"A backward step" say Labour

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34535778

"A backward step" say Labour

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34535778

 

 

Because they see everything as 'class war', the numb cunts.

 

That is what is truly backward.

There's a lot of bleating on the radio this morning about grammar schools saying that they are for middle class children only.

 

The schools admit on academic grounds not social. Ok middle class kids have advantages over working class ones but since when has life been fair?

My nipper gets her 11 plus results in the next couple of weeks. The whole process is a right ballache and there's been many a time I wished I didn't live where we did and didn't have to play the game.

They are biased towards the middle classes now, in the few places that have them. They never used to be. Hence working class Prime Ministers like John Major and others. He would never have made it there without grammar schools.

 

It's partly a red herring anyway because schools already select internally and keep different ability groups apart. There seems no decent reason why they can't select between schools too. The more you send rich kids to the same schools as thugs the more that they will be withdrawn by their parents and sent to the private schools which are bursting at the seams. The clever kids from the estate have no chance but to continue to be hamstrung by the thugs and hence the more exclusive society becomes. The key to social mobility - the only way it can be achieved - is for poor kids to be able to be educated according to their abilities. Nothing else matters.

They are biased towards the middle classes now, in the few places that have them. They never used to be. Hence working class Prime Ministers like John Major and others. He would never have made it there without grammar schools.

 

It's partly a red herring anyway because schools already select internally and keep different ability groups apart. There seems no decent reason why they can't select between schools too. The more you send rich kids to the same schools as thugs the more that they will be withdrawn by their parents and sent to the private schools which are bursting at the seams. The clever kids from the estate have no chance but to continue to be hamstrung by the thugs and hence the more exclusive society becomes. The key to social mobility - the only way it can be achieved - is for poor kids to be able to be educated according to their abilities. Nothing else matters.

The only way is for poor kids to be educated to their abilities.

 

You have perfectly articulated what has been wrong with education over the last 40 years.

 

Each child should have access to the best education for them, not the same as each other.

Since the scrapping of grammar schools there's more formal testing of primary schools than previously. Streaming is undertaken in secondary schools (thankfully) but shows what a load of bollocks this (fair for all system) is.

My nipper gets her 11 plus results in the next couple of weeks. The whole process is a right ballache and there's been many a time I wished I didn't live where we did and didn't have to play the game.

 

 

obvs its a long time since my 11 plus

 

we did verbal reasoning/iq stuff for the state grammar

 

for bolton scchool/bury grammar it was a proper exam and an interview

 

is it proper exams now

Edited October 15, 201510 yr by Casino

They are biased towards the middle classes now, in the few places that have them. They never used to be. Hence working class Prime Ministers like John Major and others. He would never have made it there without grammar schools.

The key to social mobility - the only way it can be achieved - is for poor kids to be able to be educated according to their abilities. Nothing else matters.

Yep. Also extend it to universities too. Far too many places now. Seems to be about quantity not quality. For those who have earned it educationally, there should be no financial dead weight lingering round a person starting out in a career. For people from poorer backgrounds, the concept of being thousands in debt must surely act as a barrier

obvs its a long time since my 11 plus

 

we did verbal reasoning/iq stuff for the state grammar

 

for bolton scchool/bury grammar it was a proper exam and an interview

 

is it proper exams now

Verbal reasoning, non verbal and maths.

 

New exams this year that are supposed to be tutor proof but how true that is I don't know.

Yep. Also extend it to universities too. Far too many places now. Seems to be about quantity not quality. For those who have earned it educationally, there should be no financial dead weight lingering round a person starting out in a career. For people from poorer backgrounds, the concept of being thousands in debt must surely act as a barrier

 

my eldest is one of the first to cop for the 9 grand a year

 

we pay her accomodation but the debt is hers

 

she doesn't have an issue with it

 

if shes not earning she wont be paying it back

 

the country only has so much cash

 

everybody wants to spend more and more on everything

 

where do we stop paying for education?

Think that anyone who undertakes a degree in science, engineering or medicine should be state sponsored and after qualifying should be obliged to contribute back to the state for a minimum of 5 years.

Anyone doing a dogwank degree such as history of pop music or Irish theatre deserve to be lumbered financially.

Actually It's a pity that kids with moderate ability are seduced into further education instead of going down the more sensible route of vocational education and experience.

Think that anyone who undertakes a degree in science, engineering or medicine should be state sponsored and after qualifying should be obliged to contribute back to the state for a minimum of 5 years.

 

i've no problem with that

 

not sure how you could enforce it

 

and its not massively different to being expected to pay back 27 grand when you start earning a decent wedge, is it?

 

fwiw, miss casino has already said she'd have no worries about moving abroad and never paying back the 27k

Maybe get parents to agree to accept financial liability before sponsorship. If Son or Daughter defaults then said parents are liable for the debt?

 

 

where do we stop paying for education?

 

 

We'll never learn

Maybe get parents to agree to accept financial liability before sponsorship. If Son or Daughter defaults then said parents are liable for the debt?

 

 

which probably wont get paid

Aye, good in theory, probably hopeless in practice.

youre just trying to force older folk into poverty!

my eldest is one of the first to cop for the 9 grand a year

 

we pay her accomodation but the debt is hers

 

she doesn't have an issue with it

 

if shes not earning she wont be paying it back

 

the country only has so much cash

 

everybody wants to spend more and more on everything

 

where do we stop paying for education?

That's the whole point.

Plenty of people not going to pay it back because they have their aspiarations unfairly raised. So who foots the bill? The tax payer!

 

Fewer unis and places means less to spend initially. There are only so many positions available each year that genuinely require a degree. Once these are taken by people of the cailbre needed, they start to pay back by means of higher taxation.

As it is too many people with nondescript qualifications will not earn the higher salaries, and will therefore not pay back the money.

In some instances employers are having to introduce their own tests to differentiate between prospective candidates.

I worked for quite a while at UMIST, and the average quality of student changed markedly in that time, as it became a game of numbers, bums on seats bringing in the dosh. Upshot was the lesser able folks who in all reality shouldn't have been there made it more difficult for the better ones.

A better system would be to let universities charge whatever they want and give the best students sharply graded scholarships that they can take to any university they choose.  It can be topped up by parents if need be.  Graduate taxes are pants because most graduates don't have degrees in anything which will make them enough wedge. If a degree does not lead more or less directly to a career it is not worth doing and is not beneficial to the public. 

 

It's all very sad because we've got more and more shit universities, shit degrees and shit students but can't even produce nurses. Or spin bowlers.  

A better system would be to let universities charge whatever they want and give the best students sharply graded scholarships that they can take to any university they choose. It can be topped up by parents if need be. Graduate taxes are pants because most graduates don't have degrees in anything which will make them enough wedge. If a degree does not lead more or less directly to a career it is not worth doing and is not beneficial to the public.

 

It's all very sad because we've got more and more shit universities, shit degrees and shit students but can't even produce nurses. Or spin bowlers.

The youngest of the Boby offspring got a good degree in business and walked into a good job straight away AND he's a good spin bowler.

Currently, the Aussies are enjoying the benefit of both his skills. They appreciate good Pom cricketers. ????

Nothing wrong with academies..

 

 

Anyhow. If they can open selective free schools based on faith. Why not based on ability?

my eldest is one of the first to cop for the 9 grand a year

 

we pay her accomodation but the debt is hers

 

she doesn't have an issue with it

 

if shes not earning she wont be paying it back

 

the country only has so much cash

 

everybody wants to spend more and more on everything

 

where do we stop paying for education?

 

My daughter finished her degree  in June owing about £38k all told. All fair and square like you say.

 

However, the government is freezing the £21,000 threshold for 5 years, something it swore not to do when they brought out the system. See below.

 

My daughter wrote to our MP Jake Berry but got a reply simply stating how committed the government  was in providing opportunities for people to go to uni. He didn't answer her question that she signed up to terms and conditions that should not change. Why not just apply the freeze to new students? 

 

"Students in England who started university in or after 2012 will repay 9% of everything they earn above £21,000 (pre-tax salary) once they graduate. The first repayment will be in 2016, then from the following year the repayment level is due to increase in line with average earnings. This is very important – if it doesn’t increase, in real terms students (ie, factoring out inflation) will be paying an ever increasing proportion of their monthly income on student loans."

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/01/09/a-deliberate-threat-to-the-government-u-turn-on-the-21000-student-loan-repayment-threshold-i-will-organise-mass-protest/?_ga=1.139764211.1768448293.1442255364

 

"Students in England who started university in or after 2012 will repay 9% of everything they earn above £21,000 (pre-tax salary) once they graduate.

 

 

Madness isn't it. When the hell is that going to be for some fucknut with a third in Women's Studies with Forestry from the University of Llandudno? Probably never. Leaving much poorer people to pay for this middle class indulgence out of their much less than £21k salaries.  The good thing about fees is that people who want to study useless nonsense have to pay to do so.

 

We need far, far fewer universities, fewer courses and fewer graduates. Bring back the technical college.

speaking of students

 

some great entertainment on radio 5 just after 7.30 this morning

 

do you know 100k women a year are raped in the uk

 

and groping some womans backside is sexual violence

I wish I never bothered

 

I've not been asked to produce a degree certificate once in the 10 years since leaving (had 4-5 jobs in that time)

 

I studied sciences but didn't really take it seriously and am doing nothing to do with what I studied

 

I left owing circa £16k and hardly touched it for the first few years as it was early in my career and I was barely earning over the threshold. It's now costing me £250 a month and its devastating

 

I wish back then it was £9k a year in fees as it might of made me think twice about wasting my time

 

Alternatively if the government paid the fees would I have been happy about £36k in public money being spent on me pissing about for 4 years? Back then yes, now probably not.

 

I'd be happy with a system which incentivises students to do good degrees that give skills that the country requires such as IT, Maths, medical etc etc

 

if they do well (first class degree or 2.1) then they get the fees wiped off, do it on a sliding scale based on performance

 

If little Tommy wants to go to Leeds on the piss for 3 years doing the study of championship manager then he should pick up the tab