Now that 70% of kids get a 3rd level education (ignore for a moment the different levels and standards) is it worthwhile anymore to lose 3/4 years of work experience, earnings and have to pay fees, for a normal literate and intelligent leaving cert student?. Clearly some courses produce an economic benefit (doctors, vets, teachers?) but like arts, business studies, and IT(who are competing with China and India) ?
So is the whole education market like the property market, get a basic rental house(leaving) , and stay away from the rest (FTB houses etc)
Depends on what society expects to get out of education. If you are implying that not have post leaving qualification maybe more economically viable than having same, I think that only works if you have fantastic contacts for the most part. TUG may be along to point out that what we think is the purpose or objective of our education system may not be the reality.
I am of the opinion that skipping out at 18 does not benefit everyone.
Not really. Employers have gotten lazier over the years. They don’t do much in the way of training themselves and expect to be delivered near-finished product on a place by the state. All they have to do is a one-week induction and they expect their new resources to be productive. They measure this expected productivity through third-level qualifications.
Now, if the leaving cert had much in the way of practical skills, decent IT and networking courses, for example, this might change, but I think it is unlikely since multi-national recruitment policy is being set internationally and they will recruit abroad if they can’t get sufficient ‘qualified’ candidates locally. The fact that this suits them as it is cheaper to go east to recruit is a different story, but part of the same drive…