When will lifelong learning come of age?

We could change the DWP rules so people doing a Bachelors, or higher degrees like Masters, PhD, could also sign on - without the actual obligation to prove to the DWP fortnightly that they are looking for x number of jobs, because of course they're doing a Degree. At a stroke we elimininate for many the burden of seeking grants to fund their studies, lots of man-hours saved for more productive stuff like actually studying/researching rather than grant-form-filling -and we get a better educated workforce. However - now we have to ensure that claimants are actually bone fide doing a course, rather than finessing 3 years not having to jobhunt and still getting Jobseekers Allowance, Universal Credit, Housing Benefit etc. So we need the University to certify, say every term, 3x a year, not a massive admin burden, that the student is progessing in their work. Oh dear, now we have an aptitutde/suitability based criterion for going to University, rather than the universal money-based access we have now, and we can't go back to that, can we?

Lots of the problem here stems from differing perspectives on that loaded phrase "lifelong learning". Much of the discussion centres on this in the context of "employability". Most of what is seen as useful for employability is not in fact education, but *training*. Historically, training is not where universities have been, and we have to ask ourselves whether that's a place they *should* be. Training is much more domain specific and focused, and it also tends to be far more compressed. As a method of learning it runs almost entirely contrary to what a degree-level education was historically about: a chance for a more holistic and reflective experience. It's another reason why two year degrees are very popular with politicians and their more instrumental brethren, and far less so with those who would be delivering such teaching: there's less time to absorb what is being learned for longer term benefit. Until the tension in that is resolved, the "lifelong learning" questions been asked will remain unanswered.

For a massive company, providing training in house is feasible. For most - even multinationals - it's easier & more affordable to outsource to a training provider (which may or may not be a university). We have several multinationals who purchase training from my university at various levels from foundation degree to masters, as well as those taking degree appenticeships. Either way, it's a lot better than the large number of companies who sit around moaning that people coming out of education lack the skills they want... but cannot be bothered to train them in.

So what they're saying is this is purely voluntary, whether those who already have university degrees at various levels have to (or can) return for further training - for 20 years, is it? Or is it just until they have the power to say No, to anyone who suggests it, while those still in the lower ranks will be obliged to submit, even though they may be on the brink of contributing important knowledge or research to academia. This sounds like a moneymaker for universities and colleges, and another method of getting even intellectuals in society to conform. Getting your first degree can be an eye-opener, your next one perhaps a little more knowledge gained (of the political side of learning more so) , but after that, surely if a person is going to learn how to think and write and communicate it will have been accomplished by this stage and no more courses are necessary. What they need to learn they can do on their own. No, I see that there is definitely an agenda here, and it's not to better society.