Live! - News

BCC slams 50% target

Apr 21 2004 20:59

Oliver Pell

British businesses have criticised the government’s 50% target for higher education participation.

More young people should embark on vocational training such as modern apprenticeships, according to the BCC.

The British Chambers of Commerce, representing over 135,000 businesses in the UK, has criticised the government’s plans for 50% participation in Higher Education. The report from the BCC’s Commerce Skills Taskforce, published today, calls for the government to abandon the 50% target and to promote more vocational training.

The report notes that a high proportion of new jobs which will be created in the short and medium term will be in occupations that normally recruit those with Higher Education qualifications, however, concludes that “there should be no target for university admissions because simply increasing the number of graduates will not address the skills shortages facing business.” It goes on to state that “the gains for business will come from improving the take-up of vocational degrees…combined with workplace training.” A ‘parity of esteem’ problem is identified as one of the major hurdles to overcome with vocational courses being seen as less worthy than academic ones.

BCC Director General David Frost said “The emphasis on sending young people to University is not going to plug the skills gap as business needs more skilled workers not necessarily academics. Those who would benefit from going to University should of course go, but others may well achieve more from taking other paths.” He has called for a “radical overhaul” of the education and training system.

According to figures released last week by the Department for Education and Skills, 44% of young people entered higher education in 2002, up 1% on the previous year.

Email this Article | Share on Facebook

Discussion about “BCC slams 50% target”

The comments below are unmoderated submissions by Live! readers. The Editor accepts no liability for their content, nor for any offence caused by them. Any complaints should be directed to the Editor.

1. John Collins

Apr 22 2004 10:27

Hear Hear! In fact I am starting to notice some of my graduating friends considering careers in some trades such as plumbing. Many are rumoured to be earning in excess of £50K after only a few years experience - around half of what a graduate engineer would be expected to earn.

2. Sanjeev

Apr 22 2004 18:04

The point that perhaps needs to be addressed is the over-emphasis on academic qualifications as apposed to vocational qualifications. Perhaps a redress of the previous failure of AVCE's?

3. Alex Guite

Apr 24 2004 12:23

Would that be the same BCC which complains about the 'Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002' as being an unreasonable cost to business?

I agree that the 50% Government target is not a good one. But the motivation behind it is a good one: to broaden access to university to all people of all backgrounds.

The BCC is right to call for an expansion of vocational training, but wrong to criticise the expansion of the university sector. Instead of scaling back university participation, we should be providing more opportunities to pursue vocational training; there-by creating a choice between university and training for young people that never previously existed.

4. Nichola

Apr 24 2004 17:30

Yes, expand vocational training. Yes, increase participation in scuh training.

But the point is- why does it have to be three years long, called a Degree (with enough writen work to justify that, eg 3000 words on the social impacts of plumbing) and at an institution called a University to be worthwhile?

From Sanjeev's comment, it seems that calling the FE vocation courses Vocational "A-levels" hasn't been a success, but NVQs and GNVQs and BTECs seemed to be doing fine; sounds very much like what will now be attempted with HE.

If you call everything a degree, and everywhere a university, the names becomes meaningless- so why divert funds to do so?

5. Hat

Apr 24 2004 17:57

I was sat having nibbles before a careers fair a few weeks ago. It was a rather enlightening experience, as a group of exhibitors from various engineering firms/organisations chatted.

You see, engineering, (and i am going to suspect at leats a few other areas as well) cannot seem to attract qualified people. Infact, they can no longer, it seems, even train the current workforce as the (what was technical) colleges dont run practicle courses.

Its meant to be a promotion of life long learning, why this 50% thing is still around i dont really know. The government seems to be telling us we should all go to Uni whilst trying to tax us out of doing degrees. They could simply reduce the number of people there, but wiht fair access to all, and it wouldnt be such a problem.

What the government is trying to achieve is two things, on the one hand it needs an educated workforce (though thats screwed up by people just going to university, not going to university to get a qualification to go on to do somethign else, academic or vocational) and on the other hand it needs a work force. all these young people going to uni may make the unemployment figures look better, but its not improving the ballence between people paying tax (or specifically National "Insurence") and those drawing pensions. They need a higher birthrate (so lots of family credits, and money for kids) and a higher percentage of people at work (so high fees to go to uni. of course you could always do the open university and so study whilst paying tax)

Closedd This discussion is closed.