On Jan 10, 11:21*am, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:13:50 -0800 (PST), 1506 wrote:
On Jan 10, 10:10 am, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:29:24 -0800 (PST), 1506 wrote:
And then, with respect Boltar, you have created another taxpayer
funded Quango. Better, IMHO to let the market decide. If there is a
shortage of MBAs, then clearly an MBA would be a good investment. If
we need civil engineers, the a BSc in such would be money well spent.
and so on. If the state has an interest in encouraging study in a
particular field, then by all means give a grant to the institutions
offering the degree. But, preserve us please from liberal arts
degrees.

Please preserve us from lunatic ramblings from the US of A. Since when
did the market have to decide what *individuals* want to do with their
talents? All of this nonsense that only obviously marketable degrees /
qualifications are the only ones that should be funded needs to be
dispensed with immediately.

More ad-hominem drivel. *Do you have any original thinking to
contribute? *And, do check your facts.

Oh we're in the "insult the contributer" mode are we? * I'll bear that
in mind next time I have taken some photos or have other info of
interest. We can both play at being childish and stupid if you would
like.

Clearly you can dish it out, but not take it.

I have plenty of original thinking in my head thanks very much. Nice of
you to enquire.

Care to point me at some of the facts you are alleging I am missing?
And please *not* a biased set of data that merely supports your right
wing agenda.

Your post made some invalid assuptions.

The UK has a strong and viable arts
movement as well as a media industry that generates very considerable
earnings. Why should we only fund economists or doctors or lawyers? We
need variety amongst the talented and qualified young people who emerge
from our universities. I also completely fail to see why they should be
forced to rack up tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt just to gain
a higher education. If we could afford it for my generation then we can
afford it for future ones. It is an investment in our future success as
a country after all and we are not exactly the smallest economy in the
world either. I can completely understand why people took to the
streets even though I don't agree with them smashing the place to bits
because some of them felt like it.

So, let me understand: What the UK has today is success?

And the US is more successful is it? * I suggest you define success
given you have now set it as some sort of benchmark. I just used it as a
future concept not a current one.

Again invalid thinking. I implied nothing of the sort. The United
States are in very steep decline. You seem to forget that within
living memory the United Kingdom was the greatest nation on earth by a
considerable margin. It is not your place to suggest anything to
me. If you want a benchmark, take a look at the year on year GDP
growth of India, Singapore, or Panama.