Students
Comments
-
ketsbaia wrote:DCowling wrote:ketsbaia wrote:DCowling wrote:Ketsbaia
There is difference between making a fool up regardless of size ( and we are paying for it) and actually setting out to cause maximum damage during a protest ( we will end up paying for it through our insurance premiums)
I would like to say I speak for most on here, it is not about the protest nor the reason for the protest but the rampage it turned into.
by your reasoning, if you care passionatley eough about a subject, then you have a right or even an obligation to show that passion by way of destroying other peoples possesions ( interstingly not their own). so from this can we assume that when that select band of football supporters are abroad and are on the rampage, you are sitting in your armchair watching the news, in complete awe as you revel in the passion that is being shown for their beliefs in the world of English Football
You've been sucked into the argument about the means of protest and not the point.
And don't go making leaps of logic that don't stack up to scrutiny. It really doesn't help.
Have not been sucked into anything, just pist off with todays society thinking the best way to resolve things is to have a riot and smash things up
I have not made a leap of logic, you stated that you have respect to anyone who has the passion to carry out damage to express their feelings, are you now saying that there is a limit to which you will follow this respect
Your first sentence makes my point better than I did.
Your second makes another (wrong) assumption that I'm not going to dignify with an answer.
If I assume wrong then correct it !0 -
Essentially this country is trying to follow the path the US has taken, where you start a college fund when your child is born, to cover the fees. The problem is that in the short term kids will be going to uni with no cash already in the bank to cover the fees.
On the one hand I am disappointed with the increasing fees, but on the other hand I do think university has gone too far away from what it should be about. I know of far too many people who went to university and used loans to live a lifestyle with spending habits of someone in a well paid job. Going back to the days before loans it seems that students had far more basic lifestyles and totally different spending habits.
Most university degrees are essentially part time at best, so there is no reason to not have a part time job too. In holidays there is also an opportunity to find some form of work. There is also a cheaper option of staying at home. Going away from home is great because it teaches teenagers how to look after themselves, but now they will simply have to weigh up the cost-benefit of doing so.
OK, I may appear to be for the increased fees. I'm not. I think university should be free, especially for the degrees that are required to enter key professions (such as medicine). The problem is that the general public won't vote for a political party based on a university policy. In much the same way, a political party that said it would fix the many infrastructure issues this country has (such as the abysmal rail "service") at the expense of a cut in the healthcare and education budgets would find no-one voting for them.0 -
DCowling wrote:ketsbaia wrote:DCowling wrote:ketsbaia wrote:DCowling wrote:Ketsbaia
There is difference between making a fool up regardless of size ( and we are paying for it) and actually setting out to cause maximum damage during a protest ( we will end up paying for it through our insurance premiums)
I would like to say I speak for most on here, it is not about the protest nor the reason for the protest but the rampage it turned into.
by your reasoning, if you care passionatley eough about a subject, then you have a right or even an obligation to show that passion by way of destroying other peoples possesions ( interstingly not their own). so from this can we assume that when that select band of football supporters are abroad and are on the rampage, you are sitting in your armchair watching the news, in complete awe as you revel in the passion that is being shown for their beliefs in the world of English Football
You've been sucked into the argument about the means of protest and not the point.
And don't go making leaps of logic that don't stack up to scrutiny. It really doesn't help.
Have not been sucked into anything, just pist off with todays society thinking the best way to resolve things is to have a riot and smash things up
I have not made a leap of logic, you stated that you have respect to anyone who has the passion to carry out damage to express their feelings, are you now saying that there is a limit to which you will follow this respect
Your first sentence makes my point better than I did.
Your second makes another (wrong) assumption that I'm not going to dignify with an answer.
If I assume wrong then correct it !
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous response.0 -
DDD on these changes:
The current system. You get a student loan and you can increase this amount with a hardship loan. Most students I know have a student overdraft. Some have credit cards aimed at students. If you come from a low income family your tuition can be further subsidised. Of all the students I know personally (past, current and just graduated) none were able to pay the entirety of University costs with the loan on its own, North or South. Some had support from parents, others had to work and some had to do both.
Low income backgrounds: Yes the tuition will be largely subsidised. But ultimately the overall and long term cost of studying, coupled with the fact that it needs to be paid back, will now be even less appealing to those who were considering University but had already come to the conclusion that it was too expensive. These increases further deepen that justification.
It is said that they will pay less, they won’t. They may pay less than the equivalent student from a higher income background attending University at the same time. That was always the case. However, they won’t be paying less than the present system.
Middle income backgrounds: Hit hardest. These students will have to pay back the loan amount they borrow and will likely not be eligible for any financial support excluding the hardship loan, which will be added to the total amount of the student loan and that will need to be paid back.
High income backgrounds: If your parents can afford to pay for you to go to University without need for financial support i.e. loan, credit card, job etc. Then more power to these people. But it was true of the last Tory Government, ‘It was fun if you could afford to enjoy it.’ I know a few people who benefit from this privilege. Of course the additional £5750 will add more burden to those people.
The above is true of the system when I went to University, I left in 2005/6 (I forget). As far as I am aware the only thing that has changed is instead of £3,250 and increased living costs, rent, accommodation costs, people will now have to pay £6000 - £9000 for tuition.
Vocational Courses: Vocational courses used to be looked down upon as the domain of those who weren’t academically bright. Took time to identify that intelligence had little to do with it and that some people, for whatever reason, panic during exams or simply don’t respond to the traditional methods of teaching delivered during GCSE’s, A-levels etc. I’ll cite that I found my degree was more like a GNVQ than an A-level. That said there are students who would do well in A-level and not a vocational course, there are those who would do well in a Vocational course and not A-level and some who are just bright and would excel in both. How this translates into profession and career success I believe cannot be measured successfully as there are too many variables (working environment, manager, the individual).
That said vocational courses are a great way to specialise in a singular subject, let’s say sports science, marketing, media that a broad A-level won’t cover.
The thing is you can already get vocational courses such as BTEC’s at GCE/GCSE levels, A-level and degree levels. In regards to Degrees such as media, business and sport science (the ones I know more intimately) there are things that simply cannot be taught at an earlier stage because you need to understand the basics, which the lower levels of the qualifications teach.
So no I don’t accept that this will encourage more people to do vocational courses. To pursue some jobs they will still need to demonstrate a level of competence and skill that a Degree or Degree equivalent will provide them with and they will still need to go to University and incur the costs to get it.
Worthwhile degrees: Best exemplified with this:I'm quite happy for fees to be increased, providing it's based upon how important the course is to the national economy:
Engineers - Free
Geologists - Free
Doctors - £3,000 per year
Physicist - £1,0000 er year
Media Studies - £10,000 per year
PPE - £50,000 per year
And so on....
I think this is rubbish, utter and absolute. For starters society is ever changing, technology evolving and an IT, media, Sports Science or business degree in the 70s may have carried less weight but in today’s World are essential.
How can you put a value on what the vast majority of courses are worth without falling into a snobbish dismissive stance of ‘Your profession defines you’? And so bringing about yet another class divide.
Let me put it this way: I have a friend who is pursuing a career in media, works/ed for channel 4 as an editor. He wouldn’t have got his job if he didn’t get his media Degree where he learned most of the technical editing skills to start his career in editing. He earns circa £25,000 - £28,000. Why should his degree course cost £10,000? Some of you may not see value in it, yet I don’t think I need to explain the impact TV and manipulating the moving image has had on educating and entertaining and enlightening society since its conception.
No, what I think is that the above as with many opinions on where they place value is that the thought was made without proper informed knowledge of what each course entails and its potential wider impact.
Where I stand
My concern with all cuts and increases is the impact it has on society. My one concern is the continued improvement to the quality and education of the society I live in. It’s not through cutting and benefit that we improve life it is through educating and understanding. Teach a person not to take drugs, be racist or eat unhealthy foods and you’ve improved not only the quality of that person’s life but ultimately those closest around them.
Half the reason I read in Newspapers ‘teenager stab, shoots, kills, rapes person’ is because they lack the opportunity in life to aspire to anything more. The people around them lack the same aspirations; the negativity feeds off each other and becomes destructive. We see this and read about this everyday.
Yes I think people need to help themselves, I also think benefits and handouts don’t help in their present format. But equally I think making life improving opportunities more difficult to access is counter productive.
Yes there are other options than getting a Degree, but no one can argue that in this Country a Degree is the industry standard and the first thing look for.
Yes I think some Degrees are peculiar, it is not my place to cast judgement on their worth or the intelligence of the person taking them.
However,
Ultimately I think Education should be made more accessible for all and with these increases I’m not seeing that.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:However,
Ultimately I think Education should be made more accessible for all and with these increases I’m not seeing that.
Totally agreed. These days I'm shocked by the amount of people I deal with that don't even have a basic grasp of spelling and grammar.
However, this I think was what Labour was aiming for when they said 50% of people should go to university. So as a result we have far more people going to university (good), but it turns out that with more people going, it costs a lot more (bad).
These costs need to be met somehow, and this is the way they're going for at the moment. Short of higher taxes/money from some other part of the budget, how else could it be done (genuine question there, not sarcastic honest)?
And I believe that even if people go to university for an apparently worthless degree, just the experience of living away from home, with no-one to push you but yourself helps a person grow up and mature. Of course, YMMV with that...
Full disclosure, I studied Music Technology at university, and currently work as a 'media type' in Soho. Final Cut Pro is my bitch.FCN - 10
Cannondale Bad Boy Solo with baggies.0 -
Dude! Number of people...soundninjauk wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:However,
Ultimately I think Education should be made more accessible for all and with these increases I’m not seeing that.
Totally agreed. These days I'm shocked by the amount of people I deal with that don't even have a basic grasp of spelling and grammar.
*runs away laughing*0 -
JonGinge wrote:
Dude! Number of people...soundninjauk wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:However,
Ultimately I think Education should be made more accessible for all and with these increases I’m not seeing that.
Totally agreed. These days I'm shocked by the amount of people I deal with that don't even have a basic grasp of spelling and grammar.
*runs away laughing*
Aww crap.
:oops:FCN - 10
Cannondale Bad Boy Solo with baggies.0 -
pwned0
-
ketsbaia wrote:And I'll tell you what I respect about the violence. They mean it. They're not writing essays or letters to the Times that will be ignored, they're not writing to their MPs to demand action that will never happen, they're out on the streets saying No. Enough. Stop.
Brilliant.
We could learn a thing or two from the French.
I agree the French Riot Police have freer rules of engagement and get right in there early doors - hey - if violence is an acceptable way to get your point across then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The point I'd like to get across is the law - a pretty good principle - worth kettling a bunch of rioters for? Yep.
The state monopolises the use of violence - that's how it works.
[/u]Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
If one were a cynic, one might wonder whether the Met tacitly permitted the protesting to get a little out of hand. Just to show what might happen a bit more often if deep cuts to the police forces are implemented.
It would not have been beyond them to work out that a big protest was going to attract the usual bunch of SWP/anarchist/professional protester-types.
Everyone has an agenda...0 -
Totally agreed. These days I'm shocked by the amount of people I deal with that don't even have a basic grasp of spelling and grammar.
However, this I think was what Labour was aiming for when they said 50% of people should go to university. So as a result we have far more people going to university (good), but it turns out that with more people going, it costs a lot more (bad).
These costs need to be met somehow, and this is the way they're going for at the moment. Short of higher taxes/money from some other part of the budget, how else could it be done (genuine question there, not sarcastic honest)?
And I believe that even if people go to university for an apparently worthless degree, just the experience of living away from home, with no-one to push you but yourself helps a person grow up and mature. Of course, YMMV with that...
Full disclosure, I studied Music Technology at university, and currently work as a 'media type' in Soho. Final Cut Pro is my *****.
Thing is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop and the other technical programmes aren't things that you learn at A-level or GCSE. So you need to take a Higher Education Qualification to do it. It may not be a Degree but there we are it is in today's society necessary.
As for funding, I think the Coalition has decided not to increase University funding and instead passed the cost (maybe even part of) onto the public in an effort to maintain their focus on reducing public spending.
But that is just my conspiracy theory...Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Greg66 wrote:If one were a cynic, one might wonder whether the Met tacitly permitted the protesting to get a little out of hand. Just to show what might happen a bit more often if deep cuts to the police forces are implemented.
It would not have been beyond them to work out that a big protest was going to attract the usual bunch of SWP/anarchist/professional protester-types.
Everyone has an agenda...
I read reports that the officers were "suprisingly" reluctant to intervene. So you may be on to something....0 -
Greg66 wrote:If one were a cynic, one might wonder whether the Met tacitly permitted the protesting to get a little out of hand. Just to show what might happen a bit more often if deep cuts to the police forces are implemented.
It would not have been beyond them to work out that a big protest was going to attract the usual bunch of SWP/anarchist/professional protester-types.
Everyone has an agenda...
Thought the same thing, Police can be bloody biblical at times and what with all the terror plots, fears, general unrest, stabbings and shootings etc. You'd have thought the cowboys would have been out.
But they can't strike so the next best thing to do is simply not be there when sh*t hits fan...
"that'll remind'em how much we're worth!"Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
Sewinman wrote:Greg66 wrote:If one were a cynic, one might wonder whether the Met tacitly permitted the protesting to get a little out of hand. Just to show what might happen a bit more often if deep cuts to the police forces are implemented.
It would not have been beyond them to work out that a big protest was going to attract the usual bunch of SWP/anarchist/professional protester-types.
Everyone has an agenda...
I read reports that the officers were "suprisingly" reluctant to intervene. So you may be on to something....
Or possibly, with the fallout from the policing of the G20 protests still being dealt with, they are keen not to be seen to have learnt some lessons from that.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
cjcp wrote:
argh you just beat me to itFixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Thing is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop and the other technical programmes aren't things that you learn at A-level or GCSE. So you need to take a Higher Education Qualification to do it. It may not be a Degree but there we are it is in today's society necessary.
...
This is BS. I leaned nothing about the computer programs I use at work in higher education. What I learnt was how to learn (and a whole bunch of technical stuff). The computer programs are just tools. After all most of the software i'm using now was not even possible to run on the hardware available at the time of my degree and that's only 10 years ago.
While I have no particular experience of the s/w mentioned above, I've managed to work with 6 different CAD packages over the years with just the few days training on each (and in some cases little more than the online help and manual).
After all it's not the knowledge of the tool that's important, it's what you do with it.
Having said that, there does seem to be a trend towards requiring a degree in the specifiic area that the job entails. Sometimes this is quite frustrating when you have a well qualified person who's clearly able to pick things up quickly but just happened to do psychology intstead of a "fashion" degree for example.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:As for funding, I think the Coalition has decided not to increase University funding and instead passed the cost (maybe even part of) onto the public in an effort to maintain their focus on reducing public spending.
But that is just my conspiracy theory...
As I'm in the mood for conspiracy theories, I'll chuck another one out there.
If, as people expect, the increase in tuition fees means that fewer people will be able to go to Universities, what does that mean for Universities? Well, they can't all switch over to offering law, medicine, accountancy, management studies and investment banking as degree courses. Not least because there aren't enough vacancies in those professions to accommodate a huge surplus of applicants.
So, some of them are going to close down, for want of business.
Now, one might say that the increase in the number of Universities, and the number of graduates, is not a good thing. It has devalued the cachet of a degree. It has increased the number of graduates (perhaps) at the expense of a decrease in the quality of graduates.
So a bit of natural selection between Unis is a means to undo that little problem.
Different point: with tuition fees going the way they are, who will apply to do classics? Or history? Or English? Some graduates of these subjects use them as stepping stones to other careers , and do very well. But by no means all. Demand for these courses will shrink. So either (a) the departments shrink with them, and these subjects go into a vicious spiral of decline, or (b) these courses become populated by people who can afford the tuition fees and don't have to be overly concerned about loans or repayments. Not good either.
It is also worth remembering that not all lawyers make a ton of cash. The vast majority of lawyers in this country are high street solicitors. That is not an easy way to make money. Same for doctors - not everyone can be a high flying consultant raking in the cash. And lastly, where will the next generation of University lecturers come from under this system? Who will want to be an academic?0 -
will3 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Thing is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop and the other technical programmes aren't things that you learn at A-level or GCSE. So you need to take a Higher Education Qualification to do it. It may not be a Degree but there we are it is in today's society necessary.
...
This is BS. I leaned nothing about the computer programs I use at work in higher education. What I learnt was how to learn (and a whole bunch of technical stuff). The computer programs are just tools. After all most of the software i'm using now was not even possible to run on the hardware available at the time of my degree and that's only 10 years ago.
While I have no particular experience of the s/w mentioned above, I've managed to work with 6 different CAD packages over the years with just the few days training on each (and in some cases little more than the online help and manual).
After all it's not the knowledge of the tool that's important, it's what you do with it.
Having said that, there does seem to be a trend towards requiring a degree in the specifiic area that the job entails. Sometimes this is quite frustrating when you have a well qualified person who's clearly able to pick things up quickly but just happened to do psychology intstead of a "fashion" degree for example.
When I did my degree, I was essentially put in a room full of tools, and told to go away and make something cool. When I'd done that, they told me to do it again, but this time make it cooler. And so it went for the next 3 years. I originally learnt FCP because it was a tool I thought would help solve a problem I had at the time. Now it's my job, because I took the time to learn it.
Also, I hate Photoshop with a passion. After Effects I put up with because what's better at doing the job it does? But Photoshop, you want Pixelmator (on the Mac at least) instead. Awesome bit of software.FCN - 10
Cannondale Bad Boy Solo with baggies.0 -
will3 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Thing is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop and the other technical programmes aren't things that you learn at A-level or GCSE. So you need to take a Higher Education Qualification to do it. It may not be a Degree but there we are it is in today's society necessary.
...
This is BS. I leaned nothing about the computer programs I use at work in higher education. What I learnt was how to learn (and a whole bunch of technical stuff). The computer programs are just tools. After all most of the software i'm using now was not even possible to run on the hardware available at the time of my degree and that's only 10 years ago.
Firstly, 10 years in computer lingo works out to be something like a 4-5 generations especially in early 2000 when computer technology was making huge technological leaps. Anyway....
What course dd you study?
What profession do you currently work in.
If for example you studied Graphic Design now, it is likely you would use Photoshop CS4. However by the time you graduate the industry may be using Photoshop CS6 or 7. The hiring company may let you navigate yourself around it or put you on a training course to help continually develop your skills, what they won't do is hire a complete novice who has no idea of Graphic design is or any concept of photoshop.
I'm not seeing your point.Having said that, there does seem to be a trend towards requiring a degree in the specifiic area that the job entails. Sometimes this is quite frustrating when you have a well qualified person who's clearly able to pick things up quickly but just happened to do psychology intstead of a "fashion" degree for example.
I don't begrudge people who have done a Film and TV Degree and work in Finance. They got a higher education qualification and to me that demonstrates they can apply themselves to a subject at a certain level. = Degree calibre. As a manager it is now for me to shape, nuture and get them training to set them along their career path, while getting the most out of them from the job.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I don't begrudge people who have done a Film and TV Degree and work in Finance.
You can begrudge away - there are so few of them they won't care anyway.....
If you begrudged media studies graduates who didn't work - then you'd be up against the numbersFixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
They don't look like your classic scabby anarchists do they! I thought it was TInnie Tempah and Chipmunk for a sec...!
http://www.elpais.com/fotogaleria/Asalt ... int_2/Zes/0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Firstly, 10 years in computer lingo works out to be something like a 4-5 generations especially in early 2000 when computer technology was making huge technological leaps. Anyway....
that's pretty much my point really. There's little point learning a specific program at university since your first job will probably not use that version/program/whatever anyway and these things are hardly difficult to pick up so long as you have some basic litteracy in pooters.
Far more important is to know what to do with it. For example, there's no point being an expert in photoshoppe if you've no grasp of what you're trying to acheive with it is there? That's being like being able to touch type, but not spell. I've always believed that the learning of the specific tool you're using is something that's best learnt on the job and that the general principles are something you'd be learning at university. In engineering terms, this means that some basic awareness of what you can do with CAD and FEA etc is great, learning to use ProE is not so necessary, since sods law says that the company you'll be applying to uses Inventor.
EngineeringDonDaddyD wrote:What course dd you study?
proffesional websurfer same as youDonDaddyD wrote:What profession do you currently work in.
DonDaddyD wrote:Having said that, there does seem to be a trend towards requiring a degree in the specifiic area that the job entails. Sometimes this is quite frustrating when you have a well qualified person who's clearly able to pick things up quickly but just happened to do psychology intstead of a "fashion" degree for example.
I don't begrudge people who have done a Film and TV Degree and work in Finance. They got a higher education qualification and to me that demonstrates they can apply themselves to a subject at a certain level. = Degree calibre. As a manager it is now for me to shape, nuture and get them training to set them along their career path, while getting the most out of them from the job.
Which is a commendably enlightenend attitude. However, how many job specifications do you see which require this qualification or that experience when you know damn well they just require an aptitude to learn.0 -
Quite. This is one of the arguments against sending so many people to university: possession of a degree has become just a box you need to tick, rather than as a way to learn various skills that are applicable to a number of jobs.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sewinman wrote:They don't look like your classic scabby anarchists do they! I thought it was TInnie Tempah and Chipmunk for a sec...!
http://www.elpais.com/fotogaleria/Asalt ... int_2/Zes/
Am I getting old, or does the chap in the middle look way too young to be an HE student?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
will3 wrote:
Having said that, there does seem to be a trend towards requiring a degree in the specifiic area that the job entails. Sometimes this is quite frustrating when you have a well qualified person who's clearly able to pick things up quickly but just happened to do psychology intstead of a "fashion" degree for example.
Amen to that. I studied Classics for 3 years and have worked in business for 8 years, yet I've been knocked back from job apps for not having the right degree. Fair enough if I was attempting to become an engineer or a doc, but we're talking jobs that you require no special studying to do, just experience, or intelligence and the ability to learn. I worry that with all the focus on the vocational, the more traditional 'Humanities' degrees may suffer, which would be a very bad thing.- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
Which rather illustrates the problem with looking at a degree purely as a way of increasing your potential future earnings - the price of everything and the value of nothing, to coin a cliché1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
will3 wrote:
Which is a commendably enlightenend attitude. However, how many job specifications do you see which require this qualification or that experience when you know damn well they just require an aptitude to learn.
I think where necessary I believe you need to have a degree or qualification that relates directly to the profession you're in. Or can you explain the social constraints of legacy marketing? Supply and Demand and Economies of scales. Proportional Representation in relation to Law or some human resource bollox about motivation... my personal favourite consumer psychology and the logic behind pricing something £2.99 instead of £3.00 (someone wrote a paper on that, which is now elementary).
But I don't think all jobs should demand you have a degree in the given subject.
Also,
Sending so many to University does have its negatives. Pricing it so only rich people can have one does the same thing because it means obtaining a degree is as much about having the skills to get one as it does having the money to pay your way through the time there.
The prospect for Uni for those less fortunate is that it gives them an ideal and ambition. In reality I don't really care if Ja'vondre 'Merky' Dewayne actually goes to Uni. I just want him to know that he can and there are other real options so when he gets to 18 he doesn't think his role in this World is to protect his postcode with a knife.
But what about me and mine....?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
rjsterry wrote:Which rather illustrates the problem with looking at a degree purely as a way of increasing your potential future earnings - the price of everything and the value of nothing, to coin a cliché
Absolutely. University isn't just an exercise in CV padding.0
