Now, the policy of 'everyone who wants too should go & Britain
will be great again' has
made the whole thing unaffordable. So we have a system which
works against people from a poorer background.
Graham
Penzance

Not only that, but in the 1960s, with an ordinary degree,
employers were keen to snap up new graduates. These days, there
are so many people with ordinary degrees that in order to have
the opportunities that new graduates had then, today's students
have to go on to a master's or even a PhD, which involve several
more years' study and expense.

A friend of mine taught for many years at one of the new
universities. They were under pressure to pass as many students
as possible, even though the students were not really achieving
the necessary standards to get a degree. I gather that the
institution got more money if the pass rate was higher. The
result, according to my friend, was that there were new
graduates who had not in fact even attained the standards of
that institution, let alone the standards of leading
universities. And the result of that was that potential
employers did not trust any of the degrees awarded by that
institution, thus disadvantaging students who had achieved the
expected standards.

Anne

On 22/02/2016 09:13, Graham Easterling wrote:
SNIP
The number that go to University now is so large that local councils cannot afford the fees and grants, unlike in my day. But it all seems a bit pointless and leaves a distinct impression of being a way of keeping young people away from unemployment, as least temporarily.

Tudor Hughes

I think this is the most important point. Back when I took my degree (1970-73) it was still a very small number (relative to today) that did. However, it meant you got a grant, not a loan. It was all essentially free. It meant you had no financial worries about going, you could go from any background. At that time my parents had little money and we lived on a Council Estate, in the far west of Cornwall. It didn't matter, if you wanted to go you could, and I ended up in NW London sharing with 2 lads from Barnsley.

Now, the policy of 'everyone who wants too should go & Britain will be great again' has made the whole thing unaffordable. So we have a system which works against people from a poorer background. In addition, many go to the nearest university so they can remain at home and saved money.

Getting away from home was too me the greatest experience. (Actually I left home before finishing my 'A' levels, but that's a different story.

Graham
Penzance


Back in the late 1960's (in England) the grant was means tested related
to parental income-thanks Dad
In the 1970's my employer paid for me to do a second degree-thankyou to
the London Borough of Redbridge

The increase in access to Higher Education is an interesting debate and,
on the whole, I think it is a good thing.

--
George in Swanston, Edinburgh, 580'asl
www.swanstonweather.co.uk
www.eppingweather.co.uk
www.winter1947.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:25:59 +0000
Norman Lynagh wrote:

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 01:13:04 -0800 (PST), Graham Easterling
wrote:

SNIP
The number that go to University now is so large that local
councils cannot afford the fees and grants, unlike in my day. But
it all seems a bit pointless and leaves a distinct impression of
being a way of keeping young people away from unemployment, as
least temporarily.

Tudor Hughes

I think this is the most important point. Back when I took my degree
(1970-73) it was still a very small number (relative to today) that
did. However, it meant you got a grant, not a loan. It was all
essentially free. It meant you had no financial worries about going,
you could go from any background. At that time my parents had little
money and we lived on a Council Estate, in the far west of Cornwall.
It didn't matter, if you wanted to go you could, and I ended up in
NW London sharing with 2 lads from Barnsley.

Now, the policy of 'everyone who wants too should go & Britain will
be great again' has made the whole thing unaffordable. So we have a
system which works against people from a poorer background. In
addition, many go to the nearest university so they can remain at
home and saved money.

Getting away from home was too me the greatest experience. (Actually
I left home before finishing my 'A' levels, but that's a different
story.


At the time I started my career in meteorology (the early 1960s) most
Weather Forecasters in this country were non-graduates.


Yes, I started work at the Met Office at 18 instead of going to uni. My
father was an OAP and had been unable to work for a couple of years
through injury so I thought it was time I paid my way. As it was, I
think the money I earned from the Met Office wouldn't have been an
awful lot more than I would have got from a grant.

Late in '62, I went for an interview for AXO but was told when I walked
in that they were only taking graduates. In '64 I applied for a bursary
to study for a degree and was turned down because I wasn't an AXO. I
got promoted later that year.

I think the percentage of people being accepted to go to uni now is
about three times as high as those who passed the 11-plus when I took
it. Overall, I think that's good but there really are some right
dipsticks getting degrees. Still, that's better than what it was like
in my day when some clever people were destined for menial factory jobs
for the rest of their life.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

On Monday, 22 February 2016 07:51:45 UTC, Freddie wrote:

So how is this response different to Tudor describing you in public?
It is the same message - you just pad yours out with more words,
whereas Tudor cuts to the chase. I would take equal offence from
either response.

The problem that you missed in this is that dawlish has a degree in education from somewhere in Nigeria probably and from somewhere on the web almost certainly.

Getting back to the OP:
As Tudor said: "Not all degrees are rubbish, those at the top such as doctorates are probably as good as they ever were."

Perhaps he could have been clearer:
Not all degrees are rubbish, (except those in journalism) those at the top such as doctorates are probably as good as they ever were which generally means the majority are given for attending lectures and not disagreeing with anything. Then, at the end of several terms, accumulating enough points for filling forms in correctly to get given your own personal copy of another one.

Why that should impact anything written in the Telegraph now it's most astute writer has left (if such is the case) I can't tell. But as with anyone who has a degree of any degree he won't become an expert for a very long time. And apparently even Mr Eden was succumbing to Thatcherite leanings.

It is one thing to go after the sheep it is another to follow them dawlishly.
I'm reminded of the joke about an astrologer who had a grudge against someone of a certain birth sign. They lost 1/12th of their readers and the editor couldn't think why.

So even if he is fat and shouldn't wear red, let's hope it won't put Young Frederick off his daily dose of Toryism.

On Monday, 22 February 2016 10:12:28 UTC, Anne B wrote:

And the result of that was that potential employers did not trust any
degrees awarded by that institution, thus disadvantaging students who
had achieved the expected standards.

Surely if they were bright enough they would have moved college or, being too trusting, resat them somewhere more useful.

On Monday, 22 February 2016 10:12:28 UTC, Anne B wrote:

Not only that, but in the 1960s, with an ordinary degree,
employers were keen to snap up new graduates. These days, there
are so many people with ordinary degrees that in order to have
the opportunities that new graduates had then, today's students
have to go on to a master's or even a PhD, which involve several
more years' study and expense.

If anyone knows what career they want, I would say that - if the career so permits - getting them to show their aptitude in summer jobs in said career at 16 to 17, getting really good A-level results and then going straight in after A-levels is a good way to get ahead. In my line of work I know several very smart, senior-ranked people who for one reason or another (dropped out of Uni, had a child very young, simply didn't go to University) have done very well for themselves in an arena that more and more seems to demand degrees/doctorates.

I'm not necessarily prepared to comment on whether it's become easier to get a degree in the UK or not now than 30 years ago, but when I submitted my PhD, I sent it to a chap in America who I'd got lots of advice from who said he liked the work but it wouldn't have got a PhD in the US and would have needed another years' work. I reckon we've got it relatively easy in the UK to get through University and onward if you are able to support yourself financially.

Richard

"George Booth" wrote in message
...
On 22/02/2016 09:13, Graham Easterling wrote:
SNIP
The number that go to University now is so large that local
councils cannot afford the fees and grants, unlike in my day. But it
all seems a bit pointless and leaves a distinct impression of being a
way of keeping young people away from unemployment, as least
temporarily.

Tudor Hughes

I think this is the most important point. Back when I took my degree
(1970-73) it was still a very small number (relative to today) that did.
However, it meant you got a grant, not a loan. It was all essentially
free. It meant you had no financial worries about going, you could go
from any background. At that time my parents had little money and we
lived on a Council Estate, in the far west of Cornwall. It didn't matter,
if you wanted to go you could, and I ended up in NW London sharing with 2
lads from Barnsley.

Now, the policy of 'everyone who wants too should go & Britain will be
great again' has made the whole thing unaffordable. So we have a system
which works against people from a poorer background. In addition, many go
to the nearest university so they can remain at home and saved money.

Getting away from home was too me the greatest experience. (Actually I
left home before finishing my 'A' levels, but that's a different story.

Graham
Penzance


Back in the late 1960's (in England) the grant was means tested related to
parental income-thanks Dad
In the 1970's my employer paid for me to do a second degree-thankyou to
the London Borough of Redbridge

The increase in access to Higher Education is an interesting debate and,
on the whole, I think it is a good thing.


I joined the MetO in 1970 straight from skool with A-levels. Easy peasy
interview at Manchester Weather Centre. Wanted to be a forecaster but was
told that one had to 21 years old to do that. I said, no problem and became
an assistant doing obs and plotting charts and making tea. I loved it. But
then the qualifications were raised to an HNC or higher in 1971. I was
subsequently advised to go to Uni. So off I went and did maths (an easy
subject for me). Got my 2nd class honours in mathematics (could've got a
first but too many distractions) and it was onward and upward. I got almost
a full grant topped up by my parents, except that I paid the small bit extra
myself out of savings (I earned well in the MetO then). Now students get an
interest free loan which my children tell me is not as bad as some people
make out, however, we funded all our three children through Uni as we could
afford it.

Will
--
" Some sects believe that the world was created 5000 years ago. Another sect
believes that it was created in 1910 "
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On Monday, 22 February 2016 12:06:57 UTC, wrote:

I joined the MetO in 1970 straight from skool with A-levels. Easy peasy
interview at Manchester Weather Centre. Wanted to be a forecaster but was
told that one had to 21 years old to do that. I said, no problem and became
an assistant doing obs and plotting charts and making tea. I loved it.

It's just a shame this attitude isn't taken these days. If you've got strong A-level results there's every chance you'll end with a 2-1 or whatever in your degree course.

Richard

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 4:40:30 PM UTC, haaark wrote:
I know it's been many years since the DT and ST were real quality broadsheets. I also know that the circulation of hard copy is in its death spiral-five years maybe I'd guess before the anachronism of sending hundreds of tons of newsprint round the country every day comes to an end, anyone?-and the papers must be haemorrhaging cash.
Phillip Eden's successor at the ST is Peter Stanford,a lightweight waffler who today came up with a classic.


I heard that Philip has been or is seriously unwell. His website hasn't been updated for some time, and he doesn't answer emails. Does anyone know any more?

Trevor

"Trevor Harley" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 4:40:30 PM UTC, haaark wrote:
I know it's been many years since the DT and ST were real quality
broadsheets. I also know that the circulation of hard copy is in its death
spiral-five years maybe I'd guess before the anachronism of sending
hundreds of tons of newsprint round the country every day comes to an end,
anyone?-and the papers must be haemorrhaging cash.
Phillip Eden's successor at the ST is Peter Stanford,a lightweight waffler
who today came up with a classic.


I heard that Philip has been or is seriously unwell. His website hasn't been
updated for some time, and he doesn't answer emails. Does anyone know any
more?
=================

He is very ill indeed. Cannot say more I'm afraid.

Will
--
" Some sects believe that the world was created 5000 years ago. Another sect
believes that it was created in 1910 "
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------