Julian Fowler wrote:


I believe that some Media Studies courses have, in fact, significant
academic content, and that MS graduates actually have a surprisingly
high success rate in gaining graduate-level employment. Its more
damaging, I think, that universities are offering courses in technical
subject to which students are admitted with qualifications and
capabilities totally unmatched to the subject -- resulting in a
"dumbing down" of those courses (since the universities cannot afford
to have either high dropout rates or a public perception of numbers
failures at degree level). Hence, for example, students being able to
gain degrees in "computer scince" that leave them at best equiped to
undertake relatively menial tasks in IT infrastructure maintenance or
perform first-line tech support in a call centre.



Indeed. I employed a graduate from an Indian university in electronic
engineering.

It ws patently obvious within a day that she had never used a soldering
iron in her life.

She ended up more or less as a prodction line rework and test engineer.
Nowhere near as qualified as the Hatfield polytechnic sandwich students
we had, one of whom is now running a very successful wlectrical
installation company.

I have emplyed three o four hatfield poly people. Very well trained
practical intelligent people. Infinitely more useful than a comp sci grad.

Thats what we need - peple who know one end of a sldering iron from teh
other, who are familiar with industrail standrds and practices, and who
have been taught to do practically useful things. Not people burdened
down with half understood theory, all of which can be acquired later if
ever necessary - who have never done anything of practical use in their
lives...


Absolutely -- I fail to understand the obsession of successive
governments that there is something *wrong* with being elitist with
respect to academic ability and intelligence -- if the same criteria
were applied to sport, for example, would we see demands that 50% of
the population should be playing for a Premiership football team. Or,
in the arts, that 50% of the population should be playing in a major
orchestra or be a published novelist ...


Its a simple matter of teh facts. Rynaiar has laid down te gauntlet vis
a vis disabled people. Whaich is preferbale, a disabled guy has to pay
36 quid to use a wheelchair, or everyone pay an extra 50p on their fare?

Fare enuff, I say. It costs money to make special treatment for special people.

One has to balance that with the overall social desirability of having that happen.


We cold require every aircraft landing in teh UK be equpped with
sufficient technology as to allow it to be flown by a mentally subnormal
paraplegic. Ther are those in the disabled lobby who would contest that
any other course is unfair discrimination.

From a certain perspective, they are right.

The COST of so doing tho would simply burden th erest of society with a
huge and unacceptable taxaton regime.

I happen to think you are right. It is not POSSIBLE to NOT discriminate
on many many grounds against people who for one reason or another are
naturally less suited to do certain things than others. Legislation
wshold confine itself to making sure thay have SOME opportuniy, not the
SAME opprtunity.

In other words, you can't make it fair, so stop wasting money trying.
Just concentate on making it better. Whe making it more fair makes it
worse - i.e. down to the fantasy level of feeding all intelligent people
drugs, and removing the limbs of the able bodied and crippling their
spines....yup. That is now FAIR. Its also manifestly WORSE all round.

This current government is on that fantasy track.








They should offer the best education to the
best and most able students. To do anything else will fail those most
able students, and devalue the reputation of those that have graduated
before them, as well as the reputation of the university.


Just as wholesale tinkering with the secondary education system led to
good grammar schools, once available to all within a local authority
area, to go private denying access to all but those able to afford to
pay their fees, there is now a good chance that within a generation we
will see Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, Edinburgh, and others removing
themselves from the public sector, and setting fee levels comparable
with the Ivy League colleges in the US (with which they would then be
competing for the able students of the affluent).


If the government could loose its fixation on universities as the only
way to achieve further / higher education and training then they would
have a much better chance of achieving a useful result for all, without
saddling large quantities of the young populas with intolerable debt
burdens to meet the ever expanding cost of providing education of a
diminishing value.


Couldn't agree more.

Julian

and for IMM's benefit, you can use the following to save yourself some
typing:

snip drivel