back to article Tories declare students a burden on us all

Universities minister David Willetts did little to win over his new constituency by describing students as an unacceptable burden on UK taxpayers. Joining in the coalition government's frenzy of cutback soundbites ahead of next week's the Budget on 22 June Willetts said the costs of university education were a "burden on the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ... MOAR FAIL.

    "Ok, im going to stoke the fire on this one, in my opinion a degree is a "degree of excellence" ie it should be only for those with exceptional abilities within an academically excepted subject."

    No. this is not true and it's "accepted" not excepted. For example the majority of graduates since Universities began during the Norman period we're not populated by such people. Most came from rich backgrounds a few from exceptionally poor. In addition many many geniuses from the time of written history onwards were not University educated. People like Thomas Paine for example, son of a corset maker... became one of the fathers of American Independence, taught himself. No my friend University is not about excellence it's about learning how to think.

    "There are three especially pernicious lies:

    That university education is for everybody;"

    No the issue here is that people believe getting certificates equates with better pay and work, this is not the point of University. The point of University is to make people think, is to show people the world is not black and white, it is to prepare them for the task of having to understand how the world works, a key fundamental for any citizen dealing with conundrum of who should run the country... Though I guess we could go back an era where 70% of the electorate voted based on the Sun and who it sponsors.

    The real issue here is that compulsory education up to 16 does not equip young people with the mental faculties to be going citizens, this is why we have a pretend democracies run buy Foreign Investors, The Markets & Big Business.

    "Only fund science, maths, medicine and engineering courses/students. If you wanna learn something else you're welcome to it but you're paying full price."

    Yes, if you believe that human beings only need to understand the empirical sciences to exist as a civilization then by all means just stick to that. Though as we have noted scientists time and again have no moral compass (A-Bomb, Gas Chambers... etc) and that they are easily led astray by ill meaning politicians. That is why we need to have Philosophy, Political Science, Languages, History etc (I assume Geography, Geology, Psychology and so fourth would come under you banner of empirical studies). Furthermore than that we need Musicians, Artists and the such to make our time on this planet more colourful than that of the machine man in the machine society that you envisage.

    In closing the real problem here is two fold, firstly the belief and perhaps truth that Graduates are superior to others, this is not so much the case now but it would be if we restricted entry, this in itself causes problems with regards society. People believe falsely that a Graduate of Mathematics for example would make a better MP than a Master Craftsman and so we return to a society where the Glass Ceiling gets thicker.

    Secondly the compulsory education system is the root cause of this, many people would not need to go to university if the education provided by the age of 16 or 18 was to such a standard that the recipients were able to think for themselves. I would suggest to begin with that we scrap RE and replace it with Philosophy, secondly I would argue that Political Science should be a compulsory course as should Economics and Computer Science (Not IT) at KS3, GCSE & A'Level. It is clear that as a Nation we are not teaching children to think freely and critically, we are merely programming them to do jobs and denying them the ability and mental tools to ask Why?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      why Anonymous?

      Firstly i understand your point of and for the most part i agree, the standard education system doesn’t bring up students to a decent level, i don’t think this is nationwide, teachers are the key and i believe many students out there are a lot better off for these teachers. However, university is a level of education that should be designed to target individuals in a particular area, these people do not need to be rich, but they do need to know why they are doing it, not simply to extend their education an ignore the realities of life around them for a few more years.

      This is actually very simple, Universities are not the means to an end for most people there are better ways and you may be a better person for taking them, they are however the doors to specific areas of interest, universities are NOT a continuation of the standard education system and until as a nation we stop this idea we are only going to be creating a worse problem.

      In my chain of work i do not value a degree of any sort unless they can back it up with ideally experience or with basic common sense, good work ethic and a strong determination to progress, you can never keep the good ones, I’m happy just to help them along the way

      With the quality of some individuals who approach me who have finished degrees who expect to get good jobs because of a bit of paper will have a hard lesson to learn.

      Currently we are a top down society, lower positions are not taken despite huge unemployment because everyone thinks they are better than that, this has to change.

  2. Mr. Ed
    Boffin

    How about a third option?

    It seems this article and most of the replies assume that either the government pays for higher education or the populace is doomed to remain in permanent ignorance.

    We used to recognize a third option -- namely, that motivated and capable people, recognizing (all by themselves) the benefits of investing in their future, would sacrifice and save for their own education. Parents, wanting the best for their children, would save so their children might have a brighter future than their own. This used to be how most people financed their education.

    Yes, it is valuable to society to have an educated workforce. However, I would argue that is is even more important that people have a sense of empowerment and responsibility for their own lives and destinies. Expecting other people to feed, clothe and educate you is more fitting for infants.

  3. trafalgar
    FAIL

    Short-sighted move.

    A boring world. Science and maths only? A limited range will stifle innovation. Discoveries in one area can help developments in another area. We are a DEVELOPED country and that is why we have lots of "soft" subjects, why we have "soft" industries, film, tv, games, professional sports, books, magazines...

    We need more graduates, it will encourage growth and developments of new industries and markets in the long term.

    After spending ~£50,000/child tax payers money on educating kids from primary to GCSE, is it right that they fail to go to University? Should they become cleaners and burger flippers? How many years of work before they pay the tax payers back? Should we not expect them to go into higher paid jobs and pay more tax? The burden on the tax payers are people brought up here ages 5 - 16 and don't get good jobs/ become unemployed, waste their benefits on booze and burgers, and then become a further drain on the NHS.

    The Tories banning free swimming is also short-sighted. In the long-term it would have saved the NHS bilions (reduced obesity and muscular/skeletal problems).

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.