Re: was it better back then?
As far as the availability of employment went, it was definitely better. It was also better in that those with the aptitude could get excellent apprenticeships that made them into real craftsmen after 6 or 7 years learning "on the job". I don't believe you can compare that with 18 months at college, which seems to be the norm today.
I don't think not going on to uni was, really, a matter of what parents could afford. There was a very good grant system in place then, unlike today, and though parents had to contribute it was graduated according to their earnings and more found they could afford it than you would think. I really think it was a matter of expectations. There was no tradition of further education amongst the Working Class, prior to the 1944 Education Act, and it took quite a long time for that to change.
Now, I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. A lot of schools aspire to have as many pupils as possible entering uni and it's looked on as the only real goal to aim for. That's a shame because not everyone is academic by nature and being of a practical, rather than academic, nature doesn't mean being less intelligent or less worthy. That comes back, again, to the demise of the full apprenticeship which was an education in itself.
So yes, Cashy, on the whole I agree with you.
__________________
*
Some cinemas let the flying monkeys in............and some don't.
|