Tories showing their true colours again.

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Plenty of businesses already do this anyway, quite why the govt feels the need to facilitate something which already goes on perfectly efficiently is beyond me.

Last night i was thinking about this, and made a comparison between undergrad education and the LPC/CPE corses my husband did: these are usually funded by employers, and students apply for Training contracts in the penultimate year of their degree. That way, there is some funding AND the promise of the requisite two years employment and traiing to become qualified.

Its possible to do the cpe/lpc without funding if you can pay for it...either from parents, yourself or loans: but a gamble if you haven't already secured a training contract afterwards. Perhaps small experience of such a system has helped in the understanding of a different application of a similar idea.

ninky_2

DexterA wrote: »

The wealthy subsidising poorer people by paying higher fees is a good thing, as is mixing the wealthy with those that are less wealthy, it adds to social mobility. Another option is poorer people paying even higher fees to reduce the need for paid places. There's both swings and roundabouts.

but we already effectively had this with the foreign student quota.

trying to make out that the policy was to give eu students the same options as non eu is just a smokescreen.

in an ideal situation non eu students wouldn't be able to buy their way in either. there's already resentment at that situation but the unis have come to rely on the extra funding. whilst it might help profitability whether it actually leads to an improvement in quality of courses i think is debatable.

shortchanged_2

ILW wrote: »

I went to a grammar school, and it was by no means full of rich kids. Entry was by test which was open to anybody.

How long ago was that ILW?

lostinrates

ILW wrote: »

I went to a grammar school, and it was by no means full of rich kids. Entry was by test which was open to anybody.

My father went to a grammar school in Inner city London, later his parents moved further away fro the city and he had to travel across london to get there. His school offered him support and idealism his parents couldn't. When his parents felt they could no longer support him in education and his school failed to convince them he should stay on they encouraged him to continue reading and learning. My father has extremely fond memories of school that gave him the gift of seeing how aspiration and a keen mind could combine with the work ethic he had been brought up with to give him more in life...not just better job, but a broad appreciation of other things.

lostinrates

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I thought it was Labour who introduced tuition fees in the first place, though?

Did they? It must have been very quick then...I don't remember ATM I'm afraid!

shortchanged_2

That's fine lostinrates but you are talking I assume about the grammar system from years ago.

The system that is in place now is too half hearted with only a small select few grammar shcools compared to years ago. This is creating a system more of where money talks whether it is due to high house prices in catchment areas or whatever.

lostinrates

shortchanged wrote: »

That's fine lostinrates but you are talking I assume about the grammar system from years ago.

Yes I am, very ancient history.....thats what happens when things are abolished/reduced significantly....they no longer apply to now!

The system that is in place now is too half hearted with only a small select few grammar shcools compared to years ago. This is creating a system more of where money talks whether it is due to high house prices in catchment areas or whatever.

Having read these boards for some tie I've read a bit about house choice/school selection. It seems it applies to all state schools, primary/secondary and not just comprehensive/academy/grammar.

ILW

shortchanged wrote: »

How long ago was that ILW?

40 years ago.

The labou governments who closed them down in the name of some sort of bizarre equality agenda, should be truly ashamed of themselves.

FTBFun

ILW wrote: »

I went to a grammar school, and it was by no means full of rich kids. Entry was by test which was open to anybody.

My mother passed the 11-plus to get into grammar school, but her family were very poor so couldn't afford the uniform, and she ended up having to go to secondary modern. Grammar schools aren't the be all and end all.

This was about 1970ish.

ILW

FTBFun wrote: »

My mother passed the 11-plus to get into grammar school, but her family were very poor so couldn't afford the uniform, and she ended up having to go to secondary modern. Grammar schools aren't the be all and end all.

This was about 1970ish.

I would suspect that was pretty rare, around half of my classmates lived in council houses and flats which is a fair indication of the intake.

I believe there were great advantages to selective education based on academic ability alone, which somehow seemed to really annoy the left wingers who deemed that everybody should be equal. In the end the virtual abolition of grammar schools just lead to and expansion in private education limited to those that could afford it.