Turn on thread page Beta

Can A Labour Supporter Please Answer These Questions: watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1) If there are 10 applications for every medicine degree in the country, why doesnt labour take advantage of the thousands of doctor-wannabes and build a national doctors/medicine school? This would stop giving jobs to foreigners and would increase doctor numbers by 5 or 6 times?

    2) Pay as you drive............... Why do this when you can just increase the price on petrol?This would keep people off the roads AND would not encourage drivers to bomb through country lanes simply because they only cost 2p per pile in comparison to the motorway that would be 120p under labours proposals.

    3) Why cant labour actually bother to stop asylum seekers coming from countrys that are no longer at war? Why do we still have asylum seekers from countrys such as kosovo when the war is over???

    4) Why cant you put a limit on the number of children people on benefits can have whilst claiming? Ie instead of giving out xxx pounds per extra child you actualyl realise you're paying these people to have sex and get pregnant.

    5) Why cant labour realise that life is full of unfairness? Aboloshing the 11+ isnt going to help children simply because their friend is going to a better school. Think about it, what is going to benefit the UK in the long term.....

    You have 60 children, 30 intelligent and 30 not very intelligent.

    Plan A: 2 classes of 15 inteligent and 15 non intelligent people.

    The 15 intelligent people are not taught properly because the other 15 need more treatment or mess around in class.

    Plan B: 2 classes: 30 intelligent in one and 30 non- intelligent in the other.

    The 30 intelligent people progress much faster and on a larger scale society benefits. The 30 non-intelligent people get more help and are not rushed through school.

    Abolishing the 11+ is a complete joke. A person from a poor background who is clever will have no way of getting a decent education being surrounded by non-intelligent people! Hes more likely to be beaten up and have this videoed by some moron from a council estate in Newcastle!

    6) Why do you try and promote gf/bf relationships in the same light as marriage? Marriage requires commitment and whilst you have encouraged 50% of the teenage population to get married before 19, it is a serious decision. Giving rights to people who arent married is just silly- how do you propose to measure how long they have been with eachother for to classify it as long term- ask for their cinema studs when they first went out???

    7) Political correctness- oh what a joke this is! What is the point of the UK having such a proud history and.................. to forget most of it! Oh its now apparently bad to teach children about historic events in our past simply because it might upset some countries. If that country gets upset then perhaps they shouldnt listen! We respected turkey celibrating their win at gallipoli (WW1) and they were on the same side as the Germans! If this carries on for much longer the UK is going to be about as historic as the USA (haha- joke intended). We should be proud of what we're done (minus certain events in africa) and the countries we've helped.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you are ace, I've bean yelling myself hoarse about your question one for the past year and a bit, why wont they understand?
    also seconded on the 11+ and bring back grammar schools and technical colleges
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Tony Blair wanted to shut down the Grammar schools, somehow forgetting his son was in one. Then he had the audacity to pose outside Tiffin School (A top rated grammar school), for some "our schools are getting better" campaign.

    What a knob.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can I please add some more?!?!
    Why on earth do 50% of the population need to go to University?
    Why does a student from ANY university need to get a 2:1 to get PhD funding when i can guarantee a 2:1 from a top university will be far superior to ANY degree from some squitty polytechnic (and, yes - i believe they should be poly's again...vocational education is supremely important - i HATE getting ripped off by brain dead, "daily star" reading plumbers).
    Its good to see how many labourites have rolled up and shined on this topic tho...great work lads!

    p.s.divine_apharel - if these questions tug at your sense of utter stupidity - you should have a look into conservativism...its surprisingly satisfying!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Why on earth do 50% of the population need to go to University
    For too long it has been the luxuary of the rich. Who suffers if the percentage drops? The working class. Only fit to be brickies eh? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    :congrats: Very refreshing truth
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    For too long it has been the luxuary of the rich. Who suffers if the percentage drops? The working class. Only fit to be brickies eh? :rolleyes:
    Do you think thats really the case nowadays? you cant just buy your way into university anymore - if you work hard you will get there. What is the point in going to university for 3 years, getting a "degree" and then driving a fork-lift? because i know people who have done it. There are simply not enough specialist jobs for 50% of the population in Britain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    8) How on earth can there be a debate as to whether a burgular in your own home can sue you if anything happens to himself? MR BLAIR- THE BURGULAR SHOULDNT BE THERE!!!!!!

    9) Labour keep saying that prisons are over-crowding, well perhaps im a genius, or its just common sense>>>>>> Build some new prisons then!! Its hardly rocket science!!! Oh, what did you propose........ letting them out earlier to free up space? Oh what a jolly good idea and then we can all be a victim of crime again.

    10) Why bother handing out lighter sentences to burgulars and people who assault people?? If you gave them a 10 year prison sentence im pretty sure they wouldn't do it again! Instead i think you give them 2 years which they are released after 11 months on parol!

    11) 24 hour drinking, are you insane??? This is just going to cause more people to become alcoholics and it probably wont spread people leaving from the pubs much more anyway.

    12) You have employed 20,000 of these special community police officers (the ones that cant arrest you). Why didnt you just train them as police and we would have an extra 20,000 persons who can arrest people?! Whats the point in an extra 20,000 persons when all they can do is ask chavs politely to stop beating up the gentleman.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    13) You spend £35Bn on the NHS...and instead of going towards health care, you employ 997'000 new "beaurocrats", therefore both scrapping the unemployment crises and having all of the NHS' shortfalls hidden...even more surprisingly...this happens just before an election - very curious I must say!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    13) You spend £35Bn on the NHS...and instead of going towards health care, you employ 997'000 new "beaurocrats", therefore both scrapping the unemployment crises and having all of the NHS' shortfalls hidden...even more surprisingly...this happens just before an election - very curious I must say!
    :cool:

    14) Labours Dialogue from just before the General Election Campaign

    Tony: What the hell can we do Gordon to get us back into office, if they've any sense the tories will win?

    Gordon: Why would they?

    Tony: Because we've screwed up most of the country getting most teenage girls pregnant!

    Gordon: Dont worry tony its ok we'll tax the hard working middle class and give out benefits to those teenage girls with no qualifications who cant be bothered to work, getting pregnant all the time, with different children from different fathers all of whom are in prison.

    Tony: Oh thats not too bad then, they couldn't have got long sentences under our government.

    Gordon: True true

    Tony: Ive got it, seeing as though we've got no chance in hell of winning, lets just **** the conservatives off for something that happened more than a decade ago!

    Gordon: Great idea, we could also keep repeating the pointless fact that our economy is strong, even though the economy goes through cycles and we've been really lucky we weren't the government in the last recession.

    Tony: Yeh what a great idea, that'd stop us having to think up any policies which would benefit the uk like our last election!

    Gordon: I didnt think we've ever given the public policies to benefit the uk.

    Tony: Oh yeh we did in 2001 but like hell did we keep them!

    Gordon: When you retiring?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How do you know these things???
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    How do you know these things???

    If you mean the dialogue its only a joke!
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    I'll try answer some of these. They are by no mean 'offical' answers, and other people can try and answer them better than I can...
    (Original post by melbourne)
    1) If there are 10 applications for every medicine degree in the country, why doesnt labour take advantage of the thousands of doctor-wannabes and build a national doctors/medicine school? This would stop giving jobs to foreigners and would increase doctor numbers by 5 or 6 times?
    Well there are new medical schools opening. My universty had a new one open up just a year ago (I think they are now in their second year of intake), while this government has also planned and opened 3 other brand new meical schools and increased te number of places at other schools. The result is that between 1998 and 2005 the number of medical students has risen from approximately 3750 to 5900.

    But we don't have more yet as the thing is, medical schools are very expensive to open up and take longer than other universoty departments to set up (which can still take several years at the best of times as my university started planning to open a film and theatre studies department in 2004, but the first intake isn't until 2007). We cannot just open up several medical school sall at one, but we need to stagger then, as is happening. This will help ease the cost and mean the market for places isn't suddenly flooded one year. A for allowing all potential candidates places, I don't think it would be wise to allow all to become doctors, only the best should eb able to. That said, I think more of the potential student should be able to than can now, which i hopefully something which will change overt the next decade.

    2) Pay as you drive............... Why do this when you can just increase the price on petrol?This would keep people off the roads AND would not encourage drivers to bomb through country lanes simply because they only cost 2p per pile in comparison to the motorway that would be 120p under labours proposals.
    A straight increase in petrol tax would not acheive several of the plans of moving traffic away from the most congested roads and specifically reducing traffic at the most congested times. Yes it may reduce over all traffic, but on mny roads it isn't really a problem. I see where you are coming from with the 'bombing through country lanes', but if it were so much more of an advantage, I think more people woud be doing it now. Country roads just aren't that good really at being efficient for travelling on, certainly not in my experiecnce around where I come from. The new plans should move some people away from the very busiest roads and spread then out along all types of roads, more onto the kless used A -roads, more on the the less used B -roads and so on and more cars not being used. I doubt there would be a mass exodus onto coutnry lanes, but really this i not something which can be effectivley measured before hand.

    The truth is something needs to eb done about congestion before we get to breaking point. This is one solution which has been looked into which has been found to be most likely to achieve the goals necessary. There were probably others too, but I don't thyinkwe should write off one way before we've even seen all the details of what it will be like.
    3) Why cant labour actually bother to stop asylum seekers coming from countrys that are no longer at war? Why do we still have asylum seekers from countrys such as kosovo when the war is over???
    Asylum seekers don't only come from coutnries at war. They come when they cannot physically live in their coutnry of origin. Be that for reasons of personal persecution, destruction of their homes or so on. Just because a war is over doesn't mean it is safe for them to return either. Their town or village may have been destroyed and somewhere new needs to be sought for them to go back to or if they have only recently come to the country it could be due to the problems of lak of shelter or famine/food shortages which force then out as otherwise they could die. It takes a very long time to get countries bak up and runnign afetr a poblem, even longer if the coutnries own Government doesn't act swiftly and fairly.

    As for Kosova, I didn't know we were still accepting refugees from there. In my expereince they mostly went back shortly after the war eneded. That is certainly what happeend to the 100 or so we took in in my home town of Penistone. Without more deatails of the exmple you mean, I can only guess at what the reasons are. Maybe the people aren't refugess, but are immigrants who have come over afterwards and are legitimately allowed to stay here, or people who applied to stay long term after they were brought over.

    EDIT: I apologise for any poort typing in the above post I'm sure there will be a fair amount :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melbourne)
    If you mean the dialogue its only a joke!
    I had gathered that! isn't satire a beautiful thing though!

    my university started planning to open a film and theatre studies department in 2004, but the first intake isn't until 2007
    Isn't that just a waste of time for a degree though?

    Asylum seekers don't only come from coutnries at war. They come when they cannot physically live in their coutnry of origin. Be that for reasons of personal persecution, destruction of their homes or so on. Just because a war is over doesn't mean it is safe for them to return either. Their town or village may have been destroyed and somewhere new needs to be sought for them to go back to or if they have only recently come to the country it could be due to the problems of lak of shelter or famine/food shortages which force then out as otherwise they could die. It takes a very long time to get countries bak up and runnign afetr a poblem, even longer if the coutnries own Government doesn't act swiftly and fairly.
    Now, surely it would be easier to set up a home where you are rather than travelling a significant distance around the world to do so.
    following the Blitz in london - was there a mass exodus of people to surrounding countries so they could avoid having to "return to self" of course not - this is a ridiculous argument, as surely it would be better to provide assistance to these countries being rehabitable (which i am confident would be cheaper than the current asylum system is), and this will then help the growth of that country.

    p.s. You really live in somewhere called Penistone?
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by melbourne)
    4) Why cant you put a limit on the number of children people on benefits can have whilst claiming? Ie instead of giving out xxx pounds per extra child you actualyl realise you're paying these people to have sex and get pregnant.
    To be honest, having benefits isn't relly enough to life off and to say having more children is a better for them is not really the case in all but a few example. Newspapers like to pick up on these examples and try to make it out o be the norm, but how many families on benefits do you know who have more than say, 4 children? I don't know too many.

    But don't you think your idea is a bit too over the top? Are you really going to say to someone that they cannot have more children? What would you do if they fell pregnant? Forced abortions? Forced adoption? I certainly wouldn't want to be part of a society like that.

    Yes there is a problem of certain individuals taking advantage, but overall peopel are generally fair. I certainly belieev it's better to accept these few extremes for the greater good of all the other families on benefits. I also think we need to try and stop those who take advantage from doing so and helping all those on ebebfits get back to work or what ever s best for them. The New Deal introduced by this Labour Governemnt has taken many people of benefits and back into work, resulting in the lowest unemployment figures for years. And last year the New Deal was overhaulled so that it can start to tackle a different sort of people, those who are more long term unemplyed etc, the types it sort of mised when it was first introduced.

    5) Why cant labour realise that life is full of unfairness? Aboloshing the 11+ isnt going to help children simply because their friend is going to a better school. Think about it, what is going to benefit the UK in the long term.....

    You have 60 children, 30 intelligent and 30 not very intelligent.

    Plan A: 2 classes of 15 inteligent and 15 non intelligent people.

    The 15 intelligent people are not taught properly because the other 15 need more treatment or mess around in class.

    Plan B: 2 classes: 30 intelligent in one and 30 non- intelligent in the other.

    The 30 intelligent people progress much faster and on a larger scale society benefits. The 30 non-intelligent people get more help and are not rushed through school.

    Abolishing the 11+ is a complete joke. A person from a poor background who is clever will have no way of getting a decent education being surrounded by non-intelligent people! Hes more likely to be beaten up and have this videoed by some moron from a council estate in Newcastle!
    Obvioulsy the plan B is better and this is exactly what happens in just about every school. We have setted classes for many subjects where differing abilities can be detremental to some or all students. I really don't think this issue is about the scrapping of the 11+, that is different entirely. You don't automatically get mixed ability classes in schools becasue we don't have the 11+.
    And to say that no child from a poor backgroundcannot get a decent education is going a little to extreme. Many can, there are many schools in poorer areas which stand out a prime examples of schools which are doing well. However this is not enough. We need to invest in all schools to try and pull up the standards in them all. I believe this is happening in many school, but not in all and not quicly enough. But at least a start has been made.

    Re-introducing the 11+ will not be the answer. All it will do is create a two-teir education system, where the best students get the advantage of the ebst teachers and the less able students only get the average teachers. (Ifa school has betetr studnts it gets better results and hence probably more funding and hence an attract the better teachers). But the thing is, while the better students will normally be able to manage with average teachers and still get the same results they'd get with the best teachers, the less able student may need the better teachers to help them along. I think teh system we have now gives everyone a good mix of all teachers so that they can do as well as possible, while still keeping classes at more or less all one ability.

    The problems of having some teachers btter than others is something which would also need to be addressed, but having better training and support for teachers.

    6) Why do you try and promote gf/bf relationships in the same light as marriage? Marriage requires commitment and whilst you have encouraged 50% of the teenage population to get married before 19, it is a serious decision. Giving rights to people who arent married is just silly- how do you propose to measure how long they have been with eachother for to classify it as long term- ask for their cinema studs when they first went out???
    I don't know much about this, nor the statistics you say, so I'll not say much on this. However I do think that marriage is important to society, but sadly many peopel chose not to get married anymore but to live together. Is it rigth that a couple who have been together from say 35 years but never maried have no more rights than a couple who have been together for all of a week if one dies etc?

    7) Political correctness- oh what a joke this is! What is the point of the UK having such a proud history and.................. to forget most of it! Oh its now apparently bad to teach children about historic events in our past simply because it might upset some countries. If that country gets upset then perhaps they shouldnt listen! We respected turkey celibrating their win at gallipoli (WW1) and they were on the same side as the Germans! If this carries on for much longer the UK is going to be about as historic as the USA (haha- joke intended). We should be proud of what we're done (minus certain events in africa) and the countries we've helped.
    I don't think this can be blamed solely on the Government. PC has gone mad, but all the Government want is equality for all people within the country. They mad have done things which have lead to this made culture, but not intentiaonally. That is down to a few individuals who have jumped up and taken things too far. These people have always been around and always will be (a few may even be in the Government). I can't speak for the Governemtn on this and aint sure what, if anything they plan or even can do about it. But teaching our history in schools is damn well improtant. It tells u where we ome from, tells us past mistakes from which we can learn from and gives us something to be proud of and a natioanbl identity.

    I think a lot of the PC-ness comes more from local councils perhaps, as they are scared of being sues over this that and the other. So many the what hould be done is to tackle the situation of compensation culture we have imported. Maybe if we limit compensation to only thoe situations where it is rally needed or seriously limit the amount you can win. This would take the fear of upsetting people away and hopefully let 'normal' history and other lesson ressume.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    Isn't that just a waste of time for a degree though?
    I agree it is, but when you have Greg Dyke as your new Chancellor and he wants to open a new departemtn, what do you expect? :p:

    Now, surely it would be easier to set up a home where you are rather than travelling a significant distance around the world to do so.
    following the Blitz in london - was there a mass exodus of people to surrounding countries so they could avoid having to "return to self" of course not - this is a ridiculous argument, as surely it would be better to provide assistance to these countries being rehabitable (which i am confident would be cheaper than the current asylum system is), and this will then help the growth of that country.
    Let's start with the Blitz here: people didn't move away as everywhere else was either even less safe or just as badley destroyed. I agree that it is normally best to try and help people where they are from before they travel, but you have to agree that this is not always possible. But for whatever reasons (be it persecution/no stable government to distribute aid/ compelte destruction) it may be better,as a short term measure, to take these people in whilst it becomes possible to help them back in their homeland. You will also get those refugees who leave their home before any aid can get there. You cannot turn these people away. You need to help them in the short term. Yes send the aid out there to hep, but lso help at home too. Nothing really can be too little when it comes to helping others. The long term goal should be help them get back home and rebuild it (unless of course they want to stay and have a very legitimate reason to be able to stay).
    p.s. You really live in somewhere called Penistone?
    Yes I do, it's near Barnsley in South Yorkshire
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    Can I please add some more?!?!
    Why on earth do 50% of the population need to go to University?
    Why does a student from ANY university need to get a 2:1 to get PhD funding when i can guarantee a 2:1 from a top university will be far superior to ANY degree from some squitty polytechnic (and, yes - i believe they should be poly's again...vocational education is supremely important - i HATE getting ripped off by brain dead, "daily star" reading plumbers).
    Its good to see how many labourites have rolled up and shined on this topic tho...great work lads!
    I'm glad you agree that the 'new' univeristies should be polytechnics again. I think it was a serious mistake when they were starting to be changed to univeristies back in 1992. But I doubt anything can be done about it now for a long time. The universities will probably just now want to change their name back. Univeristy seems like a higher status name than Polytechnic. They should nevr have been changed over in the first place.

    Due to the above reasoning, I feel that 50% of the population is a good thing. It shouldn't just be academic subjects, but universities should now start offering serious numbers of vocational courses like plumbing, woodwork, electrician courses etc. The more education people get, the better off they will be in the long run. The more places availiable the more poorer people can get a better chance in life.

    Ideally these vocational courses would happen at institutions with different names than univeristies (which should eeb for more academic based subjects), but since this is not possible, univeristies need to offer these course.

    I don't think that many people would say the country doesn't need about 50% of people training to be doctors, or experts in maths or English or to become plumbers or electricians do they. Overall I thin 50% doing all these things is quite reasonable.

    I don't know if this is what the Government had in mind when it set the 50% targert, but I certainly hope it was.

    But the reason we might not be seeing it now maybe due to a laack of people already trained as plumbers etc. These people can earn such high amounts of money that it is probably not in their best interests to first take up psotions teaching it and second to train a lot of new people in to their field. This is a problem which goes back many years and is hard to get out of...hopfully we'll see something soon.

    As for the 2:1/PhD thing, I also agree with you. However, univeristies conduct interviews with many of their prospective PhD students to find the best. And while offically all 2:1's are supposed to be equal, the univerities know some are probably better than others and hence why they may be more inclind to pick people from some universities than others. A person with a 2:1 from a top university might not even be good enough to do a PhD. So while someone from a uni lower down the league tables with a 2:1 may apply, it doesn't mean they will get accepted.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roger Kirk)
    I'll try answer some of these. They are by no mean 'offical' answers, and other people can try and answer them better than I can...

    Well there are new medical schools opening. My universty had a new one open up just a year ago (I think they are now in their second year of intake), while this government has also planned and opened 3 other brand new meical schools and increased te number of places at other schools. The result is that between 1998 and 2005 the number of medical students has risen from approximately 3750 to 5900.

    But we don't have more yet as the thing is, medical schools are very expensive to open up and take longer than other universoty departments to set up (which can still take several years at the best of times as my university started planning to open a film and theatre studies department in 2004, but the first intake isn't until 2007). We cannot just open up several medical school sall at one, but we need to stagger then, as is happening. This will help ease the cost and mean the market for places isn't suddenly flooded one year. A for allowing all potential candidates places, I don't think it would be wise to allow all to become doctors, only the best should eb able to. That said, I think more of the potential student should be able to than can now, which i hopefully something which will change overt the next decade.


    A straight increase in petrol tax would not acheive several of the plans of moving traffic away from the most congested roads and specifically reducing traffic at the most congested times. Yes it may reduce over all traffic, but on mny roads it isn't really a problem. I see where you are coming from with the 'bombing through country lanes', but if it were so much more of an advantage, I think more people woud be doing it now. Country roads just aren't that good really at being efficient for travelling on, certainly not in my experiecnce around where I come from. The new plans should move some people away from the very busiest roads and spread then out along all types of roads, more onto the kless used A -roads, more on the the less used B -roads and so on and more cars not being used. I doubt there would be a mass exodus onto coutnry lanes, but really this i not something which can be effectivley measured before hand.

    The truth is something needs to eb done about congestion before we get to breaking point. This is one solution which has been looked into which has been found to be most likely to achieve the goals necessary. There were probably others too, but I don't thyinkwe should write off one way before we've even seen all the details of what it will be like.

    Asylum seekers don't only come from coutnries at war. They come when they cannot physically live in their coutnry of origin. Be that for reasons of personal persecution, destruction of their homes or so on. Just because a war is over doesn't mean it is safe for them to return either. Their town or village may have been destroyed and somewhere new needs to be sought for them to go back to or if they have only recently come to the country it could be due to the problems of lak of shelter or famine/food shortages which force then out as otherwise they could die. It takes a very long time to get countries bak up and runnign afetr a poblem, even longer if the coutnries own Government doesn't act swiftly and fairly.

    As for Kosova, I didn't know we were still accepting refugees from there. In my expereince they mostly went back shortly after the war eneded. That is certainly what happeend to the 100 or so we took in in my home town of Penistone. Without more deatails of the exmple you mean, I can only guess at what the reasons are. Maybe the people aren't refugess, but are immigrants who have come over afterwards and are legitimately allowed to stay here, or people who applied to stay long term after they were brought over.

    EDIT: I apologise for any poort typing in the above post I'm sure there will be a fair amount :p:
    cheers for the time you took to reply roger
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roger Kirk)
    I'm glad you agree that the 'new' univeristies should be polytechnics again. I think it was a serious mistake when they were starting to be changed to univeristies back in 1992. But I doubt anything can be done about it now for a long time. The universities will probably just now want to change their name back. Univeristy seems like a higher status name than Polytechnic. They should nevr have been changed over in the first place.

    Due to the above reasoning, I feel that 50% of the population is a good thing. It shouldn't just be academic subjects, but universities should now start offering serious numbers of vocational courses like plumbing, woodwork, electrician courses etc. The more education people get, the better off they will be in the long run. The more places availiable the more poorer people can get a better chance in life.

    Ideally these vocational courses would happen at institutions with different names than univeristies (which should eeb for more academic based subjects), but since this is not possible, univeristies need to offer these course.

    I don't think that many people would say the country doesn't need about 50% of people training to be doctors, or experts in maths or English or to become plumbers or electricians do they. Overall I thin 50% doing all these things is quite reasonable.

    I don't know if this is what the Government had in mind when it set the 50% targert, but I certainly hope it was.

    But the reason we might not be seeing it now maybe due to a laack of people already trained as plumbers etc. These people can earn such high amounts of money that it is probably not in their best interests to first take up psotions teaching it and second to train a lot of new people in to their field. This is a problem which goes back many years and is hard to get out of...hopfully we'll see something soon.

    As for the 2:1/PhD thing, I also agree with you. However, univeristies conduct interviews with many of their prospective PhD students to find the best. And while offically all 2:1's are supposed to be equal, the univerities know some are probably better than others and hence why they may be more inclind to pick people from some universities than others. A person with a 2:1 from a top university might not even be good enough to do a PhD. So while someone from a uni lower down the league tables with a 2:1 may apply, it doesn't mean they will get accepted.
    I do agree with the majority of your points...you provided a well tempered and reasoned argument (which is not common among politically affiliated persons!).

    As regards the governments 50% to university aspect - They did not specify that this would be an increase in the number of technical and vocational qualifications - merely that "50%" should go to uni....now, I think the modern academic environment is having a very difficult time - with examples such as swansea university closing its applied sciences in chemistry course in order to do more courses like "media studies". Now...if there was a deficit in media, i would not see this as a massive problem, but there aren't. Also, in a similar fashion to accountancy, publishing/media companies source from outside their academic fields., i.e. an example my neighbour (who runs his own small accountancy firm) NEVER employs people from university with accountancy degrees, as they have too many built in "short cuts".

    If you are to have technical and vocational qualifications in the future...why do they have to be at "universities" and be named "degrees" - surely for the nature of the topic that is just wrong.

    My father actually attended Coventry Polytechnic (As did Frank Skinner ), where he studied engineering. Now - as he is a hard working man, he has advanced far greater than his "humble" education would suggest - being a manufacturing director for an IMI plant by the age of 35, and now director of an Environmental Consulting firm he himself invested in the founding of. He believe if he had gone to university, he would have actually felt DISADVANTAGED - as he was taught techniques as well as the pure background science of the subject (this arguament is quite specific to engineering though as far as applied sciences go...!) he was able to move into a job, and lead up a team who he could advise to operate well.
    I think Poly's are a great idea, not just to forcify the British degree...but as a whole for our country's skill-base.

    As far as the PhD's argument is concerned - I do agree that just because you go to a top university, you are not automatically more elligable for a PhD - it should, as you suggest be judged on a case-by-case basis.
    But, this is not the case...In order to get government funding, you need to get a 2:1 or higher - so if your good, but just missed out on a 2:1 from a top uni...the department will need to fund you themselves - and there is often little money to do so!

    I am so personally concerned about this because in about 6 months time I am considering applying for my own PhD in Volcanology - and since I go to Oxford, the exams are as hard as you get in the country (after all, we are rated the top uni in the country for my subject - and deservedly so ). My current predictions show me just scraping a 2:1, but it is frustrating that i have friends studying geology at other universities, and we covered most of their course in our first year - so my degree will have a more significant depth of knowledge, yet it is the same two numbers that we are judged on... (I do hate talking about this, because I always sound unbelievably prejudiced and snobby - but i'm really not!)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    For too long it has been the luxuary of the rich. Who suffers if the percentage drops? The working class. Only fit to be brickies eh? :rolleyes:
    Interesting point of view since a "brickie" probably earns more than many graduates anyway.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,454

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.