Political vent (English politics, not a mention of Bush)

[TheEarl]

Bloody Cameron!

I was quietly optimistic, but I'm not impressed with the bugger atm. First his party policy advisor spouts toot about redistribution of wealth and now the man himself has gone and made stupid pronouncements on education.

The Conservative Party are now:

Supporting tuition fees: On the grounds that, "If you want those things [quality universities] - and as you also know we've also got to keep taxes down in this country - the money's got to come from somewhere." Let me point out the blatantly obvious. In terms of the academic budget, student tuition fees don't even make a dent. Not the slightest imprint. Universities need more money, that's very true, but unless tuition fees are set at a silly level, then they're not going to provide anywhere near enough.

All that tuition fees do is result in poor people not being able to go to university because they just can't afford it.

Against academic selection: "I want to say absolutely clearly, the Conservative party that I am leading does not want to go back to the 11-plus, does not want to go back to the grammar school system."

Why the bloody hell not? I remember the sheer boredom I faced, when I was in Year 6. I, and two other girls, were ahead of our peers by a long, long distance and the teacher found makework for us to do, because she didn't have time to teach us and the rest of the class as well.

Why does it not make sense to allow the best and brightest to work with their peers? It doesn't mean that you're rejecting the others, it doesn't mean that you ignore those who go to state schools, it just means that you give talented youngsters a chance to stretch their abilities, instead of getting bogged down and having to slow to the pace of the rest of the pack. I'm absolutely thrilled that I went to a grammar school; surrounded by real peers and taught by teachers who were working from the assumption that all of their students were working for As.

Supporting the government's policy of "More students = better": Why, god why? You know that huge hole in university funding we were talking about? Well, a significant chunk of that is because there are people at university doing courses on David Beckham. No, really, you can. Or surfing. There were people in my halls, who had 1 hour of lectures a week. 1 hour! And they complained about it! What is the point of a course where you spend three years taking 1 hour a week? Wouldn't it be easier to just have six months of 6 hours a week? Or even better - TO DO A REAL FUCKING COURSE!

Not everybody can do Chemistry or English or History or Computer Science. I understand that not everybody is cut out for proper subjects. So, here's what I suggest. If you can't do a proper course, then don't go to university! Go out to work! Go and get a vocational degree and learn a trade! The UK is currently crying out for plumbers and builders. Do you know why? Because everybody's in university doing 4 year courses in Fashion Design!!!


ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHH!!

It's the diametric opposite of these policies that encouraged me to vote for the Conservatives in the last election!

</vent>

The Earl

 

[Selena_Kitt]

All that tuition fees do is result in poor people not being able to go to university because they just can't afford it.

but then you can create these things called "grants"... and only poor people can get them, see... so then... well, then only middle-class people won't be able to afford university... just like America!

 

[Liar]

but then you can create these things called "grants"... and only poor people can get them, see... so then... well, then only middle-class people won't be able to afford university... just like America!

Or they can keep the 1 hour/week Beckham courses, but charge mad amounts of money for them and leave the rest free. That would mean rich and dumb people who don't want to grow up can get their pseudo academic kindergarten and feel important, while the rest of us get proper educations.

 

[Carmenica Diaz]

I have enough politics in academia to last me a lifetime. I avoid it outside of that - rather spend my time in various other pursuits.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Don't even begin to get me started on politics in this country (England)!!

Damn, it's all Shit!!

 

[shereads]

English politics. Not a mention of Bush

Good. Bush is an ass.

 

[Just-Legal]

I'm going to post on this issue when my brain isn't running around the Heath government...

 

[imalickin]

Good. Bush is an ass.

name an american politician who isn't?

 

[Liar]

name an american politician who isn't?

Why 'american'? I thought it came with the politician business card.

 

[TheEarl]

Anyone got an opinion on the issues I vented on? I would've thought at least one person would disagree! Or am I talking plain common sense that's irrefutable?

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

What will win votes?

1. I would like, not tuition fees, nor grants, but sponsorship for courses that were meaningful. The potential student would have to compete for sponsorship for a meaningful course such as science, medicine, architecture, law and if accepted all fees and reasonable living expenses would be paid together with relevant work experience with the sponsor. I won such sponsorship from two Australian companies in the early 1960s. I provided that sort of sponsorship for existing employees in the large UK organisation I worked for in the 1970s and 1980s.

2. Where I live, the 11+ still exists. We have grammar schools and high quality High Schools (and some crap ones). The grammar schools and the better High Schools stretch their pupils. The crap ones are trying but part of their problem is a large proportion of statemented pupils in the mainstream demanding a disproportionate amount of teacher time. Generally what comes out at the end of the local education system has significant added value - forcing some education into even most of the unintelligent children despite parental indifference and active discouragement. What they DON'T need is more political 'one size fits all' directives that take no account of the abilities or disabilities of individuals. The grammar schools are thriving despite Government interference designed to deprive them of funds.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

1. I would like, not tuition fees, nor grants, but sponsorship for courses that were meaningful. The potential student would have to compete for sponsorship for a meaningful course such as science, medicine, architecture, law and if accepted all fees and reasonable living expenses would be paid together with relevant work experience with the sponsor. I won such sponsorship from two Australian companies in the early 1960s. I provided that sort of sponsorship for existing employees in the large UK organisation I worked for in the 1970s and 1980s.

An outstanding idea! However, it would never fly in the United States. The problem here [and I suspect elsewhere] is that those who teach the non-economically-useful courses will discourage anything that might cause them to lose students to economically-useful courses of study.

2. Where I live, the 11+ still exists. We have grammar schools and high quality High Schools (and some crap ones). The grammar schools and the better High Schools stretch their pupils. The crap ones are trying but part of their problem is a large proportion of statemented pupils in the mainstream demanding a disproportionate amount of teacher time. Generally what comes out at the end of the local education system has significant added value - forcing some education into even most of the unintelligent children despite parental indifference and active discouragement. What they DON'T need is more political 'one size fits all' directives that take no account of the abilities or disabilities of individuals. The grammar schools are thriving despite Government interference designed to deprive them of funds.

Og

Where I went to school, the problem was really not dumb students, but rather dumb teachers. There were a lot of dumb students, but they could be handled. The problem was on the other end. The more intelligent students were not allowed to learn, for reasons that were never explained. If a more intelligent student tried to learn, it was actively discouraged. I suspect that the reason was that it would have exposed just how incredibly dumbed-down the curriculum was.

I was doing original work in mathematics while I was in high school. The teachers did not understand what I was doing and could not give me any help. They also sought to occupy my tiem with useless memorization to prevent me from pursuing learning.

I would think that the same problem exists at the university level. To allow intelligent and motivated students to learn would expose some of the people who are at a university for a sort of four year vacation.

JMHO.