I think they should have to pay the full, unregulated market rate. While one could argue that this is not the same as disallowing attendance, the outcome would be largely the same and would probably be viewed as such.(Original post by nulli tertius)
But are you saying people shouldn't go to unversity (which is consistant with my point) or that they shouldn't be allowed to go to university?
(Although I think in such a world there would be as strong an argument for banning most degree courses as for banning, say, payday lenders)
Intellectual elitism is what Uni should be about - not a means to educate everyone Watch
- 31-07-2014 18:56
- 31-07-2014 19:23
Unpopular though this suggestion might be among the general public, I think that the only real justification for the government subsidising university education is that it has some social utility. Otherwise, what on Earth are taxpayers funding it for?
- 31-07-2014 23:25
(Original post by Rlove95)
- 31-07-2014 23:28
This. A lot of Graduate jobs in the business sector actually prefer students who have studied Business Management and Marketing. Everyone can't take STEM, if everyone did, STEM wouldn't be anything special and then people would be complaining about how there are too many people taking STEM subjects.
- 02-08-2014 13:24
- 02-08-2014 14:57
I must say I absolutely adore academical snobbery on TSR. Perfect mirror of our society today.
What to do when there are too many smart kids and not enough places on "prestigeous" universities? Universities other than RG should not exist?
Although I cannot agree with everything this man wrote, he made some very good points.
With excellent conclusion.
"I used to think that we needed to create a world where every child had an equal chance to get to the Ivy League. I’ve come to see that what we really need is to create one where you don’t have to go to the Ivy League, or any private college, to get a first-rate education."