On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:25:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:00:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Yes but that notion does not extend to 50%
of the population going to "university" as
Mr EU Turn seems to think.

Has someone done a study to assess what %age need to go to uni? Those
who
are against are mainly Little Middle Englanders.

Not really - only realists.

Since when have Little Middle Englanders been realists.

I wouldn't know - I've never met one.


There's nothing wrong
with higher education for a broad section of the population as such -
it is question of appropriateness. Not everybody can benefit from an
academic university education,

What a stupid comment.

It isn't at all.

It is.

He's behind you.



Not everybody will benefit from an academic
university education. That's obvious because not everybody is
academically gifted.

They must be academically gifted to be accepted for uni. Can't you figure
that out?

If you lower the standard enough, anybody can be academically
"gifted". The trouble is that it is then meaningless unles your
objective is to be able to say that X% of the population went to
university. This is the obvious case with TonyB where perception is
far more important than reality.






Some people are gifted in other areas, but it
doesn't make them less valuable members
of society.

The idiotic view you have. What you are proposing is that working class
kids should be plasterers and the middle class go to uni.

I didn't bring the class aspect into this - you did.

There is no reason why people from one class or background or another
should be more or less academically able or more or less practically
able.



The problem lies in the misguided belief that academic education and
institutions delivering it should be delivered to everybody or at
least a substantial proportion.

Quite right too.
It isn't though. It's a con because the only possible way to
achieve it is a lowering of standards.
16 year olds in large numbers don't want it and are having to be
bribed.



That is plainly impossible, because
only a small percentage actually *do*
benefit from a high level
academic education.

Another meaningless empty statement.

If somebody is presented with academic teaching or opportunity to
learn that is beyond their capability, what possible benefit can it be
to them.

I happen to be reasonably able academically. I can't play football
or plaster walls to save my life. People make perfectly good
livings out of both of these.


The mistake is in not accepting that
but in dropping standards to make
it happen.

No proof of this.

There's no need for any - it's blindingly obvious.




It does a disservice to the students and reduces skill
levels. Not what should be happening at all.

University is geared in the UK to make you think, not supply you with craft
skills.

As it should be. So what then is the point in subjecting people who
don't have the intellectual skills to benefit from it to something
that is inappropriate for them.

I used to be subjected to football and cross country running at
school. I hated both and they didn't benefit me one iota because I
was useless at them.

Others did well at that but were hopeless at calculus.


The even bigger mistake is in arguing that this has to do with
snobbery and elitism.

It is, as Little Middle Englanders are obsessed with petty snobbery.

I don't know any.


It has nothing to do with those at all.
You can have excellence in particle
physics and excellence in
carpentry. Both are important to society
as a whole.

But you want the carpenter to come from the council estate. How dare they
sent him to a uni with your kids in!

I haven't said that at all - it is purely a figment of your inverted
imagination.

I don't mind where the carpenter comes from nor the particle
physicist. It doesn't matter as long as they can do the job and
are happy doing it.



The real question is why is there a
proposal to bribe 16 year olds to
stay on in education?

We need a highly educated population. Graduates tend to be into
positions
of power. If many of them are from the working class a form of
meritocracy
will prevail, and hopefully these people will get rid of the public
school/Oxbridge self interest group.

It isn't a class issue at all

It is. Those who bring it up are all brainwashed right wing Tory types like
you.

First of all I didn't bring up the issue of alleged Oxbridge self
interest - you did, because for some reason it is one of your hobby
horses. Secondly, none of the other descriptions that you made are
applicable to me so that statement is meanigless.




You can't be that dumb. The riches people
in the UK take RENT and become
billionaires to the detriment of the people
as a whole. That is obvious.

I'm not at all dumb.

You must be, you can't see it.

It depends on whether you believe that there is something wrong with
people being rich, owning property, letting it and taking rent.
If you do, then I can understand your perspective.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with it, so that's the end
of it as far as I am concerned.




People own property. They let it to
others and charge a rent.
It's simple return on investment.

Land is NOT property, the bricks on it are. Also the parasites own most of
the land. Read:

Who Owns Britain by Kevin Cahill
The Theft of the Countryside by Marion Shoard
Whose Land is it Anyway? by Richard Norton-Taylor

I don't have the time to waste and split hairs over land and property.
If somebody holds the title to a piece of land, with or without
buildings, that is that as far as I cam concerned.




So some people have more than others. That's how it is.

We know how it is and you think it is right that we are ripped off by a few.
What is so astounding is that you like being ripped off.

I don't consider myself to be ripped off in this regard so it doesn't
cause me the angst that you seem to have.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl