Why has going to university become such a cultural norm?

[-]

Alarmed-Active-4644@reddit

Generations have had it drilled into them that its a necessity.

Problem is, although those opportunities did exist 40, 30, 20 years ago, they don't now. Loads of people enter the market with great educations, but the job availability isn't able to keep up.

[-]

The Blair government set a target of 50% of school leavers going on to higher education. That pretty much became synonymous with university education. That was a huge change, when I left school for Uni in 1981, only something like 7% of school leavers did so.

I remember in the last weeks of school our Rector gathered the modest group of us that were going to uni and gave us a very stern lecture on the great advantage we were being given, the country was investing in us and we had a duty not to bollox it up. This was back in the days before fees and when everyone got a support grant if some sort, even if you were assessed as begat the lowest need for assistance you got £300 a year (back when that was worth having).

Opening up higher places more widely changed a lot, not least the universities, colleges and techs had to scale up massively, tuition was no longer free and universal grants became a thing of the past.

Careers advice must have changed radically also, directing people into formal study that they previously wouldn’t have. And that’s got to be a mixed bag, better for some, worse for others with the price tag and lack of financial support that now comes with it (fee situ different in Scotland obvs).

It’s just a whole different ball game, and with the effect student loans have, I’m not at all sure it was entirely for the better. The financial commitment people have to make, at a point where many aren’t really mature enough to appreciate the real cost seems little short of scandalous.

[-]

Imaginary_Lock1938@reddit

> Ok, I've never been myself and it doesn't appeal to me because I woudn't call myself an academic (just for disclosure).

just put the fries in the bag, man, thanks

[-]

ZonaSchengen@reddit (OP)

You can still be intelligent without going to University, just saying.

The only trade off is that you have no documented proof of it.

[-]

PootMcGroot@reddit

That's the point of all qualifications - other people documenting proof of your abilities.

Else we're in a world of "trust me bro".

[-]

Much_Winter2202@reddit

Well, but why do you need a university degree for a lot of the jobs that require one? In the US, it's really common for retail stores to require a 4 year degree before promoting someone to management. However, they often promote from within, so they're trying to get like promising cashiers to do college online on top of working

Why would this need to be a degree someone shells out tens of thousands of dollars for? Why can't they do an apprenticeship model?

If it's something that's hard sciences or whatever -- okay, obviously you need to take an exam and do a practicum before you hatch out into the world as a psych provider or nurse or something serious like that.

But a lot of times, universities are only really giving you soft skills that transfer in a lot of unexpected ways. That's not a *bad* thing. But I see no reason why journalism can't be an apprenticeship/mentoring type job. I don't know why you need a degree for that. Same thing with most media jobs.

In cases like that they're judging you on how "good" the reputation of the school is and did you stick with something for 3-4 years. When it comes to unpaid work, working-class kids can't even afford to get on the internship ladder that way. That means employers are leaving a huge portion of talent unexamined and untested. To me that's like leaving money on the table in a way.

[-]

happybaby00@reddit

In the US, it's really common for retail stores to require a 4 year degree before promoting someone to management.

Because being a store manager isnt the end goal. A regional manager is and credentials in management or logistics is crucial for that.

[-]

Much_Winter2202@reddit

...there's no reason for this, because not every store manager will become a regional manager. And it still makes no sense to put the tuition burden on a young person making hourly, not management, money. The more sense-making step is to require it for regional management but not store level management

[-]

happybaby00@reddit

that's why its called risk, most people want to advance in their career not just stay in a role their whole lives on the same pay.

[-]

Much_Winter2202@reddit

It shouldn't take tens of thousands of dollars to even get considered for a promotion, when they can train you for it. I don't understand why you're in favor of people going into debt on the off-chance of getting a promotion, which can end VERY badly, as opposed to encouraging jobs to use the apprenticeship model?

I also will be totally honest with you: I don't think you need a degree to do regional manager work. The army trains people in logistics and managing other people. There's no reason Walmart, Staples, etc can't also train people to be a regional manager. It's not rocket science. That's why so many of these "degrees" they'll accept aren't even from accredited schools, it's places that advertise online degrees on cable TV. It's the equivalent of a mail-order degree from a correspondence school decades ago

If you go back in time 60 years, there's no way Sears and Woolworths were requiring store managers in small towns to have 4 year degrees, and that's the golden age of brick and mortar retail. At the upper levels they were probably looking for college grads, but there's no reason for the inflation in requirements for these very modest jobs as these industries more or less die off.

I'm not sure why you think ALL the risk should be on already-broke hourly employees in retail? At some point if these businesses want to survive they should be getting better at spotting and training talent internally.

[-]

Imaginary_Lock1938@reddit

> army trains people in logistics and managing other people

when amounts of goods and number of subordinates become equivalent to that of a retail regional manager, they definitely train them at - Sandhurst/West Point. It's not an NCO's job, and CO are graduates. NCOs don't tend to become COs, rather it's the graduate COs who manage older and more experienced NCOs.

[-]

Imaginary_Lock1938@reddit

it's not even just about intelligence as quantified by pattern matching via Raven's IQ test.

Industriousness also matters, no test can check for that, but 3-4 years of university or rather the academic transcript documents that.

[-]

No-Taro-6953@reddit

Right.

But broadly, intelligence is honed and developed at uni, so it can actually be applied in day to day life and the workplace.

It sounds like you're insecure in your life choices and you're trying to diminish uni attendance to justify your choice.

That isn't especially intelligent.

[-]

MainGeneral4813@reddit

This guy

[-]

M_M_X_X_V@reddit

Wasn't his government the one who introduced tuition fees though?

[-]

OldEcho@reddit

I went to uni because my parents told me to because they thought I'd get a good job and loads of money so they could brag about me I guess.

I was extremely depressed and trans and constantly prevented from realizing that so it was just a big waste of time and money and I flunked out after attending like 4 classes total in 2 years.

As an adult I've come to believe that uni qualifications are mostly bullshit and have nothing to do with the quality of your work or intelligence. And you can just lie on CVs, which I do often, or get a degree from some diploma mill which accepts "life experience." Nobody really checks in detail or cares, it's basically just a way to check your social class. If you're remotely intelligent you could be a CEO and probably do a better job than most of them, but you wont get that job unless your social class allows it and they are in fact a lot more stringent on checks. Uni is the lesser version of that.

[-]

Vivid_Sun_5636@reddit

Politically, more people in education mean fewer in unemployment and more people attaining higher levels of education feels like an improvement in society. Really, it has meant an inappropriate leveraging of a system that was build to generate academic scholarship to be a measure of education level for the world of work. It isn’t very good at that; the core advantage of the UK’s previous academic advantage has been undermined and to pay for it has meant silly amounts of debt for people that haven’t really benefited and a time-limited sell out to international students that is now starting to crumble.

[-]

apeliott@reddit

It goes back to 1999 when Blair decided that at least 50% of young people in the UK should go to university.

[-]

No-Jicama-6523@reddit

I used to think he was completely wrong on this, particularly when it was just university, now when you loop in training, plus a much greater understanding of when brains reach maturity, plus growing up myself and recognising that I've learnt more in the last two years, in my mid 40s than I did at university, I'm starting to think he may be on to something, but a massive amount of research needs to be done before any implementation.

Take GCSE maths and English, it's often one attempt at 16, one at 17, then you're pushed towards functional skills, but why are we even testing kids on the same material? I understand that the classes that are borderline will skip a few advanced topics, but they are still covering the bulk of the material. How about they slow down and concentrate on core material to be assessed at 18, that could apply to anyone currently getting 2-5/6, hopefully slowly down would mean a significant numbers of 2s and 3s turn into 4s at 18, and the kids don't feel so demoralised by failing twice and maybe getting the relevant functional skills qualification. The higher end of the bracket benefit by mastering and perfecting the material and perhaps the top scores get a 7 (or equivalent label).

The idea that people stop learning at 16/18 or even 25 is crazy. As is the idea they university is the main way to carry on learning, or the exams are the main way learning should be assessed. But we lack resources to learn after age 18, our further education colleges are good at some things, but aren't the resource US community colleges are.

[-]

pointlesstips@reddit

This is so weird as the metric should not be the goal.

Coming from a country where higher education is still very cheap and where levels reach 65 to 70 percent, in that country the decline of first and second sector as areas of employability is staggering: agriculture is techhnologically industrialised and heavy industry such as production etc, all moved to lower cost countries. So the expectation is that most people will have to be employed in services and gdp will mostly be generated by 'skilled' workers (I hate this term. Neither of my parents enjoyed further education amd they will always be more skilled than I'll ever be). That means higher education.

What it also does is slow down the entry of more workforce on the labour market.

[-]

trmetroidmaniac@reddit

I'd have expected that his reputation is so low that he'd dare not speak up to tarnish such proposals by association.

[-]

happybaby00@reddit

Are rich people thinking like you or not? Its still the best way for social mobility in this country.

[-]

defconluke@reddit

Because any sort of careers advice (at least when I was leaving sixth form about 15 years ago) was absolutely rubbish.

Maybe it's because I went to a grammar school, the majority of students were smart enough to get the grades required to go to university, so that was the path they lead us down.

But nobody really took the time to talk one-on-one to find out what we were interested in and how we learned. As such, we had no real guidance from anyone and alternative options weren't really presented to us.

During lesson time we were given guidance on the application process and how to write our personal statements, when the deadlines were etc. but nothing on any alternatives.

I wouldn't trade my time at university for anything, it really helped me to grow as an individual, but I couldn't wait to leave after 3 years. With no idea about my options at the time, carrying on with education was the easiest choice even if I think my degree wasn't the best fit for me.

[-]

superpantman@reddit

Oh please, as if getting an undergrad degree proves you’re intelligent

[-]

No-Taro-6953@reddit

Because being well educated, for education's same, is actually incredibly useful and translates well into a ton of degrees, even if a degree isn't vocational.

[-]

Much_Winter2202@reddit

The problem with that is that the students don't necessarily understand that. If they're taking out loans expecting that this will lead to higher incomes, then still find themselves working in restaurants or retail with loans hanging over them...that's not very fair.

Education is a good thing but perhaps the gov't should work on making it more accessible at less cost to individuals.

[-]

sjjabdbfepslj@reddit

Honestly I think it's society pressure of assuming you know what you want to do for the rest of your life. Who has any idea at 18 and even if they have some sort of idea, studying for 3 years can help determine what they want to do/where they can find work

[-]

Victoriaspalace@reddit

For me, there were two main factors.

The first was that my school heavily pushed us into higher education. I don't know what that looked like behind the scenes, but it very much seemed like they really wanted to brag and celebrate just how many students they got into Russell Group universities.

Secondly, socially, there's not a lot of opportunities for young people to just move. A lot of my friends just wanted to "experience" it. Everybody wanted to experience freshers, university was independence but with idea that you'll be surrounded with tons of people your age. It's hard to turn down uni when you see your peers drinking and having the time of their lives at uni.

[-]

BigReference1xx@reddit

Because university education was the key to a much higher paying career, and vastly improved your quality of life as a result. So both parents and the state would strongly encourage kids to seek higher education. And that was true in basically every western/modern country in the world between 1960-2010.

Then, as more and more people got higher education, it wasn't the distinction it used to be previously, and premiums fell for jobs requiring higher education.

Then, they started jacking up the price of education, taking the burden off the state and putting it on the individual, and now the equation isn't so clear. For the first time ever, the unemployment rate amongst (male) graduates caught up with the unemployment rate with non-graduates.

https://fortune.com/article/gen-z-college-graduate-unemployment-level-same-as-nongrads-no-degree-job-premium-college-versus-skilled-trades/

None of this is UK specific, the same trend is happening in all OECD countries, basically.

[-]

draenog_@reddit

You get additional education beyond what you learn at A levels, particularly when it comes to independently gathering, evaluating, and synthesising information. That's valuable both for its own sake and in all sorts of careers.
As much as going to uni doesn't guarantee you a good job, the fact that it's so common to get a degree means that it becomes the minimum educational requirement in some workplaces.
Student finance is more of a graduate tax than a real debt. It's annoying, and I'm quite angry about recent freezes to the repayment threshold, but it's not something that you have to conceptualise as "hanging over you" in the way debt normally does.
It's both something you can do to get some breathing space while you figure out what career path you want to follow, and a coming of age experience where you mix with young people from all sorts of backgrounds from across the country (and from other countries) and have interesting life experiences that result in personal growth.

I don't think it's right for everyone. There are many people who would benefit from going straight into vocational training or getting an apprenticeship or something. But I couldn't imagine not having done it myself.

[-]

intangible-tangerine@reddit

It's a way to keep young people out of the full time workforce for a few years which is handy when there's more jobseekers than vacancies.

[-]

Proof_Diamond3406@reddit

Back 12 years ago it was the norm to go to uni, there were girls in my year who went to do photography so they could get 3 years ‘off’ working, so silly

[-]

blozzerg@reddit

In the early 00s it was pushed by schools because it made them look good. If a high percentage of your kids go on to college and then uni, you looked like a really good, successful school.

Plan 1 loans were sold as being the best loan you’ll ever get, no interest, no repayments until you earn ~£25k, worst case scenario is they get wiped out after 30 years anyway, you’d be stupid to not get the loan and go to uni because you’ve nothing to lose.

The better jobs did used to require a degree. Any degree. If you want to have a good wage and not end up in a supermarket or McDonald’s, you need to go to uni.

This has kinda stuck over the years until recently, well, since the loan terms got changed, fees increased, interest rates increased, schools oversubscribed, minimum wage increased, median wage stagnated, number of grad jobs decreased, it’s becoming less desirable to go to uni.

[-]

Jaded_Valuable439@reddit

It’s just… an option. That’s it.

[-]

LN-66@reddit

Hope, further access to education, you don’t ’pay’ at the time and this is normalised.

Lack of alternative options / education and access to them. All children are required to be ‘in education’ until 18. This includes trades.

[-]

VariForge@reddit

partly because employers started using degrees as a filter for any office job even when the job doesnt need one It became a box ticking exercis

[-]

Emergency-Assist-421@reddit

It’s a very easy filter I don’t blame them.

[-]

PootMcGroot@reddit

It's a significant moment, because it's traditionally when children move out and become adults.

In the 60s and 70s, it was either that or marriage when a child "officially" left the home. Otherwise it wasn't weird to be living at home until your 40s.

Obviously, the world has now come full circle - the economy means that people living at home again until middle age isn't weird any more.

But that's why it's a cultural norm. Probably not for much longer.

[-]

Unbeknownsttooyou@reddit

When you say it's become a cultural norm... When do you think this happened?

[-]

Creative_Expert_4052@reddit

I don’t know if I’d agree it’s become the norm, if anything I think less people are going due to the raising awareness of the job market. It’s only worth going to uni if you’re doing a certain course at a top x uni.

Some people do go to their local unis for the social aspects, but even then there isn’t anything necessarily wrong with that. The problem is people need to be made aware that they may not get a good financial return by going to the 100th ranked university whereas if they went to a top 20 they would. Or a tourism course vs an economics course.

The student debt is a problem and the government does need to change how the interest is calculated.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Please help keep AskUK welcoming!

When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' you may receive a ban for violating this rule.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!

Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.