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.)

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"

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