"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...
snip stuff about further education

This mut be a wind up or a first- a thread on uk.d-i-y where everyone is
agreeing AND talking sense !

All I have read is bolocks.


I'm sure there are those here(not me of course) who might say that just made
it perfect ;o)

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message However,
it should be evident to all but the
It is a little more involved than that, I think. At some point we, as
a society, need to come to grips with prejudices that affect the
accessibility issue - for example, the attriude of some lower-income
parents that tertiary information isn't "for their sort of people",
schools and teachers that discourage pupils from applying to certain
universities for reasons of reverse snobbery, etc.

Not sure that's common. Even the poorest of schools are proud when they get
students into Oxbridge.
I got called into the headmaster's office to explain the 'mistake' on my
university application form as I seemed to be applying for electronic
engineering degrees rather than doing something proper like physics at
Cambridge or Bristol.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
Huff knew they were on telly. He sent his best team and told them to work
their
arses off.

I thought the Germans were sticklers for this 48 hour maximum week nonsense.
Didn't seem to apply here.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:20:50 -0000, "G&M" wrote:

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message However,
it should be evident to all but the
It is a little more involved than that, I think. At some point we, as
a society, need to come to grips with prejudices that affect the
accessibility issue - for example, the attriude of some lower-income
parents that tertiary information isn't "for their sort of people",
schools and teachers that discourage pupils from applying to certain
universities for reasons of reverse snobbery, etc.

Not sure that's common. Even the poorest of schools are proud when they get
students into Oxbridge.

Some are. some aren't ... I have first hand knowledge, though, of
teachers who have advised pupils not to even think about applying to
Oxbridge because of the perceived "elitism" of those institutions.

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"IMM" wrote
| "Andy Hall" wrote
| Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
| population "going to a university".
| Political correctness has nothing to do with it. The country is
| turning to a high tech economy. The government has to prepare for
| this. So the other 50%, if it ever gets that high, who do not go
| to higher education shall be involved in the basic skills we all
| know and need. That 50% is a lot of people.

But I don't see how someone who gets GCSE Reading and Writing and then
spends 3 years reading for BA Sociology With Macrame is being prepared for
either a high tech economy or essential basic skills.

Even the traditional skilled manual occupations are becoming much more
technical. Most of the construction of that Huf House wasn't what we would
traditionally call building, it was precision fabrication and assembly, not
the sort of work that can be carried out by the average British gibbon with
NVQ Level 1 in Pushing A Wheelbarrow.

Owain

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:52:29 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...
snip stuff about further education

This mut be a wind up or a first- a thread on uk.d-i-y where everyone is
agreeing AND talking sense !

All I have read is bolocks.

Normally you write it......
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"G&M" wrote
| Not sure that's common. Even the poorest of schools are proud when
| they get students into Oxbridge.

The schools might be; the parents may rather their children got a job in
Kwik Save and a council house and were no longer dependent on them
financially.

The Scottish news the other night had a report from a comprehensive school
in Glasgow, where the pupils who normally would have considered applying for
Oxbridge are all applying to Scottish universities instead, because of the
costs of studying in England.

Owain

IMM wrote:

Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
population "going to a university".


Political correctness has nothing to do with it. The country is turning to
a high tech economy. The government has to prepare for this. So the other
50%, if it ever gets that high, who do not go to higher education shall be
involved in the basic skills we all know and need. That 50% is a lot of
people.

I expect that most would agree that any government ought to try and
create a framework to support all aspects of the economy not just the
high tech economy. However they show no indication whatsoever of having
the slightest clue how to do this. Their actions indicate that they are
achieving the opposite!

ISTM that political correctness has everything to do with it. The
government has decided that it will further their political ambition,
and bestow a nice warm fuzzy feeling on the electorate, if they make
bold statements to the effect that anyone with the desire to attend and
graduate from a university can now do so. They have created a
fundamental problem for themselves.

The reality is that only a very small percentage of the population are
currently able to graduate from university - 90%+ of the population do
not. There may be a few of those who are "excluded" for various reasons,
but the hard and inescapable fact is that most do not have the required
basic levels of intelligence or ability required to study at a
(traditional) university level; let alone graduate. This is especially
true in the hard sciences and technical areas so vital for the so called
hi-tech economy. This is not a question of "accessibility" or
"inclusiveness" or eliminating "elitism" - but simple bell curve
statistics - half the people can not have an intelligence equal to the
top 5%.

The only way you are going to achieve this stated ambition of 50% to
attend university, is if you lower the standards required to enter and
graduate. Either by "dumbing down" or by introducing all sorts of non
academic courses ("media studies" and the like). This is not only unfair
and counter productive for the students who fall for this line, it also
devalues the reputation of the universities themselves and their former
graduates.

With the current trend for government and media inverted snobbery, they
claim the universities are "elitist". Well good - so they should be in
the true sense of the word. 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.

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.

Is that sufficiently brutal un-PC for you?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:51:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
population "going to a university".

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

The country is turning to
a high tech economy. The government has to prepare for this.

But it doesn't serve the needs of the economy or the individuals
concerned to engineer education such that 50% go to a university by
dropping the standards to make that happen.

Devaluing the education system as a whole because of some misplaced
notion that some skills are "higher" than others in terms of their
value to society doesn't achieve anything. It isn't an issue of
higher and lower or one skill being better than another. The
important point is matching the education resources to the abilities
of the individual.

Skills are rewarded according to supply and demand. Individuals can
choose the extent to which financial reward is important to them as
well as many other aspects of a career.

Dropping academic standards removes the incentive for those with
academic skills to strive for achievement. More and more we are in
an international business environment. Fortunately, we still have
high standards in some of the universities and they are able to
compete with the best in the world in terms of academic achievement.
If this deteriorates then we will be in real trouble.




So the other
50%, if it ever gets that high, who do not go to higher education shall be
involved in the basic skills we all know and need. That 50% is a lot of
people.

Yes and they are equally deserving of appropriate education and
training.
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:52:29 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...
snip stuff about further education

This mut be a wind up or a first- a thread on uk.d-i-y where everyone
is
agreeing AND talking sense !

All I have read is bolocks.

Normally you write it......

LOL, such fun.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:51:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
population "going to a university".

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

The country is turning to
a high tech economy. The government has to prepare for this.

But it doesn't serve the needs of the economy or the individuals
concerned to engineer education such that 50% go to a university by
dropping the standards to make that happen.

No proof of this.

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:20:50 -0000, "G&M" wrote:

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
However,
it should be evident to all but the
It is a little more involved than that, I think. At some point we, as
a society, need to come to grips with prejudices that affect the
accessibility issue - for example, the attriude of some lower-income
parents that tertiary information isn't "for their sort of people",
schools and teachers that discourage pupils from applying to certain
universities for reasons of reverse snobbery, etc.

Not sure that's common. Even the poorest of schools are proud when they
get
students into Oxbridge.

Some are. some aren't ... I have first hand knowledge, though, of
teachers who have advised pupils not to even think about applying to
Oxbridge because of the perceived "elitism" of those institutions.

"perceived"? It is real. Elitism is not the word, more pretentiousness.
If you are not one of them they will phase you out. Better go to a proper
uni that is not obsessed with teaching Ancient Greek.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:53:24 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

IMM wrote:

Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
population "going to a university".


Political correctness has nothing to do with it. The country is turning to
a high tech economy. The government has to prepare for this. So the other
50%, if it ever gets that high, who do not go to higher education shall be
involved in the basic skills we all know and need. That 50% is a lot of
people.

I expect that most would agree that any government ought to try and
create a framework to support all aspects of the economy not just the
high tech economy. However they show no indication whatsoever of having
the slightest clue how to do this. Their actions indicate that they are
achieving the opposite!

ISTM that political correctness has everything to do with it. The
government has decided that it will further their political ambition,
and bestow a nice warm fuzzy feeling on the electorate, if they make
bold statements to the effect that anyone with the desire to attend and
graduate from a university can now do so. They have created a
fundamental problem for themselves.

Indeed, and in doing so are creating a situation in which not only
will it be *more* difficult for those able to benefit from an academic
education to have unfettered access to it, but the "faux-university or
nothing" approach will continue to erode at the base of exactly those
skills needed to build and maintain a high tech economy.

The reality is that only a very small percentage of the population are
currently able to graduate from university - 90%+ of the population do
not. There may be a few of those who are "excluded" for various reasons,
but the hard and inescapable fact is that most do not have the required
basic levels of intelligence or ability required to study at a
(traditional) university level; let alone graduate. This is especially
true in the hard sciences and technical areas so vital for the so called
hi-tech economy. This is not a question of "accessibility" or
"inclusiveness" or eliminating "elitism" - but simple bell curve
statistics - half the people can not have an intelligence equal to the
top 5%.

The only way you are going to achieve this stated ambition of 50% to
attend university, is if you lower the standards required to enter and
graduate. Either by "dumbing down" or by introducing all sorts of non
academic courses ("media studies" and the like).

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.

This is not only unfair
and counter productive for the students who fall for this line, it also
devalues the reputation of the universities themselves and their former
graduates.

With the current trend for government and media inverted snobbery, they
claim the universities are "elitist". Well good - so they should be in
the true sense of the word.

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 ...

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

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

In article , Julian
Fowler wrote:
Some are. some aren't ... I have first hand knowledge, though,
of teachers who have advised pupils not to even think about
applying to Oxbridge because of the perceived "elitism" of
those institutions.

At my school the standard advice to anyone of uncertain academic
prowess was to apply for engineering at Jarrow or somesuch place
as you were guaranteed a place on 2 E's. All the school was
interested in was the proportion of pupils who got places at
university: if you dropped out after one term that was your
problem not theirs. Fortunately most of us who were given such
advice ignored it.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:16:40 +0000, Julian Fowler
wrote:



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 you look at their fees for non-UK or non-EU students, they are
actually very comparable to the Ivy League colleges and others on the
west coast with similar academic standing. They are all in the
$30-40k per annum range.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:13:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:51:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
population "going to a university".

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

The country is turning to
a high tech economy. The government has to prepare for this.

But it doesn't serve the needs of the economy or the individuals
concerned to engineer education such that 50% go to a university by
dropping the standards to make that happen.

No proof of this.


You're saying that dropping standards to admit more people is a good
idea?

I've looked at recent GCSE, A level and degree course exam papers.
The standard has dropped substantially over the last few years.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:13:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:51:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
population "going to a university".

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

The country is turning to
a high tech economy. The government has to prepare for this.

But it doesn't serve the needs of the economy or the individuals
concerned to engineer education such that 50% go to a university by
dropping the standards to make that happen.

No proof of this.

You're saying that dropping standards to admit more people is a good
idea?

I said "No proof of this."

I've looked at recent GCSE, A level and degree course exam papers.
The standard has dropped substantially over the last few years.

No proof of this.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:51:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
population "going to a university".

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. The country is turning to
a high tech economy.

Exactly which "High Tech" is that?

I warned my son in 1990 that if he went to Uni to study "Computer
Science" it may no longer be the flavour of the month by the time he
hit the job market. He stayed on to do a PHD and left Uni in 1996. He
did get a job and is reasonably well paid at the mo, but the rope
bridge is collapsing behind him. Both he and his fiance (also in IT)
would not be able to get another job in IT if they had to.

In the '90s they were telling us the next tech boom after IT would be
biotechnology what happened to that?

The government has to prepare for this.

You sound like Harodl Wislon in 1963, that was all bull**** as well,
the Computer mainframe industry, the car industry, the steel industry,
the jet engine industry, and the rest were just on the point of going
down the gurgler. The country sold out it's electronics industry to
the Chinese/Taiwanese/Koreans at the earliest oportunity.

So the other
50%, if it ever gets that high, who do not go to higher education shall be
involved in the basic skills we all know and need. That 50% is a lot of
people.


??

Expanding numbers up to 50% in HE can only be done on a lowest common
denominator principal.


DG

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:50:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:13:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:51:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
population "going to a university".

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

The country is turning to
a high tech economy. The government has to prepare for this.

But it doesn't serve the needs of the economy or the individuals
concerned to engineer education such that 50% go to a university by
dropping the standards to make that happen.

No proof of this.

You're saying that dropping standards to admit more people is a good
idea?

I said "No proof of this."

I've looked at recent GCSE, A level and degree course exam papers.
The standard has dropped substantially over the last few years.

No proof of this.

You don't believe me? I wouldn't be the first person to say this,
you know.......





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 29 Jan 2004 22:20:18 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

(Clive Long,UK) writes:

[14 lines snipped]

However, her indoors (a better PM than me) pointed out:

She forgot one.

Huff knew they were on telly. He sent his best team and told them to work their
arses off.

Didn't see the prog. but searching on the web revealed a very very
expensive house for what it was.

Be it e-ver so tren -dee.. There's no -o place like home.

DG

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:09 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Normally you write it......

As far as I am aware reading is not a pre-requisite for writing. It
helps, but there's no dependency.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:46:34 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:32:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
. ..
What an amazing house! Since I once lived in Germany (for many years)
and am always ready to support the Germans against a lot of the
criticism from British xenophobia, how good it was to see a crack team
of ordinary German workers demonstrate how super-efficient they are.
As the client said, we should feel ashamed that both the cement lorry
and the crane were incredibly late, typical of our often slapdash
approach to commercial enterprises.

But those brand new Huf vans! I'm pretty sure they were purchased by
Huf especially for the show - and why not?

No they were not. That us how Huf do it.

Also does not surprise me one bit. In Hamburg, at least, everything
looks expensive, new, clean, and cared for. That's the German way.


Just as *Somebody* was eating the fillet steaks during the wartime
food rationing, *Somebody* is driving the rusty old transits.

I see on the autobahns an equitable number of scabby old vehicles.

That's the German way.

DG

"derek" wrote in message
...

You sound like Harodl Wislon in 1963,
that was all bull**** as well,

********! Without Harold we would be like Spain, an ex empire country that
declined under aristocratic self interest.

In the 1950s we few universities, now we have 100. He was the one who saw
the potential of the Poly's and they were a raving success embarrassing the
established universities, what few of them there were.

the Computer mainframe industry, the car
industry, the steel industry, the jet engine
industry, and the rest were just on the point
of going down the gurgler.

And Harold saved them. He set up ICL and also the OU, which has been
emulated around then world.

The country sold out it's electronics industry to
the Chinese/Taiwanese/Koreans at the earliest oportunity.

Not so. It was a case of Globalisation (in 1965 Harold took Indonesian
rebels on RN ships to overthrow the dictator and open up the vast cheap
workforce. The rebels were murdering *******s. So much for socialism and
Harold being far lefty. We were the first to adjust to globalisation in
the modern sense (although the British invented it in the 1700s) and
de-urbanise. Germany is in trouble, as it struggles to adjust being mainly
manufacturing based. Buy any consumer item in Germany and look at where it
is made. China and Taiwan is more likely to be on the bottom.

"derek" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jan 2004 22:20:18 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

(Clive Long,UK) writes:

[14 lines snipped]

However, her indoors (a better PM than me) pointed out:

She forgot one.

Huff knew they were on telly. He sent his best team and told them to work
their
arses off.

Didn't see the prog. but searching on the web revealed a very very
expensive house for what it was.

Great house, great quality. 450K was rip-off for what it was.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:51:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
population "going to a university".

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. The country is turning to
a high tech economy. The government has to prepare for this. So the other
50%, if it ever gets that high, who do not go to higher education shall be
involved in the basic skills we all know and need. That 50% is a lot of
people.

I think it's highly possible that graduates in future could take their
degree, enjoy the leaving party, and book a one-way ticket to
somewhere else for twenty-five years, after which the debt is
cancelled. We will continue to underfund education and research in
Britain (the former should be funded from general taxation), so that
any lucrative post abroad will seem even better once a graduate sees
the resources available in comparison to our penny-pinching
short-termist approach. Of course, if we didn't indulge in wasteful
excursions like the Iraq war we might have more to spare for something
far more important, namely education. I would also say that Blair
should concentrate on getting school leavers to an educational stage
where they can actually string a sentence together without any
spelling mistakes. Universities are having to cram some basic
education into some first-year students so that they are capable of
following the coursework. I am convinced that the normal standard of
education in the public at large in Britain is abysmally low.

MM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:00 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

Even the traditional skilled manual occupations are becoming much more
technical. Most of the construction of that Huf House wasn't what we would
traditionally call building, it was precision fabrication and assembly, not
the sort of work that can be carried out by the average British gibbon with
NVQ Level 1 in Pushing A Wheelbarrow.

I don't agree. The precision is all in the factory, like Ikea
flat-pack furniture. British workers erect skyscrapers and other very
complex buildings all the time. That crane driver, for example, had a
very responsible job and I thought the cooperation between him and the
Germans was excellent.

MM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:54:03 -0000, "Colin"
wrote:

In Germany they do not have BCOs, the builder is educated and qualified
and
certified. he self certifies the build. It works. In this country, we
have an attitude that all workers are cowboys and have a layer to check
their work.

How does that work with DIY projects? Do the Germans have to get a qualified
builder in to certify the work?

In my experience, no. But I left Germany in 1982, so it may be
different now. However, I have relatives in Hamburg and visit there at
least once a year. DIY seems to be quite a big thing there, too, but
perhaps not quite so much as in the UK. Certainly I bought a lot of
the tools there which I still use today. I would have more
confidence, though, in having a good job done from any tradesman in
Germany, as there is still the work ethic there where people simply
take pride in doing a good job. Here I think the cowboys are dragging
everyone else down to their level, as job costings are squeezed and
otherwise conscientious workers are forced to scamp in order to get
the job.

MM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:46:18 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Mike
Mitchell wrote:
If that is true, I salute Prescott for trying. But the cowboys
could be restrained very easily and quickly if only their
clients would withhold their money and not buy the cowboys'
shoddy products. When a few companies go out of business for
lack of customers, others will start to take note.

That requires (a) a freeing up of the planning system - greater
supply = greater choice; and (b) more discerning customers. It
seems to be generally accepted that houses sell on the
appearance of the kitchen and bathroom: almost no one cares
about issues of real quality.

That's because the British, being so isolated (psychologically as well
as geographically), simply are unaware of the kind of quality which is
taken for granted in much of Europe and beyond.

MM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:26:45 +0000, derek
wrote:

Just as *Somebody* was eating the fillet steaks during the wartime
food rationing, *Somebody* is driving the rusty old transits.

I see on the autobahns an equitable number of scabby old vehicles.

That's the German way.

I don't see the point of this rather snide comment. Are you just being
a wind-up merchant?

MM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:40:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Great house, great quality. 450K was rip-off for what it was.

There you are then! We could compete on price, no?

MM

"derek" wrote
| Just as *Somebody* was eating the fillet steaks during the wartime
| food rationing, *Somebody* is driving the rusty old transits.

Huf weren't driving Transits - those vans were Mercedes.

Owain

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote
| "Andy Hall" wrote
| Also the political correctness of having a target of 50% of the
| population "going to a university".
| Political correctness has nothing to do with it. The country is
| turning to a high tech economy. The government has to prepare for
| this. So the other 50%, if it ever gets that high, who do not go
| to higher education shall be involved in the basic skills we all
| know and need. That 50% is a lot of people.

But I don't see how someone who gets GCSE Reading and Writing and then
spends 3 years reading for BA Sociology With Macrame is being prepared for
either a high tech economy or essential basic skills.

Neither can I, but that is not the norm.

Even the traditional skilled manual occupations are becoming much more
technical. Most of the construction of that Huf House wasn't what we would
traditionally call building, it was precision fabrication and assembly,
not
the sort of work that can be carried out by the average British gibbon
with
NVQ Level 1 in Pushing A Wheelbarrow.

Owain

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:00 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

Even the traditional skilled manual occupations are becoming much more
technical. Most of the construction of that Huf House wasn't what we
would
traditionally call building, it was precision fabrication and assembly,
not
the sort of work that can be carried out by the average British gibbon
with
NVQ Level 1 in Pushing A Wheelbarrow.

I don't agree. The precision is all in the factory, like Ikea
flat-pack furniture. British workers erect skyscrapers and other very
complex buildings all the time. That crane driver, for example, had a
very responsible job and I thought the cooperation between him and the
Germans was excellent.

When he actually got there.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:40:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Great house, great quality. 450K was rip-off for what it was.

There you are then! We could compete on price, no?

If we did it to that quality and time scale it would cost 550K.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In France or germany, to be an 'engineer' is something to be proud of,
atracting top peole to good salaries. In this countyry it means 'car
mechanic' and that is about how one is regarded.
True.
How many here would actually consider the 'Eur Ing' prefix on their business
cards, instead of the 'CEng MIEE' suffix? A doubt anyone in the UK would
consider it worth the confusion.

--
Toby.

'One day son, all this will be finished'

Andy Hall wrote in message etc.

I'm not sure that we shouldn't think in "Yes Minister" terms
Why would you wish to increase the price of a "free" product? Obviously to
reduce the demand. This achieves three objectives:-

1) Fewer poor students who you have to finance.
2) Less demand for university education, less demand for lecturers, so you
can reduce their budgets.
3) It's a tax increase, so you can pay politicians more money!

Regards
Capitol

"Toby" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In France or germany, to be an 'engineer' is something to be proud of,
atracting top peole to good salaries. In this countyry it means 'car
mechanic' and that is about how one is regarded.
True.
How many here would actually consider the 'Eur Ing' prefix on their
business
cards,

Is there such a thing?

IMM wrote in message ...
No proof of this.


My experience in industry is that this has already happened. The chance of
engineers having a sound understanding of design and analysis has become
much worse in the last 10 years. Good people IME come from a relatively
small number of old established universities and polytechnics who still have
rigorous and high teaching standards. A few come through on basic high
innate ability from the dross institutions. Contrary to IMM's beliefs, the
Oxbridge engineering graduates I've come across have all had outstanding
intellect and ability. Can't speak for the arts lot though.
I'll always hire the graduates who can think, sadly many can't.

Regards
Capitol

I've looked at recent GCSE, A level and degree course exam papers.
The standard has dropped substantially over the last few years.
No proof of this.

The show on C4 (?) a while ago was quite enlightening where it put new
school leavers "back to school" to 1950`s standards.

The shock on the faces of the kids when the "hard" exam they took they
assumed must have been something akin to A-levels turned out, in fact, to
just be the 11+

Elsewhere (uk.legal I think) it was revealed that the pass mark for one
particular subject was about 12% IIRC, and about 40% got you an A

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...
No proof of this.


My experience in industry is that this has already happened. The chance of
engineers having a sound understanding of design and analysis has become
much worse in the last 10 years. Good people IME come from a relatively
small number of old established universities and polytechnics who still
have
rigorous and high teaching standards. A few come through on basic high
innate ability from the dross institutions. Contrary to IMM's beliefs, the
Oxbridge engineering graduates I've come across have all had outstanding
intellect and ability. Can't speak for the arts lot though.
I'll always hire the graduates who can think, sadly many can't.

How do you know they can think?