pupils appear to have no respect for authority in any form, Gentle persuasion is the order of the day and the children respond with a tirade of abuse and colourful language.Attempts to impose discipline inevitably result in a family visitation where the source of the colourful language is confirmed. The Head Teacher in conjunction with police and the education authority has introduced a code of conduct and special measures to protect staff from irate and often hostile guardians. What is clear is the children are being raised in a manner likely to confine them to state dependence in one form or another and deprive them of the opportunity to escape poverty. 

We have a young, committed new teacher, keen to get on, with talent and the drive to succeed faced with the uncertainty of a career dealing with feral kids and their often broken families who challenge her ability not by interlect but by threat of physical abuse. The Only beneficiary of this sad situation is Jeremy Kyle. 

Why is it that despite having a welfare state designed to ease poverty and an education system which is free to all we end up with an Underclass seemingly incapable or unwilling to grasp the nettle break away and get on? 

Will this new teacher tough it out or simply follow many others and seek an alternative career? 

[fallen-archie]

Yes JG I think I may have said that.

snob

*; A person who is a constipated sole.

or; See's themselves better than anyone else.

or; Rudely dismiss you

[joamur_gosof]

ohh you meant snob...thats ok then,I thought you said snobbery 

someone who classes others.

[joamur_gosof]

A snob is a person who believes a correspondence between status and human worth.[1] The term also refers to a person who believes that some people are inherently inferior to him or her for any one of a variety of reasons, including real or supposed intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, power, physical strength, class, taste, beauty, nationality, fame, extreme success of a family member or friend, etc

[joamur_gosof]

footnote ..so if  we were to say for example...''from a middle class background with a strong work ethic'' , or welcome to the underclass'' .or unable or unwilling  underclass''.........we most certainly would be snobs  in its definition ...If we then went on to say for example '' remove the sobbery traditionaisrs display'' ... ' ,we would be a hypocrite snob,.would we not ?

[Anonymous]

Of course we need to embrace the new. As the world changes, new skills will be needed.

I remember that when I was doing my exams as a teen it was for the first time they introduced Art as a proper exam subject (lucky me) and later also Music.  They were making small steps. Now there is more choice of course and if I was a teen now I would have loved to include subjects like media and textiles. It would have given me more chances to shine in the areas where my natural talents were and more choice for a future career.

I do believe that we should look at childeren's natural skills and give each child the opportunities to develop them. That will give them self worth and they will always thrive that way. No point in being pushed in a career that gives you no satisfaction.

We need all kinds of skills new and old to make this world go round. That some Uni and college courses seem somewhat useless maybe true and maybe it's so the schools can cash in on that, but what seems useless for one is where someone else finds value for themselves.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

But if you are taking on £40,000 of debt (at a conservative estimate), surely you should come out with a qualification that is useful for a job?  Study for its own sake has a place, of course, but not as a career choice for 18 yr olds who will need to work till they are 70+. All the airy-fairy courses are a luxury, IMV, but kids are being seduced into believing ANY degree has currency ... and it is not the case.

I'm all for pre-18s developing their talents, be these in practical or academic subjects, and if these talents can be converted into work, that's great.  

[upthecreekyetagain]

And who can say what skills will be needed in 40/50 years time? ???

The media for instance is already a very large employer - it may well be one of the primary ones in 50 years time.

over 80% of workers are currently employed in service industries and this is more likely to grow rather than decrease and many of the degrees considered by many as "useless" may well suit future employment opportunities.

This is an interesting article

http://thetab.com/uk/newcastle/2014/03/27/history-french-and-english-students-among-most-likely-to-b...

It lists the 'top' twenty degrees in terms of the degrees with the lowest employment rates following graduation.  There are many traditional degree courses in the list including Geography, History and French amongst the top 5!

This is the full list which had a few surprises for me.

1. Geography

2. Sport science

3. Criminology

4. History

5. French

6. Primary Education

7. Media studies

8. Ancient History

9. Film Studies

10. Accountancy

11. Events management

12. Sociology

13. English language

14. Business management

15. Advertisement

16. English Lit

17. Sports and business management

18. Music

19. Religious studies and theology

20. Psychology

[cee-dee]

What's the accuracy of these "studies" though?

Here's a different list :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10146038/Graduate-jobs-top-12-degree-subjec...

[upthecreekyetagain]

I would have thought that the statistics gathered by the Higher Education Statistics Agency would be fairly accurate - especially as the criteria for the list was very simple - "were the graduates of the course in employment 6 months after graduation?"

The Telegraph list you refer to also uses data from the HESA but seems to be using the numbers of graduates employed in some cases and rates of employment in others.  Even so there is not a lot of conflict between the two lists.

So what are the 'useless degrees"?

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

They need skills for 5 yrs time at the moment, Creeky.  No good doing something that is not going to be helpful till they are 50, especially as by then there will be a younger generation edging them out.

If degrees don't lead to employment opportunities, then students should be discouraged from doing them, IMV, because they end up 3 yrs older and hugely in debt with not much to show for it.  Does the business of actually studying at degree level confer something in its own right, whatever the subject?  Well, that was certainly the case once, but many courses are now geared to ensure students pass rather than attain a certain standard or set of skills.  (If people are buying a product, they expect to have that product.)   

Re the list ^^^^, being in employment 6 mths later is not a full-proof guide.  Are these permanent jobs?  Jobs with prospects?  Jobs that are better paid because the holders are graduates?  Are the figures the same one yr later, 5 yrs later?  

[Anonymous]

If we churn out say, 400 lawyers each year, will all of them get employment straight way? Will they within say 5 years? And the same goes for a lot of other traditional degrees. So how many should be discourage not to bother? No one can look into the future and know for sure if their chosen career path will give them a job for life. Especially not nowadays anymore.

[Anonymous]

discouraged ^

[fallen-archie]

Lawyers generate their own opportunities, compensation and banking scams have opened up a host of new opportunities which the profession have openly embraced.
They like my pet hate Dentists hold a monopoly and make things up as they go along. And the British have someone he worst teeth in the developed world.
Schools have no control over the future but they readily abandon the past. That's fine until a geography student when asked to put a pin in a globe to show where Seattle is sticks it in Western Australia? But in geography we no longer learn Geography?

[upthecreekyetagain]

Caution - if employment prospects were the only criteria for providing and participating in University courses this world would be a much poorer place - maybe not in terms of cash but most certainly in terms of culture and knowledge.

[upthecreekyetagain]

As a follow-up it is interesting to read the list of undergraduate courses available from the various colleges in Oxford - many of which on the face of it are unlikely to lead directly to employment opportunities.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses/course-a%E2%80%93z-listing

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Caution - if employment prospects were the only criteria for providing and participating in University courses this world would be a much poorer place - maybe not in terms of cash but most certainly in terms of culture and knowledge.

---

But, these kids are being sold the idea that they must get a degree to get a good job (... and, increasingly, they must get a higher degree after their first one.)  My point is ... is the debt level actually worth it for the majority?  If you are buying a product, that product needs to be worth what you pay for it.

When education was free at the point of use, and around 5% of the nation's teens went to Uni, it was a completely different proposition.  Enough research posts, etc, existed for those who studied ancient Chinese pottery or whatever.  But when 50% of teens are doing degrees, the goal posts move drastically.

Now, you could argue study is valuable in its own right and the actual topic undertaken doesn't matter cos core skills are being learned.  And, I would agree with that in an extent ... just not to the extent of £40,000 per student.  (Actually 40k is very conservative.  50k would be nearer the mark for most.)  

[upthecreekyetagain]

I'm no fan of the student loan system - the whole system is crazy - students end up with mountains of debt - the revenue from repayments is lower than the amount being lent.  It is a total lose, lose system. 

I would never discourage anyone however from furthering their education if that is what they want to do.  Maybe we do only need a handful of experts in ancient greek mythology, or whatever, but it may be the one person that is dissuaded from studying in that area that could have made some amazing discovery.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I think if someone has a real aptitude for a subject, or a great interest in it, that is one thing.  But for lots of kids it is more going to Uni is presented as their only viable course of action at 18.  Undoubtedly for some it will be the best thing they ever did, but for many it is likely to be learning at a very high price, IMV.

I don't even think most courses are providing value for money in terms of tuition and contact time.  When I did my degree, we put in 3 12 week terms per yr and had lectures and tutorials throughout.  My niece does two 10 week terms and then has no tuition whatsoever in the 3rd term as lectures, etc, are cancelled for revision.  I'm not impressed with that as an investment frankly.  

[Anonymous]

I do think the University fees are ridiculously high. And that kids have to think well and hard before taking such a debt on. I also believe you do not need a University degree to safeguard your future. There are many roads that lead to Rome.

Maybe the college courses could be improved or longer.

If I would be a school leaver now I would not go for University, but do lots of shorter courses to gain as much knowledge in the area I would be interested in. To create a variety of career opportunities that would still be in line with my interests and strengths.

For instance, if I like Art it's not enough to just be able to paint or draw to build a future for myself. (A 2 year art college course in Manchester is seriously lacking in building the necessary skills to get a job). I would add courses in Media, in Photo shop, in Art History and a Teaching course.

When children leave school at 16 they often don't know what they want and I feel that a few years of college courses would give them more time to explore, instead of doing a Uni degree that doesn't really fit hem.

[Anonymous]

I agree with that. The support (or better the lack of it) at University does not justify the costs. I have seen it with my youngest daughter.