Your Vote Is Not Confidential.
News12 mins ago
Student Vote
It is known that students have abused the system and voted in two places. Apparently some have been boasting and joking about it! Virtually impossible to check this doesn't happen apparently! Surely this needs to be addressed.
http://
Putting it in News as it the most relevant section.
http://
Putting it in News as it the most relevant section.
Answers
Another thing to point out to the "youngster" regarding the free to everyone university promise. It isn't. It will be funded by massive borrowing that will have to be repaid. It will be repaid by they who are young now, not by oldies like me. I paid my tax for 45 years, month in month out. Now not all the young will go to university, some may not even go on to tech...
14:20 Mon 12th Jun 2017
-- answer removed --
> I didn't realise I'd have to defend the assertion that society benefits from having higher standards of education...
You don't. It's just a question of how it's paid for, and by whom.
My tuition fees were "free" (i.e. paid for by the state), but I was at university at a time when 5-10% of the school-leaving population went. Tuition fees came in as a direct result of targeting 50%. If you were going to scrap tuition fees, then the state would need to start looking closely at each and every course and student to assess its worthiness for payment. At the moment, that happens less as the students have skin in the game. Also, the flip side of universities asking £9000 for crap courses is that students don't have to pay it, i.e. don't have to go on those courses.
FTR, I have two children; one is going to university and paying £9000 per year, the other isn't ... so I get to see both sides of the coin.
You don't. It's just a question of how it's paid for, and by whom.
My tuition fees were "free" (i.e. paid for by the state), but I was at university at a time when 5-10% of the school-leaving population went. Tuition fees came in as a direct result of targeting 50%. If you were going to scrap tuition fees, then the state would need to start looking closely at each and every course and student to assess its worthiness for payment. At the moment, that happens less as the students have skin in the game. Also, the flip side of universities asking £9000 for crap courses is that students don't have to pay it, i.e. don't have to go on those courses.
FTR, I have two children; one is going to university and paying £9000 per year, the other isn't ... so I get to see both sides of the coin.
Same here Nelly. My daughter did a medical degree, took the loan and paid it back in 2 years without complaint or compunction. My son did not fancy the Uni route although eminently capable of doing so. Why should the children who will not go to University, whether because they choose not to or because they are not suitable, finance the ones who choose to and probably come from families that could.
I was struggling to search for the right word.
As it happens I think that was more likely before tuition fees were introduced, which I suppose is an argument in their favour. One against is that access to universities could have been widened without putting the burden on the students quite so directly. As I say, it's a question about whether you see university education is a privilege for the individual (in which case students paying fees is quite reasonable) or an investment for society, in which case society as a whole should foot the bill -- and the question about paying for other people to go is neither here nor there, because it would then fall in the same category as paying for, say, healthcare or benefits.
As it happens I think that was more likely before tuition fees were introduced, which I suppose is an argument in their favour. One against is that access to universities could have been widened without putting the burden on the students quite so directly. As I say, it's a question about whether you see university education is a privilege for the individual (in which case students paying fees is quite reasonable) or an investment for society, in which case society as a whole should foot the bill -- and the question about paying for other people to go is neither here nor there, because it would then fall in the same category as paying for, say, healthcare or benefits.
Jim please do not misunderstand me. I am all for education, I had one. But I am afraid that the learning world is horses for courses. Free specialist education for the able is regularly put forward, as a principal, and an investment in our youth. It is howled down by the left wing as elitist, they hate "free" Grammar schools because they do not churn out their pet donkeys. Some young people are and always were, and always will be better suited to a less academic curriculum, calling the reality names in the guise of pious politics will not change the fact. Tell me Jim would a plumbing or bricklaying course have been better suited to your own development? :))
I knew what I wanted to do and where I wanted to go since I was 12, perhaps even earlier. Didn't necessarily understand what I was getting myself in for, but that's another story... at any rate, the introduction of tuition fees had zero impact on my decision to go to university. It's a good thing that I didn't have to pay them upfront, but I don't think that was ever on the cards.
I think, and this is just a personal opinion (aren't they always) that only the top 25% or so should be encouraged to go to university.
State education (((((should))))) be as good as it gets. Therefore the top will have bobbed to the top.
That doesn't mean the rest get forgotten or ignored or made to feel worthless but helped and encouraged to reach their potential.
Investing in anyone who wants to go is a bad investment in the future.
A sad fact of life is that not everyone is good enough. Some people are just plain rubbish but they should have the opportunity to be as good as their ability allows.
Just as an aside I have been doing some work with university media and film students. Some of them are really keen and dedicated. They are the ones carrying the ones doing it as a get out of work ploy and coasting on the backs of the others. They have been open about the fact they are doing it only to get a degree for the sake of it and have no intention of pursuing that career.
State education (((((should))))) be as good as it gets. Therefore the top will have bobbed to the top.
That doesn't mean the rest get forgotten or ignored or made to feel worthless but helped and encouraged to reach their potential.
Investing in anyone who wants to go is a bad investment in the future.
A sad fact of life is that not everyone is good enough. Some people are just plain rubbish but they should have the opportunity to be as good as their ability allows.
Just as an aside I have been doing some work with university media and film students. Some of them are really keen and dedicated. They are the ones carrying the ones doing it as a get out of work ploy and coasting on the backs of the others. They have been open about the fact they are doing it only to get a degree for the sake of it and have no intention of pursuing that career.
//it's a question about whether you see university education is a privilege for the individual (in which case students paying fees is quite reasonable) or an investment for society, in which case society as a whole should foot the bill//
No, that's not (or ought not) be the question, Jim. We all believe in higher education; what we don't all believe in is that sending any arbitrary percentage of our youth (50% in this case), for any arbitrary number of years (at the moment three) and studying any arbitrary degree course is obviously a good thing.
Examine the premise: if 50% is necessarily a "good thing", then isn't 75%, or 99% better? And if not, why not?
If three years enhances a student's utility (by dint of qualifications and training), then wouldn't six years add even more? And if not, why not?
But, whatever the right percentage or number is, isn't there some point (assuming that society wants at some stage get a return on its "investment") when the (by now) highly trained and qualified potential benefactor now becomes an actual one by leaving university and getting a job?
If you accept that the pay-off (from the investor's point of view) is useful work, then what's this 50% all about apart from dogma? If somebody is capable of contributing usefully to society by leaving school at sixteen and learning to be a plumber (as I see now has been suggested by Togo), in what way is she and society helped by keeping her in higher education for a further five years doing media studies, history of art or the pre-Akkadian history of Mesopotamia?
No, that's not (or ought not) be the question, Jim. We all believe in higher education; what we don't all believe in is that sending any arbitrary percentage of our youth (50% in this case), for any arbitrary number of years (at the moment three) and studying any arbitrary degree course is obviously a good thing.
Examine the premise: if 50% is necessarily a "good thing", then isn't 75%, or 99% better? And if not, why not?
If three years enhances a student's utility (by dint of qualifications and training), then wouldn't six years add even more? And if not, why not?
But, whatever the right percentage or number is, isn't there some point (assuming that society wants at some stage get a return on its "investment") when the (by now) highly trained and qualified potential benefactor now becomes an actual one by leaving university and getting a job?
If you accept that the pay-off (from the investor's point of view) is useful work, then what's this 50% all about apart from dogma? If somebody is capable of contributing usefully to society by leaving school at sixteen and learning to be a plumber (as I see now has been suggested by Togo), in what way is she and society helped by keeping her in higher education for a further five years doing media studies, history of art or the pre-Akkadian history of Mesopotamia?
Does the percentage of young people going to university matter? I'm not one for arbitrary targets myself, so I don't think it is. University isn't for everyone, at least not as it currently exists, so I guess I don't want a 100% target, but apart from that. And anyway the question of how to pay for it, who pays for it, and why they are paying for it still arises, whether or not you think it should be for 10% or 25% or 50% or anything in between.
//University isn't for everyone, at least not as it currently exists//
We agree on the first bit, then, Jim, though not on your as yet unrealised Platonic university where higher education is a good for all.
In my plumber example, let's assume (reasonably) that he (as he now self identifies himself) is in the top 50% in terms of IQ - or whatever method of selection is deemed relevant. What does he gain himself (forgetting society) from a further five years of education? Do you want to stop him becoming a plumber and turn him into a physicist?
We agree on the first bit, then, Jim, though not on your as yet unrealised Platonic university where higher education is a good for all.
In my plumber example, let's assume (reasonably) that he (as he now self identifies himself) is in the top 50% in terms of IQ - or whatever method of selection is deemed relevant. What does he gain himself (forgetting society) from a further five years of education? Do you want to stop him becoming a plumber and turn him into a physicist?
I don't think that 5 times student numbers literally translates into five times costs, as a lot of the costs are for "base" values -- lecture fees, hours spent teaching, resources and so on. So I'm not sure I get your post, Togo.
As to yours, v-e, can I ask you to explain what point you are trying to make? I'm not sure I follow what you are getting at, although I could be missing something obvious.
As to yours, v-e, can I ask you to explain what point you are trying to make? I'm not sure I follow what you are getting at, although I could be missing something obvious.
I hope not mentioning education but referring to the original post will not ruffle feathers. I know of a man, now deceased, whose son voted in his place (using his father's vote) because the father desperately wanted to vote but was too ill (and subsequently died). While I sympathise with that case, I don't think this should be possible. However, the operation of elections in the UK is but one in a very long list of "systems" in the country that are clapped out need radical overhaul - they are inefficient/wasteful and are holding the country back. Seeing what works elsewhere and copying it (what, foreign ways ? Never) is an heretical suggestion.
Latest Posts
Short Fitting Skirts Nearly Dry
Crosswords22 mins ago
News46 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles55 mins ago
Fao Buenchico / Barmaid Re Wills
Law67 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles75 mins ago
