Violent Protests As Mps Vote To Raise Tuition Fees

[Albert Tatlock]

I think there is a case; albeit maybe a temporary case in tougher times; for the needs of the national interest to be served first.In other words, engineering, maths, biology, art, language, business courses etc. (University or local college) should be ranked in terms of 'likely future economic benefit' and 'current skill shortages' etc. (I am not deigning the assessment criteria here).

 

This would prioritise where the money would be spent encourage more people to 'fill the required national gaps' and would be a system more likely to lead to longer term prosperity - and only then the ability to offer far wider course choices.

 

In the meantime, in these tough times,if you want to do a course that is not needed, then go ahead, but pay for it yourself please - perhaps after you have argued the case for getting funding.

[jimbms]

Do we think university should be entirely work related? In other words, should university only offer courses that are relevant to the job market?

Of course not, why should society and individuals pay thousand out to learn a subject and then have to work, better they pick a subject that has no use in the work environment then stay on the dole claiming benefits and let those from poorer families who could not affort to go to uni work 9 to 5 in some meanial job just so they can keep the better educated well off on benefits so they can enjoy their gifted education at a leasurely pace

[pongo]

I think there is a case; albeit maybe a temporary case in tougher times; for the needs of the national interest to be served first.In other words, engineering, maths, biology, art, language, business courses etc. (University or local college) should be ranked in terms of 'likely future economic benefit' and 'current skill shortages' etc. (I am not deigning the assessment criteria here).

 

Predominant private view of the City seems to be that Europe (including Britain) is stuffed because of costs. = fewer and fewer jobs. If that is what they think in private then it may very well be a self fulfilling prophecy. You would find it difficult to find anyone in the City with an optimistic outlook with respect to jobs in the UK.

 

The type of degrees which people study for is not going to change the economic outlook because the issues are structural and / or to do with international trends in general.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think there is a case; albeit maybe a temporary case in tougher times; for the needs of the national interest to be served first.In other words, engineering, maths, biology, art, language, business courses etc. (University or local college) should be ranked in terms of 'likely future economic benefit' and 'current skill shortages' etc. (I am not deigning the assessment criteria here).

 

This would prioritise where the money would be spent encourage more people to 'fill the required national gaps' and would be a system more likely to lead to longer term prosperity - and only then the ability to offer far wider course choices.

 

In the meantime, in these tough times,if you want to do a course that is not needed, then go ahead, but pay for it yourself please - perhaps after you have argued the case for getting funding.

We're always going to have tough times again and again though. It is the see-saw of modern economics. I can't think how it would be practical or fair to periodically alter the criteria for what courses people can take dependent on whether the economy takes a turn for the worse.

And for those who hold an opinion similar to yours, do you think they will be amenable to agreeing that less essential courses be taught again in better times? I think this is doubtful.

[Lonan3]

Do we think university should be entirely work related? In other words, should university only offer courses that are relevant to the job market?

Of course not, why should society and individulas pay thousand out to learn a subject and then have to work, better they pick a subject that has no use in the work environment

I would argue that there is no such thing. The skills learned are not about the mere gathering and retention of disparate facts and figures but, for example, about the processes of analysis, comprehension and presentation. The ability to study a subject, in depth, by applying such skills has considerable value in a working environment and, for all the tendency to stereotype and mock the student lifestyle, the simple fact is that most students take their studies very seriously and benefit greatly from the experience of attending university.

Ultimately, only a complete Philistine could seriously argue that education can ever be wasted.

[VinnieK]

I would argue that there is no such thing. The skills learned are not about the mere gathering and retention of disparate facts and figures but, for example, about the processes of analysis, comprehension and presentation.

 

Exactly. It's a near complete misunderstanding of the entire purpose of higher education to say "tsch! What's the point in that?". A classical education/an education in the liberal arts was and in some places still is valued not because of the practical 'skills' and knowledge directly learned, but because it was deemed appropriate subject matter for the kind of training of the mind necessary to produce people who could think critically and analytically whatever the context or subject matter.

[bellyup]

I would argue that there is no such thing. The skills learned are not about the mere gathering and retention of disparate facts and figures but, for example, about the processes of analysis, comprehension and presentation.

 

Exactly. It's a near complete misunderstanding of the entire purpose of higher education to say "tsch! What's the point in that?". A classical education/an education in the liberal arts was and in some places still is valued not because of the practical 'skills' and knowledge directly learned, but because it was deemed appropriate subject matter for the kind of training of the mind necessary to produce people who could think critically and analytically whatever the context or subject matter.

 

Cant they learn this alongside a practical application?

[Terse]

 

Exactly. It's a near complete misunderstanding of the entire purpose of higher education to say "tsch! What's the point in that?". A classical education/an education in the liberal arts was and in some places still is valued not because of the practical 'skills' and knowledge directly learned, but because it was deemed appropriate subject matter for the kind of training of the mind necessary to produce people who could think critically and analytically whatever the context or subject matter.

 

Cant they learn this alongside a practical application?

If the skills can, as Vinnie K says, be employed in so many practical applications, why would it be beneficial to direct them to just one? I know that there are exceptions - those who direct their education towards a specific area such as medicine, education, law etc - but surely it benefits everyone to have a pool of talent available for other tasks that require such skills.

[VinnieK]

Cant they learn this alongside a practical application?

 

I think it would be difficult. Both vocational/practical and a more abstract general education tend to be very time consuming* and don't mix fantastically well. The basic idea is that to teach fine critical and reasoning skills you need a particularly rich and complicated topic to focus on, but in order to be in a position to work with that topic a person has to have a vast amount of background knowledge of both the topic and the various schools of thought surrounding it.

 

For a lot of literature courses, for instance, it's not that unusual to expect students to conduct a close reading of four or more books (plus additional secondary reading material) within a week to a level where they can analyse the content as well as reading and most importantly understanding very intricate critical pieces. This is no mean feat and shouldn't be dismissed: I challenge anyone to go out and buy, say Bleak House, T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland, and Othello, and something like l.A. Richard's Principles of Literary Criticism, go through all four at sufficient depth to comment upon them at a deeper level than simple appreciation of broad themes and offer an intelligent analysis of the philosophical problems and/or shortcomings of the citical piece within a similar amount of time.

 

As far as I can see, combining the two would be counter productive and would only end up with people getting a superficial grasp of both the practical or the abstract components of the course.

 

Also, what practical skills are you thinking of? Most practical skills are either so specialized that there's an argument that they're better provided by professional training within industry, or so general (such as basic IT skills) that they could easily be incorporated into secondary education where they'd benefit a lot more people.

 

*see Lonan's comment. For all the mockery of the laid back lifestyle of students, to actually do well on most degrees does require hard work and more often than not time spent on it that comes close to and sometimes exceeds a working week, especially in the latter years/postgraduate study.

[jimbms]

Do we think university should be entirely work related? In other words, should university only offer courses that are relevant to the job market?

Of course not, why should society and individulas pay thousand out to learn a subject and then have to work, better they pick a subject that has no use in the work environment

I would argue that there is no such thing. The skills learned are not about the mere gathering and retention of disparate facts and figures but, for example, about the processes of analysis, comprehension and presentation. The ability to study a subject, in depth, by applying such skills has considerable value in a working environment and, for all the tendency to stereotype and mock the student lifestyle, the simple fact is that most students take their studies very seriously and benefit greatly from the experience of attending university.

Ultimately, only a complete Philistine could seriously argue that education can ever be wasted.

Please if you are going to quote do it so it gets the entire meaning and not as LDV does selective bits, if you look at the entire statement it means as LDV stated that they should be able to do degrees that do not have use and as for stying then why can't an electrician or a plumber or a mechanic also do other jobs with ease after all are you not saying they did not spend years doing study to achieve what they have, are you now saying a tradesman does not deserve the same credit for being able to study just because he did not go to uni mind you the difference there is they also had to hold down as job as well as study and not spend spare time pissing it up in a union bar, strange thing is everone who defends uni life say how hard it is, all four members of our family have been there 2 of them twice all 4 done science or engineering degrees and all agree it was a bloody good piss up and a easy life, so if science and engineering is easy how bloody easy are some of the ones with even less lectures and required study. I have to say I found my time as an a[pprentice and doing a HND whilst also working was a bloody sight harder both academically and physically than my degree.

[VinnieK]

are you now saying a tradesman does not deserve the same credit for being able to study just because he did not go to uni mind you the difference there is they also had to hold down as job as well as study and not spend spare time pissing it up in a union bar,

 

Neither Lonan nor anyone else was saying anything of the sort.

 

strange thing is everone who defends uni life say how hard it is, all four members of our family have been there 2 of them twice all 4 done science or engineering degrees and all agree it was a bloody good piss up and a easy life,

 

Perhaps that casts a poorer reflection on you as a student or the course you were on, than it does the general situation.

 

so if science and engineering is easy how bloody easy are some of the ones with even less lectures and required study.

 

Utter toss. I'd say that often a humanities course requires more work in the form of sheer amount of reading, and much more independent study to do well than do the sciences.

 

Edited to add:

 

Wait a cotton picking moment...

 

Simple solution, if you can't afford to go to uni do like we had to, do an apprenticeship, study hard in your own time and get your degree via open learning

 

all four members of our family have been there (university)

 

and let's not forget...

 

I am pleased you chose there instead of contaminating Cambridge with your small minded view, I may have been prompted to hand my degree back to Kings had they allowed your plebeian self in.

 

So if I'm following this right, you did a distance learning degree at Cambridge, but nevertheless spent most of your time in the student bar. C'mon, enough is enough.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Watch it VinnieK, you have split Jimbms's post into discrete parts. No doubt you will be accussed of cherry-picking for missing out the most significant sections of his posts.

[jimbms]

Edited to add:

 

Wait a cotton cherry picking moment... (corrected)

 

Simple solution, if you can't afford to go to uni do like we had to, do an apprenticeship, study hard in your own time and get your degree via open learning

 

all four members of our family have been there (university)

Correct I did my apprenticeship then HND then I did an open learning degree which you finish off at a uni, the we was refering to many of the people in the 70's who's parents could not afford uni for their kids even with the grants then, my wife a lot younger than I and came from a different background, my kids I made sure money was put aside from birth for them. or are you so anal and pedantic I need to explain every context of the word we I use, if it refers to who I am stood next to at the moment , my immediate family or my generation, or are you capable of thinking first.

and let's not forget...

 

I am pleased you chose there instead of contaminating Cambridge with your small minded view, I may have been prompted to hand my degree back to Kings had they allowed your plebeian self in.

 

So if I'm following this right, you did a distance learning degree at Cambridge, but nevertheless spent most of your time in the student bar. C'mon, enough is enough.

Have you ever heard of taking the piss out of the poster who that was directed at because i.e.salford, if you add my reply to you on that date you where you mentioned about the uni you will remember I said

VinnieK, hush now we are baiting the Troll not each other

or was that coveniently forgotten or omitted

Now are you going to continue this stupid vendetta you have continually made against every post I have made over the last 3 yrs or are you going to stalk someone else and make notes on every comment.

[VinnieK]

Now are you going to continue this stupid vendetta you have continually made against every post I have made over the last 3 yrs or are you going to stalk someone else and make notes on every comment.

 

It's not a vendetta Jim, and it's nowhere near every post. The fact is you frequently make points or arguments which you try to back up with anecdotal evidence. Of course we all do that, but so often there's something so very iffy when you do it: inconsistencies arise, your story changes here and there, proclaimed cast iron evidence or statistics never materialize when challenged. You insinuate this about yourself, or cite such and such a fact, bandy about a figure from some suspiciously mysterious source, all with a nudge and a wink. Sometimes you alter your facts when confronted, claiming an honest mistake was made, then alter it again, and so on before finally abandoning it in the face of overwhealming evidence, or you just disappear and hope everyone forgets. Time and time again it happens, and it just makes you look like you're bullshitting your way through every discussion.

 

Hell, here's just one inconsistency, and one relevant to the topic of this thread. When you were banging on about having done maths and physics (later to become modules in maths and physics) you stated "it's bloody hard work". Now you're on here telling us that the great council of jimbob and family all found their degrees in science and engineering really easy and just pissed around the whole time, so everyone else must be dicking around even more. So which is it then? Of course, back then it suited you for it to be hard work, because you were having a go at 'Micky Mouse' degrees (and I don't think I'm wrong in detecting a hint of a self aggrandizing swagger there either), now when it comes to protests and university funding it suits you to say it was easy because that way you can justify your argument and of course still strut about playing the whole "it was dead easy that" card that most people grow out of by their A-levels.

 

Just to clarify, I couldn't give a toss what you did or what your qualifications are, or what you do now; neither inherently validates or devalues a person's opinion. I'm not even particularly bothered about who's right and who's wrong: the worth of any discussion is in the act of discussion itself and the chance to learn something and to test your own conclusions and reasoning in the crucible of argument. What bothers me, and I confess that it does annoy me, is this flakey, underhand tendency of changing stories and so on whenever and however is most convenient and the posturing that goes along with it, especially when it so frequently entails labelling a whole subsection of the population as lazy and/or wasteful.

[jimbms]

OK you are of course correct in every aspect, I expect you are also pure Manx