I see lots of stuff in the news about student protests and high tuition fees, with students complaining that they won’t be able to afford to get a degree or will be paying back debts for life.
But what strikes me is the rather old fashioned thinking that you have to get your degree in three or four years before you’re 22 and then get yourself into Big Corporation PLC on a management traineeship. It doesn’t have to be that way. Britain offers part time education and probably the best distance education in the world (OU) at very reasonable prices, so you can go to work AND study for a degree. OK, so it will take a few years longer, but what difference does two or three years make in the bigger picture of life? Bugger all, for most people. Worked for me when I had to leave half way through the second year after the family business went pear shaped. A few years later I had a good degree and got started on the Postgrad qualifications that have served me well.
As well as this, all over Europe we have a pensions problem; people are living longer but working shorter and the money has to come from somewhere to pay for pensions. So why, instead of raising retirement ages, aren’t people being encouraged to start work earlier when they’re young and fit?
Surely an expansion of high quality part time and distance education could kill two birds with one stone? Perhaps also people’s expectations of their kids need to change a little, so that it’s no longer seen as the norm to get all your qualifications before age 22, and to see education as a life-long occupation.
Oh well, I’m probably preaching to the converted as I know that a lot of contractors take the life long learning thing seriously, so as to stay competitive in their field.
But surely Nick and Dave could suggest to the revolting students that the OU or part time study offers them an attractive alternative where they don’t need to build up huge debts, or is there some silly stigma against part time distance education?
Perhaps those Stewed Ents that can't think of this themselves just aren't brainy enough to deserve a degree.
But what strikes me is the rather old fashioned thinking that you have to get your degree in three or four years before you’re 22 and then get yourself into Big Corporation PLC on a management traineeship. It doesn’t have to be that way. Britain offers part time education and probably the best distance education in the world (OU) at very reasonable prices, so you can go to work AND study for a degree. OK, so it will take a few years longer, but what difference does two or three years make in the bigger picture of life? Bugger all, for most people. Worked for me when I had to leave half way through the second year after the family business went pear shaped. A few years later I had a good degree and got started on the Postgrad qualifications that have served me well.
As well as this, all over Europe we have a pensions problem; people are living longer but working shorter and the money has to come from somewhere to pay for pensions. So why, instead of raising retirement ages, aren’t people being encouraged to start work earlier when they’re young and fit?
Surely an expansion of high quality part time and distance education could kill two birds with one stone? Perhaps also people’s expectations of their kids need to change a little, so that it’s no longer seen as the norm to get all your qualifications before age 22, and to see education as a life-long occupation.
Oh well, I’m probably preaching to the converted as I know that a lot of contractors take the life long learning thing seriously, so as to stay competitive in their field.
But surely Nick and Dave could suggest to the revolting students that the OU or part time study offers them an attractive alternative where they don’t need to build up huge debts, or is there some silly stigma against part time distance education?
Perhaps those Stewed Ents that can't think of this themselves just aren't brainy enough to deserve a degree.
Comment