Politics, politics, politics

[Grays_1890]

Being a Czech spy, shaking hands with Gerry Adams, laying a wreath on the grave of Jimmy Saville (ok, maybe not that one) -- I just don't give a phuck anymore. I'm tired of this country being sold down the river by spivs. I don't think Corbyn is the messiah who is going to usher in a utopia, but I do think his government would attempt to make some long term decisions for the overall public good.

The problem is I think these actions that people make without thought speak volumes about them generally and the actions away from the words make me doubt the guy hugely. Thats just me maybe

 

[the dza]

If we were starting from scratch, I don't think we'd insist that young adults spend three years drinking themselves silly and going to the occasional lecture, then cramming like bastards and scraping a 2:1, before they are allowed to get sales and admin jobs.

Very few careers need professional qualifications as a precursor to work experience: medicine and law, maybe. University is largely wasted on the young. So let the poor buggers start earning at eighteen, with apprenticeships the default option.

Then we can make higher education freely available to anyone who has racked up ten years NI contributions, has developed an intellectual interest, and wants a sabbatical from wage slavery. Then we could afford to go back to grants.

I think this is a really good idea.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

did you do the mail rail?

Yep. No idea how to put videos on here and not sure I want you freaks knowing what I look like. But you should have seen my face, was like a kid at Xmas.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

If we were starting from scratch, I don't think we'd insist that young adults spend three years drinking themselves silly and going to the occasional lecture, then cramming like bastards and scraping a 2:1, before they are allowed to get sales and admin jobs.

Very few careers need professional qualifications as a precursor to work experience: medicine and law, maybe. University is largely wasted on the young. So let the poor buggers start earning at eighteen, with apprenticeships the default option.

Then we can make higher education freely available to anyone who has racked up ten years NI contributions, has developed an intellectual interest, and wants a sabbatical from wage slavery. Then we could afford to go back to grants.

First time I have agreed with you in the politics thread. Going to look outside and see if the world has ended.

 

[r-u-s-x]

If we were starting from scratch, I don't think we'd insist that young adults spend three years drinking themselves silly and going to the occasional lecture, then cramming like bastards and scraping a 2:1, before they are allowed to get sales and admin jobs.

Very few careers need professional qualifications as a precursor to work experience: medicine and law, maybe. University is largely wasted on the young. So let the poor buggers start earning at eighteen, with apprenticeships the default option.

Then we can make higher education freely available to anyone who has racked up ten years NI contributions, has developed an intellectual interest, and wants a sabbatical from wage slavery. Then we could afford to go back to grants.

28 starting a family for most, not sure the grant will stretch. Great picture of university life but think we may miss the Dr, scientists, chemist's, engineers etc.

There is a link between well educated workforce and productivity

 

[r-u-s-x]

Taking university fees back into general taxation is actually regressive - you are making the poor pay for the rich. The current system sucks because it hammers the lower middle classes, while the rich invest their loans and make on the interest. A graduate tax is the way to do it - all new graduates pay say 7% of their income over £25k for 25 years. That means no personal debt for anyone and people paying fairly based on how well they do out of their education.

The danger of Labour's approach is that the sector will have to be cut at least in half (back to 80s levels), and that HE will become the preserve of the elite again.

Doesn't answer the question why other countries can offer this and we can't .. Incidentally we do win on inequality.

 

[Baleforce]

Yep. No idea how to put videos on here and not sure I want you freaks knowing what I look like. But you should have seen my face, was like a kid at Xmas.

Cool, I really want to do it too, gonna drag my kids along as an excuse

 

[Parklaner81]

If we were starting from scratch, I don't think we'd insist that young adults spend three years drinking themselves silly and going to the occasional lecture, then cramming like bastards and scraping a 2:1, before they are allowed to get sales and admin jobs.

Very few careers need professional qualifications as a precursor to work experience: medicine and law, maybe. University is largely wasted on the young. So let the poor buggers start earning at eighteen, with apprenticeships the default option.

Then we can make higher education freely available to anyone who has racked up ten years NI contributions, has developed an intellectual interest, and wants a sabbatical from wage slavery. Then we could afford to go back to grants.

Love the thinking. Not sure how it'd go down with the snowflakes, but that just makes me like it all the more...

 

[SpurMeUp]

28 starting a family for most, not sure the grant will stretch. Great picture of university life but think we may miss the Dr, scientists, chemist's, engineers etc.

There is a link between well educated workforce and productivity

True! And all those youth's getting smashed and discovering themselves without Uni might be annoying. Agree with @ShipOfGoldblum as well. Why can't we have both?

Roosevelt's New Deal had a choice for returning WWII US service men - get an interest free loan on a house, or have your University Tuition fees paid. It wasn't a big policy at the time, but in retrospect, some see it as one of the most vital policies of the 20th Century. All these experienced people came back to the US, studied, founded companies, became lawyers etc and accelerated the US' rise.

 

[SpurMeUp]

For me, I agree with the broad policies that Corbyn pushes. I think countries like Germany and France have it right when their public utilities are mainly owned by the public, for their benefit. Everyone always says how much better and cheaper rail travel is across Europe, why can their state run their railways but we can't do it here? It's at the absurd point where some of their state run railways have bought some of our rail franchises here, making a profit that benefits the citizens of those other countries instead of our own. I disagree with that for rail, likewise water and energy and Corbyn wants to change it.

Then I agree with Corbyn's Labour on University tuition. I think it's a good aspiration for society to be able to educate the people who want it, free at the point of use (not free, just free at the point of use, we still pay for it as a country).

Finally, I want a government to do something about the very poor and vulnerable in this country. I'm on a low income myself, but I'm not really talking about that, I more mean the homeless etc. Homelessness has risen a lot in the last 8 years and it's not right that one of the richest countries in the world has had a sustained period of rising homelessness.

Corbyn has baggage and is sh1t at certain things. But there's nothing he's said or done that makes me disagree with those broad policies, and there's nothing he's said or done that makes me think he won't at least attempt to carry them out. We've had nigh on 40 years of Thatcher/Reagan just carried on by whoever followed, I think it's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way for a bit now.

Being a Czech spy, shaking hands with Gerry Adams, laying a wreath on the grave of Jimmy Saville (ok, maybe not that one) -- I just don't give a phuck anymore. I'm tired of this country being sold down the river by spivs. I don't think Corbyn is the messiah who is going to usher in a utopia, but I do think his government would attempt to make some long term decisions for the overall public good.

Why are you on low income? Out of choice?

 

[Gutter Boy]

For me, education should be like healthcare. If a rich person has a massive heart-attack, they still end up in an ambulance and in hospital for emergency treatment. The poor (or lower middle-classes if you like) are paying for them. IMO, that doesn't matter, whoever you are if you get sick you should be able to get treatment. I think society would be a better place if education worked along similar lines -- in fairness, it does up until higher education.

For me the more important principle is that everyone case access education to the full extent of their ability. When we start rationing that, it becomes elitist.

HE paid from general taxation would be like free A&E for everyone. But you can't see a specialist, unless your family can afford it.

 

[Gutter Boy]

If we were starting from scratch, I don't think we'd insist that young adults spend three years drinking themselves silly and going to the occasional lecture, then cramming like bastards and scraping a 2:1, before they are allowed to get sales and admin jobs.

Very few careers need professional qualifications as a precursor to work experience: medicine and law, maybe. University is largely wasted on the young. So let the poor buggers start earning at eighteen, with apprenticeships the default option.

Then we can make higher education freely available to anyone who has racked up ten years NI contributions, has developed an intellectual interest, and wants a sabbatical from wage slavery. Then we could afford to go back to grants.

That's neo-liberal revisionism though - to directly associate university with work. For 800 years the purpose of universities have been to civilise their populations. Enrich and improve humanity. Turn sheltered children into critical thinkers. Only the government policies of the last 15 or so years have turned them into sausage factories for white collar industries

For me all people would flourish most if they spend 1/3 of their adult life in education, 1/3 working and 1/3 at leisure (doing these in parallel too)

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

That's neo-liberal revisionism though - to directly associate university with work. For 800 years the purpose of universities have been to civilise their populations. Enrich and improve humanity. Turn sheltered children into critical thinkers. Only the government policies of the last 15 or so years have turned them into sausage factories for white collar industries

For me all people would flourish most if they spend 1/3 of their adult life in education, 1/3 working and 1/3 at leisure (doing these in parallel too)

What do they do for the other third?

 

[Baleforce]

That's neo-liberal revisionism though - to directly associate university with work. For 800 years the purpose of universities have been to civilise their populations. Enrich and improve humanity. Turn sheltered children into critical thinkers. Only the government policies of the last 15 or so years have turned them into sausage factories for white collar industries

For me all people would flourish most if they spend 1/3 of their adult life in education, 1/3 working and 1/3 at leisure (doing these in parallel too)

Is that not the norm now, I spend roughly two thirds of my waking hours at work and half of that time is spent learning new things.

 

[the dza]

Why are you on low income? Out of choice?

Just how things have panned out. Made some mistakes when I was younger, fast forward to mid 30s, I'm married with a young daughter and here we are. I'm not complaining, the time has just gone by quicker than I expected!

 

[Rorschach]

Is that not the norm now, I spend roughly two thirds of my waking hours at work and half of that time is spent learning new things browsing this forum.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Just how things have panned out. Made some mistakes when I was younger, fast forward to mid 30s, I'm married with a young daughter and here we are. I'm not complaining, the time has just gone by quicker than I expected!

Nothing wrong in it, your interested in the world and well read, would prefer to have a chat with you then most. I fell lucky and made money on property, I also ran a locksmith franchise for 9 years which was so hard work nearly 7 days a week all year round. But not sure I was happy, spending more time on yourself and broadening your horizons is more important then money.

Plus you still have time if you want to go out and earn money, you clearly got a brain.

 

[the dza]

Nothing wrong in it, your interested in the world and well read, would prefer to have a chat with you then most. I fell lucky and made money on property, I also ran a locksmith franchise for 9 years which was so hard work nearly 7 days a week all year round. But not sure I was happy, spending more time on yourself and broadening your horizons is more important then money.

Plus you still have time if you want to go out and earn money, you clearly got a brain.

I'm not going on webcam with a bucket of custard, I don't care how phucking nice you are to me.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'm not going on webcam with a bucket of custard, I don't care how phucking nice you are to me.

There are harder ways to make money, plus you get free desert...[emoji23]


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

28 starting a family for most, not sure the grant will stretch. Great picture of university life but think we may miss the Dr, scientists, chemist's, engineers etc.

There is a link between well educated workforce and productivity

The first part of the idea is that everybody can take up to four years of funded higher education, once they have made enough qualifying tax contributions (or whatever the equivalent is for the unemployed - separate discussion, also relevant to qualifying for pensions, benefits etc).

At 28, you might decide to have kids. Or you might decide to cash in your higher education credits. You might well want to do both - after all, you'd have been working and saving for ten years by that point. You might wait until you were forty, or until you retired.

And this is mainly for theoretical work: arts and pure sciences.

The second part of the idea is to reexamine the link between education, training, research and qualification. We know that a well educated workforce is productive. In some cases, there's a link between education (in the sense of training) and productivity. Engineers, as you say, need to learn some fundamental principles before they are let loose on bridge design.

Quite why a sociology graduate is going to be better at software sales is unclear. For the software vendor, the degree evidences a few soft skills, and if the candidate didn't have a degree, he or she would be suspect - because nice, reasonably intelligent kids are meant to have degrees these days. The well-educated workforce may be productive, but quite often it's post hoc ergo propter hoc to argue for a causal link.

So. As you say, we clearly need doctors, chemists and so on. But medical training is already pretty much vocational; it's usually centred around a teaching hospital. It's essentially an NHS apprenticeship delivered in an academic/industry partnership. We don't notice, because the industry in this case is public sector. Why not do the same thing with pharma, civil engineering and so on? Let industry teach the basics, outsourcing some of the learning to academia if they want.

Under this model, a 30 year-old bridge designer would already have a couple of years of relevant, academically-delivered professional training under their belt. At this point, they might spend a couple of state-funded years doing a combination taught and research course in some wider aspect of civic design. Then perhaps, as a 55 year old, sick to the back teeth of bridges, but financially independent, they would spend another two years doing an intensive sociology degree.

A problem with this argument is that there's no incentive for civil engineering firms to train apprentices if there's a global supply of civil engineering graduates. So either this model applies globally, or we have quite a complex series of corporate tax breaks and incentives to make it work.

But it does seem to me that the current dynamic undervalues academic institutions by treating then as a vocational training providers or - worse - as finishing schools for upmarket service economies. My suggestion is just one of the ways in which we could do this better.