|
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
On 24 Jan 2005 07:28:13 GMT, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
I didnt realize Imperial didnt have a reading week. They do have _less_ lectures Fewer. Come on, you're an academic! :) -- Cliff Laine, The Old Lard Factory, Lancaster http://www.loobynet.com * remove any trace of rudeness before you reply * --------------------------------------------------------- Best Eurovision Song Title So Far: "Vsichki Drehi Mi Prechat" - All Clothes are an Obstacle to Me (Bulgaria) |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, loobyloo wrote:
On 24 Jan 2005 07:28:13 GMT, Jon Crowcroft wrote: I didnt realize Imperial didnt have a reading week. They do have _less_ lectures Fewer. Oh, i don't know - there are so many of the bloody things, 'lectures' must count as a mass noun by now! tom -- The MAtrix had evarything in it: guns, a juimping off teh walls, flying guns, a bullet tiem, evil computar machenes, numbers that flew, flying gun bullets in slowar motian, juimping into a gun, dead police men, computar hackeing, Kevin Mitnick, oven trailers, a old womans kitchen, stairs, mature women in clotheing, head spark plugs, mechaanical squids, Japaneseses assasins, tiem traval, volcanos, a monstar, slow time at fastar speed, magic, wizzards, some dirty place, Kung Few, fighting, a lot of mess explodsians EVARYWHERE, and just about anything else yuo can names! |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Meldrew of Meldreth) wrote: Do they know how to punt properly in Oxford anyway? Oh yes, we do. Although we're not nearly as good at going backwards as you are in Cambridge. tom -- The MAtrix had evarything in it: guns, a juimping off teh walls, flying guns, a bullet tiem, evil computar machenes, numbers that flew, flying gun bullets in slowar motian, juimping into a gun, dead police men, computar hackeing, Kevin Mitnick, oven trailers, a old womans kitchen, stairs, mature women in clotheing, head spark plugs, mechaanical squids, Japaneseses assasins, tiem traval, volcanos, a monstar, slow time at fastar speed, magic, wizzards, some dirty place, Kung Few, fighting, a lot of mess explodsians EVARYWHERE, and just about anything else yuo can names! |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Paul Weaver
writes Vague memory says I paid 80 pounds a term for a bedsit at Trinity, and I was a few years after you. Grants were something like 1400 for the year So, no fees There were fees, but they were included in the grant payment system and were therefore normally ignored. The 1400 was net of fees, and was the maximum if your parents were poor. IIRC, the minimum was 300 - your parents were expected to fill the gap, and you were in difficulty if they didn't. and twice the grant, Twice what grant? and you didn't have to pay it back Correct - that's what the word "grant" means. The governments of the previous decades had come to this strange conclusion that having graduates was good for the country. Of course, we didn't have every piddling little school for over-18s calling itself a "University". Then soon as you got into government you decided the rest of us wouldn't have that. Excuse me? I am not and never have been a part of government. And of course in 0 years time we'll have to pay for your pension too. And that makes even less sense. *I'm* paying for my pension - a significant proportion of my salary goes that way. And I don't get it for a couple of decades. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Clive D. W. Feather wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 24 Jan 2005:
Correct - that's what the word "grant" means. The governments of the previous decades had come to this strange conclusion that having graduates was good for the country. Of course, we didn't have every piddling little school for over-18s calling itself a "University". But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next, then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out of one's pocket, as well as through taxation. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Mrs Redboots
writes But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next, then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out of one's pocket, as well as through taxation. Oddly enough, there's much more money in state subsidised nursery care than ten years ago. All 4 year olds are equally deserving. At the risk of sounding a bit meldrew-ish I'm not sure 50% of teenagers are equally deserving of a "university" education. But it does wonders for the unemployment statistics. Which is the main driver. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
|
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at
19:25:00 on Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: If your parents were better off you got a "reduced fees grant" meaning that you got no maintenance and paid something towards your fees. If your parents were even better off you got a minimum grant (UKP50 in my day) only and paid all your fees. And my recollection is that that for every extra pound the parent earned, more than a pound was deducted from the grant. A poverty trap by definition. -- Roland Perry |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 19:25:00 on Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: If your parents were better off you got a "reduced fees grant" meaning that you got no maintenance and paid something towards your fees. If your parents were even better off you got a minimum grant (UKP50 in my day) only and paid all your fees. And my recollection is that that for every extra pound the parent earned, more than a pound was deducted from the grant. A poverty trap by definition. Or the student. My TOTAL gap year's income (after tax) was deducted from my next year's grant AND FEES - though I now believe that I should have got a solicitor to challenge the latter. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:
writes But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next, then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out of one's pocket, as well as through taxation. Oddly enough, there's much more money in state subsidised nursery care than ten years ago. All 4 year olds are equally deserving. At the risk of sounding a bit meldrew-ish I'm not sure 50% of teenagers are equally deserving of a "university" education. I'd probably dispute that if I knew what you meant by "deserving"! But it does wonders for the unemployment statistics. Which is the main driver. Just think how many more wonders they could do by replacing the current system with the Australian system, so that not only rich people can afford to go to university... |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 23:02:30 on Tue, 25
Jan 2005, Nick Maclaren remarked: And my recollection is that that for every extra pound the parent earned, more than a pound was deducted from the grant. A poverty trap by definition. Or the student. My TOTAL gap year's income (after tax) was deducted from my next year's grant AND FEES - though I now believe that I should have got a solicitor to challenge the latter. When was that. I don't recall contemporaries reporting such a thing in the 70's. If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was a "good thing". -- Roland Perry |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 16:16:39 on
Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked: But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next, then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out of one's pocket, as well as through taxation. Oddly enough, there's much more money in state subsidised nursery care than ten years ago. All 4 year olds are equally deserving. At the risk of sounding a bit meldrew-ish I'm not sure 50% of teenagers are equally deserving of a "university" education. I'd probably dispute that if I knew what you meant by "deserving"! All 4-year olds should be given a chance at nursery education, because they will all potentially benefit from it. By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further education or vocational training, perhaps; not University). But it does wonders for the unemployment statistics. Which is the main driver. Just think how many more wonders they could do by replacing the current system with the Australian system, so that not only rich people can afford to go to university... I don't understand that remark at all. Are you saying that today, only the rich can go to university? In that case half the country is rich. -- Roland Perry |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes If your parents were better off you got a "reduced fees grant" meaning that you got no maintenance and paid something towards your fees. If your parents were even better off you got a minimum grant (UKP50 in my day) only and paid all your fees. Not in my time. "Minimum grant" was fees plus about 20% of the nominal living grant. [I discussed the numbers with enough people at the time to be sure of this.] -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 23:02:30 on Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Nick Maclaren remarked: And my recollection is that that for every extra pound the parent earned, more than a pound was deducted from the grant. A poverty trap by definition. Or the student. My TOTAL gap year's income (after tax) was deducted from my next year's grant AND FEES - though I now believe that I should have got a solicitor to challenge the latter. When was that. I don't recall contemporaries reporting such a thing in the 70's. Late 1960s, Wiltshire. I discovered much later that it was probably unjustified. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
|
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Roland
Perry writes If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was a "good thing". It was, because you were unlikely to be near the minimum (and, IIRC, you were assessed on expected income *while at college*, not on the income in the years just before). But it took more than just a gap year to get you to that state - again IIRC, it was 3 years unless you could show special circumstances like being married and set up in your own home. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Roland Perry writes If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was a "good thing". It was, because you were unlikely to be near the minimum (and, IIRC, you were assessed on expected income *while at college*, not on the income in the years just before). But it took more than just a gap year to get you to that state - again IIRC, it was 3 years unless you could show special circumstances like being married and set up in your own home. Interesting. I'm married, 'set up in our own home' and now at 44, last September embarked upon a Masters at our local uni, part time. No help with fees, grants or anything (which is a bit tight as I've not had much work lately either). It's costing a bloody fortune, I don't mind telling. -- Ian Tindale |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Roland Perry wrote:
Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked: But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next, then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out of one's pocket, as well as through taxation. Oddly enough, there's much more money in state subsidised nursery care than ten years ago. All 4 year olds are equally deserving. At the risk of sounding a bit meldrew-ish I'm not sure 50% of teenagers are equally deserving of a "university" education. I'd probably dispute that if I knew what you meant by "deserving"! All 4-year olds should be given a chance at nursery education, because they will all potentially benefit from it. By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further education or vocational training, perhaps; not University). But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit? But it does wonders for the unemployment statistics. Which is the main driver. Just think how many more wonders they could do by replacing the current system with the Australian system, so that not only rich people can afford to go to university... I don't understand that remark at all. Are you saying that today, only the rich can go to university? In that case half the country is rich. I was exagerating a bit - it's not only the rich, but also those willing to risk being trapped in debt. |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Aidan Stanger
writes By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further education or vocational training, perhaps; not University). But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit? Who is "they"? The University admissions process, or the potential students? How does ease of determining how deserving they are alter the original proposition? -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Clive D. W. Feather
writes If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was a "good thing". It was, because you were unlikely to be near the minimum (and, IIRC, you were assessed on expected income *while at college*, not on the income in the years just before). But it took more than just a gap year to get you to that state - again IIRC, it was 3 years unless you could show special circumstances like being married and set up in your own home. Yes, that's all pretty much how I remember it working. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Ian Tindale
writes If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was a "good thing". It was, because you were unlikely to be near the minimum (and, IIRC, you were assessed on expected income *while at college*, not on the income in the years just before). But it took more than just a gap year to get you to that state - again IIRC, it was 3 years unless you could show special circumstances like being married and set up in your own home. Interesting. I'm married, 'set up in our own home' and now at 44, last September embarked upon a Masters at our local uni, part time. No help with fees, grants or anything (which is a bit tight as I've not had much work lately either). It's costing a bloody fortune, I don't mind telling. Indeed, I don't think *anyone* is arguing that the funding available today is a patch on what it was a generation ago. But much of the reason for that is the greatly increased numbers going to University. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:
writes By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further education or vocational training, perhaps; not University). But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit? Who is "they"? The University admissions process, or the potential students? The potential students. The University admissions process is not capable of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if at all). How does ease of determining how deserving they are alter the original proposition? Which proposition did you consider to be original? Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the admissions process (assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not. |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the admissions process (assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not. You seem to be saying that anyone should be allowed to do any University course of their own choice with no hurdles placed in their way at all, i.e. with no academic selection nor by them having to pay for it. Is that actually what you mean? regards Stephen |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Aidan Stanger
writes By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further education or vocational training, perhaps; not University). But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit? Who is "they"? The University admissions process, or the potential students? The potential students. The University admissions process is not capable of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if at all). Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for. How does ease of determining how deserving they are alter the original proposition? Which proposition did you consider to be original? The original proposition (original = "what started this discussion", not "novel") was that not everyone would benefit from a University education (whereas they probably would from nursery education). Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the courses are inappropriate to their needs, that seems a bit of a waste of everyone's time. If the admissions process (assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not. Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those for whom a University education is inappropriate. The dropout rate from many of the more recent Universities demonstrates that they are currently accepting some students who perhaps shouldn't have been there. "Nearly 40% of students are dropping out of some universities because of high debts, poor teaching or an inability to cope with their coursework, according to new figures published last week. "Critics claim one of the reasons behind the high drop-out rate is that too many students are being admitted who cannot cope. http://www.iee.org/OnComms/Circuit/benefits/dropout.cfm -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , Meldrew
of Meldreth writes Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for. Did you not see the Schwarz Report last year? http://education.guardian.co.uk/univ...359591,00.html -- Paul Terry |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Paul Terry
writes Did you not see the Schwarz Report last year? http://education.guardian.co.uk/univ...0670,1359591,0 0.html As it happens, I didn't. But it's still a load of tosh. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article ,
Meldrew of Meldreth wrote: Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those for whom a University education is inappropriate. Even better would be the scenario where there wouldn't be significant levels of unsuitable applicants because those not suited for University education would have alternative viable and rewarding opportunities to pursue (ie. vocational training, apprenticeships etc.) |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Espen H.
Koht writes Even better would be the scenario where there wouldn't be significant levels of unsuitable applicants because those not suited for University education would have alternative viable and rewarding opportunities to pursue (ie. vocational training, apprenticeships etc.) Yes, I agree. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:
In article , Espen H. Koht writes Even better would be the scenario where there wouldn't be significant levels of unsuitable applicants because those not suited for University education would have alternative viable and rewarding opportunities to pursue (ie. vocational training, apprenticeships etc.) Yes, I agree. Part of the missing driver for that would be to reverse the current tendency for HR departments and recruitment 'consultants' to operate within a purely tick-box mentality. In other words, hand-in-hand with these "alternative viable and rewarding opportunities to pursue" would have to be a recognition of the true value and worth of these opportunity paths, by the working sector at large. That ain't gonna happen any time soon in the current cherry-pick climate if even simple prejudices such as age-ism and other arbitrary demarcations are operating so strongly. It's yet another way of cleaving the piles of applicants CVs to look through, through entrenched use of now-acceptable snobbishness. -- Ian Tindale |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Ian Tindale wrote:
Clive D. W. Feather wrote: In article , Roland Perry writes If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was a "good thing". It was, because you were unlikely to be near the minimum (and, IIRC, you were assessed on expected income *while at college*, not on the income in the years just before). But it took more than just a gap year to get you to that state - again IIRC, it was 3 years unless you could show special circumstances like being married and set up in your own home. Interesting. I'm married, 'set up in our own home' and now at 44, last September embarked upon a Masters at our local uni, part time. No help with fees, grants or anything (which is a bit tight as I've not had much work lately either). It's costing a bloody fortune, I don't mind telling. But that's a second degree. I wasn't aware that grants or student loans or whatever have ever been applicable to second degrees. Robin |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Stephen Osborn wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote: Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the admissions process (assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not. You seem to be saying that anyone should be allowed to do any University course of their own choice with no hurdles placed in their way at all, i.e. with no academic selection nor by them having to pay for it. Is that actually what you mean? No it isn't. Academic selection is sometimes needed, and where it is, it should be done fairly (not making the decisions until the academic results are known). However, I support an increase in the number of places so that academic selection is not so heavily relied upon. As for paying for it, I advocate the Australian system, where students don't have to pay upfront, nor do they have to pay until they're actually making a lot of money, nor do they have to pay interest. |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:
writes By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further education or vocational training, perhaps; not University). But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit? Who is "they"? The University admissions process, or the potential students? The potential students. The University admissions process is not capable of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if at all). Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for. Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean they succeed in their objective. How does ease of determining how deserving they are alter the original proposition? Which proposition did you consider to be original? The original proposition (original = "what started this discussion", not "novel") was that not everyone would benefit from a University education (whereas they probably would from nursery education). It means that although not everyone would benefit, we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the courses are inappropriate to their needs, that seems a bit of a waste of everyone's time. But who's to say what their needs are? If the admissions process (assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not. Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those for whom a University education is inappropriate. Whereas I regard the first semester or two as a far better tool for that purpose. An admissions process will still be needed of course, because universities can't all offer enough places to satisfy the demand for every course. The dropout rate from many of the more recent Universities demonstrates that they are currently accepting some students who perhaps shouldn't have been there. Perhaps, but you've got to be in it to win it! "Nearly 40% of students are dropping out of some universities because of high debts, Which proves my point! poor teaching or an inability to cope with their coursework, according to new figures published last week. "Critics claim one of the reasons behind the high drop-out rate is that too many students are being admitted who cannot cope. If they cannot cope, at least they know what it is they can't cope with. http://www.iee.org/OnComms/Circuit/benefits/dropout.cfm |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
R.C. Payne wrote:
But that's a second degree.Â*Â*IÂ*wasn'tÂ*awareÂ*thatÂ*grantsÂ*orÂ*stu dentÂ*loans or whatever have ever been applicable to second degrees. Normally, for that situation, you'd be right. However, I managed to get accepted onto it without a degree or qualifications because of my apparently extensive experience of the industry (?). So for me, it's my first degree. Probably everyone else there, as you say, has gone through a bachelors first. -- Ian Tindale |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 03:02:57 on
Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked: he potential students. The University admissions process is not capable of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if at all). Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for. Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean they succeed in their objective. As 40% of students are dropping out of some Universities, I suppose I'll have to agree with you. The original proposition (original = "what started this discussion", not "novel") was that not everyone would benefit from a University education (whereas they probably would from nursery education). It means that although not everyone would benefit, we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt. It seems a pity to lay on 3 or 4 year courses, for students who then drop out. Doesn't that have funding implications for the Universities? Why not perhaps start them on a 1-year, then reconsider (both student and university). Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the courses are inappropriate to their needs, that seems a bit of a waste of everyone's time. But who's to say what their needs are? They are often fairly self-evident. 40% of students don't seem to be having their particular needs properly satisfied. If the admissions process (assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not. Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those for whom a University education is inappropriate. Whereas I regard the first semester or two as a far better tool for that purpose. An admissions process will still be needed of course, because universities can't all offer enough places to satisfy the demand for every course. Ah, close to my suggestion above. The dropout rate from many of the more recent Universities demonstrates that they are currently accepting some students who perhaps shouldn't have been there. Perhaps, but you've got to be in it to win it! "Nearly 40% of students are dropping out of some universities because of high debts, Which proves my point! Except they aren't all that high compared to what graduate earnings "ought" to be, nor all of the 40% poor teaching or an inability to cope with their coursework, according to new figures published last week. "Critics claim one of the reasons behind the high drop-out rate is that too many students are being admitted who cannot cope. If they cannot cope, at least they know what it is they can't cope with. Hmm, I think I'll take a 3 year course in brewing, at the taxpayers expense. I'm not sure if I can cope or not, but we'll find out eventually... -- Roland Perry |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
JRS: In article , dated Fri,
28 Jan 2005 03:36:24, seen in news:uk.transport.london, Aidan Stanger posted : Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the admissions process (assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not. There is something to be said for allowing new adults to decide whether or not to spend three years of their lives on some combination of education and time-wasting. But it is not reasonable for time-wasting to be intentionally subsidised by the productive community, unless the productive community positively decides that it should be so. Of course, any process of deciding whether a new adult will "study" or work, whether decision is by the new adult or by the institutions, will inevitably make imperfect judgements in some cases; but that leads only to unavoidable accidental waste. And it is absolutely unreasonable to have university-grade academics wasting their time and talent, ultimately at community expense, in dealing with those who will, by inability or idleness, not benefit significantly thereby. All university students should be invoiced termly for the *full* costs of their education, visibly discounted by a list of all of the grants and subsidies as the university receives for them (the final sum may be zero or less). At the end of each year of "Study", their performance should be reviewed to see whether the university can recommend that the grants and subsidies are worth renewing; the standard should be less than "will eventually pass at present performance" - more like "might pass if performance improves as we think it could". -- © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. © Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036) |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Roland Perry wrote:
Hmm, I think I'll take a 3 year course in brewing, at the taxpayers expense. I'm not sure if I can cope or not, but we'll find out eventually... I was tempted to look into that, when I started doing this: http://tindale.dyn.nu/brewday -- Ian Tindale |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Dr John Stockton wrote:
posted : Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the admissions process (assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not. There is something to be said for allowing new adults to decide whether or not to spend three years of their lives on some combination of education and time-wasting. But it is not reasonable for time-wasting to be intentionally subsidised by the productive community, unless the productive community positively decides that it should be so. Of course, any process of deciding whether a new adult will "study" or work, whether decision is by the new adult or by the institutions, will inevitably make imperfect judgements in some cases; but that leads only to unavoidable accidental waste. And it's better to waste a small amount of time and money than to waste students' futures. And it is absolutely unreasonable to have university-grade academics wasting their time and talent, ultimately at community expense, in dealing with those who will, by inability or idleness, not benefit significantly thereby. Don't be so quick to assume that the academics' time and talent would be wasted! Firstly a student not putting sufficient effort into the course is likely to take up less of the lecturers' time than one who is. Secondly, even those who don't succeed academically are likely to learn something useful. All university students should be invoiced termly for the *full* costs of their education, visibly discounted by a list of all of the grants and subsidies as the university receives for them (the final sum may be zero or less). At the end of each year of "Study", their performance should be reviewed to see whether the university can recommend that the grants and subsidies are worth renewing; the standard should be less than "will eventually pass at present performance" - more like "might pass if performance improves as we think it could". Well that's one way to increase the dropout rate, and it sounds expensive to administer. Surely it would be better to give everyone as much opportunity as possible? It's not as if the economy (and indeed society) doesn't benefit. |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 00:48:06 on
Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked: And it's better to waste a small amount of time and money than to waste students' futures. If that's the case, why are the students so unwilling to contribute to the "small amount of money". Surely it would be better to give everyone as much opportunity as possible? It's not as if the economy (and indeed society) doesn't benefit. But it seems there is massive over-supply of graduates, so few are getting the jobs they expected. Three years taken up, and in the end all they are employed do is ask "do you want fries with that". -- Roland Perry |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Roland Perry wrote:
Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked: he potential students. The University admissions process is not capable of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if at all). Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for. Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean they succeed in their objective. As 40% of students are dropping out of some Universities, I suppose I'll have to agree with you. The original proposition (original = "what started this discussion", not "novel") was that not everyone would benefit from a University education (whereas they probably would from nursery education). It means that although not everyone would benefit, we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt. It seems a pity to lay on 3 or 4 year courses, for students who then drop out. Doesn't that have funding implications for the Universities? Yes, at least insofar as everything has funding implications for the universities! But don't most universities expect a certain dropout rate? Why not perhaps start them on a 1-year, then reconsider (both student and university). For some types of degree, the first year covers a lot of stuff that's essential for the rest of the degree, but unlikely to impress employers, so there's no advantage. For other types of degree, I'm not sure there would be much advantage in doing the first year (out of one) over doing the first year (out of three). Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the courses are inappropriate to their needs, that seems a bit of a waste of everyone's time. But who's to say what their needs are? They are often fairly self-evident. 40% of students don't seem to be having their particular needs properly satisfied. Minus the proportion who drop out for financial reasons. If the admissions process (assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not. Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those for whom a University education is inappropriate. Whereas I regard the first semester or two as a far better tool for that purpose. An admissions process will still be needed of course, because universities can't all offer enough places to satisfy the demand for every course. Ah, close to my suggestion above. The dropout rate from many of the more recent Universities demonstrates that they are currently accepting some students who perhaps shouldn't have been there. Perhaps, but you've got to be in it to win it! "Nearly 40% of students are dropping out of some universities because of high debts, Which proves my point! Except they aren't all that high compared to what graduate earnings "ought" to be, nor all of the 40% So England and Wales should copy Australia, where students don't have to repay their debt before they're earning over a certain amount. It could probably be incorporated into the national insurance system. poor teaching or an inability to cope with their coursework, according to new figures published last week. "Critics claim one of the reasons behind the high drop-out rate is that too many students are being admitted who cannot cope. If they cannot cope, at least they know what it is they can't cope with. Hmm, I think I'll take a 3 year course in brewing, at the taxpayers expense. I'm not sure if I can cope or not, but we'll find out eventually... ....probably within the firs semester. |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:45:05 +0000, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Paul Weaver writes Vague memory says I paid 80 pounds a term for a bedsit at Trinity, and I was a few years after you. Grants were something like 1400 for the year So, no fees There were fees, but they were included in the grant payment system and were therefore normally ignored. The 1400 was net of fees, and was the maximum if your parents were poor. IIRC, the minimum was 300 - your parents were expected to fill the gap, and you were in difficulty if they didn't. and twice the grant, Twice what grant? 6 times the grant (loan in our case), adjusted for cost of living. and you didn't have to pay it back Correct - that's what the word "grant" means. The governments of the Grant Loan same thing (aside from paying it back) previous decades had come to this strange conclusion that having graduates was good for the country. Of course, we didn't have every piddling little school for over-18s calling itself a "University". Indeed Then soon as you got into government you decided the rest of us wouldn't have that. Excuse me? I am not and never have been a part of government. You as in "your generation". And of course in 0 years time we'll have to pay for your pension too. And that makes even less sense. *I'm* paying for my pension - a significant proportion of my salary goes that way. And I don't get it for a couple of decades. Sorry, 20 years, useless keyboard. -- Everything I write here is my personal opinion, and should not be taken as fact. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk