This discussion is closed.
username9816
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#41
Report 16 years ago
#41
(Original post by amazingtrade)
Because education amongst food, clothes shelter and food is the most basic needs of man. If somebody wants to go to university then if they have the grades they deserve the right to go to that university. Class and money should not be an issue here. It seems its the people from the middle classes that like to make it an issue.
fair enough, but there are so many kids who dont want to be educated anyway.

surely the kids who do wnat to learn and get respectable grades, deserve BETTER STATE SKOOL TUITION at the expense of throwing out the dossers and losers who r there to do nothing but mess about 4 12 years while they fin compulsory education.

end of the day, they will get zero qualifications.

so why not condense the number of kids being educated - for those who actually want education and prove it in the classroom/exams.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#42
Report 16 years ago
#42
(Original post by JSM)
in what way, they are ill, i can not help everyone in the world so why should i try. I only get one life, might as well make it as happy as possible.
What you are saying makes no logical sense!
All that required of you, is a contribution through taxation. It's not as though I'm asking you to work in an African hospital.
Maybe if you were ill for extensive periods you'd understand.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 16 years ago
#43
(Original post by bono)
fair enough, but there are so many kids who dont want to be educated anyway.

surely the kids who do wnat to learn and get respectable grades, deserve BETTER STATE SKOOL TUITION at the expense of throwing out the dossers and losers who r there to do nothing but mess about 4 12 years while they fin compulsory education.

end of the day, they will get zero qualifications.

so why not condense the number of kids being educated - for those who actually want education and prove it in the classroom/exams.
You have to give people chances if I wasn't given a chance I will be on the dole or working in McDonalds now. I went to a state school and got bad GCSES (5 C's, 3 D'S) I then went to college and got the highest mark for my course in Manchester and now I am at university and doing quite well.

I believe everybody who wants to be educated deserves that right to a second chance. Thats where the lower universities and higher education colleges come in. Personaly though I do think there are too many of them and there are too many poor quality graduates. I think if a person looks like they are going to badly in their degree they should be chucked of the course earlier to save everybody's time and money.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 16 years ago
#44
I agree that Top Up fees are a sickening prospect - elitism at its very worst. Vote Lib Dems for nxt election = get Blair out!!!
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 16 years ago
#45
(Original post by amazingtrade)
Because education amongst food, clothes shelter and food is the most basic needs of man. If somebody wants to go to university then if they have the grades they deserve the right to go to that university. Class and money should not be an issue here. It seems its the people from the middle classes that like to make it an issue.
why is education a basic need of man, it does not keep him alive?
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 16 years ago
#46
(Original post by bono)
yes they do.

but the majority go to state schools anyway........therefore the amount of tax going to state skools wouldnt differ that much - if push came to shove, they cud always raise the taxes for the parents sending their kids to state skools.

another thought, look at how many kids doss about in state skools, lounge around in classrooms 4 years, graffitti, giv bad rep 4 skool.

why not chuck these out, and concentrate on doing better for the group who want to learn, instead of spreading out the taxes over more children, with a percentage wasting the taxpayers money anyway
if you agree with free education, this is the way to go, well practically i see charging people for education is the best way, because in general you (or your parents) then tend to value something more and therefore respect it.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 16 years ago
#47
(Original post by Bigcnee)
What you are saying makes no logical sense!
All that required of you, is a contribution through taxation. It's not as though I'm asking you to work in an African hospital.
Maybe if you were ill for extensive periods you'd understand.
well i am not ill for extensive periods, so i should contribute to somethign through taxation (compulsary, not voluntary) for something that i do not agree with.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 16 years ago
#48
(Original post by amazingtrade)
You have to give people chances if I wasn't given a chance I will be on the dole or working in McDonalds now. I went to a state school and got bad GCSES (5 C's, 3 D'S) I then went to college and got the highest mark for my course in Manchester and now I am at university and doing quite well.

I believe everybody who wants to be educated deserves that right to a second chance. Thats where the lower universities and higher education colleges come in. Personaly though I do think there are too many of them and there are too many poor quality graduates. I think if a person looks like they are going to badly in their degree they should be chucked of the course earlier to save everybody's time and money.
you say everyone should get a 2nd chance, why not in college then.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 16 years ago
#49
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
I agree that Top Up fees are a sickening prospect - elitism at its very worst. Vote Lib Dems for nxt election = get Blair out!!!
isnt it more elitist to raise a supertax on the richest 1% of society, effectively what you are doing. Or restrict the right to smack and therefore individual liberties.
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#50
Report 16 years ago
#50
(Original post by JSM)
it has nothing to do with logic, logically i should only pay for what i benefit directly from!
The extension of your belief is that there should be no state services, judiciary, government...
...which leaves no preparation for the unexpected.

In the lesser interpretation where we have no NHS then you may contract something unexpected or be hit by a bus or whatever. Any way around it you'll end up not being treated without paying in advance.

In the more extreme conclusion there'd be no police force - because what do they ever do and why should you have to pay them to police other people and other people's problems. So what's to stop me coming and robbing/mugging/killing you for fun or profit?

To an extent there is the notion that everyone requires a set of basic services and they provide an insurance scheme for life's unexpected turns. Coupled with the ethic that everyone is born equal - something you may care to disagree with me on if you are racist/sexist - then everyone should be provided with a basic standard of living, and everyone should have the opportunity to make more than that.

Alaric.
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#51
Report 16 years ago
#51
(Original post by JSM)
Or restrict the right to smack and therefore individual liberties.
smacking someone doesn't involve one party, but two, one of which is in no position to adequately defend themselves.

Alaric.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 16 years ago
#52
(Original post by Alaric)
The extension of your belief is that there should be no state services, judiciary, government...
...which leaves no preparation for the unexpected.

In the lesser interpretation where we have no NHS then you may contract something unexpected or be hit by a bus or whatever. Any way around it you'll end up not being treated without paying in advance.

In the more extreme conclusion there'd be no police force - because what do they ever do and why should you have to pay them to police other people and other people's problems. So what's to stop me coming and robbing/mugging/killing you for fun or profit?

To an extent there is the notion that everyone requires a set of basic services and they provide an insurance scheme for life's unexpected turns. Coupled with the ethic that everyone is born equal - something you may care to disagree with me on if you are racist/sexist - then everyone should be provided with a basic standard of living, and everyone should have the opportunity to make more than that.

Alaric.
well not everyone is born equal - do i have the same genes as you, no, therefore we are all (apart from identical twins at birth) born inherently unequal.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 16 years ago
#53
(Original post by JSM)
you say everyone should get a 2nd chance, why not in college then.
They can but then if they wish to go to univeristy then the can. I am all for anybody trying them selves at uni aslongs as they have the grades.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#54
Report 16 years ago
#54
I think one of the ways the government has tried to excuse their manifesto commitment is by saying that the changes won't come into effect until after the next election.

Sounds bad, we should've just not put it in, in the first place or kept is quiet lol!
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 16 years ago
#55
(Original post by Alaric)
smacking someone doesn't involve one party, but two, one of which is in no position to adequately defend themselves.

Alaric.
and, its good discipline. So the police locking me up involves two and i am in no place to adquately defend myself as tehn i will be done with assisting arrest. The governmetn has a monopoly on legalised violence, but i am not allowed to hit anyone. So is hitting someone smaller than you always wrong. (although smacking is not hitting)
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report 16 years ago
#56
(Original post by amazingtrade)
They can but then if they wish to go to univeristy then the can. I am all for anybody trying them selves at uni aslongs as they have the grades.
so everyone shouyld be allowed a 2nd chance up to uni, where they should be stuffed. if they recover from tehir bad bout later than you they should be penalised.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 16 years ago
#57
(Original post by JSM)
well not everyone is born equal - do i have the same genes as you, no, therefore we are all (apart from identical twins at birth) born inherently unequal.
And seeing that people are born not equal, isn't it right that we all come together to help each other and give people the same opportunties etc?
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 16 years ago
#58
(Original post by JSM)
so everyone shouyld be allowed a 2nd chance up to uni, where they should be stuffed. if they recover from tehir bad bout later than you they should be penalised.
I never said I said everybody should be allowed to go uni no matter what the background. As longs as they have the right amount of UCAS points.
0
nikk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#59
Report 16 years ago
#59
(Original post by Alaric)
Well that's how Margaret Hodge tried to justify it too.
She did it by suggesting that a refuse collector shouldn't be paying for a doctor to go to university, which is analogous to what you are suggesting.
Firstly, just as the doctor requires the services of the refuse collector, the refuse collector will probably require the services of the doctor. Indeed it is particularly apparent in this scenario because of them both (traditionally) being public sector workers, however, it still works in to perpetuate the growth of the economy with regard to other jobs also. Mainly because if the graduates were paying extra for their own education the prices the charge for their services and profit margins they retain would be higher, increasing the relative cost of living for the refuse collector.
Secondly, that idea can be further be extended for me to suppose that a refuse collector doesn't require a secondary level education in order to perform his task - why therefore should we fund one? We'll give him a primary education so that he can read things and do basic mental arithmetic out of the kindness of our hearts, shall we say, and that can be paid for through the extra taxes he'll acrue whilst working from the age of 11? Of course very few people will agree with this idea because it degenerates to the previous system of polarised classes where everyone's destination is fixed at birth (refuse collectors not being able to earn enough to enter their children into secondary school).
Such a system is fundamentally unfair, and it is essentially what the government is proposing.

The other aspect is that those that a relatively hit hardest by it are the public sector workers who are paid less than in industry. The only sensible system is the idea of increased national taxation, which could easily be adjusted to have the least effect on low earning households and the greatest effect on very rich households.

Alaric.
I am just saying that I dont think I should be forced to pay for services I will never use. I think that is reasonable enough. To be quite honest, I don't care about all these other people, they can look after themselves. I think I should pay for services I am going to use but no others.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report 16 years ago
#60
(Original post by pkonline)
And seeing that people are born not equal, isn't it right that we all come together to help each other and give people the same opportunties etc?
no, because we are all indiviuals and the only of doing that fairly would be in a totalitarian state- which is nto fair as there is very little freedom.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (211)
67.63%
No (101)
32.37%

Watched Threads

View All