[Battalion]

Well because if my opinion is 'so lacking in anything resembling reason and any knowledge of the situation that it's almost impossible to engage with on an intellectual level' why have there been 40 posts responding to it?

In short, I found it an offensive statement.

Having said that, I take nothing away from your 'snide, pathethic oneliner in response to a post.'

This post has been edited by Battalion: 26 November 2010 - 08:32 AM

[Gothos]

You wouldn't survive one day in customer support if an offensive statement makes you go rage enough to refuse to talk. Especially since you'd be taking flak for something that's not your fault.

In any case, the one sentence from Cougar is the only post you've responed to since yesterday morning, even though at least several were direct replies to what you've said. Is that a case of a lack of time, or you just don't have anything to say?

[Menandore]

@ Battalion - You lost all credibility when you started bitching about scroungers living a better life than you despite being bone idol and never doing a day's work in their lives. First of all, that sounded like you were complaining about dole scroungers - wtf does that have to do with uni students? Unless of course you equate students with people too lazy to get a job. Tbh you just sound extremely bitter and angry cos you think these school leavers are going to uni cos it means 3-4 years of drinking without doing any "real" work.

Battalion, on 25 November 2010 - 08:44 AM, said:

Apt, my point regarding further education is this:

A guy goes to school for x amount of years, and consistently fails his grades because he isn't the sharpest tool in the box, but also because he is too busy fucking around in class, bunking lessons, not doing his homework, and blah blah blah.
When his exams come round, he's done zero revision, because revision is for geeks, and he fails every single one of the tests. F.F.F.F.F.F.FAIL!
He then applied to go to university to further his education. He wants to study ... Sports Psychology, or some shit like that. Why should a government invest money in someone who has consistently proven that they are inept and incapible of knuckling down and studying? After four years, he may or may not graduate, or what ever, and the net result is loss of revinue.
A person such as this, is far better suited to an apprentiship, where they can get practical knowledge and one on one tuition.
I have no problem with investment in talent. If a person has potential, pay for them. If they don't, don't.

Unlike Cougar, I can actually see something resembling a good point in this post. Although it falls down a bit when you start claiming that there's a significant number of people failing all their exams in school and then going to uni to do an easy degree cos they can't be bothered working. Can I just ask, did you read about this in the Daily Mail?

Although it is easy to get on some courses, it's not that easy. Universities are not in the habit of taking on students who don't have ANY entry requirements. Even for the "easy" subjects like sport psycology or the infamous media studies. I do however agree that too many kids are going to uni for this type of degree and they shouldn't be. It IS a problem but I think you're miles off target accusing them of being lazy scroungers who go for the free ride. From personal experience, when I went to school we had it drummed into us from about the age of 15-16 that if you manage to get good enough grades then you MUST go to uni and get a degree otherwise you will be stuck forever in a dead end job and your life will be a meaningless, you will be a complete failure. Obviously they didn't word it quite like that but that was the message.

People are complaining about dumbing down and too many people passing and getting degrees and it's lowering the value of a degree, well that's the truth, degrees are becoming too common. As an example my younger sister was never that great academically. She struggled with her highers and even had to resit one of them. She scraped by with good enough grades to get into uni though so she went to do a biology degree (not because she wanted a job relating to biology but because it was expected of her to go to uni and she had been fed the same lines I mentioned above). She graduated 18 months ago with a third class honors and has been working for my parents ever since, applying for graduate jobs the whole time. This week she got her first job. It's minimum wage.

I don't think the problem is that it's too easy to get into uni though. Another example would be my bf, typical boy, wasn't interested in school, didn't do that well but good enough to get into uni. Got motivated then and ended up with a degree in civil engineering and eventually a PhD in construction management. I think the key is to stop teaching our kids that a degree is the be all and end all and if you can get one then you should. We should be telling them that sometimes they're worthless and that there are better ways to further your education if you're not suited to that kind of study. Widen their opportunities and give them better career advice before they leave school. I had no idea what I wanted to do before I finished school and I think it's the same for a lot of people. Sometimes uni is just something to do because you don't know what else to do. That doesn't make you lazy, it means you want to better yourself but without direction, which can lead to a dead end degree.

Now when it comes to the money side of things I still think education should be available for those who want it. £9k a year is going to put all but the very richest into debt. It's all very well saying you can have grants for the smartest poor kids but what about the poor kids who got A's and B's and could get a good degree in say economics, accountancy, history, teaching....(I wasn't a straight A student, I only got C's for some subjects but uni paid off for me, I've got an MSc and a decent job that I couldn't have got without it). Tough luck, you're good enough to go into teaching but you're not quite Law or Medicine material and you're not wealthy so off to Tesco with you. That's absurd.

So to summarise a rather lengthy post: Education should be free (or at least affordable for everyone) but we should stop pushing so many kids into university when there are better options for them.

[Battalion]

Thankfully, I'm not in customer support.

I'm not in a rage, but if someone take a pop at me, I take one back.

I made a few replies via the rep button, Gothos, but coz I'm not a student I have been rather busy.

[Silencer]

Relax, people...keep the thread civil and without personal attacks...

[Ulrik]

Battalion, on 26 November 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:

I made a few replies via the rep button, Gothos, but coz I'm not a student I have been rather busy.

Well a that is the problem why in this IMO pretty good discussion you are not taken much seriously anymore. You posted no real arguments except "Im not so rich I wanted to be and students are lazy bunch sucking on tit of working class". With such blunt generalization do not expect something other than Cougar´s (still polite) style of response. 

Edit - yup Silencer, stepping into row and no more "ad hominem".

This post has been edited by Ulrik: 26 November 2010 - 09:25 AM

[Battalion]

Menandore, on 26 November 2010 - 08:52 AM, said:

@ Battalion - You lost all credibility when you started bitching about scroungers living a better life than you despite being bone idol and never doing a day's work in their lives. First of all, that sounded like you were complaining about dole scroungers - wtf does that have to do with uni students? Unless of course you equate students with people too lazy to get a job. Tbh you just sound extremely bitter and angry cos you think these school leavers are going to uni cos it means 3-4 years of drinking without doing any "real" work.




Unlike Cougar, I can actually see something resembling a good point in this post. Although it falls down a bit when you start claiming that there's a significant number of people failing all their exams in school and then going to uni to do an easy degree cos they can't be bothered working. Can I just ask, did you read about this in the Daily Mail?

Although it is easy to get on some courses, it's not that easy. Universities are not in the habit of taking on students who don't have ANY entry requirements. Even for the "easy" subjects like sport psycology or the infamous media studies. I do however agree that too many kids are going to uni for this type of degree and they shouldn't be. It IS a problem but I think you're miles off target accusing them of being lazy scroungers who go for the free ride. From personal experience, when I went to school we had it drummed into us from about the age of 15-16 that if you manage to get good enough grades then you MUST go to uni and get a degree otherwise you will be stuck forever in a dead end job and your life will be a meaningless, you will be a complete failure. Obviously they didn't word it quite like that but that was the message.

People are complaining about dumbing down and too many people passing and getting degrees and it's lowering the value of a degree, well that's the truth, degrees are becoming too common. As an example my younger sister was never that great academically. She struggled with her highers and even had to resit one of them. She scraped by with good enough grades to get into uni though so she went to do a biology degree (not because she wanted a job relating to biology but because it was expected of her to go to uni and she had been fed the same lines I mentioned above). She graduated 18 months ago with a third class honors and has been working for my parents ever since, applying for graduate jobs the whole time. This week she got her first job. It's minimum wage.

I don't think the problem is that it's too easy to get into uni though. Another example would be my bf, typical boy, wasn't interested in school, didn't do that well but good enough to get into uni. Got motivated then and ended up with a degree in civil engineering and eventually a PhD in construction management. I think the key is to stop teaching our kids that a degree is the be all and end all and if you can get one then you should. We should be telling them that sometimes they're worthless and that there are better ways to further your education if you're not suited to that kind of study. Widen their opportunities and give them better career advice before they leave school. I had no idea what I wanted to do before I finished school and I think it's the same for a lot of people. Sometimes uni is just something to do because you don't know what else to do. That doesn't make you lazy, it means you want to better yourself but without direction, which can lead to a dead end degree.

Now when it comes to the money side of things I still think education should be available for those who want it. £9k a year is going to put all but the very richest into debt. It's all very well saying you can have grants for the smartest poor kids but what about the poor kids who got A's and B's and could get a good degree in say economics, accountancy, history, teaching....(I wasn't a straight A student, I only got C's for some subjects but uni paid off for me, I've got an MSc and a decent job that I couldn't have got without it). Tough luck, you're good enough to go into teaching but you're not quite Law or Medicine material and you're not wealthy so off to Tesco with you. That's absurd.

So to summarise a rather lengthy post: Education should be free (or at least affordable for everyone) but we should stop pushing so many kids into university when there are better options for them.

1)Ah, my comments about scroungers was more about relating to the fact that we live in a society where people think they have a 'right' to have things given to them, rather than saying students are scroungers. People do have a right to free education, we pay the teachers' wages after all, but after secondary school, I feel the state should be more selective. With my credibilty hopefully restored I'll add that the welfare state that we live in has driven people to absurd expectations, with regards to that which they feel they are owed. It is not so absurd to expect futher education, but only if you are talented and show geniune promise.

2)I don't read newspapers any more.

3)The point you make about degrees is my bone of contention. What can possibly be the point in studying something for four years, when you have no intentions whatsoever, in taking a career in that field? It's like a waste of time. If you're pressurised into that situation, then the system is wrong. If you say you pick up valuable expecrience during that time, then I disagree. While I have genuine sympathy for the plight of your sister, it raises futher issues about 'pointless' (with reagards to future imployment) university corses, which seem to be studying for the point of studying, rather than for acheiving targets. Why would the government train someone to be a doctor when they already have a surpluss of doctors? Doesn't make sense.

4)While I realise that you were just generalising, when you suggest that if you don't make it into uni, then you better packs your bags, you're off to Tesco. This is absurd. There are plenty of good, well-paying jobs in the world for people who didn't go to university.

5) Education IS free. It's just further education that I feel should be more selective. And regards to your final comment, I could not agree more.

This post has been edited by Battalion: 26 November 2010 - 09:42 AM

[Battalion]

Ulrik, on 26 November 2010 - 09:24 AM, said:

Battalion, on 26 November 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:

I made a few replies via the rep button, Gothos, but coz I'm not a student I have been rather busy.

Well a that is the problem why in this IMO pretty good discussion you are not taken much seriously anymore. You posted no real arguments except "Im not so rich I wanted to be and students are lazy bunch sucking on tit of working class". With such blunt generalization do not expect something other than Cougar´s (still polite) style of response. 

Edit - yup Silencer, stepping into row and no more "ad hominem".

Ulrik, I didn't start the thread to post arguments, I simply wanted to get my views across, and I feel I've done that.
Don't really see the point in replying to every post in the following manner:

Member A: Your opnion is idiotic.
Battalion:No yours is.
Member B: Your opinion is wrong.
Battalion:No your is.

And so on.

[Ulrik]

Battalion, on 26 November 2010 - 09:47 AM, said:

Ulrik, on 26 November 2010 - 09:24 AM, said:

Battalion, on 26 November 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:

I made a few replies via the rep button, Gothos, but coz I'm not a student I have been rather busy.

Well a that is the problem why in this IMO pretty good discussion you are not taken much seriously anymore. You posted no real arguments except "Im not so rich I wanted to be and students are lazy bunch sucking on tit of working class". With such blunt generalization do not expect something other than Cougar´s (still polite) style of response. 

Edit - yup Silencer, stepping into row and no more "ad hominem".

Ulrik, I didn't start the thread to post arguments, I simply wanted to get my views across, and I feel I've done that.
Don't really see the point in replying to every post in the following manner:

Member A: Your opnion is idiotic.
Battalion:No yours is.
Member B: Your opinion is wrong.
Battalion:No your is.

And so on.

Well...its called discussion...you usually run them in places like discussion forums...like this... And honestly, there was many arguments that were more complex than "Your opinion is idiotic". 

Edit: IMO main problem is you categoric statement about class "lazy students at universities" and putting you and youre more important and valuable job beside them. But...surprise..."work" can be also intellectual...and from many universities arrives many people into society that enriches it, developes it. 

This post has been edited by Ulrik: 26 November 2010 - 10:04 AM

[Gothos]

Battalion, on 26 November 2010 - 09:39 AM, said:

1)Ah, my comments about scroungers was more about relating to the fact that we live in a society where people think they have a 'right' to have things given to them, rather than saying students are scroungers. People do have a right to free education, we pay the teachers' wages after all, but after secondary school, I feel the state should be more selective. With my credibilty hopefully restored I'll add that the welfare state that we live in has driven people to absurd expectations, with regards to that which they feel they are owed. It is not so absurd to expect futher education, but only if you are talented and show geniune promise.

I'll agree to this. From all the people I know who took a few months or years working the simplest, lowest tier jobs in the UK and Ireland, you people get paid absurdly high wages in comparison to my illustrous country, even factoring in the higher costs of living. It is my understanding that what goes as 'borderline poverty' in the UK is actually pretty average living, just without any flash. But the roots of that don't lie in a 'welfare state', but in the accumulated wealth of a nation (or at least that's what mercantilism would propose). But I could be wrong.

This post has been edited by Gothos: 26 November 2010 - 10:14 AM

[Battalion]

Yeah I know that. I have been making replies, but just not to every post. Some other people have also been making posts thus ... discussion. But to clarify, my position is still that I don't agree with free education for everyone.

Many self employed millionares had no further education, and it didn't stop them from being successful.

Why should it not be free? Because I think it is a burden on the tax payer, and often a waist of time for the student. Students would be far less likely to plod through a class room for three years if they were paying for it with their own money.

What will be the net result in high tution fees? You tell me?

[Gothos]

Just realized a lot of that was just me ranting and not much value.

But I'll say this: there should be options for free tertiary education to be free. There are probably vast differences between systems in our respective countries, but I wouldn't say just about anyone can get into it. By all means, there should be some harsh selection.

As for paying with their own money... from my experience with paid tertiary education, it doesn't stop people from plodding through a class room. It's just a certain mindset. Also, I've seen way more people in the paid uni that should never have been allowed into it than in the 'free' government one. Waaay more.

What would be the result? It will favor stupid people that have money and connections.

[Tattersail_]

The debt accrued by each and every individual student would be very high. people will not be able to afford 9 thousand pound a year to study. you could be thick as pig shit but have money to pay yourself into uni.

what i wish, and i feel there are so many others out there who'd agree. i wish i had taken an apprenticeship in a skill. there is always a lot of work for people with skills, my brother took one in plumbing, he gets paid over a grand a week doing what he does. he moved from working for Shell in this country to working for one of the biggest companies in australia and they are sponsoring him to stay there and work for them. they pay him big money so that he doesn't go and work in the mines in the outskirts of Perth. This and his sponsor and he has it made. He is loving life.

my best mate works as a plasterer, the first few years of his apprenticeship he was getting paid £60 a week. he now works for himself, and gets paid roughly the same amount as my brother, over a grand a week. he doesn't spend, he saves up and he is doing really well.

i've always had the brains, or that is what other people have said, teachers, parents and friends, but that doesn't mean nothing if you have not got a goal or a job that pays.

i went to college, i got 6 a levels but i didn't go to uni. i didn't know what i wanted and i certainly didn't want the debt. i am debt free, i work in business development which is just a flash word for sales. i get paid good money but nothing like that of my friends or my brother. i really do wish i had better career advice when i was 16.

[Silencer]

Battalion, on 26 November 2010 - 10:11 AM, said:

Why should it not be free? Because I think it is a burden on the tax payer, and often a waist of time for the student. Students would be far less likely to plod through a class room for three years if they were paying for it with their own money.

Wrong. We have student loans here, and yes, they are interest free, but you have to pay them back. Most students are in excess of $20,000 NZ in debt by the end of a three year degree. They still take the courses. If the loans were not interest free, they would take them from the banks and be even worse off.

Other than that, I also agree with Menandore, that people shouldn't be encouraged that tertiary education is the be-all and end-all and so forth. That's where a decent part of the problem lies. That, and the fact that people honestly don't seem to know what they want to be when they grow up. The other part is reducing the requirements to get in (and, here, dumbing down the college system too...but it's worse, because we have an aversion to even telling students that they have failed. Apparently, it's bad for them. We should just pretend that it didn't happen, and let them try again. And again. And again. And again...) and not caring if people pass or fail their courses.

Some newspaper or other ran a piece with something like 50% of male students haven't passed their four year degree course after EIGHT YEARS. And because the uni's are getting their money, they don't care. They just let them keep going. Wtf?

[Battalion]

Silencer, on 26 November 2010 - 10:26 AM, said:

Wrong. We have student loans here, and yes, they are interest free, but you have to pay them back. Most students are in excess of $20,000 NZ in debt by the end of a three year degree. They still take the courses. If the loans were not interest free, they would take them from the banks and be even worse off.

Don't really see how this proves me wrong, concidering that we don't know that these students you mentioned are all abject failures.
That is to say that my point was peoplw who paid might be more likely to work harder at uni.

This post has been edited by Battalion: 26 November 2010 - 10:33 AM

[Silencer]

Silencer, on 26 November 2010 - 10:26 AM, said:

Some newspaper or other ran a piece with something like 50% of male students haven't passed their four year degree course after EIGHT YEARS. And because the uni's are getting their money, they don't care. They just let them keep going. Wtf?

^yes we do.

Besides this, being a present Uni student, I can assure you that people who are paying their own way do not care more (for the most part) than people who are being paid for. If anything, the scholarship kids work harder, but that's their mentality, not because they have a scholarship. I work as hard as I need to in order to do well, and dedicate my spare time to doing constructive, skill-gaining activities, but I'm one of the few people I can safely say does this in any way shape or form out of my friends in the same degree, and even compared to most of my friends who are not fighting over the 150 places for Med in first year pre-med (out of a couple of thousand of contenders) or attempting to get straight A+'s to get into Law or because they're first year Engineering.

[Shinrei]

At some point for one to become an adult, it's time to grasp the concept of taking personal responsibility for your life and leaving the government teat behind. This is why I favor free-compulsory education up to the age of 18, but after you 'come of age' you can get loans, part time jobs, scholarships etc to make your way through college. For those who cant pay out of pocket, the experience of working and going to school teaches a sense responsibility, time management and self reliance.

If anything, this just affirms my reasoning for not trusting the government to "take care of us". You create a dependent populace, and then when the government doesn't keep up with their perceived obligations (surprise surprise), you get riots in the streets.

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 26 November 2010 - 11:50 AM

[Gothos]

Well, a student loan means that once the uni is over you've got another new member of the society who's drowning in debt right at the start. I wouldn't call that healthy by any stretch of imagination.

Now, if you could somehow work it off in a few years... Like Fleischmann in Northern Exposure. That would be beneficial for both parties - the sponsor and the sponsored.
Back in commie days, for my father, who came from a borderline poverty family, the only way to ever get higher education was through a military college - WAT (Warszawska Akademia Techniczna). The state would sponsor him, provide housing and food, educate him (in one of the highest standard tech school in the world at the time, no less) for a few years of military service afterwards, in an officer rank. Well, he DID end up working there for 20 years... But that, I think, is a decent solution.

[Tapper]

Mentalist, on 25 November 2010 - 07:26 PM, said:

Education should be free. I.E., state-paid.

Getting in should be HARD. based on merit alone, no financial considerations.

When my parents tell me about how the Soviet education worked (sorry if you disagree, Ulrik), I get jealous. YOu got in based on how well you did on exams. You stayed in based on how well you did. IF you did excptionally well, you might've gotten a small stipend.

and depending on how well you did, you got choices with where you may work, but that's a whole other story.

Aye. My once-upon-a-time Russian fling had studied in a specialized art school because she had talent. As indoctrination-orientated as the system may be in practice, the theory that talent gets a reward, even if it is not 'producing' anything of monetary value to society at large, is awesome.

Quote

bottom line being: lowering standards for entry is moronic. This devalues the degree. I've faced this issue after I finished my undergrad. Right now, in Canada, unless you do an undergrad in somehtign highly specialized (Engineering/Commerce/Computer science/etc), your degree is valued about as much as a high school diploma. lowering admission standards is not a good thing--there are always alternatives for those who don't want to go to university after high school. not everyone should go to University, if they are not disposed towards it.

One of the problems we face in the Netherlands is that there is nothing or very little of value below bachelor degrees. People can get a bachelor or a master degree, or they can go and work, basically. Lower level secondary education is already proving to be a major problem for those who aren't the top 15% to 25% of the students in raw ability, because they get lumped together in handicraft/childcare/retail colleges, where they'd make supreme administrators, cops, nurses, etc. The guys and girls who are talented mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, etc are victimized because over 50% of their education is now not practical, but theory and languages. Why does a plumber need knowledge of basic German language skills?

We're a decade into the current system and already running on massive shortages in everything but bachelors.

Quote

then, ofc, there's the argument that creatign pressure to go to uni, get loans and come out of uni in debt is forcing the youth to become part of the "living in constant debt" economy, way before they can even think about selling their lifves away through mortgages and crap like that. personally, I find the idea of living in debt repugnant, but i have been forced into it, and getting ever further in.

Agree. However, try and convince the unwashed masses (or rather, the people who complain about taxation burdens, which everyone and their uncle) that having state sponsored tertiary education is a good idea.

[Shinrei]

Gothos, on 26 November 2010 - 12:01 PM, said:

Well, a student loan means that once the uni is over you've got another new member of the society who's drowning in debt right at the start. I wouldn't call that healthy by any stretch of imagination.

Now, if you could somehow work it off in a few years... Like Fleischmann in Northern Exposure. That would be beneficial for both parties - the sponsor and the sponsored.
Back in commie days, for my father, who came from a borderline poverty family, the only way to ever get higher education was through a military college - WAT (Warszawska Akademia Techniczna). The state would sponsor him, provide housing and food, educate him (in one of the highest standard tech school in the world at the time, no less) for a few years of military service afterwards, in an officer rank. Well, he DID end up working there for 20 years... But that, I think, is a decent solution.

A common misconception is that all debt is bad debt. Debt for your own education strikes me as good debt, because it's like any debt based on the premise of investment.