Age and Experience

A bad thing happened to me the other day. I was out and about with a friend - we wanted to find somewhere to have a drink - preferably somewhere with seats because we'd been on our feet for a wee while. Anyway the locality in which we found ourselves seemed to have only one drinking establishment and no seats.

Oh well. I'm still quite young, surely I can survive another few hours on my feet. It was a very good job I was wearing sensible shoes (even if they were bright red racing boots and didn't really go with what I was wearing): if I believed in it, I'd call it Karma, or something equally perplexing where stuff just happens.

When I arrived with this friend the music was fairly quiet - much like the place itself. This changed. A lot. When we hit 11.30pm a whole stream of students poured in and the music was cranked up a notch - in fact several. This made our conversation a little difficult, but we soldiered on.

By about 12.30 I had made a remarkable discovery. Apart from one exception, me and my friend were the oldest people there. Ouch. Big ouch. I felt all of my years in an instant. Bus pass anyone?

In fact all the people around my age were in pubs with seats, resting their potentially arthritic knees and not in a club full of students in fancy dress dancing to The Backstreet Boys and Rhianna.

You may remember I mentioned we were the oldest but for an exception. There was another group of, ahem, older people not too far from us and it wasn't long before we were looking for safety in wrinkly numbers just in case one of us got picked off (or even up) by some spotty adolescent by mistake.

This brings me, in a round-about way, to the concept of age and experience. In my head people always say age vs. experience, but surely they mean the same thing - if you're older you've had more experience (whether that be in work or just in life). Ok so there are some really irritating people that have bags and bags of experience and they're still only 18. We all hate those people, so let's not talk about them anymore.

In my opinion instead of age vs. experience, it should read age and experience vs. potential: that's really the only thing that you can compare - what a person has achieved vs. what a person might achieve. It boils down to the safe option vs. the risk.

That's all well and good, but at the beginning of this post I was feeling old - I was feeling all of my years and getting ready to cash in my pension plan. So I'm old but wait, I have no experience. At this point I want to say that I don't feel old and I haven't bought my first pot of anti-ageing cream yet, but I'm getting into my twenties and I still lack that elusive experience that is a) paid and b) permenant.

Bummer.

In the meantime, I'm going to stick to drinks at my local and places I can get to with my bus pass...

The Scottish Dilemma

I studied at university in Scotland. As a result I paid a mere £1,700 in tuition per year compared to my English counterparts studying in England who paid £3,000. That said I did study for four years and not three... I got quite a good deal really, though not as good as the Scottish students who paid diddly-squat.

I've already given my opinions on university and what I think of the fee rise, but now I'm going to delve a little deep into the problem with respect to Scotland.

Now from next year students in England studying at Scottish universities will pay, for the first time, the same as their friends studying in England - £9,000 a year. The Scottish students, however, will continue to pay nothing, nada, rien, zero, niente - you get the picture. I have a problem with this. I don't have a problem with the fee rise as I think it encourages people to really think before they commit to going to university, but I do have a problem with English students paying for what Scottish students get for free.

If there's one thing I noticed from studying in Soctland (and I want to stress that it wasn't like this for the majority), some Scottish students think they're owed a free university education. Many of them receive unconditional offers which often means they have obtained poor grades in comparison to their fellow-students south of the border. Many too have come to university solely because it's free and there's not much on offer for Scottish young people straight out of school.

Last year the Scottish government guaranteed funding for 2,300 more postgraduate places, a luxury not afforded to English students. On average Scottish students get better jobs and higher pay and the unemployment rate post-graduation in Scotland is 6.5%, 1% lower than that of English graduates.

There is some evidence of a slight migration - 1.9% more of employed graduates have looked for work outside of Scotland in 2009/10 than in 2008/09, with just 78.6% finding work in their native land. And though three years on a quarter of Scottish graduates are not in full time employment, the number is slightly lower than  those for the UK in general.

What is interesting, is that the statistics for those who decided to go on to further study across the UK rests at 16%; the Scottish equivalent is nearly 20%. So maybe the reason Scottish graduates are getting better job is because they have better opportunities in higher education. If more English students had funding for postgraduate study, they might be able to earn more in a better job: because Scottish students can get funding, they do get funding.

It's not all rosy for Scotland though, but not where you'd expect it to be either. Scottish students have the highest drop-out rate - more than 1% more than in the UK in general; state-educated students are less likely to get into university if they are Scottish; 5% fewer students from poorer backgrounds have access to university places in Scotland than in the UK.

The drop-out rate can maybe be explained by saying that if they're not paying for tuition, there's no obligation to stay. The class issue, however, is more complex. Apparently, poor Scottish students receive less in maintenance grant and loan - up to £1,500 less than their English counterparts - poor you, it's not as if your education is free...

This year more than ever this gap between England and Scotland is going to become more visible. I can't see these statistics changing very much over time, but they don't reflect the personal impact on potential undergraduates in England sacrificing a degree on cost grounds, whilst there might be a person in Scotland who goes, though they don't really want to, because it's free.

There has been a slight change in the number of Scottish students applying to Scottish universities - falling by just over a percent. Compare this to a 5.6% drop in the number of English applications and a 15.1% drop in Northern Irish applications. Interestingly, 6% EU students, who will also pay nothing at Scottish universities, have decided to cash in their lot in the home of the brave and the land of the free (well free for some, anyway).

So what's my conclusion? Firstly, it isn't fair. I know it sounds petty and childish, but it isn't: it's the accident of birth rehashed in a different form. Maybe the reason English graduates aren't doing as well as Scottish graduates is because they haven't had the same opportunities. If I could sit and wait for my dream job I would, but come April I have assured the Student Loans Company I will be employed so that they can start taking their money back. If I have no job by then, I'm very sorry, but the temping agency it is and my dream job goes on a back-burner.

I don't begrudge Scottish students their opportunities, but when they make their decisions based solely on cost and boredom, taking the place of a hard-working English student instead, that makes me cross.
'I got an unconditional offer, so I didn't try in my last term of Highers. I passed, but only just.'
'I worked really hard to get a B and I was one mark off, and I still didn't get into the university I wanted - in Scotland.'

Oh.

Sometimes life isn't fair.