Labour want to lower tuition fees

[Mecky]

One that appears to be beyond your comprehension.

 

Do you have a degree in underwater basket weaving or alpine flower arranging?

 

If you - a political party - feel that education should be free at the point of service, then education should be free.

 

(The NHS is free at the point of service.)

 

Labour reneged on a long-standing principle. They introduced education charges and they opened up higher education to those who couldn't even read or write. (Towards the end of the last government, Mandelson said: "The courses are too hard; too many people are failing them. The universities should make the courses less challenging so that more people pass.")

 

Really? How many employers are queueing up to hire illiterate graduates with worthless degrees?

 

1) Labour introduced tuition fees. Education was never free (the state paid) but Labour said: "Well, the state can't afford [or isn't prepared to afford] to pay anymore. We would like everybody [and his dog] to go to 'university' but they will have to pay."

 

When I left school (44 years ago) comparatively few people went to University. The state could afford easily to pay fees (and maintenance grants, too.)

 

Subsequently, governments seem to have decided that both Further and Higher education were a way of massaging the unemployment statistics. Education became a profitable enterprise (for many 'establishments') and standards slipped.

 

Yes, they have slipped. - The better universities (like Sheffield) have maintained high standards but some of the newly-promoted polys will take anybody with a blood temperature above 98'F (perhaps they'd accept somebody with a blood temp of 92 - providing they hadn't started to smell. (Well, not too badly.)

 

'Bums on seats' are what counts. An ability to read and write is no longer essential. (And if you want empirical evidence of this, look at some of the posts on this forum made by university 'students'.

 

As an [ex-]employer I learned where to look. If the candidate came from Oxbridge, London, St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh (what a dreamer!) - No problem.

 

Durham, KCL, UCL, UL, QL, UCB,QH, USW,QMUL and LSE were the other universities.

 

Then came the red brick universities, second-wave and plate glass

 

and - after the OU, University and Buckingham and University of Ulster

 

The New Universities.

 

If you were applying for a place and you were very, very smart, would you apply for a place at a uni at the top of my list or a place at a uni at the bottom?

 

As an employer, if I was faced with an applicant from a university near the bottom, I would certainly want to know whether (s)he could read and write ... 2) The number of people attending universities had risen, but the increase in entry numbers had been obtained by a reduction in standards.

Am I being over-cynical? I think not. I've experience from both (and the middle) sides of university education. When I was teaching post-16 students (in a well-reowned school) I had one student (bright, but bloody lazy) who managed to achieve two 'U's and an 'F'. Not a problem sir, our university (near Lorraine's airport) will be pleased to offer you a place.

 

I wonder whether anybody offered him a job?

 

1) So you're saying if there were no universities we wouldn't get taxed as high? Yeah right, they'd just tax us more on something else. Education was free to students because up to university they hadn't worked so were not expected to pay fees. What you mean is why should you personally pay for other peoples' education. It's the typical Tory trait of people benfitting from free education, health services and the like, but when they've milked the system it's time to pull the drawbridge up.

 

2) No it wasn't, university numbers have risen because the Tories upgraded polytechnics into universities in 1991. And where is the evidence to suggest that educational standards have decreased? I think you are being influenced by the sensationalist BS in the media aren't you? A bit like VAT Man a few months back. When in opposition, he tried to blame Labour by saying exams were too easy. Then because he now seized power,he's been whizzing around like a bluea*sed fly congratulating everyone on record-breaking GCSE and A level passes; I mean, what an hypocrite.

 

The rest of your little rant is just waffle.

[muddycoffee]

I disagree, Rupert_Baehr made a great post and there are many truths in it I recognise.

[Rich]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15050334

 

All good on the face of it, by little ed milliband. The problem I have with it is that they'll be funding it by charging those who earn over £65000 a higher interest rate on their student loan repayments. So those who choose to train to be doctors and lawyers will be funding those who do degrees in media studies and David beckham.

 

Can't be right can it ?

 

Meh, 14 years ago it was Labour who categorically said they would NOT introduce tuition fees for Uni students, then as soon as they get in, what do they do? Exactly that!

 

Vote Labour? Ed Milliband can sod right off.