18 year old electrician paying the tuition fees of 'toffs'

[footnote]

On the Today programme this morning, - Theresa May asked Nick Robinson why an 18 year old electrician should pay the tution fees of a university student.

Clearly Chairman May has stepped over to 'the other side' and is now defending the pound in the working man's pocket against the extravagances of the hoity toity middle classes - all very laudable.

But in the interests of stoking Chairman May's class conflict scenario...

Why should the poor pay for the education of the rich?

Why should the rich pay for the education of the poor?

Why should the healthy pay for the care of the sick?

Why should the young pay for the care of the old?

Why should anyone give a fk about anyone else unless they can make a bob out of them?

This is the nub of Chairman May's argument - why should anyone pay for anything for anyone else - unless there's something in it that even the dopey working man can perceive in his thick, dense, working class skull as a clear benefit for him.

Why should anyone vote Conservative - other than 18 year old electricians?

[footnote]

Breadvan72 said:

Besides, not everything can be or should be monetised. I wouldn't much want to live in a society in which the study of classics was not a thing. Mary Beard cheers me up.

Exactly.

In as much as we know, we as individuals do only live once, and surely we (as a society) have advanced beyond the belief that the meaning of that individual life can only be viewed from a utilitarian perspective, with its education only perceived to be of value where it directly contributes towards the production of monetary gain - for the individual themselves or an employer.

The formal education system culminating in university level study also gives structure to those who come from backgrounds with no structure.

It's often notable that those who have a slightly dismissive attitude to students/university education will comment on the role of their families in giving them meaning/values and structure in life.
Having solid parental role models who light the way for them.

There are many people with no parental role models, with no family 'capital' who arrive at school with no social conditioning or understanding of the point of their lives.

These people can be bright and have potential to lead full and enriching lives if they can find a route through the social minefield which points its finger at them as being chavvy or , unsuitable or just plain social weirdos.

Academic achievement can serve to neutralise the social weapons that people from better backgrounds employ to get on.

It can't be taken away or trumped by accent or knowing the right knife to use.

[footnote]

Lotobear said:

..yes, all degrees have value but should we value them all the same?

The value 'society' places on degress has a relationship with the respect you accord the graduate.

You might be suggesting that society should place less value or accord less respect to graduates in theology than in medicine.

Which is fine until your daughter is possessed!

It depends on whether 'society' values functionality/utility over knowledge for the pleasure of knowing or general 'wisdom'.

Neither an architect nor a GP can help me with the meaning of life so unless I'm unwell or need a house, I'd be better off talking to a philosophy or literature graduate.

Over the course of a lifetime, I would hopefully spend more of it being enlightened and entertained by writers, filmmakers, painters and thinkers but if I have a sore tooth, I need a dentist.

We probably need to learn to value the wisdom we are given 'freely' as similarly to the skills for which we are compelled to pay highly.

[footnote]

Breadvan72 said:

tankplanker said:

...

Something like PPE at Oxford (and LSE) should have the most rigorous but balanced admissions process going as it gives the opportunity of one of the biggest push up the social ladder possible. We should be making the course accessible and affordable to the best and brightest, not those with the most money/contacts, as I would have thought we want the former not the latter running the country?

Access is based on ability, and money and contacts do not directly influence the admission decisions. The days of getting in because you are rich or well connected are mostly over.

Money and family help in two ways. Money buys you either private schooling or a house near a good state school. Family helps because if your family are familiar with the Oxbridge/Russell Group world they can make the process of applying seem less daunting, and can point out the sort of things that impress admissions tutors. A particular socio-economic background gives you levers, rather than a direct route in, but the levers can be important.

Coming from a background where achievement is the norm is probably the biggest factor in a child's future achievement.

Coming from a background where under-achievement is the norm is also probably the biggest factor in that child's future achievement.

[footnote]

Breadvan72 said:

I add that my experience as someone from a non wealthy and non well connected background is that Oxbridge opens doors. Elite universities can be engines for social mobility, but it is unfair to expect them to do all the work and to blame them when social mobility slows.

I worked at several Magic Circle (and other City) law firms over a period of a decade or so and the trainee intake each year was always more than half Oxbridge and sometimes nearly all Oxbridge.

A smaller but significant proportion had been to public school.

Although all of the firms engaged in community engagement activities, I can't recall any 'local' trainees who'd come through the system. Time will tell I suppose.

Of course, by that stage many people have learnt it's better to hide a poorer background so it wouldn't be obvious.

I recall a couple at partner level who made a thing of being working-class made good but they were right aholes.

[footnote]

footnote said:

I recall a couple at partner level who made a thing of being working-class made good but they were right aholes.

Just read that back and thought it worth clarifying that that's not a pointed remark at anyone on this thread. It's just that when I think of the two men in question I can't help but recall how comedically 'northern working class' they appeared.

Both had developed hunting and fishing habits and left magazines and trophies around the offices as though they expected to be applauded for their sophisticated pastimes and praised for their progress from their working class roots.

[footnote]

University changed my life.

Not financially particularly, although I did earn more aferwards but mainly because before university I'd only worked in jobs where my worth was measured in my ability to perform a limited range of mainly physical tasks.

To be in a place where people attached value to what I thought, rather than just what I did, entirely changed the way I valued myself.