Happ Hazzard Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Sending everyone to university would just decrease the value of degrees even more. The more people have them, the less they are worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Sending everyone to university would just decrease the value of degrees even more. The more people have them, the less they are worth. Selectivism = inequality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The debt may never need paying back, if you can't get a job and spend your life on benefits after passing your degree, the debt is written off unfortunately. Only the very brightest should go to university because degree are unnecessary for many of the available jobs. What's the point of that? You do a degree to get a good carreer, not to sit around on benefits. Actually, I agree that only the brightest should go to University to do academic studies, but I also think we need top quality technology acadamies to train people for technological, engineering and manufacturing industries, and these should be of equal status to universities. More like the German model. We also need well funded and well regulated apprenticeships in artisan crafts, not the Macjob type apprenticeships we have now, but proper ones that take time, include day release courses etc. All this takes money, and also assumes there will be enough jobs for everyone, which, the way things are going I very much doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Sending everyone to university would just decrease the value of degrees even more. The more people have them, the less they are worth. They would have to start doing degree in burger flipping, or maybe they already do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The problem really is that a prosperous person can send an idiot son or daughter to university thus increasing the proportion of "educated" idiots. Cameron is a good example of an educated idiot. He knows nothing about real life. Well said Phil, but whatever happened to old Gam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 They would have to start doing degree in burger flipping, or maybe they already do. Nope. Burger flipping would be covered by the current system of BTecs and NVQs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 What's the point of that? You do a degree to get a good carreer, not to sit around on benefits. Actually, I agree that only the brightest should go to University to do academic studies, but I also think we need top quality technology acadamies to train people for technological, engineering and manufacturing industries, and these should be of equal status to universities. More like the German model. We also need well funded and well regulated apprenticeships in artisan crafts, not the Macjob type apprenticeships we have now, but proper ones that take time, include day release courses etc. All this takes money, and also assumes there will be enough jobs for everyone, which, the way things are going I very much doubt. The point of it is that if you fail to get a job the debt will eventually be written off, It’s so people aren’t put off going to uni, personally I'd put many of them off and get them into work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The point of it is that if you fail to get a job the debt will eventually be written off, It’s so people aren’t put off going to uni, personally I'd put many of them off and get them into work. But then it'll always be an us and them situation between the privileged and the not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 my bold i agree ,lets start by making you pay !!!! youve said its all the rich's fault, and youve admitted your financially secure, to me that means rich. how do you want to pay ? cash or jail time ???? We seem to have a problem defining what's rich, and what's poor, which is why the 1% and the 99% definition seems most appropriate to me. Most of us, probably all of us on here, are in the 99%. To be in the 1% you need to be earning (I use the word loosely) in excess of several million a year, have need of tax havens, teams of accountants, and trust funds to avoid tax. You are so rich you are affectively above the law, mix only with the equally rich and famous, and wield enormous influence with high powered movers and shakers because of your wealth. You will spend your time aquiring more and more wealth through a variety of schemes, even though you don't need it and can't possibly spend it. You breath rarified air and know little, and care less, of the problems of the little people. You may have more money than some small countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 But then it'll always be an us and them situation between the privileged and the not. Its only an us and them if you decide that you want to spend your life feeling envious that someone as more than you, I'm not bother that lots of people have more than me, money isn't the most important thing in life and there is nothing stopping any of us coming up with an idea that could make us rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.