Cyclone Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 there's a world of difference between 'fail' and 'fail to complete' - finances and homesickness are just two reasons for failing to complete Neither result in you getting a degree, so they're obviously not as buyable as you were suggesting. You also said Once you're in, it's virtually impossible to get a fail, as they'll have to wave goodbye to your tuition fees for the following year When sitting your finals there is no following year, so what reason would the university have to not fail you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 Depending upon the establishment, and its standards Look at the standard of student they're taking on in the first place - just have a quick look back through any of the 'please do my homework for me' threads posted on here, for the most part so badly written that in the past their application would have been binned by any self respecting educational establishment Did you have an opinion on the comments I started the thread with anyway? Is life harder today for the unfailable students? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Neither result in you getting a degree, so they're obviously not as buyable as you were suggesting.that doesn't work as an argument When sitting your finals there is no following year, so what reason would the university have to not fail you?capacity to accommodate you in the resit year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Did you have an opinion on the comments I started the thread with anyway? Is life harder today for the unfailable students?Yes - expectations are MUCH higher, resulting in a much higher stress level for all concerned when you were expected to leave school at 16 and till bash in a local shop, follow your dad down the pits, or stay at home and have kids, you could just get on with life - nowadays you're EXPECTED to get a degree, and do something with your life, so how many kids are set up for failure instead of being happy with what they're actually capable of and happy doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Back then there was affordable housing. And jobs. There were also a lot less people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 the inexplicable popularity of beige throughout the 1970s. Thank you for re-igniting an image in my mind that I had long since cleansed it of:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 There were also a lot less people.There were also alot more people living in one house instead of one family split up and living in two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 There were also a lot less people. And with a lot less people they managed to build over 400 000 homes per year! Contrast that today where we build less than half that amount, with 33% more people. Where a large part of our economy involves selling mortgages to people claiming benefits on the behalf of somebody else to purchase houses which have already been built and paid for. Takes less than 1000 hours of labour to build an house, that's half a years work for one man at 40 hour a week. And the British ethos is to find the tiniest ****hole you can find and mortgage yourself up to the hilt, work for twenty five to thirty years to buy the shoebox (or perhaps even a 25% share of it), then sell it to pay for your old age care. Emigration (of the youth) will soon be our biggest worry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 There were also alot more people living in one house instead of one family split up and living in two On our road there were two families that owned (and lived in) half of the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBiz Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 And with a lot less people they managed to build over 400 000 homes per year! Contrast that today where we build less than half that amount, with 33% more people. Where a large part of our economy involves selling mortgages to people claiming benefits on the behalf of somebody else to purchase houses which have already been built and paid for. Takes less than 1000 hours of labour to build an house, that's half a years work for one man at 40 hour a week. And the British ethos is to find the tiniest ****hole you can find and mortgage yourself up to the hilt, work for twenty five to thirty years to buy the shoebox (or perhaps even a 25% share of it), then sell it to pay for your old age care. Emigration (of the youth) will soon be our biggest worry! What are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.