I thought the idea of education for 'free' was that those who were better educated earned more and then thus paid more tax and made a greater contribution to the economy.
Printable View
I thought the idea of education for 'free' was that those who were better educated earned more and then thus paid more tax and made a greater contribution to the economy.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
That's my whole point about "society". All taxpayers fund universities, whether they attend or not, on the basis that it benefits the country as a whole.
If I wanted to be dismissive then I would claim you misunderstand the debate ;) but I will answer with my opinion if it helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Every child in this country is entitled to a level of education. That level allows them to complete GCSE's, A-Levels and vocational courses.
Society benefits from having an educated workforce and it is open to everyone.
If you make the CHOICE of attending University, you are entitled to do so and under these proposals, can do so for FREE. You do not have to pay any money whatsoever which means that anyone that wants to progress themselves from any walk of life can do.
After leaving Uni, IF you earn over a particular amount, you will be expected to pay back a proportion of what your University Education costs. Not more than you can afford and after a set time, any outstanding balance is WRITTEN OFF.
It is not a God given right to a University education and I do not see why people that have chosen not to follow an academic career should be penalised. It smacks of the intellectually able taking advantage of the "have nots" to pay for their advanced education.
Quite frankly, I find it distasteful and offensive that the elite of our society should seek to use those that are least able to represent themselves to pay for their privilidged education.
If it highlighted the nonsensical degrees being dished out then it was justified yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Shame they didn't spell check them all thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
Britain's future - god help us
These folk should be at their local college not at Uni
If they are paying more income tax then they are not educated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
What is this "Society" you go on about? I know what my society is but didn't realise there was some utopian society that benefits me at an ethereal level, only accessed through University?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
It's worrying that you consider it necessary to attend University in order to benefit society. If you do a degree in Marketing, the arts or politics, are you really contributing more to society than someone servicing my car, cleaning my street or fixing my boiler.
Do you know that University comes from a definition of "The Whole" yet it seems that the only thing the academic elite want from the original meeing is for "The Whole", i.e. US, to pay for their privilidge.
Politicians argued that fiddeling their claims at the taxpayers expense was justified to ensure the best people (them) could afford to benefit your society. Hmmmm, how many of them came from a non-academic background? I think I'm starting to understand what benefit this University Education offers ;)
My question wasn't whether the headline was justified or not. My question was "do you believe that the Telegraph's headline accurately reflected the title, or the content, of the degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I take it from your response that you think it is acceptable for "an honest newspaper" to print a misleading and inaccurate headline.
Which has always happened, through general taxation. Now students are being asked to pay back their tuition fees on top of the income tax, NI, and VAT they already pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
You're right of course, but it is generally accepted that a well-educated population is good for society (I'll explain later) and the economy as a whole.Quote:
It is not a God given right to a University education ....
Becuase in any civilised society those able to pay make a contribution to the whole. If they're low earners they'll pay low tax, if they're high earners they'll pay high tax (assuming they don't snaffle it offshore). The genuine "have nots" are still protected by the benefits system so wouldn't be expected to make a contribution.Quote:
...and I do not see why people that have chosen not to follow an academic career should be penalised. It smacks of the intellectually able taking advantage of the "have nots" to pay for their advanced education.
You seem to have this image of Oxbridge toffs sneering at the working classes as they wend their way to uni in daddy's Rolls! What I'm talking about is the ability of the "average" person to benefit from good further education without being asked to pay for it twice, which will enable them to make a more useful contribution to society.Quote:
Quite frankly, I find it distasteful and offensive that the elite of our society should seek to use those that are least able to represent themselves to pay for their privilidged education.
How is it inaccurate if Beckham's latest hair cut, pumps, tattoo etc was part of the degree.
I'll agree that all papers sensationalise to some extent or another, The Guardian do it all the time, focus in on what the nasty Tories are doing whether they are or not doesn't seem to matter as long as they can scare the lentil munching yoghurt knitters into a hissy fit about it all then job done.
Well, when you've found a degree at Staffordshire University that studies those aspects (search here) then we can say it was accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Until then it's simply the Telegraph focusing in on what the "liberal" Unis are doing whether they are or not doesn't seem to matter as long as they can scare the caviar munching bond traders into a hissy fit about it all then job done.
:p :
So do you think no aspect of the course focussed on Beckham?
Hardly essential learning is it? 1 year OND course would easily suffice.