"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

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,

Proof of lowered standards please.

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.

Tory thinking is class ingrained.

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.

That is true, then why is it that Oxbridge has 50% of its students from fee
paying schools.

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 is.

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.

You have an assumption that those going to uni are not capable. Tory class
badgering again.

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 last three are mainly working class.

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.

Proof please.

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.

You have an assumption that those going to uni are not capable. Tory class
badgering again.

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.

Made you fit.

Others did well at that

How many played for Chelsea?

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.

You can't see the wood for the trees.

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

Clear implication.

- 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.

Tory class badgering wants the working class away from their lot.

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,

And true it is too.

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,

Nothing wrong with that. Landowners are rich through rip off. They hold
the country back.

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.

You still don't get it. Only a few own the vast majority of the land. Our
land, as we own it as we have sovereignty over it.

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.

You shiuld, as you know very littel of what hold the country back.

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

Because you don't know. You have been subject to propaganda over your
lifetime, sucked it in and love it. That is very sad.