Let’s limit degrees to the jobs that really need them
EDUCATION Secretary Damian Hinds has said that students should contribute to their education on the grounds that after they graduate, they will benefit from higher salaries (Mail). He certainly has, but he did not pay for his education at Oxford University. While it is true that in some cases graduates will earn more than those who do not follow this path, they are not the only ones who benefit: the country prospers from their acquired knowledge and skills. It is a fallacy that all graduates will be rewarded by higher salaries. In order to become a barrister or a solicitor, those who graduate in law have to secure training contracts. However, there are far fewer contracts than there are graduates, and so many have to make do with working as paralegals in law firms on salaries barely above the minimum wage. It was former prime minister Tony Blair’s wish that half of young people obtain a degree. I ask why? There are many professions that flourished for generations by people learning on the job with part-time study rather than going through the rigours of obtaining a degree. If degree-level education were limited to students in the essential professions such as engineering, the law and medicine, the cost to the country would be more affordable. I am a chartered civil and structural engineer. I did not pay tuition fees and received a maintenance grant as an undergraduate, which created a responsibility for me to succeed — I felt I owed society a debt. I saw the same philosophy among students when I became a visiting lecturer in the early Nineties. However, this was no longer evident when tuition fees were payable and those attending became clients who wanted to be spoon-fed rather than students with a thirst for learning.
ROBERT J. EVANS, Birmingham.