12 Dec 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59I would tend to agree with you (especially about education being tailored to the market), but to make tertiary education completely free as you describe would require a complete overall of the University system and infrastructure, possibly even resulting in a throwback to the glorious 'Polytechnic' days; surely this is a big step back towards the elitism of the old school tie and the Ox/Bridge mentality? Also, would research be curtailed under such a system?
In my opinion:
University places need to be slashed; entrance requirements need to be increased; tertiary education courses should be tailored for the job market; all tertiary education needs to be FREE.
12 Dec 10
I have some sympathy with the protesters - the non-violent ones, anyway... On the other hand, when I and another RHP stalwart were ejected from a London bar the other night that had to close early because the protesters were approaching the street, my sympathy moderated just a little.
12 Dec 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Firstly the violence appears to be organised by "rent-a-mob" and the NUS leaders had nothing to do with it.
Firstly the violence appears to be organised by "rent-a-mob" and the NUS leaders had nothing to do with it.
Secondly their grievance seems very just. When they graduate they will be competing with other graduates from previous years and getting similar jobs BUT have to be substantially MORE tax. That is penalising people for the year they were born in! ...[text shortened]... tion courses should be tailored for the job market; all tertiary education needs to be FREE.
Regardless of who was responsible for the violence, the harm has already been done, these people have to be dealt with if the cities of England are not to be overcome by anarchy.
Secondly their grievance seems very just. When they graduate they will be competing with other graduates from previous years and getting similar jobs BUT have to be substantially MORE tax. That is penalising people for the year they were born in!
Not not really, see the BBC link I posted before. Oh yes, because there was no significant economic turmoil which differentiates the current state of publicly funded education from previous ones. The evil coalition is really just determined to persecute students based on what year they were born.
Thirdly the new system will NOT give an extra tax-burden to those that fail to get higher paid jobs - ie jobs which never required a degree. So it favours those going to Uni for "the experience". That is NOT fair.
Why would you want to impose an extra burden of tax on those who fail to get higher paid jobs? Are you really willing to condemn these people to the lowly positions in society because they failed to get good jobs? Surely you must see that this proposal of yours would only perpetuate their failure.
Finally: what sort of country wants to penalise the very people who will make it prosperous in the future?
Perhaps the country which is aware of the previous government's unsustainable spending and the need to have a more fiscally sane approach to politics.
12 Dec 10
Originally posted by divegeesterOn the contrary.
I would tend to agree with you (especially about education being tailored to the market), but to make tertiary education completely free as you describe would require a complete overall of the University system and infrastructure, possibly even resulting in a throwback to the glorious 'Polytechnic' days; surely this is a big step back towards the elitism ...[text shortened]... hool tie and the Ox/Bridge mentality? Also, would research be curtailed under such a system?
Educate individuals based on their potential and the job market.
FREE University places and FREE grants.
I'm from a working class background and was lucky enought to benefit from the grant system of the 70's. ... Yes there was some elitism but surely that can be compensated for? Education should, and must, prepare individuals and society for the future. That is best done by providing APPROPRIATE and FREE education/training that best suits the individual AND the job market.
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Who should pay for it. Dwindling state coffers or industry?
....Education should, and must, prepare individuals and society for the future. That is best done by providing APPROPRIATE and FREE education/training that best suits the individual AND the job market.
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by kmax87It would be paid for by a thriving society.
Who should pay for it. Dwindling state coffers or industry?
An educated populace is a wealthy populace.
Wealth equals increased government revenue.
Increased government revenue equals increased investment in education.
(You get the picture ...)
Make tertiary education increasingly prohibititive and you will see what dwindling state coffers is really like.
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59ConDems want the same tertiary education for the UK as we've got in South Africa.
It would be paid for by a thriving society.
An educated populace is a wealthy populace.
Wealth equals increased government revenue.
Increased government revenue equals increased investment in education.
(You get the picture ...)
Make tertiary education increasingly prohibititive and you will see what dwindling state coffers is really like.
It's working brilliantly for us 😵