One of my most vivid memories from my first bout of teacher training was a lecture in which us green-as-grass new recruits had to tackle the weighty question of “what is education for?”

We had to pick from four different answers: enrichment, understanding the world around you, activism or (which I think the lecturer included as a joke) “to get a job”.

There were about 60 bright-eyed students in the lecture theatre that day. Guess how many chose the last answer? Yep, just muggins here.

Having instantly made myself public enemy number one by daring to suggest that the end-point of an education was to get yourself paid, I then had to justify my answer to everyone. Yet I still think it today.

Education is a noble pursuit, but so is employment. Being able to sustain one’s self through work, being good at that work and allowing that work to be a factor in the betterment of one’s self is something I’ve never had a problem with.

But I can never shake off the feeling that, in education circles, this view is looked down on as not being good enough.

The problem is that, in many cases, the effect of not being able to support yourself is such a far-removed concept for those having the conversation that it becomes abstracted.

The crushing, all-consuming anxiety of not being able to make rent or afford the kids’ uniform or put decent food on the shopping list; these are worries for those outside the discussion.

Education is for enlightenment certainly, but it’s also about putting food on the table.

Tom Starkey teaches English at a college in the North of England