Since the publication of A Level results last Thursday, the media has been awash with all the usual stories and opinions, from those of the asylum seekers who could barely speak English in January but who have just earned dozens of A*s to that of the student with mega results who was turned down by all of the universities to which he or she applied to the constant quoting of statistics about how many people are now chasing each available university place. It is to be wondered why journalists bother to write anything new at this time of year since you could pretty much predict in advance what they are going to be saying. Then there’s the story that appears in newspapers every August with tedious regularity, the one that could be headed, “Who Needs University Anyway?”
You know it well: a newspaper’s restaurant critic or motoring correspondent (these supposedly being “successful” people) will pompously hold forth about how they never went to university but, instead, got a job with an insurance broker at the age of ten before working their way up through hard graft and “talent” – which, apparently, you need to be a newspaper hack. Their views will be backed up elsewhere by the story of some top A Level or International Baccalaureate student who has rejected the university option in favour of training on-the-job as an accountant or something in a bank. Such students will be quoted smugly opining that their chosen route is preferable because it will give them a career without the need to amass a huge debt gaining an “irrelevant degree”.
Yes, yes. No-one wishes to run such people down, but when their views are an implied criticism of those who do choose university, it is difficult not to leap to the defence of the thousands of young people who, every year, put their hearts and souls into securing a place in higher education.
The first question to ask is, in what way is going to university less a “job” than paid employment? The accusation that those who go to university are somehow avoiding reality often lies at the heart of the “who needs university anyway” article. But how is this the case? How is studying – often late into the night – any less “real” than pushing paperwork around an office from nine to five every day? And, in the sense that students make a massive financial commitment that is effectively an investment in a derivative valued solely on their future prospects, it could even be said that those who get a job and see money coming in from an early stage are taking the easy way out.
That said, the main reason for attending university really has got nothing to do with money at all. Over the years, I have, obviously, spoken to many pre-university students about their aspirations and what has more often than not come back is the sense that they have given little thought to the career they might eventually enter. Some have, of course. There will always be the student who has known since he or she was a toddler that they wanted to be a lawyer, sometimes at a particular firm. But, for the most part, students have a much clearer sense of what they want to do at university and where, ideally, they will do it. University is their goal, not what it will lead to. This is the problem with the “who needs university” articles: they are predicated on the false premise that university is exclusively about gaining job-market-relevant qualifications. It is not. It is a valid experience in its own right. Given the costs involved, it would be a foolish student who did not have half an eye on how he or she is going to pay back his or her debts, but that rarely seems to be the major motive for going in the first place. University is a rite of passage that changes the way you think and the way that you interact with others. If you go on to take a higher research degree, you can go further in making a fairly selfless contribution to the improvement of society.
No comments:
Post a Comment