Do you want to discuss boring politics? (239 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
They wouldn’t believe it despite it having been 17.5% for years? If people don’t care about money in their pocket Christ knows what they do.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Effectively he's saying people are stupid
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well again whether you like or not the Labour Party is second when trusted on the economy and has a hurdle to overcome and a reduced consumer spending tax could be then supported by higher taxation in other areas
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Effectively he's saying people are stupid
No they are smarter than the average Labour voter on here - election promises withdrawn - shock horror
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I've heard from a reliable source Education funding is going to be cut in real terms from September onwards.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Free University enabling all that want to, can go, is aspirational.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Actually it’s a joke policy that’s watered down the education system and the consequences are huge future burdens to the taxpayer
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It was fine when you could go for free though right
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If you funded it properly, so that universities actually judged on entry requirements and ability, then it would work perfectly fine.
As it stands, we have neither a free education system to enable people to skill-up, but nor do we have an appropriate gate-keeping process to enable those capable of skilling-up, and motivated to do so, are those accepted.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Then only a selected number went rather than a watered down system where people can attain pointless degrees and are not prepared for the work place
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You asked for policies that would benefit the working classes/low incomes, I give them and you say they aren't vote winners so no point going for them. Again if 'I'll put more money in your pocket' isn't a vote winner I really don't know what is-just admit it's a popularity contest and right now we have Bart Simpson against Martin Prince
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It still facilitated your employment prospects did it not
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It is t though as people believe the money will be taken else where due to their believe Labour is economically incompetent- especially under the last shadow administration
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Which is because it was a proper system then which at least attempted to issue degrees that had some academic competence to attain it
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Well funnily enough all tax cuts cost money, the difference being this one would benefit the ordinary person rather than the already well off
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
So what you are saying is that it all went to shit once Universities were able to start charging students for their courses.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
And most of those were taken up by those in a privileged position able to pay for it. Loads of capable working class kids missed out.
Also why does free education have to just mean uni? Why not include vocational in it and treat them as equals.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Status quo. Other than the biggest change in nearly half a century with Brexit?
People clearly aren't happy. If they were they'd have rejected Brexit. It's not that they're happy. It's that they keep getting duped into what the problems are and what's causing them.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
All grammar schools do is sway a bias towards those who can pay for private tuition to ace the 11+, as the government commissioned research into them showed.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
im taking the system in the 70’s you knumbskull
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Spelling and grammar errors intentional?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well really it’s just nonsense isn’t it. In what way was the decision to introduce a system of education that drove down to the lowest common denominator a good thing?
the funny thing of course is the very people who instigated the project made damn sure their children weren’t a part of it
Are you sure you had an education?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Well it isn't, there's been large scale longitudinal studies as well as in depth analysis of countries with more selective education systems e.g. Singapore to see how it would unfold here. Grammar schools get better outcomes because traditionally they employ teachers with more experience, stronger subject knowledge and better links to more elite universities.
To get into these parents who can afford it invest heavily in getting their child to pass the 11+, which in itself is an outdated measure of intelligence/aptitude for success. Those who can't afford it are at a disadvantage, but those who do get in despite that get a very small but statistically significant gain on progress compared to local comps.
Then the kids who go through a grammar will odds on go and get a stronger degree to get a higher paid job and can afford to have children and give them the same financial headstart. The government's own commissioned research into it concluded that all it would do is widen and further entrench inequality.
This all disregarding of course the idea you should be deciding someone's future based on a restricted set of tests at the age of 11.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Yes, pretty much so. When I first started lecturing at Warwick, it was expected that 4-5% of students would obtain a first. 2.2's were looked upon as a bit rum but not as fails. When I left only a few years later, we lecturers had been leant on to award firsts to 20% of students, and we received official complaints from
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
It was fine for the 5-7% who went. The rest of us just got a job at 16, paid our taxes and cracked on. But then, we didn't have social media to whine into.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Of course. More permanent and full time work though as opposed to the zero hour, temporary and part time fare that forms a bigger bulk of the economy than it did then. And just FYI I hardly use social media either.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Equally bad when universities get their funding on completion rates, so where's the incentive to kick out a badly underperforming (or regularly dishonest!) student?
Sometimes, it can be the best thing for the student to set them free too - either Mummy or Daddy have forced them to go, or they're emotionally too immature just at the time (I know I'd have done better with a year or two gap before going, so not being patronising to some of them!) so would be betetr doing a degree, if they want to, at a time of their lives when they can maximise their potential in it.
But no, keep them in for the funding!
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Quite liked it in Scotland where the first year didn't count for anything and was largely a refresher of A-level so you could use it to get settled, manage a budget and so on. Second year still didn't count towards your classification but the difficulty ramped up. If folks wanted to go straight in to the 2nd year that was also an option
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
First year didn't count for me either, I worked hard in that year, carried it over from A Levels.
Second year I belatedly found wine, women, and song.
Got it the wrong way round!