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

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"

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...

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

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.

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"

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.