RIP Sir Patrick Moore

[geoff]

In message , tony sayer writes

He's only ever visited ANYWHERE as a tourist and doesn't have the first clue as to what is going on ANYWHERE

[geoff]

In message , Arfa Daily writes

There are academics, practical people, literati, time wasters, luvvies, ... such a diverse spectrum with different talents and interests

A university degree is effectively an academic standard to be obtained by academics, not a passport for luvvies to get a qualification in media studies

For a degree to have any value, it needs to be something that requires ability and application to rise above the noise

If half the country has a degree, then it becomes meaningless as a desirable (for employers) qualification and you end up with a situation, as in Thailand, where you need a degree to work in a department store

[Steve Firth]

No you don't. Like most shampoo socialists you assume that views that you can't stand to hear must be associated with something else you don't like.

[charles]

George Brown said he wouldn't rest until the girl behind teh Woolworth's counter had a degree.

"When everyone is somebody, then no-one's anybody." W S Gilber 1889

[harry]

They did and it was free. Furthermore if you worked for a nationalised industry, you would be paid whilst you attended any level of education and all your expenses paid too. As long as you continued to pass exams,they continued to support you. Someone I know got an Msc.

[Bob Martin]

So, so true!

[Tim Lamb]

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Ignoring private schooling they all had the same educational opportunities. There is an argument that some children develop late and that 11 is too soon to make such important decisions. ISTR there was some provision in Hertfordshire for late developers to be transferred.

I don't know enough about current secondary schooling to comment.

>

[Another John]

Ha. At first I reacted to that in the same way you probably do when quoting it.

Then I thought, ah No: I see what he was getting at: he envisaged a society where the girl behind the Woolworths counter was at least as well *educated*[1], and possibly as well paid, as the people she was serving. A truly equitable society, in which all recognize and respect the status of all their fellow citizens.

How awfully, badly, almost all those aims and ideals have gone awry. Working backwards, not even a Woolworths any more! Trouble is: some union workers haven't moved on from GB's 1960s ideals.

John

[1] Where "education" does **not** mean info-stuffing followed by regurgitation for the exam, but immersion in an intellectual environment which enables raw individuals to develop their heritage and their potential as civilized human beings.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

All I do know is disputes between an employer and union are rarely reported accurately - and this was even more the case some time ago. And since you don't have personal experience of all the disputes you are harping on about, you are merely repeating someone else's opinion.

Oh - some of the most successful companies who operate in the UK are unionised.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Thanks for showing your ignorance. Tuition fees may have been covered in most cases, but not living expenses. Which is why many from poor families had to leave eduduction as soon as the law allowed.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Is that why they went bankrupt?

But if you change that for MacDonalds, he may have got his wish. ;-)

[Tim Streater]

Did I imagine getting a local authority grant when I went to uni in the

60s then?

[Davey]

My mate Jim came from a poor background, his dad had died when Jim was still young, and his mother worked as a cook in a nursing home, where she and Jim had a small grace-and-favour flat. They had no little spare money to spend. But because Jim was intelligent, his university tuition and his living expenses were paid by the State. There was an established amount of money that was used as a target, and the amount the State contributed was determined by your parental income, varying from zero to 100%. So I agree with the comments that:

"everyone capable of benefitting from further education got the chance to do so .....and it was free".

This was for university entrance in 1968. If you didn't get enough 'A' Levels, then you were not accepted for a place, so the question did not arise.

[Huge]

Must have been a "folie a deux" then, because I got one too, in the 70s.

[Bob Eager]

Hardly. You got your fees paid (I graduated in 1973) and you also got a means-tested maintenance grant. In my case, my father wasdn't badly off but refused to support me - so I got a job at weekends and in vacations. I survived.

SWMBO came from a family with a low income and she survived too....again with a vacation job where she could get it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

that was in fact the case.

More so than today, anyway.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Quite - so hardly 'free'.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Never heard of student loans?

[Tim Lamb]

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Umm.. slightly sideways.... further education vocational courses in the '60's were pretty much free.

>

[Tim Lamb]

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Yebbut...

The sales pitch was that the loan would be paid back from the extra earnings the degree would bring in. Sort of PFI:-)

If 50% of our students have degrees, why are the employers going to pay them more money?

>