shmmeee
Well-Known Member
No they have scrapped it (or plan to): Government to scrap 50% of young to university target
You think massively fucking up the supply pipe to unis is success?
theyve hardly scrapped it - it’s an industry all in its own and it seems record exam results as well. Looks like the Tory education policy of enhancing the education of our children has surpassed expectations - record achievement in A level results and 92% going to their first choice uni
Gavin Williamson must be the most successful education minister on record isn’t he?
Wonder what they emitted 40-50 years ago .We should be a world leader when it comes to climate change, and we should help lead the way.
The problem will always persist when much larger economies and countries like China don't plan to follow suit ... these bigger countries are key no matter what we try and do ..
We should still try and do our bit though
It’s getting there I think. Things like hydrogen boilers are available now and I read something years ago that the British Gas grid is already ready to to pipe hydrogen ready to use to U.K. homes in place of gas, they just don’t have the production ability.I found this interesting with the vision on hydrogen.
They seem to think it's cost effective to produce .
Oh shit Tony I did that thing again where I didn't paste .It’s getting there I think. Things like hydrogen boilers are available now and I read something years ago that the British Gas grid is already ready to to pipe hydrogen ready to use to U.K. homes in place of gas, they just don’t have the production ability.
Watching Guy Martin the other night and he was driving an electric bus. Apparently if the city of York scraped their diesel fleet and replaced them with electric it would save York £5M a year in the gained health benefits to the city alone. Even if other countries aren’t doing their bit the arguments on health benefits alone is a compelling reason to lower emissions and improve air quality in towns and cities.Wonder what they emitted 40-50 years ago .
Before they became the workshop for the planet turned to them for everything including exporting our own emissions.
When I say planet it's really industrialist's fund managers, speculators etc.
He’s a fuckwit. Probably the most incompetent man to hold a cabinet post in the last 40 years.theyve hardly scrapped it - it’s an industry all in its own and it seems record exam results as well. Looks like the Tory education policy of enhancing the education of our children has surpassed expectations - record achievement in A level results and 92% going to their first choice uni
Gavin Williamson must be the most successful education minister on record isn’t he?
I think his leader is only considered a couple of places ahead of him on Conservative home polling.He’s a fuckwit. Probably the most incompetent man to hold a cabinet post in the last 40 years.
You wouldn't support that because then we would have more people capable of understanding how incompetent this Government is?it was the Blair government of course who wanted 50% to be educated to degree level
You wouldn't support that because then we would have more people capable of understanding how incompetent this Government is?
At risk of sounding like a huge snob, it seems nowadays that uni is only worth it for Medicine, Dentistry and for courses at Oxbridge and few other institutions like UCL, Imperial, Warwick etc. If we sent only to whatever percent of school leavers/mature students academically, we'd probably be able to send nearly everyone for free and be able to support those who are more vocationally inclined. Rather than the current system where over half are going. It was different in the past.
I get your point yep. In my opinion uni should serve two purposes - either to advance understanding of knowledge in all disciplines (in which case the Oxbridge/'elite' institution Classicists, Historians, etc have a reason to go), or to help get a job. Its probably widely acknowledged that with the exception of a few careers such as Medicine, Dentistry and certain strands of Engineering, the taught element of degrees don't offer much relevance above and beyond say in house training.Not sure why those unis are in there. I’d rather pay for a CompSci grad from Coventry than a PPE grad from Oxford.
Agree overall though.
I get your point yep. In my opinion uni should serve two purposes - either to advance understanding of knowledge in all disciplines (in which case the Oxbridge/'elite' institution Classicists, Historians, etc have a reason to go), or to help get a job. Its probably widely acknowledged that with the exception of a few careers such as Medicine, Dentistry and certain strands of Engineering, the taught element of degrees don't offer much relevance above and beyond say in house training.
Take nursing for instance. I've every respect for nurses but I think making it requirement to go to uni for nursing was a mistake, compared to before where they had nursing schools. In my opinion, we've universified nearly all careers when in reality we should go back to the main purpose of unis - to see them as a vehicle to enhance understanding of academic disciplines.
Not sure why those unis are in there. I’d rather pay for a CompSci grad from Coventry than a PPE grad from Oxford.
Agree overall though.
I mean seriously, look at a list of Oxbridge grads and tell me they’re the best and brightest.
I agree about the Oxbridge thing and how there are plenty who are far from the brightest and best. But the fact is a PPE degree at Oxford is going to open up far more opportunities for people, certainly in terms of earning potential.
At risk of sounding like a huge snob, it seems nowadays that uni is only worth it for Medicine, Dentistry and for courses at Oxbridge and few other institutions like UCL, Imperial, Warwick etc. If we sent only to whatever percent of school leavers/mature students academically, we'd probably be able to send nearly everyone for free and be able to support those who are more vocationally inclined. Rather than the current system where over half are going. It was different in the past.
I get your point, but most of those places select for cash not ability and you’d lose out on a lot of good research if you limited it to them.
I agree many vocations don’t need a degree, I just disagree that all good research happens in red brick unis.
Honestly think that the best solution would be to limit intake to say the top 25% of school leavers/mature students academically. Then use the money saved to really support those in state education, be it vocational or those aiming for uni. At the moment we've got over 130 unis in the UK when the number should be closer to 35 in my opinion.We used to have a limited intake and it was free. Trouble is the people that got to go were largely those from wealthier backgrounds. That would likely happen again because those parents pay for tutors and get them into expensive schools. So you'd end up with the wealthier people getting this education for free while highly intelligent working class kids don't get the opportunity. You wouldn't get the best going to uni, you'd get the most privileged.
And while you may say there would be more availability for vocational courses (which I wholeheartedly agree deserve more recognition and too many people are going to uni) what about those that are academically minded from poorer backgrounds? They'd still find it harder to get into uni places despite their abilities and would instead be more likely be sent down the vocational route which wouldn't suit them. You end up with incredibly intelligent people doing nothing with their lives.
Until we're able to ensure it is the 'brightest' going to uni as opposed to those who've had access to the best early education all it would do is increase the class chasm and give those in the upper classes more reason to look down and sneer on those below them.
Honestly think that the best solution would be to limit intake to say the top 25% of school leavers/mature students academically. Then use the money saved to really support those in state education, be it vocational or those aiming for uni. At the moment we've got over 130 unis in the UK when the number should be closer to 35 in my opinion.
Then we'd be able to support everyone, be it academic or vocational. No shade to those doing courses such as real estate management or journalism at uni, but if we made it less of a requirement for those wanting to go into a vocational profession to go to uni, we'd then be able to divert the money to help support those in state schools to get into the most academically rigorous courses, and at the same time be able to help those wanting to pursue apprenticeships.
Definitely. Well I think it all starts in the school system and the amount of funding people get. Those who go to state schools get around 5k a year. Until they receive a level of funding closer to the minimum 12k or so that private schoolers get, they won't be able to possibly compete.I agree with the aim, but the reality is those top few academic would be disproportionately weighted towards the privileged who can afford better schools and private education to get them through those exams and entry requirements. It would just make he class divide worse.
For me the bigger problem is that too much emphasis is put on academic achievement and those youngsters that don't excel at it are seen as 'failing'. That may not be the case at all and if anything society is failing to recognise the potential talents of those who are more vocationally talented (something which I believe has been deliberately engineered over the centuries to give the upper classes a sense of superiority and has been around so long it's now embedded in the pysche.)
If we valued those more we'd have less demand for uni places because it wouldn't be seen as this 'pinnacle' of education, just one of many routes to success. It's not that we need working class people to see there is more to aspire to than university, it's the middle and upper classes who hog the system and create this perception of 'two tier' achievement.
If we could get more of those people seeing vocational paths as being just as valid as uni then it would allow those that are academically minded to have a uni education regardless of their background.
Honestly think that the best solution would be to limit intake to say the top 25% of school leavers/mature students academically. Then use the money saved to really support those in state education, be it vocational or those aiming for uni. At the moment we've got over 130 unis in the UK when the number should be closer to 35 in my opinion.
Then we'd be able to support everyone, be it academic or vocational. No shade to those doing courses such as real estate management or journalism at uni, but if we made it less of a requirement for those wanting to go into a vocational profession to go to uni, we'd then be able to divert the money to help support those in state schools to get into the most academically rigorous courses, and at the same time be able to help those wanting to pursue apprenticeships.
Where were they when I needed that!I’ve seen people recommended for hiring aged 35 because “they went to a good school”
Honestly think that the best solution would be to limit intake to say the top 25% of school leavers/mature students academically. .
At risk of sounding like a huge snob, it seems nowadays that uni is only worth it for Medicine, Dentistry and for courses at Oxbridge and few other institutions like UCL, Imperial, Warwick etc. If we sent only to whatever percent of school leavers/mature students academically, we'd probably be able to send nearly everyone for free and be able to support those who are more vocationally inclined. Rather than the current system where over half are going. It was different in the past.
That would be true if it were the case that going to any uni at all provided the ticket to higher/earnings/a better life than parents etc, which unfortunately it no longer automatically does when over 50% are attending. I think there was a report a few years ago that found that from a pure financial point of view, on average only those who do Medicine, Dentistry or go to Oxbridge earn a salary premium over their entire career to justify going under the current system. Not everything is about money of course, and if people go and have a great time socially then nobody could possibly say whether or not it has been worth it for them.The problem then is you're going to cause even more inequality and reduce the scope for social mobility. University would be exclusively for those that go to independent schools and grammar schools, with some affluent/middle class state school kids and even less kids from the deprived area. And then that has a knock on effect on careers, etc and lower the glass ceiling. What's the point then of any kid in a deprived area having any type of aspiration if you stack the deck even more against them. Not sure what the answer is Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
That would be true if it were the case that going to any uni at all provided the ticket to higher/earnings/a better life than parents etc, which unfortunately it no longer automatically does when over 50% are attending. I think there was a report a few years ago that found that from a pure financial point of view, on average only those who do Medicine, Dentistry or go to Oxbridge earn a salary premium over their entire career to justify going under the current system. Not everything is about money of course, and if people go and have a great time socially then nobody could possibly say whether or not it has been worth it for them.
So if instead we limited the number going to uni but used the money to help support getting young people, especially in disadvantage areas, to get into these high quality, rigorous courses at uni, and also technical qualifications/apprenticeships, we'd have a fine balance of people being supported to go into careers that they are suited to.
That 10k/year is heavily skewed by graduates of 'elite' unis as well that the bulk of 16-64 year old graduates went when it was more selective. Its still the case that graduates earn a premium on average but the premium starts to really tail off the further down the league tables list we venture, to the extent that there is no premium on average for those who go to some institutions.But graduates do earn more, on average £10k pa / 41% more than a non graduate.
Graduates continue to benefit with higher earnings
New figures show that working-age graduates earned £10,000 more than non-graduates in 2018 and had higher employment rates.www.gov.uk
There would need to be wide scale transformation on education, training and employment, and also how we value and restructure financial reward for different jobs.
Otherwise it is a race to the bottom.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
That 10k/year is heavily skewed by graduates of 'elite' unis as well that the bulk of 16-64 year old graduates went when it was more selective. Its still the case that graduates earn a premium on average but the premium starts to really tail off the further down the league tables list we venture, to the extent that there is no premium on average for those who go to some institutions.
The Graduate Premium: manna, myth or plain mis-selling? - Intergenerational Foundation
Research reports from the Intergenerational Foundation, on a range of intergenerational fairness topics.www.if.org.uk
You cannot make anybody non-binary or transgender, any more than you can make anybody gay. The proposal is simply aimed at allowing kids a safe space and not challenging them. In fact, it's about not enforcing the view of another, outside of parenthood.
Do what, exactly?
I'm sure it's more nuanced than a typical Daily Torygraph headline, but I'll go with it and explore further.Kids even safe at school anymore?
I'm sure it's more nuanced than a typical Daily Torygraph headline, but I'll go with it and explore further.
However, adding a Twatter link from someone who can't spell descends...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?