Universities - Have they just been greedy?

[Lost Seasider]

Nice response

No link for your sweeping statement again, please try harder.

Your last line gives it away, tuition fees aren't relevant to the increase in student numbers started by Thatcher.

Gives what away?

Relevance is debatable, if gov't is paying for it there's an argument for it being a sensible investment in a time of adversity, but let's not get caught up on a tangential point.

Oh, Thatcher BTW, you'd probably be better off starting with Atlee, or maybe even Lloyd George.

Are you a self protecting academic BTW?

Happily not.

 

[Tangerinemoss]

Relevance is debatable, if gov't is paying for it there's an argument for it being a sensible investment in a time of adversity, but let's not get caught up on a tangential point.

Sorry, you missed my point. Who pays for it is irrelevant to getting numbers off the unemployment statistics. Investment in skills for UK plc is an excellent idea, 50% of a year cohort at university is not that. Half of those being given vocational training in all the "doing" skills we are so short of in construction and manufacturing would be great and much more cost effective, as well as ultimately satisfying for the individuals involved. When you have to have a degree of any sort to work in a customer call centre at the most basic level, world's gone mad.

Thatcher knew her "Labour is not working" poster when unemployment was at 1 million would come back to haunt her when it went up to 3.3 million on her watch, so put expansion in train to take hundreds of thousands of under 22's out of it. All this is factual history, if you cannot remember it, there's plenty of history online.

 

[Lost Seasider]

Sorry, you missed my point. Who pays for it is irrelevant to getting numbers off the unemployment statistics. Investment in skills for UK plc is an excellent idea, 50% of a year cohort at university is not that.

Great, but 50% and Thatcher have zero relationship to each other (19.3% if you're interested).

Half of those being given vocational training in all the "doing" skills we are so short of in construction and manufacturing would be great and much more cost effective, as well as ultimately satisfying for the individuals involved. When you have to have a degree of any sort to work in a customer call centre at the most basic level, world's gone mad.

Nothing to do with Thatcher or the Conservative party whatsoever.

Thatcher knew her "Labour is not working" poster when unemployment was at 1 million would come back to haunt her when it went up to 3.3 million on her watch, so put expansion in train to take hundreds of thousands of under 22's out of it.

And again, not a source in sight.

All this is factual history factually wrong, if you cannot remember it, there's plenty of history online.

FTFY.

I'm bored, here's a source, use it to make your case if you can: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/SN04252.pdf

 

[Old_Laytonian]

The answer to the o/p is yes

 

[Wizaard]

We've all forgotten that because it never actually happened. I believe Mr Blair is the chap you're after.

Looking at the graph, 1992 saw John Major in charge. Labour carried on with it, true enough.

 

[Scratcher67]

Leaving the argument about University v Vocational/Apprenticeship Training to one side.

My son is due to leave for Uni tomorrow.

1) The COST of studying a degree course is criminal. For most students it doesn't make sense and the country gets a poor return in terms of the skills it needs. Grants for tuition should be more selective (and not on parents income) and used as a means of focus for 'useful' study.

2) The Government has managed the pandemic response WOEFULLY, and are solely to blame for the dead-end corner that they have back us all into. The policy of lockdown and restrictions rather than protection of the vulnerable is inherently flawed and only a timely vaccine will save their bacon. Unfortunately for us, even in the best outcome this won't be effective until way into next year, by which time we will have lurched from one crisis to another whilst the economy crumbles. The prospects are bleak for all of us, but hopefully things will have improved in 3/4 years when these students come out with their degree.

3) The MEDIA have a large part of the blame to shoulder. Their hysterical and contradictory reporting of the pandemic merely fuels pointless speculation and encourages the wave of panic, fear and misinformation that was swamped the country. How many reports use the words 'could' and 'might' in their reporting. 'Long term Covid' is a good example of a rare occurrence with an infinitesimally small risk of occurrence. Why aren't we worrying more about the consequences of the lockdown policy with a vastly higher risk for more of the population. The media now have Universities in their sights and of course hour by hour the panic and hysterics rise.

The poor fcuking students themselves, some leaving home for the first time, are now stuck in this shithouse situation. Some probably nervous, maybe even scared ... others reacting badly to pointless restrictions with a defiance that might affect their lives and careers. None of them with the virus are suffering unduly with symptoms (the media would be all over them if they were) yet blocks of accommodation are locked down and security and police prowl waiting for youngsters to step over the line so they can fine them or chuck them out.

What the fcuk has happened to this country?

Oh yes, and let the bloody fans back in the grounds!

We have the ability to manage all these scenarios to minimise risk. We need to get on with life.

 

[Tangerinemoss]

Great, but 50% and Thatcher have zero relationship to each other (19.3% if you're interested).




Nothing to do with Thatcher or the Conservative party whatsoever.




And again, not a source in sight.




FTFY.

I'm bored, here's a source, use it to make your case if you can: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/SN04252.pdf

You are aware that this is a message board, not a peer reviewed paper ? I have lived through a lot of this, I have a memory, and I have an opinion, just like your good self. Most of what you post is your opinion. The fact that Thatcher did not get it to 50% is irrelevant. Her Government massively increased it, if your 19.3% is Kosher, that was double what it was when I was a student in her early days.

 

[Keith_Walwyns_hair]

My lad is going to Lancaster uni, he changed his mind about living in about two months ago and is going to commute. One lecture a week he has to be there until next term. The rest online. So at least he’s saving some money by living at home.

 

[Lost Seasider]

You are aware that this is a message board, not a peer reviewed paper ?

Yes, however that doesn't mean we should not support out claims when challenged.

I have lived through a lot of this, I have a memory, and I have an opinion, just like your good self.

Memorys are falliable, what you think you remember and what actually happened are not always the same thing.


Let's go back to your OP:

maybe we have all forgotten that the huge expansion was the Tories way of getting huge numbers of youngsters off the unemployment register.

This is the number of students obtaining degrees over time (link already provided):


From the data we see:

• student numbers relatively static until 1960;
• a huge increase in the 1960's, nearly 29,000 equating to 128%
• a further 17,000 or 33% increase in the 1970's.

In the 1980s by contrast we see only a further 9,000 students or about 12% in the 1980s and note also that the increase is only in female students, the male population remained the same.

So the idea that the expansion was a scheme to keep down unemployment numbers in the 1980s is patently bulls***, you're talking about the lowest absolute and relative increase for any decade since 1960.

There is one grain of truth in your claim:


There is a small peak in the early 1980's, which may have been somewhat related to the economy at the time, but compared to the Bliar era expansion it is utterly inconsequential, single figures thousands compared to 100,000 plus.


So, do you stand by your original claim?

 

[Tangerinemoss]

The clue is in your last graph.

Can you guess what it is?

 

[Lost Seasider]

The clue is in your last graph.

Can you guess what it is?

I could but it would be much easier if you just said it (and provide evidence if appropriate).

 

[Kip]

The whole thread is about the surge of people into higher education not about a gradual increase over the last 100 years. That was clearly implemented by the Blair government - it's bizarre that anyone would argue otherwise - and is counted as one of the successes of the Labour government at the time.
I assume Moss is talking about the polytechnics but that's central to the whole ethos of getting 50% into higher education. It's arguing for the sake for it.

 

[Tangerinemoss]

The whole thread is about the surge of people into higher education not about a gradual increase over the last 100 years. That was clearly implemented by the Blair government - it's bizarre that anyone would argue otherwise - and is counted as one of the successes of the Labour government at the time.
I assume Moss is talking about the polytechnics but that's central to the whole ethos of getting 50% into higher education. It's arguing for the sake for it.

Nope, it means the huge increase actually started much earlier than you guys will accept .

And as one with social democrat tendencies, I think Labour continuing to grow it was a huge error. They should have put the money into vocational training, as I and others said above.

And as for arguing for the sake of it ..............

 

[Lost Seasider]

Nope, it means the huge increase actually started much earlier than you guys will accept .

I've no idea what you mean by this, are you saying that I don't accept the figures that I've posted, or that you have some separate figures that I don't have access to?

 

[Tangerinemoss]

Nope, there is a huge number of degrees missing from your data. Kip got it