“Probability factor of one to one. We have normality. I repeat: we have normality. Anything you stil

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. eek, ha, I've got a degree in psychology and would be an awful salesman (as proven by the books...).

I didn't say the degree would help with selling but it would explain the psychology required to successfully sell

Which are -

1) don't take each successful / failed sale personally
2) how to trigger the appropriate emotions required to trigger a sale.
3) how to ask the appropriate questions and keep your emotions out of it.

And yes I'm crap at it but that's because I'm slightly autistic and crap at reading emotions at the best of times.

Black_Rook said:

alex_ said:

Black_Rook said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I posted this on the last thread in response to @Scott_xP

Consistent but provide the evidence

Hospital admissions, vaccine status, age profile, and outbreak areas are essential information

Yesterday an argument was being put forward that as the NHS has such a backlog which they are starting to address, they cannot accept any rise in covid patients

Now that is turning the narrative on its head, and on that basis the Country will be locked down for months, even years, and it is just not acceptable

I was angry and a rebel yesterday, largely because the media and independent sage have taken over the narrative with their zero covid, eliminate covid strategy, which is just not feasible and in order to convince many millions of citizens, including myself, that we have to have further delays there has to be far more transparent figures on hospital admissions

Of course I would comply with restrictions if it is proven they are needed, but I am not persuaded by those who seem to have taken over the agenda

Let us not forget that there are many opponents of Boris driven by many who have not come to terms with Brexit, that to prevent the 21st June opening would see it as a political win to their cause, and it is not being driven by the actual clinical reality

I would include Independent Sage and large parts of the broadcast media in that category
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Since this post I have just listened to Richard Horton of the Lancet on Sky, largely endorsing my position on this and the opening on the 21st June

He said we can be optimistic about the 21st June, as the number of covid cases are not resulting in increasing admissions and it looks as if the link has been broken

The presenter then provided various percentage increases and he simply said quoting percentages was misleading and the absolute numbers are pertinent and necessary.

He said on the 12th January there were 4,500 plus admission to hospital and on the 25th May just 133, which is way down and though there may be a small rise in hospitalisation, at the moment there is reason for hope and urgent attention to providing second doses to the 1-9 group is correct.

Currently 48.1% of adults have received their second dose.

At last, the voice of sanity and not from a quarter that anybody could say is a fan of Boris or HMG.

Furthermore, it is good that the presenter was corrected on using percentages against absolute numbers.

We need a lot more of this in fairness to everyone.

Given AZ only gives 60% and pfizer 85% safety re Indian variant, that leaves an awful lot of people vulnerable. Bolton they found at least 10% of hospitalisations had had two vaccines but still got it bad. Far from over yet.

Of course, the end point of that argument is that, given the vaccines don't offer 100% protection, we must keep locking down forever because otherwise some of the remaining vulnerable will die. That's not sensible.

There was only one original aim and justification for restrictions, and that was to spare the hospitals from collapse. There is no evidence from the way that the Indian variant has spread thus far, and the very modest increases in total hospitalisations that it has caused even in an epicentre of infection like Bolton, to suggest that such a danger exists. So we should go on.

The alternative - masks and social distancing for the rest of time - isn't acceptable. Covid is never going away. We have to learn to live with it.

It is noticeable how little focus there has been on what has actually happened in Bolton. At the forefront of the "India variant" surge, a relatively low vaccinated population (against the countrywide numbers of a few weeks ago, let alone now, over its peak and numbers now falling rapidly, and how many hospitalisations and deaths as a result?).

And yet there are still people trying to argue that there are plausible scenarios where we end up with national hospitalisations and deaths higher than second wave peaks!!! (albeit as has been noted - others are fine tuning their arguments to imply that pretty much any COVID linked hospitalisations cannot be coped with).

It is worth, I think, noting that the numbers currently recorded as being in hospital with COVID are identical to the numbers admitted within the last seven days. Suggests perhaps a large number of people presenting with a positive test and pretty minor/non serious symptoms, and therefore operating a high turnover rate?

With regard to Bolton - we can find out the situation in the hospital there from the dashboard.

The Bolton NHS Foundation Trust presently reports 41 Covid patients, including 8 on ventilation. The equivalent numbers from the January peak were 150 and 15.

Now, the trend in hospitalisations in Bolton is still heading gradually upwards, but we can also see from the case rate data that infections are now probably past their peak, so hospital admissions should also peak in the next couple of weeks, and then start declining again. There is nothing in the data to suggest that Bolton will end up back in the same pickle that it was during the November or the January peaks.

Moreover, because most of the country is barely affected by the Indian variant in the first place (because it isn't present in many areas, and is failing to spread significantly in others,) it means that there is no possibility of healthcare services being overwhelmed, even if a locality were theoretically to suffer a worse outbreak than Bolton at some point in the future. If 90% of the country has almost no Covid patients left - for example my big local hospital, Addenbrooke's in Cambridge, reports having precisely zero Covid patients at the moment - then, in extremis, excess patients can be loaded into a flotilla of ambulances and redistributed from an under pressure hospital to those with the resources to cope.

The situation appears eminently manageable, and as time passes and the effects of the vaccination project continue to spread through the population (to say nothing of the very important effect of warmer, dryer weather,) there's no particular reason to suppose that it won't remain so.

Meanwhile every day the vaccine wall gets deeper and wider.

So a Bolton size outbreak happening now would have significantly less hospitalisation.

Morris_Dancer said:

I also hadn't heard of triangular numbers before. I am not sure I see the utility.

Triangular numbers - think of red snooker balls. 1,3,6,10,15,21... the gap between numbers goes up by 1 every time.

Richard_Tyndall said:

moonshine said:

Does this proposal not ignore that in those countries it is the norm for children to be attending educational settings from a very young age, in the form of nurseries / play schools?

Whatever happened to the Early Years being the most important segment of “education”, without which full potential will never be attained?

Seems a horribly socially regressive policy.

If you want to delay the transition to adulthood and the workplace, personally I’d rather the delay is at the end not the beginning, with compulsory national service. It would do wonders for self discipline and national cohesion.

It is not regressive at all. The point is that we have been eating into that socialisation period by effectively pushing the educational starting age back to 4.

It would be better to focus on increasing free hours of early years education and putting extra cash into the sector. For the long term benefit of the kids and the employment opportunities of mothers. Universal 30hrs free per week from age 2 would be one of my Day 1 acts as Emperor.

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

But is Business Studies really a university subject?

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better off financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

Until around 1965, I think, one didn't need a degree to become a barrister. One only had to take the Bar Council exams.
One of the "Two Fat Ladies" recalls doing so in her book.

Probably true there too, though there is a lot of study in law so you would have to go to a vocational Bar School still for a year or two even if not a full university course

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

My elder son did an electronics engineering apprenticeship and, after completing it, went on to do a degree.
He could not have done the job he subsequently did for 30 years without the extra information and expertise obtained as a result of the degree.

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Barnesian said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Furthermore, it is good that the presenter was corrected on using percentages against absolute numbers.

We need a lot more of this in fairness to everyone.

The use of statistics as propaganda is as old as the hills unfortunately.

The reporting of economic data, in particular, is skewed by the use of percentages rather than the use of absolute numbers and relies on widespread ignorance of numbers.

One example, if you assume the economy as a number is 100 - a fall of 20% takes you down to 80 but if the next figure is a rise of 20%, many will think that takes you back to 100 - no, it takes you back to 96 so you are still 4% behind where you were.

That won't be reported because big percentage increases look good and sound good and being the cynic I am, I imagine it's the message the Government will want to see repeated through the summer.

Even smart people's usage of data can be absolutely shocking.

I was talking to a doctor friend a while back who couldn't get his head around the difference between adding 50% and subtracting it not being the same.

Ever since lockdown started the 'u3a--keeping in touch' Facebook site has carried a daily mathematical puzzle, posted by the Chair of Barnsley u3a. There were originally, and still are spasmodically, arguments about the order in which a series of mathematical actions should be performed.
For example, I dimly recollect being taught to go from left to right, but apparently now there's something called BODMAS; 'brackets, orders, division, multiplication, addition, subtraction' for the older or uninitiated.

Nowadays most people get the puzzles 'right' most of the time, but at the beginning there could be a wild variety of answers, mine included.

I've been helping my ten-year old grandson with his maths.

He had to help me with this one:

Tasmin writes down three two-digit integers. One is square, one is prime and one is triangular. She uses the digits 3,4,5,6,7,8 exactly once each. Which prime does she write?

The only prime I can see there is 37. But I don't understand the rest of the question!
'O' Level Maths 1954.

I’m thinking the prime is 53, the square is 64 (eight squared) and the triangular 78.

Equally, I do not see why a ten year old needs to do an exercise in logic as part of maths.

I'm all for teaching logic as early as possible, but then I am biased.

eek- Many if not most engineers used to leave school and do an apprenticeship rather than a degree, I agree you can learn IT on the job too and from vocational courses.

Medicine I said was one of the areas you needed a degree for however, if you work in high level chemistry research your job is similar to academia anyway.

I agree STEM subjects should charge more than arts and social sciences subjects given they cost more to run and will likely lead to a higher paid job but with government subsidising the most important of them

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better off financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

Until around 1965, I think, one didn't need a degree to become a barrister. One only had to take the Bar Council exams.
One of the "Two Fat Ladies" recalls doing so in her book.

Probably true there too, though there is a lot of study in law so you would have to go to a vocational Bar School still for a year or two even if not a full university course

Yes, very similar to pharmacy. See my post earlier.

HYUFD said:

eek- Many if not most engineers used to leave school and do an apprenticeship rather than a degree, I agree you can learn IT on the job too and from vocational courses.

Medicine I said was one of the areas you needed a degree for however, if you work in high level chemistry research your job is similar to academia anyway.

I agree STEM subjects should charge more than arts and social sciences subjects given they cost more to run and will likely lead to a higher paid job but with government subsidising the most important of them

Hyufd, there was a time when all a surgeon needed was to be handy with an axe and saw, which required strength rather than knowledge.

Those times are, fortunately, gone.

Those who know what they’re talking about, Eek and Richard, have explained that the depth of knowledge needed know for high level engineering is degree level or higher because of the complexities involved. I’ll take their word for it. Why can’t you?

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

In my industry there is almost no one below the board level who is not an expert in the relevant field and who has reached that position from working up through the business. There has just been a merger in one of the companies I contract to and they are looking at filling the CEO-2 roles. Everyone of those people is a specialist in some field or other of geology or engineering and all are part of the functional oversight system. None of them are just managers.

Which again they could mainly have learnt post A level on the job via an apprenticeship or vocational course, they did not have to do a full degree

HYUFD said:

ClippP said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

But is Business Studies really a university subject?

For the largest number of students now it is what they study in between partying, pubbing and societies

I knew I should have done something else! I'd have loved that.

Seriously though, Grandson-in-law (Acting) has a degree in Biology and an MBA. He 'sells' high quality industrial chemicals.

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better off financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

Until around 1965, I think, one didn't need a degree to become a barrister. One only had to take the Bar Council exams.
One of the "Two Fat Ladies" recalls doing so in her book.

When I qualified, you didn't even have to pass your degree to qualify as a Doctor, you could register also via the Conjoint boards (LRCP, MRCS) or the Society of Apothecaries (LMSSA) or even both.

Generally students would take these in their final year of Med School, so as to be able to take up jobs even if they flunked finals. A number wouldn't bother with resits.

Foxy said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better off financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

Until around 1965, I think, one didn't need a degree to become a barrister. One only had to take the Bar Council exams.
One of the "Two Fat Ladies" recalls doing so in her book.

When I qualified, you didn't even have to pass your degree to qualify as a Doctor, you could register also via the Conjoint boards (LRCP, MRCS) or the Society of Apothecaries (LMSSA) or even both.

Generally students would take these in their final year of Med School, so as to be able to take up jobs even if they flunked finals. A number wouldn't bother with resits.

Similarly, for many years the only requirement to practice as a vet was to be an MRCVS.

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

eek- Many if not most engineers used to leave school and do an apprenticeship rather than a degree, I agree you can learn IT on the job too and from vocational courses.

Medicine I said was one of the areas you needed a degree for however, if you work in high level chemistry research your job is similar to academia anyway.

I agree STEM subjects should charge more than arts and social sciences subjects given they cost more to run and will likely lead to a higher paid job but with government subsidising the most important of them

Hyufd, there was a time when all a surgeon needed was to be handy with an axe and saw, which required strength rather than knowledge.

Those times are, fortunately, gone.

Those who know what they’re talking about, Eek and Richard, have explained that the depth of knowledge needed know for high level engineering is degree level or higher because of the complexities involved. I’ll take their word for it. Why can’t you?

Yes they did but that was also a time most patients died on the operating table, so I would keep the requirement for Medicine degrees for surgeons as now.

However most engineers used to learn the job via an apprenticeship, I would not ban engineering degrees, if people want to study it at university they can but for most engineering roles except the highest level an apprenticeship post A levels would still do if they wanted to go down that route rather than a degree

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

eek- Many if not most engineers used to leave school and do an apprenticeship rather than a degree, I agree you can learn IT on the job too and from vocational courses.

Medicine I said was one of the areas you needed a degree for however, if you work in high level chemistry research your job is similar to academia anyway.

I agree STEM subjects should charge more than arts and social sciences subjects given they cost more to run and will likely lead to a higher paid job but with government subsidising the most important of them

Hyufd, there was a time when all a surgeon needed was to be handy with an axe and saw, which required strength rather than knowledge.

Those times are, fortunately, gone.

Those who know what they’re talking about, Eek and Richard, have explained that the depth of knowledge needed know for high level engineering is degree level or higher because of the complexities involved. I’ll take their word for it. Why can’t you?

Yes they did but that was also a time most patients died on the operating table, so I would keep the requirement for Medicine degrees for surgeons as now.

However most engineers used to learn the job via an apprenticeship, I would not ban engineering degrees, if people want to study it at university they can but for most engineering roles an apprenticeship post A levels would still do if they wanted to go down that route rather than a degree

And so did most surgeons.

A bit of Latin for you: Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

Knowledge and information are completely different things.

Knowledge is re-usable. It might be a heuristic or rule of thumb or it could be sophisticated theory.

Information is about a specific instance .

You need both knowledge and information to make a specific decision.
Should I bet on the LDs for Amersham?
You need information about the odds and any polling info. But without knowledge of the principles of successful betting, you're not going to do well.
But conversely if you have betting expertise but no info specifically on Amersham then you would be betting blind.

You need knowledge and information.

A university education gives you a bedrock of theoretical knowledge (re-usable high level abstractions) that can be applied in many jobs.
Apprenticeship gives you heuristic knowledge (re-usable rules of thumb) that can be applied to other types of jobs.

Sorry - a bit long-winded and abstract!

eek said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Solicitors and especially accountancy firms are reimplementing apprenticeships. Its other businesses that never used to require a degree that now insist on it for zero actual valid reason - it's just another filter.

Yup I interviewed people for my (law) firm's apprenticeship program a couple of months ago. I think we've only had one or two intakes so far and most people coming in will still be doing the degree-training contract route, but it's definitely a growing thing.

Barnesian said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Furthermore, it is good that the presenter was corrected on using percentages against absolute numbers.

We need a lot more of this in fairness to everyone.

The use of statistics as propaganda is as old as the hills unfortunately.

The reporting of economic data, in particular, is skewed by the use of percentages rather than the use of absolute numbers and relies on widespread ignorance of numbers.

One example, if you assume the economy as a number is 100 - a fall of 20% takes you down to 80 but if the next figure is a rise of 20%, many will think that takes you back to 100 - no, it takes you back to 96 so you are still 4% behind where you were.

That won't be reported because big percentage increases look good and sound good and being the cynic I am, I imagine it's the message the Government will want to see repeated through the summer.

Even smart people's usage of data can be absolutely shocking.

I was talking to a doctor friend a while back who couldn't get his head around the difference between adding 50% and subtracting it not being the same.

Ever since lockdown started the 'u3a--keeping in touch' Facebook site has carried a daily mathematical puzzle, posted by the Chair of Barnsley u3a. There were originally, and still are spasmodically, arguments about the order in which a series of mathematical actions should be performed.
For example, I dimly recollect being taught to go from left to right, but apparently now there's something called BODMAS; 'brackets, orders, division, multiplication, addition, subtraction' for the older or uninitiated.

Nowadays most people get the puzzles 'right' most of the time, but at the beginning there could be a wild variety of answers, mine included.

I've been helping my ten-year old grandson with his maths.

He had to help me with this one:

Tasmin writes down three two-digit integers. One is square, one is prime and one is triangular. She uses the digits 3,4,5,6,7,8 exactly once each. Which prime does she write?

53

Barnesian said:

Knowledge and information are completely different things.

Knowledge is re-usable. It might be a heuristic or rule of thumb or it could be sophisticated theory.

Information is about a specific instance .

You need both knowledge and information to make a specific decision.
Should I bet on the LDs for Amersham?
You need information about the odds and any polling info. But without knowledge of the principles of successful betting, you're not going to do well.
But conversely if you have betting expertise but no info specifically on Amersham then you would be betting blind.

You need knowledge and information.

A university education gives you a bedrock of theoretical knowledge (re-usable high level abstractions) that can be applied in many jobs.
Apprenticeship gives you heuristic knowledge (re-usable rules of thumb) that can be applied to other types of jobs.

Sorry - a bit long-winded and abstract!

For Chesham and Amersham 2 guaranteed LD votes have been lost as my parents didn't sort out postal votes in time.

And I expect that will be true for a lot of people who will be heading away and not thinking about such things...

As for your actual post - sorry but degrees are usually fairly specific nowadays - the era of the degree as provider of an overall education died out in the 18th century.

Early years intervention is vital in giving the children of feckless parents a fighting chance.

Delaying entry into education will just mean that they start even further behind those who are fortunate enough to have parents who actually give a toss.

Surestart was one of the last Labour government's successes. However the Tories and their LibDem apologists have done their best to knacker it.

Perhaps with their new support base the Tories will have to think again.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

In my industry there is almost no one below the board level who is not an expert in the relevant field and who has reached that position from working up through the business. There has just been a merger in one of the companies I contract to and they are looking at filling the CEO-2 roles. Everyone of those people is a specialist in some field or other of geology or engineering and all are part of the functional oversight system. None of them are just managers.

Which again they could mainly have learnt post A level on the job via an apprenticeship or vocational course, they did not have to do a full degree

Sorry but that is utter rubbish.

The thing is, as a species we know a lot more about How Stuff Works than we did a generation or two ago.

That's definitely a good thing- it means we can make things- buildings, vehicles, electronic gizmos- that work better. We can put a perfectly targeted strand of genetic code into a blob of oil and use it to vaccinate people with minimal side effects.

The downside is that there's more to learn before you can start using all these tools. Science A Levels don't really cut it any more.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

In my industry there is almost no one below the board level who is not an expert in the relevant field and who has reached that position from working up through the business. There has just been a merger in one of the companies I contract to and they are looking at filling the CEO-2 roles. Everyone of those people is a specialist in some field or other of geology or engineering and all are part of the functional oversight system. None of them are just managers.

Which again they could mainly have learnt post A level on the job via an apprenticeship or vocational course, they did not have to do a full degree

Sorry but that is utter rubbish.

No it is true, if you are an engineer working for the Royal Navy or a car manufacturer there is no reason why you cannot do an apprenticeship after A Levels. It should not be compulsory for you to have to do an engineering degree

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Foxy said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

An alternative approach to your suggestion on a starting age might be, instead of starting school later, changing the focus until age seven to be more like reception. Games. Play. Enjoying themselves. That could start the learning later and at the same time get round the issues with childcare.

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

So the rich go to uni and poor work. You’ll go far in Conservative politics.

No, even most of the 1% would struggle to fund a child at university paying fees, accommodation and student costs up front. I don't think I could have done so, for one, let alone two.

Nearly everyone at uni would have taken a double gap year working, rich or poor. It would add a lot of discernment to their decision to go to university.

Something like one in six (so about 16% from memory) of A-level students are at independent schools whose fees are similar to (and in some cases much greater than) those charged by universities. I’m sure most of their parents would prefer not to have to pay any more ans some might bot be able to afford it, but a lot more than 1% would.

How many of those are on bursaries?

Not sure. I was, for the sixth-form at least, but that reduced the fees rather than eliminating them.
To put this in context at the time full tuition fees at the school I went to, a moderately well known one, were abut £3000 for the year. My father was paying less than half that by the time I finished.

MattW said:

noneoftheabove said:

Barnesian said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Furthermore, it is good that the presenter was corrected on using percentages against absolute numbers.

We need a lot more of this in fairness to everyone.

The use of statistics as propaganda is as old as the hills unfortunately.

The reporting of economic data, in particular, is skewed by the use of percentages rather than the use of absolute numbers and relies on widespread ignorance of numbers.

One example, if you assume the economy as a number is 100 - a fall of 20% takes you down to 80 but if the next figure is a rise of 20%, many will think that takes you back to 100 - no, it takes you back to 96 so you are still 4% behind where you were.

That won't be reported because big percentage increases look good and sound good and being the cynic I am, I imagine it's the message the Government will want to see repeated through the summer.

Even smart people's usage of data can be absolutely shocking.

I was talking to a doctor friend a while back who couldn't get his head around the difference between adding 50% and subtracting it not being the same.

Ever since lockdown started the 'u3a--keeping in touch' Facebook site has carried a daily mathematical puzzle, posted by the Chair of Barnsley u3a. There were originally, and still are spasmodically, arguments about the order in which a series of mathematical actions should be performed.
For example, I dimly recollect being taught to go from left to right, but apparently now there's something called BODMAS; 'brackets, orders, division, multiplication, addition, subtraction' for the older or uninitiated.

Nowadays most people get the puzzles 'right' most of the time, but at the beginning there could be a wild variety of answers, mine included.

I've been helping my ten-year old grandson with his maths.

He had to help me with this one:

Tasmin writes down three two-digit integers. One is square, one is prime and one is triangular. She uses the digits 3,4,5,6,7,8 exactly once each. Which prime does she write?

53. (78 triangular, 64 square)

Unless she is a pedant as it be could 36 both triangular and square leaving more options for prime as the question didnt specify that the square and triangular are different numbers.

Interesting little puzzle teaching both maths and logic.

And a bit of surprise - it is unintuitive to many just how many numbers from the possible set are lost by excluding anything with a 0, 1, 2 or 9.

First thing I did was work out that only two squares were possible: 36 and 64. I then saw that the last digit of the prime had to be 3 or 7 and so when I found a list of triangular numbers the answers were easy to spot.

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

In my industry there is almost no one below the board level who is not an expert in the relevant field and who has reached that position from working up through the business. There has just been a merger in one of the companies I contract to and they are looking at filling the CEO-2 roles. Everyone of those people is a specialist in some field or other of geology or engineering and all are part of the functional oversight system. None of them are just managers.

Which again they could mainly have learnt post A level on the job via an apprenticeship or vocational course, they did not have to do a full degree

Be careful what you mean by "apprenticeships. Modern Apprenticeships which are sold as an apprenticeship, are not like the 'time served' engineering (etc) apprenticeships of old. They are often linked in to NVQ type assessment. Some of these have minimal added Vue

There are "apprenticeships" which follow the old school pattern. I know someone doing a quantity surveyors programme in this way, oh and there is day and block release to university.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/31/end-of-england-covid-lockdown-on-21-june-increasingly-in-doubt

"Prof Ravi Gupta, a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme there had been “exponential growth” in new cases, with the variant first detected in India accounting for three-quarters.

Asked if the third wave had begun, Gupta replied: “Yes.”

He added: “Of course, the numbers of cases are relatively low at the moment – all waves start with low numbers of cases that grumble in the background and then become explosive – so the key here is that what we are seeing here is the signs of an early wave.

“It will probably take longer than earlier waves to emerge because of the fact that we do have quite high levels of vaccination in the population, so there may be a false sense of security for some time, and that’s our concern.”"

It's just the constant apparent assumption that the population of the UK is infinite that i don't get. So "vaccination will slow the growth of hospitalisations/serious illness/deaths etc, but it will always get to the high numbers in the end". Because a small percentage of an infinite population, is a potential infinite level of illness and death.

As opposed to the reality surely that high level of vaccination among the population, and particularly among vulnerable groups, means that the virus will always hit a finite ceiling in a finite population.

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

Fuck business studies!

Barnesian said:

Knowledge and information are completely different things.

Knowledge is re-usable. It might be a heuristic or rule of thumb or it could be sophisticated theory.

Information is about a specific instance .

You need both knowledge and information to make a specific decision.
Should I bet on the LDs for Amersham?
You need information about the odds and any polling info. But without knowledge of the principles of successful betting, you're not going to do well.
But conversely if you have betting expertise but no info specifically on Amersham then you would be betting blind.

You need knowledge and information.

A university education gives you a bedrock of theoretical knowledge (re-usable high level abstractions) that can be applied in many jobs.
Apprenticeship gives you heuristic knowledge (re-usable rules of thumb) that can be applied to other types of jobs.

Sorry - a bit long-winded and abstract!

Agree.

I am always amazed how people are taught something and can't extrapolate that because they have just learnt a fact and not why. So can add 20% vat onto a figures, but can't work out what the Vat is within a Gross figure. They have learnt the rule, but not the understanding. Also people who can do a calculation they have been taught, but a new scenario, which has an identical type of calculation can't be done, because they don't know why they were doing the first calculation; just doing it robotically.

My degree was in Mathematics in the early 70s. My specialty topics were all in logic. Nothing I was taught was ever going to be of any specific use in any career at that time (not so true now), yet it got you jobs, based upon what it demonstrated you could do.

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

Fuck business studies!

You need a degree for prostitution now?

Sample of 1, but I only went to school from 8 - protective parents home-schooled (with one other child of friends) till then. By the time I got to school I was academically much further along, but didn't mix comfortably, and right into adulthood found more in common with my parents than other kids. It got me a PhD and a loving, grounded, confidence-inspiring family life (I've never really been intimidated by any kind of people), but I'm not convinced, in retrospect, that it was a wise decision.

Separately, I think adults tend to romanticise childhood, which for most kids is somewhere between peaceful, anxious and boring (hence ASB, it's vaguely exciting). The slogan "let children be children" seems to me all wrong - personally I couldn't wait to grow up, and everyone I knew at school felt the same.

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

In my industry there is almost no one below the board level who is not an expert in the relevant field and who has reached that position from working up through the business. There has just been a merger in one of the companies I contract to and they are looking at filling the CEO-2 roles. Everyone of those people is a specialist in some field or other of geology or engineering and all are part of the functional oversight system. None of them are just managers.

Which again they could mainly have learnt post A level on the job via an apprenticeship or vocational course, they did not have to do a full degree

Sorry but that is utter rubbish.

No it is true, if you are an engineer working for the Royal Navy or a car manufacturer there is no reason why you cannot do an apprenticeship after A Levels. It should not be compulsory for you to have to do an engineering degree

Part, I suggest the trouble and difficulty into which my fellow Essex man has got himself, is because the term 'engineer' covers a multitude of skill levels.

It's rather like the issues which exist over the term 'doctor'. I hope that Eldest Granddaughter completes her current studies satisfactorily as she will then be entitled, as in ydoethur is, to the title Doctor, by examination. As is Dr Foxy, but his is by common usage..
However, only 'Dr" Foxy is entitled to practice medicine.


See also Mr Alex post, upthread at 11.06

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

Fuck business studies!

You need a degree for prostitution now?

University of life innit.
Summa cum laude for the high achievers.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/30/kings-college-apologises-harm-caused-staff-photo-tribute-prince/

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Jonathan said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

An alternative approach to your suggestion on a starting age might be, instead of starting school later, changing the focus until age seven to be more like reception. Games. Play. Enjoying themselves. That could start the learning later and at the same time get round the issues with childcare.

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

So the rich go to uni and poor work. You’ll go far in Conservative politics.

No, even most of the 1% would struggle to fund a child at university paying fees, accommodation and student costs up front. I don't think I could have done so, for one, let alone two.

Nearly everyone at uni would have taken a double gap year working, rich or poor. It would add a lot of discernment to their decision to go to university.

Two year degrees, with short holidays. It used to be claimed that dons needed the long holidays for research but these days, especially at the top places, academics barely see students anyway, with most teaching being conducted by non-research lecturers and post-docs.

You were half-right about finishing schools: what does it matter that our Prime Minister knows Latin? But the other half is trade-schools for engineers, lawyers and doctors. These should be returned to, well, trade schools. Apprenticeships, articles and evening classes!

Then the universities can get on with research and maybe we can catch up with China and America.

I think that the research aims of universities and undergraduates are increasingly divergent, with farming of undergraduates to non research academics on short contracts, as a way of propping up the finances.

I think the current financing of Higher Education is a growing crisis for students, universities and government alike. A good editorial in the Guardian on this today.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/30/the-guardian-view-on-funding-universities-the-market-model-isnt-working

I can't speak for science departments, but in humanities and social sciences the research/teaching link remains fundamental, with research outputs an essential criterion for appointing to those exploitative, 9-month teaching contracts that don't pay the employee to undertake research. Since *higher* education is not principally about knowledge, but skills and abilities to tackle unexpected problems and challenges, anyone teaching in universities should be research active, both to stay on top of the field and because there are real benefits from cross-fertilisation (designing a module around a novel research approach or framing a paper around limitations in the literature when creating a reading list). I suspect there's more oversight/involvement by permanent staff in supervising any teaching by PhD students or fixed-term staff on team modules now than at any point in the past.

I agree that the 2010 reforms are a mess, though; they rightly wanted UK universities to be funded better to remain internationally competitive in research and education, but sought a dodgy off-books way of accounting (now stopped) though debt. The increased funding has held down staff-student ratios and supported a lot of improvements in teaching estate (large lecture theatres and technology etc) but the pseudo-market has also encouraged splurges on marketing and extra-curricular facilities as the visible way to attract open day consumers. A focus by the Office for Students and many applicants on contact hours encourages some institutions to minimise high-quality seminars and maximise massive lectures. High executive pay, for "leaders" completely divorced from the seminar room and focused on polishing CVs for promotion at another institution, is a symptom of the rot and the erosion of governance/scrutiny of executives by university Senates, but gets undue attention compared to the rotten foundations of the 2010 finance system. As China increases the proportion of its students educated at home, the lifeline of international student fees will expose problems across the sector. Based on recent trends, the Government will trash one of the few world-leading sectors of the UK economy -- and one worth x4 to GDP as farming, with countless positive externalities for economy, society, and culture.

Floater said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/30/kings-college-apologises-harm-caused-staff-photo-tribute-prince/

Another good illustration of why the UK and US universities are about to have their arse handed to them by China and India.

The danger of spending too much time right at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

The view from ConHome re the marriage of Boris and Carrie (and I do not normally read ConHome)

Our point is a broader one. Johnson and Symonds have done what many people nowadays do. They lived openly and unashamedly together, and had a child, before they got married.

No previous Prime Minister had behaved quite like that, but by contemporary standards, what they did is conventional.

Johnson’s critics find themselves in a predicament comparable to that of hunters who complain that their quarry will not keep still.

They would like the Prime Minister to oblige them by adopting some fixed position, in which they could riddle him with bullets. He instead moves about, sometimes with extraordinary fleetness of foot.

Saturday’s wedding came as so great a surprise to the media that news of it only broke about six hours after it had taken place. When one considers how much attention the fourth estate devotes to Johnson, and how predictable it was that he and Symonds would get married, it is fairly astonishing that he managed to spring such a surprise.

How to interpret his behaviour? Should one call him a moderniser, for living out of wedlock with Symonds, or old-fashioned, for getting married in church?

Is he at heart a Conservative, a Liberal or a Social Democrat?

And is he or is he not a Roman Catholic? Here too it is hard to be sure.

His critics protest with great bitterness that he keeps breaking the rules.

They yearn to place him in an ideological box, and smash him to pieces for having the wrong opinions.

Johnson prefers to work out what is the best thing to do, and to do it. In other words, he is a Tory pragmatist.

Which is not a very romantic conclusion to arrive at in a piece which began with his marriage. But here is another surprise about Johnson which ought not to be a surprise.

If one looks at what he does, as opposed to what the press thinks he is doing, he is often unscrupulous enough to choose the most prudent option, while pretending to be utterly reckless

alex_ said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/31/end-of-england-covid-lockdown-on-21-june-increasingly-in-doubt

"Prof Ravi Gupta, a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme there had been “exponential growth” in new cases, with the variant first detected in India accounting for three-quarters.

Asked if the third wave had begun, Gupta replied: “Yes.”

He added: “Of course, the numbers of cases are relatively low at the moment – all waves start with low numbers of cases that grumble in the background and then become explosive – so the key here is that what we are seeing here is the signs of an early wave.

“It will probably take longer than earlier waves to emerge because of the fact that we do have quite high levels of vaccination in the population, so there may be a false sense of security for some time, and that’s our concern.”"

It's just the constant apparent assumption that the population of the UK is infinite that i don't get. So "vaccination will slow the growth of hospitalisations/serious illness/deaths etc, but it will always get to the high numbers in the end". Because a small percentage of an infinite population, is a potential infinite level of illness and death.

As opposed to the reality surely that high level of vaccination among the population, and particularly among vulnerable groups, means that the virus will always hit a finite ceiling in a finite population.

And on top of this, it is worth noting that probably the only reason there is a focus on this in the UK is because of the continued of high level of asymptomatic testing we are doing. This "problem" would simply be undetectable if we were relying on on real world observations of level of illness. So if there really isn't a problem, then the level of testing is potentially paralysing in itself. I'm sure that there are many other countries, in Europe or elsewhere who are in no different a situation in respect of this "variant", but aren't really looking for it where it is isn't impacting on the things that matter (hospital resourcing etc). And are not having kittens about it because they've just taken a decision to move on...

Dura_Ace said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

No it is true, if you are an engineer working for the Royal Navy

Call me elitist but I want the officer in charge of a 150mW nuclear reactor to have gone to university.

I’d be happy for one in charge of a 150mW one not to be. 150MW on the other hand...

Tory defence cuts innit.

The RN Nuclear Engineering program is very academically demanding and I highly doubt anybody without a STEM degree could complete it. It's still nothing compared to the US Navy NNPTC program for Nuclear Propulsion officers which is 24 weeks of 80 hours/week academic work and if you fail you get charged with dereliction of duty!

That sounds brutal, but I suppose you need to know that if something goes wrong when you are deep under the Arctic ice you have people who can cope with the pressure.

Floater said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/30/kings-college-apologises-harm-caused-staff-photo-tribute-prince/

eek said:

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

eek- Many if not most engineers used to leave school and do an apprenticeship rather than a degree, I agree you can learn IT on the job too and from vocational courses.

Medicine I said was one of the areas you needed a degree for however, if you work in high level chemistry research your job is similar to academia anyway.

I agree STEM subjects should charge more than arts and social sciences subjects given they cost more to run and will likely lead to a higher paid job but with government subsidising the most important of them

Hyufd, there was a time when all a surgeon needed was to be handy with an axe and saw, which required strength rather than knowledge.

Those times are, fortunately, gone.

Those who know what they’re talking about, Eek and Richard, have explained that the depth of knowledge needed know for high level engineering is degree level or higher because of the complexities involved. I’ll take their word for it. Why can’t you?

Yes they did but that was also a time most patients died on the operating table, so I would keep the requirement for Medicine degrees for surgeons as now.

However most engineers used to learn the job via an apprenticeship, I would not ban engineering degrees, if people want to study it at university they can but for most engineering roles except the highest level an apprenticeship post A levels would still do if they wanted to go down that route rather than a degree

Cant help thinking that this is Artsy snobbery. Engineering requires a considerable amount of learned knowledge in addition to an understanding of the applications of this knowledge. The fact that power in the Uk is generally held by people who do not understand that detailed information is required before a process is actually initiated is a major problem. There is only so much reality that the Bullshit merchants can ignore before reality comes and bites them.

Remember HYUFD's ambition is to become an MP - the ability to talk about something with a complete lack of knowledge while everyone around them tries to correct his misunderstanding is not so much a problem as an essential skill.

Which is why we now have the politicians we currently have (and deserve). Anyone sane looks elsewhere to earn money

Well you certainly don't need a degree to become an MP either, nor even PM, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Macdonald, Churchill, Callaghan, Major for example did not have degrees.

If you are going to commit 3 years or more of your life after school to just further unpaid study and get into significant debt to do so then many if not most will want to know that that extra study is essential for their future career before they embark on it. Otherwise they can go down an apprenticeship or vocational route and earn while doing so too.

MaxPB said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I posted this on the last thread in response to @Scott_xP

Consistent but provide the evidence

Hospital admissions, vaccine status, age profile, and outbreak areas are essential information

Yesterday an argument was being put forward that as the NHS has such a backlog which they are starting to address, they cannot accept any rise in covid patients

Now that is turning the narrative on its head, and on that basis the Country will be locked down for months, even years, and it is just not acceptable

I was angry and a rebel yesterday, largely because the media and independent sage have taken over the narrative with their zero covid, eliminate covid strategy, which is just not feasible and in order to convince many millions of citizens, including myself, that we have to have further delays there has to be far more transparent figures on hospital admissions

Of course I would comply with restrictions if it is proven they are needed, but I am not persuaded by those who seem to have taken over the agenda

Let us not forget that there are many opponents of Boris driven by many who have not come to terms with Brexit, that to prevent the 21st June opening would see it as a political win to their cause, and it is not being driven by the actual clinical reality

I would include Independent Sage and large parts of the broadcast media in that category
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Since this post I have just listened to Richard Horton of the Lancet on Sky, largely endorsing my position on this and the opening on the 21st June

He said we can be optimistic about the 21st June, as the number of covid cases are not resulting in increasing admissions and it looks as if the link has been broken

The presenter then provided various percentage increases and he simply said quoting percentages was misleading and the absolute numbers are pertinent and necessary.

He said on the 12th January there were 4,500 plus admission to hospital and on the 25th May just 133, which is way down and though there may be a small rise in hospitalisation, at the moment there is reason for hope and urgent attention to providing second doses to the 1-9 group is correct.

Currently 48.1% of adults have received their second dose.

At last, the voice of sanity and not from a quarter that anybody could say is a fan of Boris or HMG.

Furthermore, it is good that the presenter was corrected on using percentages against absolute numbers.

We need a lot more of this in fairness to everyone.

Given AZ only gives 60% and pfizer 85% safety re Indian variant, that leaves an awful lot of people vulnerable. Bolton they found at least 10% of hospitalisations had had two vaccines but still got it bad. Far from over yet.

That 60% number is based on early figures and is expected to rise as AZ/J&J type vaccines build up over time. Also of those three Bolton cases two were not considered serious and the third was someone with severe underlying conditions.

In any case we have got 60m Novavax boosters coming and ~40m from Pfizer. So it's hardly a big deal.

It’s also quoting effectiveness against any symptoms versus effectiveness against serious illness.

And if only 10% of hospitalisations are from a group which provided by far the majority beforehand, as James Ward shows, that indicates over 95% effectiveness against hospitalisation.

(If the ration in those demographics has gone from 9:21 to 9:1, then it illustrates how much protection is there)

MaxPB said:

alex_ said:

alex_ said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/31/end-of-england-covid-lockdown-on-21-june-increasingly-in-doubt

"Prof Ravi Gupta, a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme there had been “exponential growth” in new cases, with the variant first detected in India accounting for three-quarters.

Asked if the third wave had begun, Gupta replied: “Yes.”

He added: “Of course, the numbers of cases are relatively low at the moment – all waves start with low numbers of cases that grumble in the background and then become explosive – so the key here is that what we are seeing here is the signs of an early wave.

“It will probably take longer than earlier waves to emerge because of the fact that we do have quite high levels of vaccination in the population, so there may be a false sense of security for some time, and that’s our concern.”"

It's just the constant apparent assumption that the population of the UK is infinite that i don't get. So "vaccination will slow the growth of hospitalisations/serious illness/deaths etc, but it will always get to the high numbers in the end". Because a small percentage of an infinite population, is a potential infinite level of illness and death.

As opposed to the reality surely that high level of vaccination among the population, and particularly among vulnerable groups, means that the virus will always hit a finite ceiling in a finite population.

And on top of this, it is worth noting that probably the only reason there is a focus on this in the UK is because of the continued of high level of asymptomatic testing we are doing. This "problem" would simply be undetectable if we were relying on on real world observations of level of illness. So if there really isn't a problem, then the level of testing is potentially paralysing in itself. I'm sure that there are many other countries, in Europe or elsewhere who are in no different a situation in respect of this "variant". But they are not having kittens about it because they've just taken a decision to move on...

Yup, the government has got into this odd situation where it is now creating problems for itself with a testing regime that is picking up asymptomatic infections in vaccinated people. It needs to pick a cut off date and say from say August 1st vaccinated people are no longer required to self isolate and the UK border will only allow vaccinated people to enter without quarantine, everyone else must come via a quarantine flight with 10 days in a hotel, regardless of where you're coming from.

Testing is fine but hospotal admissions need to be the sole criteria for restrictions

alex_ said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

alex_ said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

In my industry there is almost no one below the board level who is not an expert in the relevant field and who has reached that position from working up through the business. There has just been a merger in one of the companies I contract to and they are looking at filling the CEO-2 roles. Everyone of those people is a specialist in some field or other of geology or engineering and all are part of the functional oversight system. None of them are just managers.

Which again they could mainly have learnt post A level on the job via an apprenticeship or vocational course, they did not have to do a full degree

When you're in a hole......

See my post about how my son, apprenticeship plus later degree, could not, in his own opinion done the job he did without the latter.

There is of course another point, even regardless of the validity of the specific argument. Engage in an apprenticeship and you are pretty well burning your bridges if you decide you've embarked on the wrong path.

A good degree may not provide universal skills but it does provide assurance of basic employability.

Lots of people at senior levels of organisations have nostalgic ideas of plucking people out of schools at 16 or 18 and training them up the old way. Whilst this would probably work for the vast majority of the population, the population interested in following that path is not quite the same now as it was in the 80s. Students have been conditioned to believe that they need to go to university, so the pool of people you would be fishing in is not the same. Not saying it couldn't succeed, but you won't be able to assume pretty basic levels of educational competence that you might have been able to in the past.

Not that you can guarantee that from universities etc these days either!

One other thing is that i'm not sure you can even rely on professional qualifications to be an indicator of professional competence these days! Certainly in things like accountancy with some awarding bodies...

Three years (or often four now) at university is an expensive and time-consuming way to "provide assurance of basic employability".

Yep, i didn't phrase that very well. But it is the reality that huge numbers of employers now require a degree (and a good one, often from a well respected university, in a traditionally acknowledge "academic" subject) as a threshold level of achievement for people at the beginning of their career. Whether they are actually employable or not is another matter, but if you can't even get a foot in the door you never even get the opportunity to demonstrate that.

Yes, university is what @Foxy called earlier in this thread, finishing school for the middle classes. For most people, and most jobs, it does not particularly matter what anyone studies. This may exaggerate the desirability of Oxbridge: three years of networking and learning which knife and fork to use.

Tbh, I think Michael Gove was right to defend liberal arts education: there should be more to life than vocational training; but perhaps we (collectively) need to step back and decide what education and training are for. Three years doing Latin is not the same as three years doing nursing, for instance.

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

Fuck business studies!

Business and administration studies is also the second most popular degree in Scotland now after medicine and nursing
https://www.scotsman.com/regions/edinburgh-fife-and-lothians/scotlands-most-popular-degree-subjects-1488097

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

Foxy said:

Learning those social skills is one of the important features of early Primary School. Learning to read is probably worth it too.

I am taking an increasingly jaded view of higher education in Britain. It seems an expensive way to run a finishing school for the middle classes.

I would suggest that no one is eligible for a Student Loan until they have worked for two years, proven by NI contributions. People would only go if they really wanted to do so, rather than drift into it.

The problem with this idea is employers won't employ someone who they will have to train - most 18 year olds have no idea what the world of work is all about - and then two years later that individual will likely leave and never be seen again.

Some organisations do this and recognise this in terms of professional development - you get a newly qualified surveyor for example, who comes to work for you for two or three years while he or she is getting more professional qualifications and then moves on but at least they've got some professional knowledge and are keen to impress and learn so they are valuable.

You would need some form of incentive to employers to employ these "pre-students".

I think the answer is more white-collar apprenticeships, of the type we see in law and accounting, combining work and formal study - rather than companies hiring graduates with little experience.

For many, three years living away racking up £50k of debt just isn’t economic value.

There’s room for both systems, but the starting point has to be employers not insisting on degrees as part of the recruitment process.

Re Richard’s article, very thought provoking. I’m with the suggestion that schools provide facilities so children can be dropped off but that formal education starts at 7, with socialising / playing the priority before.

Re the adult education, the problem with this country is we send too many to university. Decades ago, you could become a solicitor or an accountant by leaving school and being apprenticed. It would be good to see that restarted.

Really you only need a degree to become an academic, secondary school teacher (for A Level), barrister and judge, doctor and surgeon or senior civil servant or to go into the Church.

For most other jobs you would probably be better of financially and skills and experience wise after university doing a higher level apprenticeship combined with vocational training than a university degree but it should be up to individual choice

There are a whole swathe of industrial specialist occupations where you actually do need a degree to understand even the basics of what you are doing. Indeed they have now been caught up in the inflationary process so that you can't get a job without a Masters of a PhD - which given the degree of specialisation involved does seem a step too far.

I would suggest most such jobs in industry could be learnt on the job after A levels with some vocational training alongside, unless you are doing very high level and complex research and experiments in which case your job is similar to academia anyway

Um no. The amount of general background knowledge you would need would be far in excess of what could be taught to you 'on the job'. The problem being that 'on the job' they are already teaching you the next stage which is the specific proprietary and job specific stuff, none of which you could start to understand without having studied the subject in depth previously.

For what? The number of jobs in business and industry which actually need knowledge beyond A levels is very small and where there is that can be learnt on the job through vocational qualifications and training.

The only exceptions as I said might be high level research but that is similar to academia anyway.

The most popular degree nowadays is some form of business studies, most of which 40 or 50 years ago those studying it would have learnt on the job.

If they want to study it that is fine but a degree should not be compulsory for management roles in industry

In my industry there is almost no one below the board level who is not an expert in the relevant field and who has reached that position from working up through the business. There has just been a merger in one of the companies I contract to and they are looking at filling the CEO-2 roles. Everyone of those people is a specialist in some field or other of geology or engineering and all are part of the functional oversight system. None of them are just managers.

Which again they could mainly have learnt post A level on the job via an apprenticeship or vocational course, they did not have to do a full degree

Sorry but that is utter rubbish.

No it is true, if you are an engineer working for the Royal Navy or a car manufacturer there is no reason why you cannot do an apprenticeship after A Levels. It should not be compulsory for you to have to do an engineering degree

Part, I suggest the trouble and difficulty into which my fellow Essex man has got himself, is because the term 'engineer' covers a multitude of skill levels.

It's rather like the issues which exist over the term 'doctor'. I hope that Eldest Granddaughter completes her current studies satisfactorily as she will then be entitled, as in ydoethur is, to the title Doctor, by examination. As is Dr Foxy, but his is by common usage..
However, only 'Dr" Foxy is entitled to practice medicine.


See also Mr Alex post, upthread at 11.06

Absolutely. In the UK at least, there is considerable confusion between engineer, technician, and mechanic a lot of the time. Which all require very different training and education, as well as skillsets.

tlg86 said:

MaxPB said:

alex_ said:

alex_ said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/31/end-of-england-covid-lockdown-on-21-june-increasingly-in-doubt

"Prof Ravi Gupta, a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme there had been “exponential growth” in new cases, with the variant first detected in India accounting for three-quarters.

Asked if the third wave had begun, Gupta replied: “Yes.”

He added: “Of course, the numbers of cases are relatively low at the moment – all waves start with low numbers of cases that grumble in the background and then become explosive – so the key here is that what we are seeing here is the signs of an early wave.

“It will probably take longer than earlier waves to emerge because of the fact that we do have quite high levels of vaccination in the population, so there may be a false sense of security for some time, and that’s our concern.”"

It's just the constant apparent assumption that the population of the UK is infinite that i don't get. So "vaccination will slow the growth of hospitalisations/serious illness/deaths etc, but it will always get to the high numbers in the end". Because a small percentage of an infinite population, is a potential infinite level of illness and death.

As opposed to the reality surely that high level of vaccination among the population, and particularly among vulnerable groups, means that the virus will always hit a finite ceiling in a finite population.

And on top of this, it is worth noting that probably the only reason there is a focus on this in the UK is because of the continued of high level of asymptomatic testing we are doing. This "problem" would simply be undetectable if we were relying on on real world observations of level of illness. So if there really isn't a problem, then the level of testing is potentially paralysing in itself. I'm sure that there are many other countries, in Europe or elsewhere who are in no different a situation in respect of this "variant". But they are not having kittens about it because they've just taken a decision to move on...

Yup, the government has got into this odd situation where it is now creating problems for itself with a testing regime that is picking up asymptomatic infections in vaccinated people. It needs to pick a cut off date and say from say August 1st vaccinated people are no longer required to self isolate and the UK border will only allow vaccinated people to enter without quarantine, everyone else must come via a quarantine flight with 10 days in a hotel, regardless of where you're coming from.

Where’s Trump when you need him?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/trump-stop-coronavirus-testing-right-now-have-very-few-cases-2020-6?amp

Don't get me wrong, if there is a plausible scenario where levels of asymptomatic infection lead to levels of asymptomatic transmission that lead to seriously problematic levels of serious illness (and not just of the "hospitals can't cope with 10 Covid patients coz they're so packed" variety), then it is necessary. But at the moment it seems the detection of cases is leading scientists to produce highly implausible negative health outcomes, without thinking "outside the models" to consider whether what they are saying is really plausible.

And in those circumstances the testing serves little or no value. Really it is only evidence of problems in hospitals etc that is going to lead to a change in thrust of Government policy. So, given that, it makes sense IMO, to roll back on general testing and start using hospitalisations (or symptomatic infections at worst) as the starting point for data collection. Whereas rather than rely on real world evidence on hospitalisation levels they are making assumptions about hospitalisation levels on the basis of real world asymptomatic positive tests. Which seems all wrong.

Yes this crisis has shown that in general there is a need to act earlier rather than later. But how much earlier? Really if vaccinations are slowing growth - then the answer is to act early on the basis of hospital data not general testing data.

HYUFD said:

eek said:

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

eek- Many if not most engineers used to leave school and do an apprenticeship rather than a degree, I agree you can learn IT on the job too and from vocational courses.

Medicine I said was one of the areas you needed a degree for however, if you work in high level chemistry research your job is similar to academia anyway.

I agree STEM subjects should charge more than arts and social sciences subjects given they cost more to run and will likely lead to a higher paid job but with government subsidising the most important of them

Hyufd, there was a time when all a surgeon needed was to be handy with an axe and saw, which required strength rather than knowledge.

Those times are, fortunately, gone.

Those who know what they’re talking about, Eek and Richard, have explained that the depth of knowledge needed know for high level engineering is degree level or higher because of the complexities involved. I’ll take their word for it. Why can’t you?

Yes they did but that was also a time most patients died on the operating table, so I would keep the requirement for Medicine degrees for surgeons as now.

However most engineers used to learn the job via an apprenticeship, I would not ban engineering degrees, if people want to study it at university they can but for most engineering roles except the highest level an apprenticeship post A levels would still do if they wanted to go down that route rather than a degree

Cant help thinking that this is Artsy snobbery. Engineering requires a considerable amount of learned knowledge in addition to an understanding of the applications of this knowledge. The fact that power in the Uk is generally held by people who do not understand that detailed information is required before a process is actually initiated is a major problem. There is only so much reality that the Bullshit merchants can ignore before reality comes and bites them.

Remember HYUFD's ambition is to become an MP - the ability to talk about something with a complete lack of knowledge while everyone around them tries to correct his misunderstanding is not so much a problem as an essential skill.

Which is why we now have the politicians we currently have (and deserve). Anyone sane looks elsewhere to earn money

Well you certainly don't need a degree to become an MP either, nor even PM, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Macdonald, Churchill, Callaghan, Major for example did not have degrees.

If you are going to commit 3 years or more of your life after school to just further unpaid study and get into significant debt to do so then many if not most will want to know that that extra study is essential for their future career before they embark on it. Otherwise they can go down an apprenticeship or vocational route and earn while doing so too.

Am I right in thinking however that since the war the only PMs not to have had degrees are Churchill, Callaghan and Major?

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

eek- Many if not most engineers used to leave school and do an apprenticeship rather than a degree, I agree you can learn IT on the job too and from vocational courses.

Medicine I said was one of the areas you needed a degree for however, if you work in high level chemistry research your job is similar to academia anyway.

I agree STEM subjects should charge more than arts and social sciences subjects given they cost more to run and will likely lead to a higher paid job but with government subsidising the most important of them

Hyufd, there was a time when all a surgeon needed was to be handy with an axe and saw, which required strength rather than knowledge.

Those times are, fortunately, gone.

Those who know what they’re talking about, Eek and Richard, have explained that the depth of knowledge needed know for high level engineering is degree level or higher because of the complexities involved. I’ll take their word for it. Why can’t you?

Yes they did but that was also a time most patients died on the operating table, so I would keep the requirement for Medicine degrees for surgeons as now.

However most engineers used to learn the job via an apprenticeship, I would not ban engineering degrees, if people want to study it at university they can but for most engineering roles except the highest level an apprenticeship post A levels would still do if they wanted to go down that route rather than a degree

Cant help thinking that this is Artsy snobbery. Engineering requires a considerable amount of learned knowledge in addition to an understanding of the applications of this knowledge. The fact that power in the Uk is generally held by people who do not understand that detailed information is required before a process is actually initiated is a major problem. There is only so much reality that the Bullshit merchants can ignore before reality comes and bites them.

Remember HYUFD's ambition is to become an MP - the ability to talk about something with a complete lack of knowledge while everyone around them tries to correct his misunderstanding is not so much a problem as an essential skill.

Which is why we now have the politicians we currently have (and deserve). Anyone sane looks elsewhere to earn money

Well you certainly don't need a degree to become an MP either, nor even PM, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Macdonald, Churchill, Callaghan, Major for example did not have degrees.

If you are going to commit 3 years or more of your life after school to just further unpaid study and get into significant debt to do so then many if not most will want to know that that extra study is essential for their future career before they embark on it. Otherwise they can go down an apprenticeship or vocational route and earn while doing so too.

Am I right in thinking however that since the war the only PMs not to have had degrees are Churchill, Callaghan and Major?

Yes but that is still not all of them is it, proving you do not need a degree to do the job

IshmaelZ said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This is my problem with the media and Sky

'Susan Michie, a professor of health psychology at University College London who sits on government advisory group Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)​, told Sky News: "We're on a knife-edge.

"We could go either way with this new variant.

"Either it could run away as it did before Christmas, which would be extremely serious and we'd have to have more restrictions, or potentially it could be contained. But that does mean everybody needs to be cautious right now.'

Introduced as a member of Sage when she is in fact in Independent Sage, a communist and political activist.

The media need to be part of the public enquiry, as they have been abysmal in informing in a fair and unbiased way

She is in that group

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups#scientific-pandemic-influenza-group-on-behaviours-spi-b

‘Are you now or have you ever been a member of Independent Sage and all that other bad shit?’