In the Australian today was this piece

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/women-exceed-bradley-target/story-e6frgcjx-1226210429427

It said:

"AUSTRALIA is now just five percentage points short of the higher education attainment target with 14 years to make up the difference, according to new Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. The proportion of 25-34 year olds with higher education qualifications reached 35 per cent this year, a full percentage point higher than the 34 per cent recorded last year."

which is excellent news, isn't it?

It's excellent news if you're a young woman, because:

"[higher education researcher Alan Olsen] noted that women had now exceeded the Bradley target, with the proportion of degree-educated 25-34 year-old females rising from 37.7 to 40.3 per cent this year."

not so great for young men

"For males, the figure is still just below 30 per cent after rising half a percentage point this year."

Some here might recall that I pointed this out some time ago, to general derision, IIRC.

I was prompted by the story to have a look for Alan Olsen's publications and I came across this

http://www.spre.com.au/download/SPREGenderAgenda.pdf

It is a comprehensive review of the state of gender play in Australian universities and it is quite disturbing.

He says:
"Gender is a key factor in outcomes of higher education in Australia."

"[...]Discounting 320,970 international students, of 813,896 Australian students in higher education in 2009, 472,229, 58.0%, were women."

He goes on to show that in all aspects of higher ed in Australia, the biggest single predictor of whether an individual will firstly be able to participate and secondly, do well, is their gender.

"The proportion of 25-34 year olds reporting at least an undergraduate degree (undergraduate degree or postgraduate diploma or postgraduate degree) has increased from 19.3% in 1998 to 29.2% in 2005 and 2006, to 34.6% in 2009 and 34.2% in 2010, against the Gillard target 40%.

Again the gender agenda is in play. Since 2007 ABS has collected data by gender, and the 2010 figure 34.2% was the aggregate of 38.5% of young women and 29.9% of young men,"

So what are we going to do about it?

lets presume woman are smarter...ignore if true or not

so if they become mum..
and stay at home as a single mother[ie chose to live in hell]..or become a working woman...working mainly to pay child minding fees]

ok i lost my thought
but heck im only a man

but this hex thingy
that only kicks in later right
when their wages go up]...

how much gets repaid..
or what the course 'nursibng?'..tyeaching?

or is older woman trying to catch up
im always suss on numbers..they can be spun
anyway the spinner choses to spin it..

heck lets let the woman explain

it is what it is
you dont got the education requirments
well so be it

education should be a fre gift to the clever
the dumb should be put to work asp

the min ute we know they are destined
to become useless eaters..or their genes are transgenerationally injurous to their family lines

i feel dont just jail dad
jail the whole family

relocate them..[as a family unit
to be like king..in some poor cuntry...who knows their full detail and weakness..but in who their limite experteaze in english makes them a valuable community asset...

[the whole family wins a free trip..
and gets a scllarship managed suppliment
according as they get the respect...as earned as they are due]

sorry about the lateral thought
just all them young girls
i need to get educated

really

Just what we need more pen pushers, Put more emphasis on youth going into trades at 16 years of age would be more useful. We need people that can use their hands, and wear boots, not more office dudes.

Do we have to do anything about it? Why?

The fact is access to these opportunities are equal, much dependent on family expectations, pressures, personal wishes/abilities and finances. There is not much more to be done, let people make up their own minds.

It is the same stuff touted out by certain groups pushing more female CEOs and Board participation, but fact is too many people look at the figures without asking why? There are many social and other factors that might mean more men/women enter and participate in different fields.

I recently witnessed similar discussion on ABC's Big Ideas about access to women in these higher level roles but not one commentator (all smart women) offerred that the lower figure of female participants might better be explained by personal choices than by grand design and statistically you will get less women on boards if less women are applying (overall). A better figure would be gained by comparing success of female applicants with total number of female applicants than judging by total figures alone.

Does it really matter at the end of the day if in each sphere of life there is not 50/50 participation?

Surely it cannot ever be thus, what about pushing for more blondes on Boards. I reckon there is not enough.

What about people with disabilities who face much more discrimination or impediment to finding work than other folk.

I don't mean to rain on your parade Anti, but if you were a female poster pushing the CEO or Board participation agenda or why there aren't more women in engineering, my response would be the same.

Dear Pelly,

I wonder how many women are there in governing positions
on University Boards as compared to men? Just a thought.

A good point Lexi and Pelican.
Let's look at how many women there are in Government positions, or in corporate board rooms.
Let's make a song and dance about dragging all these percentages up to a more equal level. Why not?

For goodness sake Antiseptic, males have been the winners through higher education levels for hundreds of years in our history, with females considered only worthy of teaching home duties in very recent times.

Now that there is a more level playing field of opportunities in our education system, you are upset because maybe 10% more academics are female now?

Aren't you happy that there are the same higher educational opportunities out there for your daughter as your son?

If more females are successful at taking up these opportunities at the moment, then maybe the males need to lift their game?

Lexi, a typically fatuous response, citing the apex fallacy. "Some men are on top, therefore what happens to men not on top isn't important". A typical shallow feminist response given without thinking.

Pelican, begging the question. 50% of the population, more or less, are men, yet when it comes to uni, 60% of that gender get to attend and just 40% of men - a gap in access of 50%. In the 70s, when the gap in the other direction was less than half that, it was cause to introduce policies to encourage women's participation. Those policies continue today, even though women are in the majority.

I suspect that if the positions were reversed, you'd be quite exercised about it, no doubt waxing lyrical about the lost opportunities for those women who don't get to go to uni. Of course, the boys are just boys, they're not missing out on anything, after all, some men are in charge of some things...

If the trend in higher ed continues, within a few years universities will be man-free zones, by and large. I can't see why anybody would think that's a good thing, but i guess that's why I don't understand feminists.

Ah well, I've tried to get some decent conversations happening, but you lot only want to talk in circles about religious issues. Come to think of it, that's the same way you look at feminism.

God be with you, but I'm not going to bother any more. GrahamY, please remove my log in, I won't be back. There's simply no one worth talking to here.

Grahen y just in case you missed antiseptics plea for help, it said please remove my log in, there is no one here worth talking to.

Dear Anti,

Oh Dear. I'm sorry that my remark has upset you so greatly
however it was intended merely as a question to broaden
the topic of your thread and try to view things from a
broader perspective. I found your point of view rather
a narrow way of looking at things only from a very limited
point of view. You can't expect on a public forum such as this
one that people are not going to challenge what you say. And
you should not continue to blame everything on "feminism."
That's not logical. It would be just as silly if we were to
blame everything on male chauvenism. Labelling people does
not make for good discussions. As for why - there are more
females than males pursuing higher education today - there
could be a variety of reasons. You'd have to do more of
a breakdown of the stats. For example - Faculty by faculty.
Are there more females in science, engineering, medicine -
would be a good place to start. Also, on the whole, a
higher education credential means higher earnings. Our society
now encourages the gender roles to be more flexible - and
gives both sexes wider choices - and the reasons for people's
choices vary.

Anyway, I hope that you will re-think your decision to quit
this forum. If you don't, I wish you well and hope that you
will find someone who you can find "worth talking to,"
somewhere out there in the real world. But remember, in order
to have a conversation, it has to be more than just the sound
of your own voice. You actually have to be prepared to hear
what the other person is also saying and respect their point
of view. They may not always agree with what you have to say.

I think the whole thing is governed by the universities, & their business model.

They have moved to a different place today. Rather than science, engineering & other heavy stuff, they are moving more into the froth & bubble subjects. There has been a huge explosion in the numbers of feely touchy subjects & students.

These are the cheaper subjects to teach, & obviously the easier to pass, so it suits both participants, student & institution.

Subjects that are worth while, such as nursing, even if it is doubtful it belongs in a uni, are spun to take years longer than they should, to keep the money rolling in, & probably the kids off the street.

Thus we get lots of "social work" type stuff, cheap to teach, easy to pass, & with nice government jobs waiting. It is about as hard as many high school graduates can handle any way.

Boys won't touch the stuff, & the things they do want are hard, so many squib out.

Even at the other end, the same goes. The 17 year old labourer sticking up plasterboard in that new house, over the electrical wiring job done by a 17 year old apprentice, is being paid 4 times the apprentice wage, & no hard work studying.

I doubt if even 25% of uni graduates could handle the math in an electrical apprenticeship, particularly the ladies, & that includes many that have a "science" qualification.

Higher education has become a voracious beast, consuming billions, & giving back very little in return.

Come on Anti, no good throwing tantrums get ya pen out and start scribbling. We want to hear from you.

How come my post didn't get any backing, some kids are forced to keep going with education, You do not need that sort of information to go into trades. I was apprenticed at 16 and never worked outside of my trade in my whole working life. When you are apprenticed your schooling part, is relevant to what you need for that particular trade. I would not fancy starting an apprenticeship at 20.
The higher education of old blue, remember that song. He ended up smarter than his master. He could read the financial times, smoked a pipe, played the stock market.

I certainly support 579's call for more attention to the trades.

I am also very supportive of Antiseptic's remarks in his first post about the inadequacies of aggregating data, how misleading aggregate data can be. This is glaringly obvious in the case of Aboriginal statistics, which lump urban and remote data and thereby obfuscate every issue and bury every major crisis in a meaningless soup of numbers.

To get back to Antiseptic's note about female participation at university: in 2010, Indigenous women made up 1.77 % of all domestic women commencements (3,324 out of about 185,000). Indigenous women make up about 2.3 % of all Australian women, so their university participation rate is close to 80 % of Australian women's, which is already pretty high compared to other countries.

In fact, Indigenous women's university commencement rate is probably higher than that of women in most European countries.

The first decent numbers of Indigenous graduates did not ocur until the eighties: there were probably still fewer than a thousand in 1985. But by the end of this year, that total has risen to around 28,000, two-thirds women. So about one in every seven Indigenous women is a university graduate - one in every five or so in the cities. So in barely thirty years, Indigenous women have lifted their proportion of graduates from barely half a per cent to better than 20 %.

Meanwhile, out in the remote settlements, four out of five children finish school unable to read and write, and clueless when it comes to maths and money.

Something's working - but not where the policy focusses.

Joe

Antiseptic is worried that universities will soon only contain women, if the current trends continue.
All the boys will just have to try a little harder to secure their places at Uni then won't they...

Don't worry Lexi, Antiseptic has spat the dummy and pulled in his caustic tongue several times before, but he always comes back.

All we have to do is start a thread on the virtues of women, or on domestic violence, and he won't be able to help himself
: )

Dear Suse,

I know what it's like to be really upset over
something someone's said to me on this forum.
In retrospect I've realised that I sometimes
misunderstood and taken things personally
when that wasn't what was really intended. Words
are funny things and can be mis-interpreted and
humour is often difficult to communicate.
Anyway, I feel sorry for anyone who feels they're
not being listened to correctly (been there).
But, it's his choice what he does now. I just
didn't want him to feel that we were deliberately
out to offend him. We weren't. Anyway, Thanks for
caring.

i wish we could evolve the titles
when the subject matter changes

anyhow as the toopic now sems to be iss-y fits and packing ya bongo's when you dont like the way the songline is unwinding

oh heck i know nuthin of music
nor song lines
arnt educated neitha

so thats it
back up my bongo
and simply drift away
[hey its dec 4 just like i promised

but heck i also cant run away
so will post my OPINION..another day

Well that is your decision Anti.

You obviously don't read my posts enough if you think my goals are 50/50 for every arena in life including for women. Just not possible or realistic. Note that most men don't give a toss if women are under-represented in any field. Personally I don't give a toss as long as there is equitable access. There is no need to hand hold anyone to a particular POV or role, it is up to individuals, no level of government interference can change personal decisions. Governments can only ensure that access is not blinded by gender, race or other factors.

You need to ask why more men are not choosing to attend uni. That is a question you are not considering. Personally I think there is too much emphasis on tertiary education and it has become so commercialised as to be almost meaningless in terms of 'standards'.

Much rather there be a strata of different educational opportunities to suit the needs of various professions, skills and jobs. Not everthing can and should be done at university level.

Pelican,

Please be careful how you phrase propositions: "Much rather there be a strata of different educational opportunities to suit the needs of various professions, skills and jobs. Not everthing can and should be done at university level."

Back in the early nineties, when I was involved in Aboriginal career workshops, whenever I heard about somebody commenting that " ... not all Aboriginal kids can go [or will go] to university....", I knew in my bones that that person meant: "I don't think many [or any] Aboriginal kids will [or should] go to university at all."

And that they would be getting on the blower to somebody saying, "Stop this bloody program at once." Which more or less happened. It was particularly disappointing to hear it (albeit second-hand) from people in Aboriginal education, but there you go.

Yes, perhaps there are people of gold, people of iron and people of clay, Pelican, as that old fascist Plato wrote. But let's try to support the rights of every child, while they are still 'people of potentially anything' to give whatever they like a try - let's not pre-empt or pre-select who gets the first prize, and in this way, merely reinforce the status quo.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,


It seems that you are deliberately misconstruing pelly's last point - one on which I happen to agree with her.

As I read it, she's not saying that people should be sidelined because of varying factors. She's pointing out that a university education is not always "first prize"...and that opportunity and fulfillment in life can be derived from professions that exist outside "higher learning".

Many young people are now forced to stay on at highschool pursuing subjects that they will have no use for, instead of being given the opportunity to not only learn a trade, but also to begin clawing their way way back into meaningful interaction with a society that has excluded them by chaining them to an institution for most of their lives.

Loudmouth
You have misinterpreted my comments completely - I don't think in the terms you described. Poirot explains the points well.

In more modern times tertiaty education has become the norm in terms of goal-setting or of measuring 'success'. With increasing pressure on universities to 'sell' degrees and pressure on staff to pass students under certain conditions (as has been reported) means the value of a university education is diminished. Rather than do that, why not a 'horses for courses' approach allowing for all manner of skills, desires, merit coupled with appropriate teaching.

Not every skillset, job or career needs or should be catered for at tertiary level. Not every person wants or is able to participate in tertiary education and this is not in any way devaluing that person, unless you see a tertiary education as the only valid measure of success. I don't and value all manner of education whether it be skills based, trades, CIT, TAFE, College and University.

Ummmm just to butt in for a moment, isn't true that the higher educated one,s thats put the whole world in jeopardy?

So what has gone wrong?

CACTUS

The country is over-run with university inmates. Some are not suited to higher schooling, you can pick this up in a kid at a very young age, if they get a chance to go outside and fiddle. Trades are best learnt young, Kids forced into higher schooling that are not suited for it , will be lost, and forever know there is something missing. I think it's an ego trip for parents that had no chance of such things. I do not know any thing about university. So what is an arts degree. or economics, degree mean.

Poiro and Pelican,

Thank you for your responses but, with respect, they could be interpreted as more sophisticated versions of the attitude that I was complaining about.

When the children of the working class are participating at similar (or better) rates as the children of upper and middle class parents, then we can start equivocating about 'too many going to uni', 'not enough in the trades', 'unskilled work is valid in its own right', etc.

Unless, of course, we actually do want to perpetuate the status quo, or bring back a status quo ante :)

Loudmouth,

I wasn't necessarily referring to "unskilled" work. I was making the point that "skills" don't all fall under the umbrella of tertiary education.

I believe, in this instance, you're constructing a saddle to place on your particular hobby horse.

With respect....

Education, the catch cry for every politician. I've been listening to these cries for 4 decades now yet the standard of literacy is at it's lowest since schooling started. An apprentice in the 60's was 20 times more intelligent & competent than your average Uni graduate now. We have used up multi billions on education for what ? To get to where we're now ? The low point of literacy is in fact the high point of dumbing down intelligent young people. It's called social engineering for consumerism. Looks like they're on a roll.
A couple of my young friends were knocked back by major australian airlines because they hadn't gone through Uni. Well, now only 35 one flies an A340 & the other a B777 overseas. Their flying school mates are still waiting to step up from the Bongos
I constantly rectify Uni educated engineers' designs to actually make things work.
I left school at 14. Education has become a tool to easily get the snout into the trough rather than making a useful tool out of the Uni Grads.

I can only take it that no one knows what an arts degree or an economics degree does for you. As i thought it's an ego trip. When their finished their uni, they end up in retail or supermarkets, so i am not sure what it does for you. Uni to me is for doctors and lawyers,etc the rest is a waste of resources and tax payer funds. What this country needs is good honest workers, not more seat warmers.

Madame Poirot,

I'll stick by my statement, that:

" .... let's try to support the rights of every child, while they are still 'people of potentially anything' to give whatever they like a try - let's not pre-empt or pre-select who gets the first prize, and in this way, merely reinforce the status quo."

That includes tertiary education to the highest levels, trades to the highest levels and semi- and unskilled work, if that's what people eventually want to do. I've met some great people while fruit-picking and in factories and my last paying work was in a dairy, so I have the greatest respect for dairy workers - and I certainly loved the cows. So semi-skilled work can be genuinely satisfying, I'm certainly not denying that.

But don't exclude the formerly excluded, Indigenous people, working class, women, from opportunities that you take so much for granted that - on behalf of those 'other' people - you can spit on. With respect.

Cheers.

Joe

Dear Joe,

You presume to know me because of the way I present while posting. You presume I sit, and have always sat, in some ivory tower where (apparently) I take things for granted and (even) spit on people, while at the same time denying them opportunity.....

Your presumptions do you (and me) a disservice...sir.

With respect....

Interestingly, Joe, it seems that your parting sentence has left me feeling a tad irked.

I understand that you hold yourself aloft as a beacon and spokesman for Indigenous higher education, etc. You often ride gallantly into battle on OlO to press your agenda...and fair enough.
I do object, however, to you deliberately misconstruing, even misrepresenting both Pelican's and my comments on this subject. In your fervour to promote Indigenous higher education, you appear to be happy to select someone whom you deem a little too "hoity-toity" and flog 'em with your faux outrage.

I'm all in favour of Indigenous/working class aspiration of any kind.
In fact, although I'm not Indigenous myself, I did have occasion, courtesy of some sleight-of-hand by my pappy to be installed in an Aboriginal mission myself during my early teenage years. I spent a little while there in the same manner as the other girls. I always value it as one of the steepest learning curves of my formative years. I remember, in the afternoon after school climbing on board the bus the took all of "us" kids back to the mission - how it felt to be part of that extraordinary experience - coz I wasn't Aboriginal but I was being allowed to be part of it for a while...I never envisaged someone like you inferring that I would look down on those peers, like you just did, simply because I contend that skills and fulfillment can be found outside tertiary education.

Don't presume to know me, mate. You don't know my story.

Thank you, Poirot, but as a partial defence, I suggest that you misunderstand my words. If I could strip them back to their essentials:

"But don't exclude the formerly excluded .... from opportunities that you take so much for granted that .... you can spit on."

I apologise, I've just been re-reading Alvin Gouldner's paper on 'the New Class', of Intellectuals and Intelligentsia, on the class position and outlook of what he calls a 'flawed universal class' and I have over-interpreted your comments and those of Pelican as well.

The attitude of SOME of that new class, of ex-working-class professionals and academics, even amongst Indigenous professionals and academics, seems to be one of disdain, of 'pull up the ladder, I've made it', of closing off the opportunities which they themselves have had. I'm sorry if I seemed to attribute such an attitude to you or Pelican.

I certainly respect your experience, in fact I envy it :)

Cheers,

Joe

Thanks Joe.

I've since discovered that apparently my biological heritage is mainly a mixture of Scottish and Cherokee...funny old world, in'it : )

Cheers.

Loudmouth
All I can add is what I have repeated on other threads in this forum over time, and that is that all manner of jobs regardless of 'skill or educational level' should be valued and respected.

Your views, as I interpret them, only perpetuates the narrow view that only those who work in roles requiring higher education are worthy or of 'value' in a society.

This is far from what my argument is, and simply put, education and skills training should be of the highest level, but not tertiary if it is not necessary. Universities were valued for their research and innovation as much as for churning out Degrees. It is a shame we have gone down this path.

Regarless of race, gender or class, as long as there is 'equal' access to educational opportunities I don't see the need for governments to interfere unless there is real disadvantage as there is in remote Indigenous communities. There are many issues as regards to disadvantage in remote communities that could not be fairly tackled on this thread which was ostensibly about gender disparity.

Self-fulfilment can be achieved in many ways. I don't see it as a negative for any person to be employed in skills or trades. Why is higher education used as the litmus test for success? How do you define success? Success is not only measurable in monetary terms.

Pelican This is snobbs hill. Trades or the unskilled do not come into it. if you want that sort of service you get one of the staff to organize it for you. I asked what an arts degree does for you yesterday , and they are still digesting that.

'equal' access to educational opportunities
pelican,
as noble as this sounds it is also very unrealistic. Equal educational opportunity do not automatically translate into equal use of the opportunity. Far too many opportunities are wasted for the sake of education for education's sake. Too many non-deserving deny the deserving a good education as do incompetent teachers unquestioningly enforce useless curricula.
Education has become a vehicle for bureaucrats posing as teachers. It is also a vehicle for dumbing down the intelligent to not lose control & jeopardise consumerism. We do not have education anymore, we have teenage baby sitting. Those who still make it today will tell you that their education had sfa to do with their successes. It's their intelligence & pragmatism & logic not some silly indoctrination costing billions.

what you say is right individual

i suggest people try reading
'the dumbing down of america[education] system'

but by the same measure
whats being taught to who

and why?

individual
You are correct in saying that equal access does not always easily translate into opportunities. My view is that tertiary education should be free as it was in years past with entry on merit. I know that is not the case now, but even though it might be difficult I have worked with many people in the public and private sector who are working and studying part-time. It can be done even with the added expenses of HECS and taking a longer time to complete.

579
Arts Degrees are not useless in my opinion. The value of education does not always come in a 'vocational' package, it is about learning the skills of research, writing and knowledge and I can think of many areas where these skills are necessary.

By contrast trades are valued more nowadays, many trades people now earning higher than average incomes compared to the lower wages of the past. My husband has never been to university and never finished Year 12, never worked in the public service and has in the past 15 years earned more money than myself and managed to support a family on one income while we raised children. It is not everyone's choice to go without to achieve this end but we did it together.

TBC...

Cont/...

As individual points out, many jobs are now requiring of Degrees when it really is not necessary.

I have two journalist friends now in their late 50s who entered into newspapers from the floor up, one as a cadet requiring good marks in Yr 12 especially for English and the other as a copy boy. Now we have Communications Degrees for aspiring journos and PR people but it has done little to increase the standards of reporting.

Getting a Degree is not essential but the way education is being forced into business models before long a Degree will be needed for many jobs which do not require that level of education. And please note education is very different to intelligence or smarts.

Simply put I think it is about horses for courses ('scuse the cliche') - pushing everything into a tertiary model only devalues higher education and devalues anything that remains in the non-tertiary sector IMO.

I understand that some jobs evolve over time. Nursing is probably one area that moved from work based training to university, due to advances in medical technology and research, but even in that sphere I wonder if a more clinical approach would be best.

Getting back to gender, I think statistics don't tell the whole story and people/groups may manipulate the statistics to their own end. For example there are more women in the Commonwealth APS now than men (only by a few percent) but there are more men represented in senior roles, while more women sit in middle management or lower end roles. So on the face of it some people might say the workforce is 'feminised' but is it really based on the full facts?

Same with university entry statistics which might not reflect the end outcomes considering factors like child rearing.

Employers do require a degree, in the hope that someone can at least add up without a calculator. Year 12 does not cut the mustard. Kids come out of there and can not spell or write, and no life skills. Life skills are the failed part of the education system. They know more about the knights of the round table, than who Australias 5 th prime minister was.
Education has failed, the gen y miserably.

I agree with most posters - my point is that women, Indigenous people and working-class people should not be inhibited from gaining whatever sort of education and training they aspire to, not on any pretext that ' .... not all [insert group here] might want to go to university or get a trade etc. ..... '

Let's face it, the middle class and its children have arrived, they know the score. They have the social and cultural capital. But if the parents of children in 'out-groups', for whatever reason, cannot provide career advice, or actively discourage their choices, then the last thing kids need is somebody in authority obliquely discouraging them as well: to 'know your place'. But social and economic conditions change so much from one generation to the next that that 'place' may no longer exist: poor education thus translates into long-term unemployment for most.

Education is necessary, Individual, but as you note, not sufficient: one still has to have some level of initiative, some get-up-and-go, it's not all going to be dropped in your lap.

Just so long as obstacles are not put in people's way ......

Joe

I have never been anti education, I'm anti education for education's sake. We force young people through a system which has so clearly been & still is an abject failure. How can we expect our young to gain knowledge from teachers who are as ignorant as a two-bob watch.
There is no actual education, there's only compliance conditioning. Most careers nowadays are not merit based but mere memory-based usage of others' knowledge. All knowledge needed does not have to be learnt anymore only remembered. Computers have made the thinking cells literally obsolete. There are instructions & guidelines for any thinkable activity.
Those thinking outside the square face persecution.
If we had a National Service we could insist maths to be performed without calculators & make people use pick & shovel, hammer & saw & carry timber & bricks to get them to learn about basic mechanics & leverage. I work with people who can not hold two multi grips the right way or think it way too hard to dig small holes. It's their education which has indoctrinated them to think they do not have to put in a physical effort for their own benefit if they don't want to. That's education gone bad.

I think it is the universities that keep pushing the issue. An industry has built up to a certain extent, and to preserve their jobs they have to fill the seats. Some kids are clearly not university material. Education starts when your school ends, and all of a sudden you have to get a job.
Tafe is worth it's weight in gold as a learning centre. It gives kids a chance to build a house or put up a brick wall, that way they know what they are looking at as a career path.