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.

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

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.

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"

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

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.)