Tories showing their true colours again.

robin_banks

ILW wrote: »

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.

Tory govt in 1971........

ILW

robin_banks wrote: »

Tory govt in 1971........

That is when I was at a grammar school.

robin_banks

ILW wrote: »

That is when I was at a grammar school.

Then you should have known it ws a Tory govt.....:D

ILW

robin_banks wrote: »

Then you should have known it ws a Tory govt.....:D

Not sure what your point is.

robin_banks

http://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/discussionpapers/2001/21pbrf3.pdf

This is an interesting piece, and worth a read, wether or not you agree with it's conclusions.

chewmylegoff

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

there's nothing to stop companies doing this at the moment - many do sponsor students through their undergraduate degree, contributing towards the costs, the student often does a year long (paid) work placement during the course, and works for the company in the holidays, and then is likely to be employed afterwards. in the same way, the armed forces sponsor people through university.

it's a good thing, and should be encouraged. but i don't see why we need to create even more places at university to enable it. it would be a far better thing to encourage companies to fund more of the existing places at university by e.g. offering tax incentives, rather than saying "right, let's create a whole load more places".

i really don't think that the people who are intelligent enough to go to proper universities are being excluded because there aren't enough places for them. they might be being excluded because they cannot afford it, but if you get good A-level results you can get into a decent uni.

in certain areas where there is more demand for places at quality universities than supply, there is no need for the government to intervene to make more places, because the economy does not require it.

e.g. if you make 10,000 new places to read law at the top 10 universties for law, all you will have is 10,000 new graduates who cannot get a job in law.

neverdespairgirl

Generali wrote: »

Labour also got rid of probably the single biggest contributor to social mobility, the grammar school.

My Dad, similarly. He was the first person in his family to stay at school a day longer than the minimum leaving age, and he went from his grammar school to university, then to the Bar.

He reckons politicans of his age have been pulling the drawbridge up behind them, hard.

In fact, he sponsered a couple of working class students at universities in London after fees were brought in.

neverdespairgirl

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

It's much harder to get it funded if you want to be a barrister rather than a solicitor.

neverdespairgirl

lostinrates wrote: »

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

I'm pretty sure it was Labour, and pretty fast after the 1997 election, too. I think the Tories commissioned the Dearing Report, but it was writen after the election in May 1997 and brought in soon afterwards by Labour. I could be wrong.

lostinrates

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it was Labour, and pretty fast after the 1997 election, too. I think the Tories commissioned the Dearing Report, but it was writen after the election in May 1997 and brought in soon afterwards by Labour. I could be wrong.

Thanks. I just remember kicking my self for taking a gap year, so it was all quick!