It would require an extraordinarily strong argument for me to be convinced that it was right that I should have taken two years out of my formal education to undertake compulsory military service. I cannot find any scrap of such an argument on this thread.
And course material can still be used in the job in an indirect way, i.e. a History Grad might not be writing essays about 17th Century France, but the concepts they learn would benefit the decisions they make in their occupation. I'm sure you don't use all the course material from your science degree directly either. Every job requires you to make a translation from the academic raw information/skills you attained at university, to useful output. This process may seem more apparent in science degrees because well, you can still use that formula you learnt back in uni. But what you're forgetting is that little bit of memory work means nothing, what you're really using is all the concepts and theories behind the formula you learnt. As such you may not be using the remembered facts from your History Degree, but those are inconsequential for Sciences as well as Arts. The important concepts and theories you learned are what are applied, and this occurs for both science and art majors.
Notice Feminists don't complain when being female excludes them from the possibility of National Service.
You're making the assumption that they'd be for compulsory male service and against compulsory female service, when you surely know nothing of the sort. So there's no hypocrisy at all.
This is not to mention the fact that national service is being suggested here as a remedy to the increasing level of crime committed by 16-18 year olds, and I think you'll find violent crime is still predominantly committed by males.
Hahahahaha what a stupid idea. Unless you limit it to just Great Britain. The thread starter did not say what country was being referred to. If you tried to make Northern Irish youths join the army, Westminster would be bombed before you know it. There will never ever be national service in the UK, until the definition of the UK is changed.
I think national service could benefit all people. It would certainly teach many people how to cope in a difficult situation or when under pressure. Today's society is under plenty of stress: The pace of life has increased, and the competitiveness of the job and financial markets means climbing the greasy pole is more and more difficult. Perhaps national service would equip males with the right skills to be able to optmise their potentials.
Having said that, I am not sure how it would benefit these so-called 'chavs'. How many of them are given police cautions, asbos, short prison sentences in tough conditions etc etc? Yet how many actually succeed in not reoffending? How would this country - which does not have a particularly tough stance on the 'B'-grade crimes - help put such people in line? Also, from an economical point of view, the administration and tax costs would be greatly increased.
Well over a year on, I admit my earlier opinions were off.
Army should be 2 years monday to friday like in Cyprus.
2 days per week for sex, drugs and clubbing.
I hate the way people suggest this sort of idea, treating the forces as some sort of prison system for the uneducated and unruly. Its full of highly trained professionals, and isnt a dumping ground for problem youths. Sort out the reasons behind the problems.
would be good in terms of teaching discipline, respect and whatnot. but i really don't see why people should be expected to fight for a country just because they were born in it.