going to university for "an education"...

Poll

Would you go to university or take the traineeship?

I've mentioned on this board before both that I am a university teacher in my late 30s and that since signing up here I've been surprised at how careerist many of those now applying for university would appear to be.

A hypothetical circumstance:

Suppose it was the case that most or all of the major employers (government, law firms, accountancy companies, &c.) operated a twin-track employment scheme - they will hire 18 year olds straight from school and provide them with a paid vocational training, leading to an industry accreditation, and will as well hire university graduates as they do now. And neither entry route is to be understood as conferring any advantage in terms of future prospects. Professional accreditations are as well-regarded as degrees and provide no bar to careers switching either.

In this case, the element of what's in the interests of your career is removed from the decision-making process. Anyone choosing to go the university route would be opting for a higher education for its own sake, for "the joy of learning", and at the opportunity cost of three years of earning (let's suppose the 18-21 traineeships pay a modest-enough 14K on the average).

I wonder, then, how many of you would go the university route?

Reply 1

cardsonthetable

8

cambio wechsel

I've mentioned on this board before both that I am a university teacher in my late 30s and that since signing up here I've been surprised at how careerist many of those now applying for university would appear to be.

A hypothetical circumstance:

Suppose it was the case that most or all of the major employers (government, law firms, accountancy companies, &c.) operated a twin-track employment scheme - they will hire 18 year olds straight from school and provide them with a paid vocational training, leading to an industry accreditation, and will as well hire university graduates as they do now. And neither entry route is to be understood as conferring any advantage in terms of future prospects. Professional accreditations are as well-regarded as degrees and provide no bar to careers switching either.

In this case, the element of what's in the interests of your career is removed from the decision-making process. Anyone choosing to go the university route would be opting for a higher education for its own sake, for "the joy of learning", and at the opportunity cost of three years of earning (let's suppose the 18-21 traineeships pay a modest-enough 14K on the average).

I wonder, then, how many of you would go the university route?

I would choose university as I enjoy more the intellectual challenge of engaging with concepts and ideas. My course of study is less about getting a job than it is about deep learning and I don't think you would get that on a traineeship.

Reply 2

BeckysLover

8

I understand that it's hypothetical. How could this be applied to those of us studying medicine? Surely getting ''an education'' is the best route to go.

I can see the appeal here. Personally I'd still opt for higher eduction. I purely base my decision on the fact that I do enjoy learning.

Reply 3

__IWalkTheLine

I'd definitely go the university route. I come from a working class family, and the easier option for me would probably have been to try and find a job with my results from school. As it stands, by the time I leave university, I'll probably have accrued about 20k worth of student debt. I need to learn, I need to have an education. That's why I'm doing it. I love the idea of an intellectual - and personal - challenge.

Reply 4

PhantasyStar

cambio wechsel

I've mentioned on this board before both that I am a university teacher in my late 30s and that since signing up here I've been surprised at how careerist many of those now applying for university would appear to be.

A hypothetical circumstance:

Suppose it was the case that most or all of the major employers (government, law firms, accountancy companies, &c.) operated a twin-track employment scheme - they will hire 18 year olds straight from school and provide them with a paid vocational training, leading to an industry accreditation, and will as well hire university graduates as they do now. And neither entry route is to be understood as conferring any advantage in terms of future prospects. Professional accreditations are as well-regarded as degrees and provide no bar to careers switching either.

In this case, the element of what's in the interests of your career is removed from the decision-making process. Anyone choosing to go the university route would be opting for a higher education for its own sake, for "the joy of learning", and at the opportunity cost of three years of earning (let's suppose the 18-21 traineeships pay a modest-enough 14K on the average).

I wonder, then, how many of you would go the university route?

I would still go if it allowed time to study my career; I'm not in it for the money, I just love cgi.

Reply 5

cambio wechsel

OP

20

Poll results are heartening thus far (7-0 for university at time of writing). Possibly I should have stressed that in this hypothetical situation the two routes are seen as equally 'respectable'.

Reply 6

Summer241

I'm studying nursing so 50% of the course is on-the-job training anyway.

I would much rather do paid vocational training than have to take the degree route, simply because it would mean I wouldn't have so much debt. But for some reason it's been decided that all nurses need to be degree educated... As a 'mature' student, the whole student scene doesn't really appeal to me. I just want to get my qualification and get out to work.

Reply 7

-Neon-

I don't think I'd like to go straight into a full-time job at 18.
If I was say 23, I think I rather go down the vocational route than go to university. Doing a part-time degree would also appeal more to me.

Reply 8

ncsjohn02

10

i wouldnt miss the university opportunity. not at this age. its still too early to work. :p:

Reply 9

Kolya

17

If the goal is "an education" or the desire to learn, is university really the best choice? Why not just make a few clever, helpful friends and buy some books? Perhaps people are careerist about university because universities themselves are more and more about accreditation and not about some old (and perhaps never realized) idea of the formation of an intelligent and educated person.

Reply 10

EnragedMoose

University is a formal processs in which you learn to answer questions on a given topic. The experience has limited application and is disgustingly over-rated.

I'd rather do a traineeship where concept and practical implementation are valued equally, The value of knowledge lies in it's application. The problem is the vast number of 17 year olds (both past, present and future) who are too indecisive and inept to decide what they want to do with their lives and specialise, so they do a degree where they have a grace period of 3-4 years to piss about - then face the music and tick a box in a potential employers criteron - not always an education - then often end up doing the complete opposite. Or young people who know what they want to do, and go to university and learn skills still irrelevant to what they want to do in a practical sense - just to get to the interview stage on their prospective employers tick box.

Ultimately all jobs become a habit, regardless of what you did to get there.

Sad story really, rat race fiends.

Reply 11

silverliterature

id rather just chill out. easiest way of earning money. as long as i could afford a flat somewhere so can i meet girls and pull, go out and drink. i think uni offers those opps as well. uni offers a chance to meet people in non prof setting though which is quite good. i reckon id choose uni actually.

Reply 12

hobnob

14

cambio wechsel

I've mentioned on this board before both that I am a university teacher in my late 30s and that since signing up here I've been surprised at how careerist many of those now applying for university would appear to be.

Hmm, I can see why it might be easy to get that impression, but think one thing which you're forgetting here is that TSR members (and GUD posters in particular) probably aren't really representative of university applicants. Also, the people who aren't careerist and planning their lives as investment bankers and accountants before they're out of primary school normally don't have any reason to announce this to the world or ask people's advice about their plans for the future, which is why we don't see lots of threads here with titles along the lines of 'Ultimately I'd like to end up with a job (preferably one which isn't too boring and badly paid), but I don't know what sort of job, and to be honest, I can't really be bothered to think about that yet, because I'd just like to have a bit of fun first'.

It's a bit like the putting grades in sigs thing: by looking at sigs, it's easy to reach the conclusion that the average TSR member achieves at least three A*s at GCSE and AAB at A-level, but I seriously doubt that sigs represent an accurate picture. Obviously the people who don't have those kind of grades won't really feel the need to boast with their grades quite so much, especially in a context where everybody appears to have perfect grades and to be aiming for Oxbridge (where they're 'determined' to get a first, naturally).

Or to put all of this a bit more briefly: don't believe everything you read on TSR. :p:

Reply 13

EnragedMoose

hobnob

Or to put all of this a bit more briefly: don't believe everything you read on TSR. :p:

Don't belive a word on TSR, It's the 4-Chan of the pseudo-elite.

Reply 14

BeefyCheese

cambio wechsel

I've mentioned on this board before both that I am a university teacher in my late 30s and that since signing up here I've been surprised at how careerist many of those now applying for university would appear to be.

A hypothetical circumstance:

Suppose it was the case that most or all of the major employers (government, law firms, accountancy companies, &c.) operated a twin-track employment scheme - they will hire 18 year olds straight from school and provide them with a paid vocational training, leading to an industry accreditation, and will as well hire university graduates as they do now. And neither entry route is to be understood as conferring any advantage in terms of future prospects. Professional accreditations are as well-regarded as degrees and provide no bar to careers switching either.

In this case, the element of what's in the interests of your career is removed from the decision-making process. Anyone choosing to go the university route would be opting for a higher education for its own sake, for "the joy of learning", and at the opportunity cost of three years of earning (let's suppose the 18-21 traineeships pay a modest-enough 14K on the average).

I wonder, then, how many of you would go the university route?

i am goin uni cause i dont know what trainee is

Reply 15

cambio wechsel

OP

20

BeefyCheese

i am goin uni cause i dont know what trainee is

Grand. There is no better reason.

Reply 16

EnragedMoose

BeefyCheese

i am goin uni cause i dont know what trainee is

cambio wechsel

Grand. There is no better reason.

But saving the working, workforce the bother of your presence, that is.

Reply 17

NikNakWakAtak

cambio wechsel

I've mentioned on this board before both that I am a university teacher in my late 30s and that since signing up here I've been surprised at how careerist many of those now applying for university would appear to be.

I think I just shiit myself; reminds me of the time I was speaking about a teacher behind their back, only for them to be behind my back!

cambio wechsel

A hypothetical circumstance:

Suppose it was the case that most or all of the major employers (government, law firms, accountancy companies, &c.) operated a twin-track employment scheme - they will hire 18 year olds straight from school and provide them with a paid vocational training, leading to an industry accreditation, and will as well hire university graduates as they do now. And neither entry route is to be understood as conferring any advantage in terms of future prospects. Professional accreditations are as well-regarded as degrees and provide no bar to careers switching either.

In this case, the element of what's in the interests of your career is removed from the decision-making process. Anyone choosing to go the university route would be opting for a higher education for its own sake, for "the joy of learning", and at the opportunity cost of three years of earning (let's suppose the 18-21 traineeships pay a modest-enough 14K on the average).

I wonder, then, how many of you would go the university route?

If it was like this i would certainly go down the career route only because I'd fear I wouldn't get my ideal job if I didn't.

Although, to be fair, I study History when I don't need it for my ideal job; I want to be a filmmaker. :o:

Are you marking what I'm saying? :p:

Reply 18

TheSownRose

16

Wouldn't really be applicable to my situation because your wording suggests you're not including healthcare jobs.

However, in the event that I wanted to have a job in a field where I could do a traineeship instead of go to university, I would do the traineeship. I'm not really at uni for the experience or the love of learning - I'm only there to get the degree I need to qualify as an optometrist.