Where to start with this one. First off I think it is too functional a view of education to think that students are simply instilled with the content of their courses when they complete them. It is very easy to pick on 'media studies' as a short hand for 'worthless course' in the same way that it used to be fired at sociology (what do you say to a sociology graduate? Two big macs and a packet of french fries please!). So some observations on that:

It is my belief that embarking on any course requires a certain level of commitment, and those who are enthusiastic about their subject of study are far more likely to stay the course and do well. I would argue that a good result for a course like media studies, may carry far more weight than a poor result on a more 'obviously' relevant course like - let's say mathematics, in which an individual may have no particular interest or aptitude. Furthermore, surely education is also about 'growing up' developing 'transferable skills' gaining self confidence - all far more likely to occur when a person feels good about what they are doing. Of course it is not the case that media studies courses churn out television producers, any more than a law course guarantees continuing to pursue a career in that area, and I do have a concern where course providers claim career paths and outcomes that are not realistic. However, this needs to be balanced against the wider benefits from continuing in education - it is too simplistic to see it purely in functional terms.

Ironically where there are particular skills shortages (construction and plumbing being oft cited examples) there can also be corresponding shortages in supply of courses. Working as a CA in Coventry, I saw large numbers of adults wanting to retrain in these areas, but there was no availability to train, since presumably, many of those qualified to teach would earn far more using their skills directly in the industry, raising questions about how different professions are valued Just to stir things up, I'd also question how directly relevant many well-respected courses are. Taking mathematics, once you start looking at 60 dimensional spheres, chaos and string theory, how practically relevant is that? Yet there isn't a huge campaign to discredit those courses because it is acknowledged the problem solving and analytical skills (whatever) that are developed to high levels are of greater significance. So too we should defend media courses that necessitate team working, communication skills and a terrifying schedule of deadlines that would make many mere mortals shudder. Ironically, some arts courses - e.g. Theatre Studies, themselves present as being academic rather than practical courses - they are not for frustrated actors - they'd be better off at drama school, but involve developing analytical and critical skills, essay writing and so on. It is because many employers recognise this that they recruit e.g. graduates of any discipline (I think it's something like 2/3 of graduate employers recruit in this way, they can teach the work related skills and knowledge that are needed, but want individuals who have developed the transferable skills that are associated with the experience of doing a degree. Employers are the experts on their current skills needs, and the primary beneficiaries of the skills base of their employees, so why won't many of them invest in training that helps their labour force keep pace with the demands of their various sectors. It is an irony that despite labour shortaes, there is an unmet demand for e.g. apprenticeship opportunities within those same areas. Employers seem to want it all. Why should an individual invest in occupationally specific training if the only incentive is to become part of a flexible work force on a temporary contract knowing that they can be dismissed as soon as their services are no longer needed? If employers want good staff then they need to be willing to retain and invest in them, it is not reasonable to expect individuals to take the risks whilst the employer reaps the benefits.

Finally I question the extent to which it is helpful to promote particular courses in response to current skills shortages, because the economic climate can change and so playing 'catch up' in education may mean we are forever left further behind. It has been said 'in a time of drastic change, it is the learner who inherits the future, the learned are equipped to live in a world that no longer exists' Eric Hoffer (1902-83) Reflections on the Human Condition. If this is true then it is the enthusiasm for learning that needs to be nurtured, not the acquisition of time bound skills that may be superseded as the technology of the age transforms the world of work and takes it in directions we haven't even dreamt of.

When I was at school we used log books and slide rules and calculators were disallowed because it was 'cheating' now surely we'd agree that it would be nonsense to rely on mental arithmetic if a calculator can do the same thing quicker, more accurately and less painfully. Come forward those of you who remember slates and.