Tories showing their true colours again.

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

Wait a minute , aren't these the people who can't actually get a place on merit, hardly elitist

The usual definition of Elitism would say that that only the highly gifted would get places. If you are talking more nepotism that is a different matter.

ninky_2

wealth is the reward for many attributes. intelligence not necessarily being one of them.

longterm this policy will have a big impact for everyone. the privileged and educated are likely to have different needs and motivations to the underprivileged and educated. this in turn with have a knock on effect as to potential employee profiles and the ratio of career types graduates decide to follow.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

The usual definition of Elitism would say that that only the highly gifted would get places. If you are talking more nepotism that is a different matter.

how is paying your way into a degree a mark of being highly gifted?

ILW

ninky wrote: »

how is paying your way into a degree a mark of being highly gifted?

It isn,t but neither is it elitism in the true definition of the word. ( I have to say I am just being pedantic here)

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

It isn,t but neither is it elitism in the true definition of the word. ( I have to say I am just being pedantic here)

well let me out pedant you.

an elite can be based on any attribute or combination of attributes. so it is possible to have an elite based on wealth and not intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism

Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern

lostinrates

I listened to this this morning....

the students HAVE to have achieved standard that would get a place ...not substandard applicants. Thus it means more places are available to students ALL clever enough to be there, so that more people ALL worthy of a place can go.

That seems to me good

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

What, you mean the likes of Winston Churchill and frank whittle?

Well yes, I think my earliest recollection of that fact was Churchill making the point in his book 'My Early Life' I think (from memory) he said he was shunted off into the army because the was considered not that bright by his family. It may have been caused by boredom during his school years because he certainly was no dunce after (although he did make some !!!! ups like virtually signalling the landings at Gallipoli to the enemy by bombarding the coastline).

ILW

ninky wrote: »

well let me out pedant you.

an elite can be based on any attribute or combination of attributes. so it is possible to have an elite based on wealth and not intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism

Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern

Agreed, but nobody has mentioned which "elite" they are referring to. Elitism in it's purest form can be a good thing.

Mr_Mumble

ninky wrote: »

no one should be allowed to buy a place at a university. or rather perhaps there should be institutions that only offer degrees for cash

Buying tuition at a university is not the same as buying a degree!

and others that only offer degrees on merit. that would keep the two 'products' seperate and allow those with the degrees to have them correctly judged.

Universities, students and employers have to weigh up the quality of education already. As long as the information is transparent I don't see a problem here, if an institution is so badly managed to let any idiot in they're quickly going to lose esteem and customers (students/parents).

chucky wrote:

unfortunately what it does do is create a two tier society that will guarantee that intelligent people who should be going to university will not go because they can't afford it.

It doesn't change anything for "intelligent people who should be going to university". The government allot a specific pot of money for subsidised higher education, allowing others to pay an non-subsidised amount doesn't hinder the amount of intelligent people who can go to uni!

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

The usual definition of Elitism would say that that only the highly gifted would get places. If you are talking more nepotism that is a different matter.

Go back and read my response again :)your answer doesn't make any sense.