It's not free - somebody else is paying for it.

[Cyclone]

I think you provided the 40% figure after a bit of prompting didn't you?

[angos]

I think you provided the 40% figure after a bit of prompting didn't you?

 

Which you could have easily found yourself instead of asking me to provide it for you.

[Mecky]

Which you could have easily found yourself instead of asking me to provide it for you.

 

Maybe you should practice what you preach?

[angos]

Maybe you should practice what you preach?

 

I do ...........

[Cyclone]

Which you could have easily found yourself instead of asking me to provide it for you.

 

It was quite reasonable to ask you for clarification of 'many'.

[Anna Glypta]

Education is indeed not free. It is, however, an investment in the future that we all benefit from, and IMO should be funded by the state and available to all with the required ability.

 

Free education was the great leveller and main driver behind social mobility, but Labour's idea that 50% should go to University was way off beam. I think it should be for the highest academic achievers and entry levels should be raised to ensure that only the cleverest get in.

That's not to say that those who are not academic should be left high and dry. They need a range of opportunities to achieve qualifications and expertise in more practical areas which should be regarded as of equal status to those with University degrees. They after all will probably contribute just as much to the nation's economy.

 

The standard of training, apprenticeships, etc in this country is at an all time low when compared with many other countries, and in some cases is simply a joke. Training on the cheap rarely works - it's simply a chance for more cheap subsidised labour.

 

Never was it more necessary to raise our game in order to compete with the rest of the world. The government needs to invest in its people if it wants to succeed.

 

It is only a benefit to society and to the individual if they possess the intelligence to benefit from the education. Sending 2nd rate students to 2nd rate universities for 3 or 4 years and have them drop out mid course or fail their exams isn't an investment regardless of who pays.

 

A 22 year old emerging from university without a degree and entering the jobs market is in a worse position than a 17 year old without a degree who left school and headed straight for the jobs market.

[angos]

It was quite reasonable to ask you for clarification of 'many'.

 

And then to top it off you use the information I found for you, in another thread.

[Anna B]

It is only a benefit to society and to the individual if they possess the intelligence to benefit from the education. Sending 2nd rate students to 2nd rate universities for 3 or 4 years and have them drop out mid course or fail their exams isn't an investment regardless of who pays.

 

A 22 year old emerging from university without a degree and entering the jobs market is in a worse position than a 17 year old without a degree who left school and headed straight for the jobs market.

 

As you will see, I advocated only the academically gifted going to University. Those with other talents should go to their appropriate place of learning and development. They would not be well served by university.

 

Why University should be regarded as the pinacle of achievement when other skills are just as important is beyond me. It seems to be a British thing built into the class system. You don't find it so much in Germany and Sweden.

 

Meanwhile, how much does it cost society to keep an uneducated, unemployed, disaffected youth in squalor?

Everything comes at a price...

[Anna Glypta]

As you will see, I advocated only the academically gifted going to University. Those with other talents should go to their appropriate place of learning and development. They would not be well served by university.

 

Why University should be regarded as the pinacle of achievement when other skills are just as important is beyond me. It seems to be a British thing built into the class system. You don't find it so much in Germany and Sweden.

 

Meanwhile, how much does it cost society to keep an uneducated, unemployed, disaffected youth in squalor?

Everything comes at a price...

 

Well around 45% of those who enrole at Bolton University fail to emerge the other end with a degree. So society has little to gain from the thousands who fancy a few years of student life but lack the aptitude to carry it through.

 

The cost of each student is roughly the same if they fail or pass at around £9000 per student per year.

 

Do you think a person who left school at 17 and went to work as a builders labourer should be required to contribute to the failed education of his neighbour who ran up £27,000 in tuition fees whilst failing at university.

[angos]

Well around 45% of those who enrole at Bolton University fail to emerge the other end with a degree. So society has little to gain from the thousands who fancy a few years of student life but lack the aptitude to carry it through.

 

The cost of each student is roughly the same if they fail or pass at around £9000 per student per year.

 

Do you think a person who left school at 17 and went to work as a builders labourer should be required to contribute to the failed education of his neighbour who ran up £27,000 in tuition fees whilst failing at university.

 

What I find most annoying is that the students that go on to be productive members of society and pay lots of tax, have to pay it back, for the rest its written off. It should be the other way round.