Need to return to old fashioned "Techs" for trades and practical training as ITs become Technical Universities?

[Patslatt1]

Old fashioned tech schools taught many trades well including construction and manufacturing trades, and attracted international attention for the quality of training. Teachers and instructors were valued for their practical experience in trades, experience that clearly enhanced the quality of their instruction.

With the move to institutes of technology, it seems a more academic approach to instruction in trades came at the expense of some reduction in practical instruction. At the same time, the quality of institutes' advanced professional training in certain advanced professions such as mechanical engineering has been inferior to university standards,though they have been surprisingly successful in other fields such as computer software training going by senior computer industry positions obtained by graduates.

With the government's approval, several institutes of technology aspire to becoming technical universities. See an argument for this at Technological Universities Should Bring Out the Best of Both Sectors It emphasises the need to serve local and regional communities. In the USA, many non-university technical colleges have succeeded in this by keeping a very close relationship with the technical and recruitment needs of businesses in their regions and adapting their curriculums as needed,often rapidly.

With university status requiring rigid academic criteria, it would be very difficult to change curriculums rapidly , preventing efficient service to local and regional communities. In addition, instructors with years of practical experience would need to spend more years doing narrow specialised PhDs to be taken seriously,a barrier to entry that would reduce the recruitment pool of instructors. In many cases, heads of departments may be PhDs with little practical experience.

So practical technical training would tend to be downgraded for trades. That makes a case for restoring the old technical schools or a third level version of them.

The only argument that would justify technological universities is that traditional universities don't adapt quickly enough to serve the needs of industry in the sciences and engineering. This is not to argue that universities should emphasise technical training for specific short term needs of industry as opposed to thorough,broad technical education in core principles.

 

[neiphin]

. This is not to argue that universities should emphasise technical training for specific short term needs of industry as opposed to thorough,broad technical education in core principles.

Then what is it ?

 

[Lumpy Talbot]

Jayze Pat, you are a hardy man for what is basically a Conservative Party manifesto. Apart from our discussion of the fiction and reality of corporate tax take in the state and the ease with which high net worth individuals can avoid tax on another thread, here we are with another ready-made-plank of the Tory manifesto- 'Let's reverse the mistake of social mobility and train the children of the poor to be able to fix our kitchen door or paint the hall'....

 

[Baron von Biffo]

Jayze Pat, you are a hardy man for what is basically a Conservative Party manifesto. Apart from our discussion of the fiction and reality of corporate tax take in the state and the ease with which high net worth individuals can avoid tax on another thread, here we are with another ready-made-plank of the Tory manifesto- 'Let's reverse the mistake of social mobility and train the children of the poor to be able to fix our kitchen door or paint the hall'....

Nice bit of snobbery there, looking down on carpenters and painters.

Sending someone to university to 'study' bar management or gender studies does nothing to promote social mobility. It merely imposes a burden on the taxpayer, and ironically, on the individuals themselves.

While it's never been the case that every undergraduate was a genius, universities were traditionally about educating those in the upper stratum of intellectual ability. The award of a degree was a confirmation that the student had reached the high standard demanded by such an institution.

What we're doing by inventing courses in nonsense and using universities to provide vocational training is devaluing all degrees and draining resources from proper education.

The young lad who 50 years ago could have left the education system after primary school, or with a Group cert after two years post primary, to work in the bar trade must now remain out of employment until his early twenties. And even then he's not starting out much better equipped.

He's lost several years of income and experience and he'll have to pay more tax to be wasted putting others through the same pointless process.

And it's also worth noting that it wasn't the children of the poor for whom access to university education was most difficult. We had grants to support them. It was the children of middle income PAYE workers (particularly those who lived away from the cities) who got the shitty end of the stick.

While the self employed could manipulate their income to reduce it for the period measured for grant eligibility, PAYE staff had no such option. The family income might be just a few quid over the grant threshold but not enough to pay the fees and maintenance.

That anomoly could have been addresed by refining the grant system rather than turning universities into degree mills.

 

[Patslatt1]

Nice bit of snobbery there, looking down on carpenters and painters.

Sending someone to university to 'study' bar management or gender studies does nothing to promote social mobility. It merely imposes a burden on the taxpayer, and ironically, on the individuals themselves.

While it's never been the case that every undergraduate was a genius, universities were traditionally about educating those in the upper stratum of intellectual ability. The award of a degree was a confirmation that the student had reached the high standard demanded by such an institution.

What we're doing by inventing courses in nonsense and using universities to provide vocational training is devaluing all degrees and draining resources from proper education.

The young lad who 50 years ago could have left the education system after primary school, or with a Group cert after two years post primary, to work in the bar trade must now remain out of employment until his early twenties. And even then he's not starting out much better equipped.

He's lost several years of income and experience and he'll have to pay more tax to be wasted putting others through the same pointless process.

And it's also worth noting that it wasn't the children of the poor for whom access to university education was most difficult. We had grants to support them. It was the children of middle income PAYE workers (particularly those who lived away from the cities) who got the shitty end of the stick.

While the self employed could manipulate their income to reduce it for the period measured for grant eligibility, PAYE staff had no such option. The family income might be just a few quid over the grant threshold but not enough to pay the fees and maintenance.

That anomoly could have been addresed by refining the grant system rather than turning universities into degree mills.

While I agree with many of the above comments, theree is an argument that third level for many students is the modern equivalent of Swiss finishing schools where girls including many from high income British families went to learn social skills and skills useful to housewives and hostesses of large social gatherings. Employers tend to be biased in favour of job applicants with good social skills.
A young male university graduate I met confessed he had wasted his years doing a useless pass degree by spending most of his student days socialising. I pointed out that he had advanced social skills and an interesting personality that could help him find a job dealing with people, whether in sales, customer relations or management.

 

[Lumpy Talbot]

I suspect there is something missing when education is only reserved as a process for securing and keeping a job. It seems less than ambitious for such a powerful tool as education.

I have encountered all sorts in my working life. The tory boy who cheerfully admitted plagiarising his way through University, which was a pity for him to admit as he had only been employed off the back of one job and his apparent educational record. Two nice enough lads and probably brighter than the first I mention who both studied theology at a minor university as a way of accessing a few year's of casual drinking- one of them coming very close to expulsion in the process.

Net effect of their education? A hangover and a bare minimum qualification. One of them at least is doing better than the aforementioned Tory boy living off Daddy's connections at the golf club and a laziness a mile wide.

Some of the best people I've worked with never went to University but just can do the job asked of them and in good style. The idea of technical colleges is a good one but the thing that would concern me is the necessary 'streaming' behind it. Will schools who now chase data each year to demonstrate they are a good school just end up consigning someone who could excel at a particular discipline to woodwork classes?

University isn't just about scores. For many it is their first venture away from the family as an adult.

 

[Dedogs]

Jayze Pat, you are a hardy man for what is basically a Conservative Party manifesto. Apart from our discussion of the fiction and reality of corporate tax take in the state and the ease with which high net worth individuals can avoid tax on another thread, here we are with another ready-made-plank of the Tory manifesto- 'Let's reverse the mistake of social mobility and train the children of the poor to be able to fix our kitchen door or paint the hall'....

in fairness mate it wasnt tradesmen that ****ed up the country it was ****s with degrees!!!!! anyways a good carpenter can make more money than a lot of ****ers in offices lookin down their noses at any lad works with his hands!!!!

 

[Lumpy Talbot]

in fairness mate it wasnt tradesmen that ****ed up the country it was ****s with degrees!!!!! anyways a good carpenter can make more money than a lot of ****ers in offices lookin down their noses at any lad works with his hands!!!!

Quite true and agreed. The reason for my comment was noticing Pat running right wing suggestions based on outdated class lines. On another thread the same chap is trying to pretend that companies and wealthy people actually contribute to 'official' tax rate levels which is absolute rubbish and he knows it.

In fact there are entire industries based on tax avoidance schemes for both demographics. The real rate of tax when you take into account their ability to reclaim tax in a way that PAYE workers can't is negligible in comparison to revenue.

It is a bit like the days when certain corporate fed chicks used to cluck about 'Chinese Walls' in the city, which mean that of course one division of a bank in possession of commercially sensitive client information would never dream of tipping off a colleague in another division about that commercially sensitive info...
They were all gentlemen, you see...

 

[Dame_Enda]

Ive always felt that the role of universities should be to prepare students for career opportunities, including manual trades which are particularly important in rural Ireland where jobs are scarcer. The legal profession is a self regulating cocoon and studying law will in most cases not get you a job there.

 

[Lumpy Talbot]

It depends what you think education is for. It was popular at one time to laud education as a driver of social mobility. Now that expectations have been raised only for a load of middle class kids to emerge from university with a lot of debt and no chance of buying a property it is all change, drop the lauding of education for reasons of social mobility and back to the good old days of career guidance in school recommending everyone become a plumber.

There is a general attempt to wind down the expectations of the post-Boomer generations as the conditions no longer exist to support the Boomer attainments. Generations Y and Z will be among the first since WWII to have to be told they will largely have to forget the idea of ever becoming as wealthy a consumer as their parents.

 

[Patslatt1]

Quite true and agreed. The reason for my comment was noticing Pat running right wing suggestions based on outdated class lines. On another thread the same chap is trying to pretend that companies and wealthy people actually contribute to 'official' tax rate levels which is absolute rubbish and he knows it.

In fact there are entire industries based on tax avoidance schemes for both demographics. The real rate of tax when you take into account their ability to reclaim tax in a way that PAYE workers can't is negligible in comparison to revenue.

It is a bit like the days when certain corporate fed chicks used to cluck about 'Chinese Walls' in the city, which mean that of course one division of a bank in possession of commercially sensitive client information would never dream of tipping off a colleague in another division about that commercially sensitive info...
They were all gentlemen, you see...

I've demolished your opinionated ideas about the wealth tax in Economics forum, so I won't do it over.

 

[Patslatt1]

It depends what you think education is for. It was popular at one time to laud education as a driver of social mobility. Now that expectations have been raised only for a load of middle class kids to emerge from university with a lot of debt and no chance of buying a property it is all change, drop the lauding of education for reasons of social mobility and back to the good old days of career guidance in school recommending everyone become a plumber.

There is a general attempt to wind down the expectations of the post-Boomer generations as the conditions no longer exist to support the Boomer attainments. Generations Y and Z will be among the first since WWII to have to be told they will largely have to forget the idea of ever becoming as wealthy a consumer as their parents.

The main barrier to a good standard of living is housing costs. Power hungry politicians fearing for their seats who pander to NIMBYS by allowing red tape and planning permission sagas are the culprits.

 

[Patslatt1]

Ive always felt that the role of universities should be to prepare students for career opportunities, including manual trades which are particularly important in rural Ireland where jobs are scarcer. The legal profession is a self regulating cocoon and studying law will in most cases not get you a job there.

Wills, house sales, property disputes, drink driving?

 

[Lumpy Talbot]

I've demolished your opinionated ideas about the wealth tax in Economics forum, so I won't do it over.

Pat, you demolished nothing. Your posts on certain subjects are simply a re-hash of Conservative Party manifesto Nigel Lawson stuff circa 1983.

 

[Sweet Darling]

Ive always felt that the role of universities should be to prepare students for career opportunities, including manual trades which are particularly important in rural Ireland where jobs are scarcer. The legal profession is a self regulating cocoon and studying law will in most cases not get you a job there.

When they started looking for degrees to keep the great unwashed out of nursing the standard of nursing went down due to the ending of "on the ward training".
Nurses are now to posh to wipe a Geriatic's backside. its the reason the Geriatric wards and old folks homes are staffed with Foreign nurses.
Don't make the same mistake with the tradesmen.

 

[Sweet Darling]

in fairness mate it wasnt tradesmen that ****ed up the country it was ****s with degrees!!!!! anyways a good carpenter can make more money than a lot of ****ers in offices lookin down their noses at any lad works with his hands!!!!

Did you ever get a quote from a working class salt of the earth trades man during the boom. They ripped off the working class even at "nixer" rates.

 

[Dearghoul]

It depends what you think education is for. It was popular at one time to laud education as a driver of social mobility. Now that expectations have been raised only for a load of middle class kids to emerge from university with a lot of debt and no chance of buying a property it is all change, drop the lauding of education for reasons of social mobility and back to the good old days of career guidance in school recommending everyone become a plumber.

There is a general attempt to wind down the expectations of the post-Boomer generations as the conditions no longer exist to support the Boomer attainments. Generations Y and Z will be among the first since WWII to have to be told they will largely have to forget the idea of ever becoming as wealthy a consumer as their parents.

Its heartbreaking to be cold called by young people that would in any other case be doing something useful. Pointing out to them the inequities of getting everyone University educated versus the likely demands of the job market is the quickest way to end a cold call.