- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by proca666You are not paying for Doctors, Vets, lawyers or brokers - the system can suport these quite easily. You are actualy paying for Media Studies, American History and and a multitude of other "courses" that have been advised to increase university attendence but ofer nothing to potential employers.
so we have to pay for people to be trained as doctors etc. as well pay for they services afterwards? we end pay their god damn debt when we pay for the work they do which ends up as their wages!! so why do we have to pay for them going to uni as well as paying thier bloody debt afterwards. i fail to see the logic in that!
I am happy to pay for Doctors, Teachers, Lawyers and the rest to be educated - they are an esential part of the economy. Indeed, I am more than happy to pay for the elite minds in our society to get the education they need to drive Britain as a country forward.
I am not happy about funding liggers who are on a 3 year doss, increase the number of people attending uni and you have to lower the average standard.
Maybe a fairer system would be to repay all funds to those that achieve a first, 80% back to those with an upper second, 50% to a lowe second and none to those with a third. This might make people think about why they want to go to university in the first place - it is about academic attainment - not beer, sex and no work.
ANdrew
this was actually told to me by a lecturer from a university. on a whole britain has a shortage of speech and language therapists. (i know from experience this is true). the reason being that most of the speech and language courses run at university tend to enrol the student from a middle class background. after completing the degree they work for a few years (many don't like working with children as they have to deal with parents so they tend to work in rehab with people who have had strokes etc) they leave to get married and don't go back to the profession. apparently this is common practice amongst people who choose do this particular course.(i'm not saying ALL s+l therapists do this.) I would propose that students who did this leaving us with a national shortage of speech and language therapists should be made to pay every single penny back to the state. I'm sure this must happen with other professions too
This might make people think about why they want to go to university in the first place - it is about academic attainment - not beer, sex and no work.I have to fundamentally disagree on this point. University isn't just about acedemic attainment. Its about a whole lot of other things as well, including beer and sex. Its about developing socially able people who are able to think for themselves and express themselves(and not just about their chosen subject).
ANdrew[/b]
It really depends what you think the purpose of education is. If you think it is to turn out good, tame little employees, who can answer the phone in a call centre or politely ask 'do you want fries with that', and who won't rock the boat, then it is just about academic attainment.
I think education is a merit in its own right. If you want to study some obscure subject like Anglo-Saxon tapestry, then that's ok. You'll be a more educated person than when you started. Education shouldn't be just about creating employees. The state can maybe make sure enough people are studying things like medicine, but education, for all, should be a right. Free, gratis, and for nothing.
Originally posted by Redmikei have to dissagree 😛 yes, that's a by-product of university, making you a more whole person. and thus, companies like graduates. but the priamry reason is education!
I have to fundamentally disagree on this point. University isn't just about acedemic attainment. Its about a whole lot of other things as well, including beer and sex. Its about developing socially able people who are able to think for themselves and express themselves(and not just about their chosen subject).
It really depends what you think the purpose o ...[text shortened]... things like medicine, but education, for all, should be a right. Free, gratis, and for nothing.
Originally posted by geniusFair enough - I guess it depends on the student. Some people I studied with spend all their time on the academics, and had a pretty torrid time.
see edited quote...
I did what I had to do in terms of the academics (and only just what I had to do) and had a whale of a time (and still managed a degree).
I know things are different financially now, but its not just about the academics.
Academic attainment the primary reason - maybe, but not for everyone.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by RedmikeThis is what people at university convince themselves to justify their behaviour. Lets face it, an undergraduate degree is not particually hard.
I have to fundamentally disagree on this point. University isn't just about acedemic attainment. Its about a whole lot of other things as well, including beer and sex. Its about developing socially able people who are able to think for themselves and express themselves(and not just about their chosen subject).
It really depends what you think the purpose o ...[text shortened]... things like medicine, but education, for all, should be a right. Free, gratis, and for nothing.
The implication of your argument is that people who fail to attend university will be unable to develop socially, think for themselves, nor express themselves in a coherent manner. I have 18 year olds working with me who party hard and still turn up at 8:00am and do a full time job, I think they are finding far more about themselves and developing at a far greater rate than most students.
As for education as a public right. Yes, it is. But at a cost. At the end of the day we have to balance the books as a nation. If we all go off and study the art of the native peoples, the music of the vikings or any other "interest", we may learn and develop as an individual. But waht use is that in the real world? You can only cover so much slack, if people really want to study an obscure subject, I am sure if they have the talent someone will provide a research position. Do we really need media studies to be the most popularly subscribed university course in the UK?
People have the right to study what they like, but they do not have the right for the rest of the poulation to fund them without any tangible benefit to the poulation in return.
Andrew
Originally posted by Redmikeyeah-the primary reason i'm going to uni is academice (well-o.k., so it's cause my parents expect me to-but it's still academic...dunno if i'd dare not go through life without a degree...😕). but i also wanna half fun...but there's a balance. i don't wanna be a complte waster, but i don't wanna be a complete swat person...
Fair enough - I guess it depends on the student. Some people I studied with spend all their time on the academics, and had a pretty torrid time.
I did what I had to do in terms of the academics (and only just what I had to do) and had a whale of a time (and still managed a degree).
I know things are different financially now, but its not just about the academics.
Academic attainment the primary reason - maybe, but not for everyone.
Originally posted by geniusIf you're such a genius, then you can have your cake and eat it, ie be a complete slacker and still get a first or 2.1. This is especially true in maths - someone I know at Trinity springs to mind. (For a time he was known as 'Nocturnal Nick' thanks to his unusual sleeping patterns, which presumably ruled out going to lectures.)
yeah-the primary reason i'm going to uni is academice (well-o.k., so it's cause my parents expect me to-but it's still academic...dunno if i'd dare not go through life without a degree...😕). but i also wanna half fun...but there's a balance. i don't wanna be a complte waster, but i don't wanna be a complete swat person...
Originally posted by AcolyteYou're a maths student, as will be genius. At best you can have your pi 😀.
If you're such a genius, then you can have your cake and eat it, ie be a complete slacker and still get a first or 2.1. This is especially true in maths - someone I know at Trinity springs to mind. (For a time he was known as 'Nocturnal Nick' thanks to his unusual sleeping patterns, which presumably ruled out going to lectures.)
Okay, okay, I'm leaving, no need to push 😕.
Originally posted by latex bishopI don't think that the implication of my arguement is that university is needed for socially rounded people. I'm just saying that this is just another facet of the process.
This is what people at university convince themselves to justify their behaviour. Lets face it, an undergraduate degree is not particually hard.
The implication of your argument is that people who fail to attend university will be unable to develop socially, think for themselves, nor express themselves in a coherent manner. I have 18 year olds workin ...[text shortened]... of the poulation to fund them without any tangible benefit to the poulation in return.
Andrew
There are other ways that spotty 17-year-olds can be turned into adults, and maybe going straight to a job suits some people. Thats fair enough. My point is just that, for people who do go to university, then its not just about the academics.
I think that people do have the right to expect society to fund them in their studies, and that any field of study has a benefit to society by its very nature. Society will get someone who knows about Viking architecture (or whatever), but more importantly who knows who to present ideas (pretty boring ideas, perhaps) in an organised, structured fashion. ie a set of skills of benefit to society.
Obviously, if everyone wanted to do media studies and nobody wanted to do medicine, then the state should intervene to redress the balance.
I should say that I'm technically at university, doing a distance learning degree (while working) and already have a degree from 20 years ago. So, this isn't an arguement to justify my behaviour
Originally posted by Acolytejoint honours in maths and computing us what i'll be studying, so i'll have to work for the computing...
If you're such a genius, then you can have your cake and eat it, ie be a complete slacker and still get a first or 2.1. This is especially true in maths - someone I know at Trinity springs to mind. (For a time he was known as 'Nocturnal Nick' thanks to his unusual sleeping patterns, which presumably ruled out going to lectures.)
and redmike-i take speech classes. these classes teach me not only how to, well, speak properly-they teach me how to present talks etc. for £9 a week. for 4 years. while i'm still at school. £1944 (approx-take away some for the holidays etc...). and people wanna go to university to do this, spending more on accomidation each year than i did in 4 years?...
and can people not go to colledge to do their no-brainer degree's?