An apology to the youth of the UK
Discussion
I'm sorry. Really, really sorry. My generation has let you all down so badly I feel ashamed. We've allowed a bunch of uninformed, misguided twerps to gain control of the country and create a culture of mediocrity based on the politics of envy.
Your rights to an education that would allow you to achieve your potential and contribute everything you can to our society have been gradually eroded. They have now decided to take these rights away completely.
Our parents generation created a Britain in which Tuition fees and a real liveable grant were paid to students. So that anyone with the academic or practical talenta could go to a University or a Polytechnic or a Technical College, as appropriate, and learn how to make something of themselves.
It appears that we have decided not to continue this worthy policy. Instead we have created a system in which it is impossible to know what talents an individual has because failure at examinations discriminates against those who cannot pass them. So instead of sharing out the education resources of our country based on ability to benefit from them we have decided to share them out based on who can afford to pay for them.
When I hit eighteen I went to a Polytechnic. Not a University. Why? Because I was not a great academic - I was more practical. I got a vocational education to degree level. It was paid for by the State because my parents could not have afforded to send me. All three of my siblings went to University. My parents certainly could not have afforded to pay for all of us.
I have since gone on to pay a vast amount of tax. I've paid for my education many times over. The country has benefited from me in tax - and also in employment because I formed my own business and employed people. Paid them well too - so they were able to pay tax. Britain got a good deal out of me. It should get a good deal out of you...whilst looking after your personal interests too.
So I apologise. I'm deeply sorry. You won't get the chance to do what I did because Mum and Dad aren't rich.
What have we done.
Your rights to an education that would allow you to achieve your potential and contribute everything you can to our society have been gradually eroded. They have now decided to take these rights away completely.
Our parents generation created a Britain in which Tuition fees and a real liveable grant were paid to students. So that anyone with the academic or practical talenta could go to a University or a Polytechnic or a Technical College, as appropriate, and learn how to make something of themselves.
It appears that we have decided not to continue this worthy policy. Instead we have created a system in which it is impossible to know what talents an individual has because failure at examinations discriminates against those who cannot pass them. So instead of sharing out the education resources of our country based on ability to benefit from them we have decided to share them out based on who can afford to pay for them.
When I hit eighteen I went to a Polytechnic. Not a University. Why? Because I was not a great academic - I was more practical. I got a vocational education to degree level. It was paid for by the State because my parents could not have afforded to send me. All three of my siblings went to University. My parents certainly could not have afforded to pay for all of us.
I have since gone on to pay a vast amount of tax. I've paid for my education many times over. The country has benefited from me in tax - and also in employment because I formed my own business and employed people. Paid them well too - so they were able to pay tax. Britain got a good deal out of me. It should get a good deal out of you...whilst looking after your personal interests too.
So I apologise. I'm deeply sorry. You won't get the chance to do what I did because Mum and Dad aren't rich.
What have we done.
:sigh: It's difficult isn't it.
how did everything get so fcuked up?
There's one thing for sure - there's no way you can accept any burden of responsibility for this, Don..
And my father gave me the same "Really, really sorry. My generation has let you all down so badly I feel ashamed." speech.. he's a good 25 years older than you.
It's really a legacy of all kinds of things that have happened in the world.. global capitalism, technology, liberalism(*). These are good things, but in anything, the so called visionaries who brought these concepts into reality had no idea of how profoundly what they were doing would affect people's lives for generations to come.
Anyway Don, things could be an awful lot worse.. you could still live in Wales.. they're the ones you should be apologising to
* By liberalism, I mean classical liberalism which is more akin to modern libertarianism, not progressive liberalism which is what left-liberals in the Lib Dems and Mu Labia espouse.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Wednesday 22 January 10:54
how did everything get so fcuked up?
There's one thing for sure - there's no way you can accept any burden of responsibility for this, Don..
And my father gave me the same "Really, really sorry. My generation has let you all down so badly I feel ashamed." speech.. he's a good 25 years older than you.
It's really a legacy of all kinds of things that have happened in the world.. global capitalism, technology, liberalism(*). These are good things, but in anything, the so called visionaries who brought these concepts into reality had no idea of how profoundly what they were doing would affect people's lives for generations to come.
Anyway Don, things could be an awful lot worse.. you could still live in Wales.. they're the ones you should be apologising to
* By liberalism, I mean classical liberalism which is more akin to modern libertarianism, not progressive liberalism which is what left-liberals in the Lib Dems and Mu Labia espouse.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Wednesday 22 January 10:54
I symapthise with Don on why he went to a polytechnic, I'm rubbish at exams, which is why I didn't do A levels, I chose the ND because it's based more on the practical side of things, which is my forte.
Personally I think there should be more of a practical emphasis in the standard curriculum as many people I know are in the same boat.
Graham.J said:
I symapthise with Don on why he went to a polytechnic, I'm rubbish at exams, which is why I didn't do A levels, I chose the ND because it's based more on the practical side of things, which is my forte.
Personally I think there should be more of a practical emphasis in the standard curriculum as many people I know are in the same boat.
You might be supprised how vocational a modern degree is exp a 'new' unis i.e ex polys. Being awful at exams I went the ND then HND route then after realising how little work the degree lot did I went for a BSC Hons in a related area to my HND subject
While I can't say it was easy, it wasnt the struggle I would have had years ago when the majority of the marks came from the final exams as so much for me was coursework & projects based.
iguana said:
You might be supprised how vocational a modern degree is exp a 'new' unis i.e ex polys.
While I agree totally, with what you are saying, there is still the small matter of paying to attend any uni now.
There is a further problem in that modern, vocational degrees, include a lot more practical work. This will incur further funding, when compared to the classic degrees, which involved one person standing infront of a 100 or so students, and then sending them away to do the thesis.
This extra funding needed can only be got from top up fees. Hence the more 'useful' degrees will cost even more.
As it stands the purpose of the education system seems to be the production of statistics about a person for the benefit if their future employers. To my mind that is utterly arse about tit.
Surely it should be about learning and developing an understanding of the things you are good at while growing in parallel a broad knowledge base from which to go into the world. The completion of an A-level course or a Degree is not the only way of showing an employer you are able to stick at what you are doing. The educational culture is one which seems only to make most people feel worthless and a few feel superior. A successful education system should produce young people who all feel they have something to contribute, the current situation makes that impossible. GCSES have become so ridiculous that no employer cares about them as everybody passes them, proving my point about the system being focussed on the wrong people.
It will stay that way for as long as successive governments continue to believe in a 'one size fits all' approach to public services. The current lot are a total waste of time.
Surely it should be about learning and developing an understanding of the things you are good at while growing in parallel a broad knowledge base from which to go into the world. The completion of an A-level course or a Degree is not the only way of showing an employer you are able to stick at what you are doing. The educational culture is one which seems only to make most people feel worthless and a few feel superior. A successful education system should produce young people who all feel they have something to contribute, the current situation makes that impossible. GCSES have become so ridiculous that no employer cares about them as everybody passes them, proving my point about the system being focussed on the wrong people.
It will stay that way for as long as successive governments continue to believe in a 'one size fits all' approach to public services. The current lot are a total waste of time.
sorry Don, I can't agree with your sentiment.
As far as I'm concerned the uni grants system has always been ridiculous.
My personal view is that there's no halfway house on undergraduate finance - either give everyone a reasonable grant plus free tuition (regardless of what their parents earn) or charge for a degree.
If a degree is worthwhile (not Media Studies then) people should be prepared to pay for it, if not then they should do something more worthwhile - vocational training or just get a job.
Paying for a degree afterwards invalidates the old argument about working class students not being able to afford uni.
As far as I'm concerned the uni grants system has always been ridiculous.
My personal view is that there's no halfway house on undergraduate finance - either give everyone a reasonable grant plus free tuition (regardless of what their parents earn) or charge for a degree.
If a degree is worthwhile (not Media Studies then) people should be prepared to pay for it, if not then they should do something more worthwhile - vocational training or just get a job.
Paying for a degree afterwards invalidates the old argument about working class students not being able to afford uni.
This extra funding needed can only be got from top up fees. Hence the more 'useful' degrees will cost even more.
Sorry, when the current obsession with herding 50% of young people into university wasn't so it was quite practical to pay for everyone's tuition fees. Even at the moment the shortfall is in the region of 50 million quid, 1/20th the cost of the dome, and an insignificant sum of cash compared to the amount we are about to spend on a war that less than 50% of the country want. It's a matter of priorities.
plotloss said: An education system based on the retention of information rather than the application of intelligence is fundamentally flawed IMHO.
Matt.
Spot on.
Too many people educated way beyond their intelligence.
(To be repeated ad nauseum until neo-feudalism is restored and the peasantry redirected to it's natural vocation in the fields {how sweat a dream...})
As long as the intelligentsia continue their egalitarian bleatings, I fear Albion will forever lie under the current spell of self doubt and introspective
loathing.
Give the troops some Goddam decent firepower and let's reclaim our fallen majesty and vindicate the sacrifices of our glorious fathers.
Marvellous.
Intersting points! Worthy of rebuttal.
That's no problem. Diversity of views makes for interesting debate!
OK. and...
Damn straight. My view is that everyone should get free tuition and a liveable grant.
One might well be prepared to pay. But how can one afford it?
Right. This is where I disagree totally. A child from a wealthy background will be able to rely on choosing any education they see fit. Worthwhile or not. Safe in the knowledge that when they enter the world of employment every penny they earn (after tax) can be spent on getting on in life.
Its a huge advantage.
Those from less well off background will find themselves deciding: "Do I just get a job so that by the time I'm 21 I can start saving for a deposit on the mortgage of a house I can live in...or do I saddle myself with a 16K debt"
16K is a HUGE chunk of AFTER TAX money. In my youth it would have taken YEARS to save that amount...the very time one will need to pay it back.
Graduates already enter working (contributing) society behind on their career, pay increments, and position in life. It takes some years for them to catch up - during which time they sacrifice quality of life now for a percieved (possible) benefit later.
So. They assess on that basis whether or not its worth it to them. This 16K debt will swing many, many more individuals to the point of view that it is not worth it qualifying to degree level.
This hamstrings not just them - but our whole society - which no longer benefits from the additional achievments they can make.
Anyone who believes that education does not make a difference to what individuals achieve is fooling themselves.
To finalise my argument. Its bad for individuals not to take all the education that they can get. Its bad for society that they don't. A policy that deliberately excludes individuals from as much education as they can benefit from on the basis of the amount of money their parents can spend on them is unjust, uneconomic and unforgiveable.
IMHO of course. Forget culling the stupid. We'll all be stupid in a generation if this lot continue.
NDT said: Sorry Don, I can't agree with your sentiment.
That's no problem. Diversity of views makes for interesting debate!
As far as I'm concerned the uni grants system has always been ridiculous.
OK. and...
My personal view is that there's no halfway house on undergraduate finance - either give everyone a reasonable grant plus free tuition (regardless of what their parents earn) or charge for a degree.
Damn straight. My view is that everyone should get free tuition and a liveable grant.
If a degree is worthwhile (not Media Studies then) people should be prepared to pay for it, if not then they should do something more worthwhile - vocational training or just get a job.
One might well be prepared to pay. But how can one afford it?
Paying for a degree afterwards invalidates the old argument about working class students not being able to afford uni.
Right. This is where I disagree totally. A child from a wealthy background will be able to rely on choosing any education they see fit. Worthwhile or not. Safe in the knowledge that when they enter the world of employment every penny they earn (after tax) can be spent on getting on in life.
Its a huge advantage.
Those from less well off background will find themselves deciding: "Do I just get a job so that by the time I'm 21 I can start saving for a deposit on the mortgage of a house I can live in...or do I saddle myself with a 16K debt"
16K is a HUGE chunk of AFTER TAX money. In my youth it would have taken YEARS to save that amount...the very time one will need to pay it back.
Graduates already enter working (contributing) society behind on their career, pay increments, and position in life. It takes some years for them to catch up - during which time they sacrifice quality of life now for a percieved (possible) benefit later.
So. They assess on that basis whether or not its worth it to them. This 16K debt will swing many, many more individuals to the point of view that it is not worth it qualifying to degree level.
This hamstrings not just them - but our whole society - which no longer benefits from the additional achievments they can make.
Anyone who believes that education does not make a difference to what individuals achieve is fooling themselves.
To finalise my argument. Its bad for individuals not to take all the education that they can get. Its bad for society that they don't. A policy that deliberately excludes individuals from as much education as they can benefit from on the basis of the amount of money their parents can spend on them is unjust, uneconomic and unforgiveable.
IMHO of course. Forget culling the stupid. We'll all be stupid in a generation if this lot continue.
mr_tony said:
It's a matter of priorities.
Agreed. However Tony and co, have set the priorities, and higher education isn't high on the list. So there is a shortfall of cash.
The point I was trying to get across, is that useful/practical HE costs more than traditional talk and chalk. Therefore, people doing these will have to pay more, because the course costs more to deliver.
Well said Don.. agree 100%... 29 this year and still paying off my Student Loans.. I was lucky however, I got in when there was still a bit of a grant left, if I was 2 years younger I would not have gone to Uni simply because I couldn't afford the debt afterwards.. and as you so rightly say, a morgage company aren't going to be too impressed with 15-20k's worth of debts. 
Matt.
Matt.
derestrictor said: Too many people educated way beyond their intelligence.
Clearly one needs examinations which guide individuals into pursuing both education and/or a career path which will suit them - and maximise their contribution to society.
And yes - 50% going to University? This would mean that university can no longer possibly be the education it was supposed to be. Degrees in Hairdressing? Whaaaaat?
BUT. University is not the only further education. In our old system we had Polytechnics - which provided degrees of a similar academic standard but in more vocational subjects. We had Technical Colleges which specialised in hands-on subjects. These are NOT unworthy places to go. These are places which suit people of different aptitudes and talents.
More education for all. It is dangerous to think we should educate people of little academic achievement less - that just minimises what they can do for society. What we SHOULD do is channel their education to that which suits them best...thereby society gains.
And finally a point to consider:
It is proposed that students should exit University with a debt of 16K. What about other educational establishments - shouldn't they be treated equally? That is - once you have your degree in Hairdressing shouldn't you have to pay that back too. I'll bet a two year course in that costs 9K. Should they have to pay that back?
Once you've taken it that far what about sixth-form college? Or PRIMARY SCHOOL. Maybe we should make the little gits pay for it out of their pocket money, eh?
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff