A study from the Sutton Trust has found that year 9 girls aged 13 to 14 are more likely to have a positive attitude towards university than their male classmates. Almost 65% of girls thought it was “very important”, compared with 58% of boys. While one in 10 girls attached no importance to attending university, 15% of boys didn’t see the point of higher education.
The report also highlighted the ongoing divide between advantaged and disadvantaged students. While ethnic minority pupils and those from neighbourhoods with higher unemployment had university aspirations, disadvantaged year 9s were still less likely to think about higher education than their advantaged peers. Among better-off children, 39% had a positive attitude towards university compared with 27% of the disadvantaged, and poor white boys were the least interested group of all. The Sutton Trust is now calling for campaigns to raise the “aspirations and self-belief” of disadvantaged children, which is laudable. However, when it comes to higher education, a poverty of outlook is one thing and actual poverty quite another.
It’s great that so many pupils from ethnic minorities and those from areas of high unemployment are interested in higher education. However, maybe the disadvantaged teenagers showing no interest were just being practical, consciously or subconsciously adjusting to the reality that, as with so much in life, their class and finances would ultimately dictate their choices. An awareness that, facing tuition fees, insufficient grants, repayment of loans and interest on those loans, it’s unlikely that they could realistically afford to go to university. You might as well say: “Hey kids, how do you fancy a trip to Mars?”
It’s different for the middle classes because… well it’s always different for the middle classes. The gender divide could be partly explained by the fact that boys are believed to mature more slowly than girls. Some of their “anti-uni” attitude could be fleeting bravado or it may involve a rebellious gap year or two, flogging bongs on beaches in Goa, until finally they return – to go to university, or not, as they wish.
Sometimes, they too might find the thought of debt off-putting. However, university is such an entrenched part of their culture that “not going” is an enormous statement. Could the same be said for the disadvantaged child? Isn’t it also true that, since the introduction and escalation of tuition fees, even the idea of university has become more fanciful and out of reach for kids from “the wrong side of town”?
While the Sutton Trust is right to place importance on aspiration, the dreary paralysing business of finances isn’t going to go away. I’m convinced that tuition fees have been, and will continue to be, a disaster for disadvantaged children, economically, sociologically and psychologically.
While much was made of past statistics showing a rise in disadvantaged candidates, these always seemed to reflect their fighting spirit, rather than “prove” that the fees had no negative impact. According to Offa (Office For Fair Access), there is still one disadvantaged application for every three advantaged and the disadvantaged are still seven times less likely to go to Oxbridge or Russell Group universities.
All of which leads to the daunting question: “Is it worth it?” And without the back-up culture of familial-societal expectation, the disadvantaged candidate faces this question alone. Is going to university all-important? No, but the choice to do so is. Now we have a situation where the crippling expense of higher education not only puts off 17- and 18-year-olds applying to university, it also puts off 13- and 14-year-olds even thinking about going. So good luck to the Sutton Trust or anyone else trying to get disenfranchised teens excited about university. They’ll be fighting against a mentality that, prior to fees, was fast disappearing – the grim return of “not for the likes of us”.
Sinitta, Roland Rat… Cowell was always tone deaf
There is much joshing over the total age of The X Factor panel. Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh, Sharon Osbourne and Nicole Scherzinger have a combined age of 750,563 (or thereabouts, my calculator is broken). Which is disgusting – do I pay my BBC licence fee to watch ITV shows with old people on?
Joking apart, is ageism acceptable so long as it is directed at TV talent show panellists? Beyond the mockery, the serious point seems to be that old people shouldn’t be judging “yoof”.
However, ability to spot talent has nothing to do with age. Passionate, knowledgeable music professionals still have the “ear” on their deathbeds. It’s just that Cowell isn’t one of them.
I’m fond of The X Factor, but Cowell is a TV genius, not a music one. Even when he had youth on his side, he was signing Sinitta and Roland Rat. To this day, he looks startled and upset whenever confronted with hard aural evidence that it’s not still 1986. Attacking someone such as Cowell on age terms merely distracts from what he should be attacked for – a life-long inability to spot talent if his cloth ears depended on it.
Must Jack be quite so laddish?
The clothing company Jack Wills has been banned from using a catalogue advert depicting teenagers “hanging out” in various stages of undress. Some of the female models have their legs “casually” splayed (one lolling on a lavatory), while another has her bra strap falling down.
Looking at pretty girls in adverts is nothing new (in my youth, I seem to recall the bra section of the Kay’s catalogue being of mysterious interest to teenage boys). However, Jack Wills deserves the reprimand. It doesn’t matter that they consider their target market to be late-teens/early 20s; as a parent, I’ve noticed that their customer base starts much younger, hovering around the 13 to 14years mark. This may not be when children start wearing the clothes, but there is definite brand awareness and the point when accessories such as purses and jewellery start flying off the shelves.
Jack Wills seems to have come down with what could be termed “American Apparel-envy” – American Apparel being the notorious company with the reputation for using over-sexualised images to generate controversy. In the past, American Apparel has used sexed-up “school” imagery that, to my mind, counted as a new low for retail irresponsibility.
Jack Wills clearly wants a bit of the action, but that would be a mistake. Right now, its brand is a bit smug and overpriced, but it’s also trendy without being grotty. Parents are happy for younger teens to start brand-bonding with Jack Wills. So why on earth would it want to follow American Apparel into a retail sphere that basically says: “We’re gonna make your teenagers look as though they’ve been captured by a sex-trafficking ring”? Tread carefully, Jack Wills. Young kids always want what the older kids are getting, but, where sexuality is concerned, the answer must always be no.
