Danny Alexander on QT

Sir_Humphrey

ILW wrote: »

I would agree with you to some extent, but would suggest only the more vigorous courses which would only tend to attract the brightest individuals in the first place.
It does appear that many degree courses have been set up to match the level of the applicants rather than the other way round.

I agree that University courses have to be rigourous, but that does not directly relate to the subject matter in question.

Also, some seem to be re-badged vocational courses, (presumably because vocational qualifications seem to have a poor reputation in the UK with brain-dead UK employers).

An example would be people training to be physiotherapists. Nowadays that would be called a degree, whereas in the 1960s it was simply a qualification. What you actually call something does not make any difference in £££s though.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Being organised has nothing to do with intelligence.

I did not say that, but it does count when turning intelligence in to work. You cant get to the top if you are lacking in basic skills!
EG miss appointments, don't make notes etc. on your way to the top means you wont make it there.
Do you really think people at the top are not organised and lack common sense?
They have PA's etc for efficiency not inability.

Also you said critical faculties (not intelligence), do you think common sense and organisation are not critical faculties?

Care to comment on common sense?

StevieJ

It is about time these students had some life pumped into them, even it is only their own pockets that are stimulating the current demos, truly the children of Thatcher.
These were the days

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=45122

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Since the current national groupthink has moved on from mindless property ramping to mindless austerity, I would in fact argue that students are the free-thinkers.

Has it? that is why school girls from a london school protected an under attack police van.

I think I know who the free thinkers are in that situation and it is not the ones damaging public funded property in demonstration to public spending cuts.
Who do you think pays for the damage, free thinking.:rotfl:
Rioting for future generations by damaging state property and the people they are rioting for are the ones protecting it. Quality, perhaps they should of left it to the 15 year old schoolgirls (yes students but at least with a grip on reality) on free thinking that day.

Rioting by a bunch of pumped up socialists is not free thinking, if you have a degree I think my point is proven here.
Violence and the ability not to protest peacefully is rage against the machine, not free thinking.

PS I have a child and I am saving for their university education now, this was coming when labour where in power.
Do you really think it would have been different under labour???? Think freely on that one.

ILW

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I agree that University courses have to be rigourous, but that does not directly relate to the subject matter in question.

Also, some seem to be re-badged vocational courses, (presumably because vocational qualifications seem to have a poor reputation in the UK with brain-dead UK employers).

An example would be people training to be physiotherapists. Nowadays that would be called a degree, whereas in the 1960s it was simply a qualification. What you actually call something does not make any difference in £££s though.

I do get your point, but would suggest that many degree courses such as media studies, business studies etc are neither rigorous nor vocational and are of very little use to the country or the graduate, but are just there as easy options to students who in the past would never have been considered graduate material.

Graham_Devon

The student protests appear to be over a mixture of things. One of them being "save our EMA payment for going to school", which, once implemented, woul always be extremely difficult to retract.

They don't just want most of their uni fees funded by the taxpayer, they want to be paid to attend in some cases too.

I do have sympathy in some cases, but think over the last 10 years, they have been spoilt in some cases, hence numbers using uni going through the roof.

tomterm8

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The student protests appear to be over a mixture of things. One of them being "save our EMA payment for going to school", which, once implemented, woul always be extremely difficult to retract.

They don't just want most of their uni fees funded by the taxpayer, they want to be paid to attend in some cases too.

I do have sympathy in some cases, but think over the last 10 years, they have been spoilt in some cases, hence numbers using uni going through the roof.

I'm not sure how you can think the situation for students has been improving over the last 10 years. When my mother went to university, students had a grant that was set at a good living wage, and tuition was free. By the time I went to university, grants had been abolished, and there were small tuition fees. If these changes come in, the entire burden of paying for university will fall on students to the tune of around £21k

leveller2911

tomterm8 wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can think the situation for students has been improving over the last 10 years. When my mother went to university, students had a grant that was set at a good living wage, and tuition was free. By the time I went to university, grants had been abolished, and there were small tuition fees. If these changes come in, the entire burden of paying for university will fall on students to the tune of around £21k

But on obtaining a degree they will earn on average £100,000 more over their lifetime than someone who doesn't so they are still up £79k on average..

Sounds pretty good to me.......

Graham_Devon

tomterm8 wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can think the situation for students has been improving over the last 10 years. When my mother went to university, students had a grant that was set at a good living wage, and tuition was free. By the time I went to university, grants had been abolished, and there were small tuition fees. If these changes come in, the entire burden of paying for university will fall on students to the tune of around £21k

I mean in terms of EMA etc.

I've heard lots about how less well of families have been able to enter into uni due, and reversal of some of the policies put in in the last decade would mean a return to only the privileged attending uni.

This may be just moans from students, but that's what my thoughts are based on.

I've not been to uni myself. So my thoughts are based on what I see and hear, but would be interested to hear whether you think (having had your mother and yourself go through it) whether uni was actually only for the privileged as students (and labour, it seems on the attack) are saying now.

blueboy43

leveller2911 wrote: »

But on obtaining a degree they will earn on average £100,000 more over their lifetime than someone who doesn't so they are still up £79k on average..

Sounds pretty good to me.......

This is the fallacy of using historical data and assuming it will be the case in the future.

It is only a few years since it was stated that a graduate would earn £400k more over a lifetime.