Selfish Ungrateful People

[diddly-dee]

because worm doesn't know what the f**k he's talking about on much of this subject, he wouldn't know that apprenticeships are older than academia in this country, or that - until his hero Thatcher - they were far better respected in society as a whole than degrees (and certainly the degree he has, even amongst just uni graduates at that time).

And he'd also know that if Thatcher hadn't abolished the funding for the govt-supported (supported, not fully funded) apprenticeship scheme at that time, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, because the opportunities for young people would be far better than they've been for the last 30 years (with the expansion of uni's taken fully into account in what I've said there).

While what Thatcher did is extremely sad for the effects it's had (which includes a thick-as-pigshit arrogant arsehole posting the moronic bollocks he's been pulled up on today ), the greatest irony of all about it is that everything they've tried to replace it with since has had far less benefit to those individuals as well as to the country than what it replaced, while being of much greater cost. It was a part of what caused the phrase "knows the price of everything but the value of nothing".

And like at a funfair, the same is coming round yet again. Thatcher thought she could slash and burn her way thru funding of all kinds for the young which caused all of those disastrous effects, and Dave Moron is doing exactly the same thing. The specific targets are different this time - after all, the things Thatcher abolished aren't there to hit again - but the principle is the same, and the results will be too, but to a MUCH greater extent.

Because the difference between now and then is that now is starting from a position of 20% youth unemployment, while back then it all started with youth unemployment at less than 4%.

PS: it should be noted that there's also a significant difference between then and now in the society behind those unemployment percentages - and that's that nearly everyone left school back then at 16, while it's a minority nowadays.

[worm]

it makes just as much sense as stopping someone's education at 16, at 18, at 21, or any other arbitrary age or level of education.

Ultimately, if we went with your idea that everyone should be educated to degree level, why stop there? There's always more to be learnt, and there's always a benefit somewhere from that learning. So just as you say "they don't need an education at school level", it's just as pertinent for someone to say "you don't need an education at degree level".

Edited January 20, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

I'm sure many people gave this rationale for the poll tax back in the 90s. ''Someone more knowledgable than you decided''.

Oh, I'm sure they did. But using the self-serving rationale of an arsehole, something you know about.

If the argument is economic (which I'm convinced it is) then why don't we save more money by cutting the cost of schooling further for people who don't feel that they require a general level of education. That is, if we're saying the cost of further education for all that want it is too expensive and doesn't relate to the requirements of industry, then why isn't this being applied to people at an earlier age.

The argument is not purely economic. If it was just that, then what you suggest would be what happens.

The decision is one based on the economics, along with giving an amount of equal opportunity, and of indirect benefit to society as a whole - after all, it becomes (as an example) difficult to operate a legal system in an adequate way if people don't have the ability to understand its purpose and operation; a similar scenario can be applied to lots of other factors across society.

You don't get it because you refuse to accept any reality, that's all.

[worm]

Oh, I'm sure they did. But using the self-serving rationale of an arsehole.

Edited January 20, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

It was 'patronising', as I recall.

it was. And fascist too.

What I've put forwards isn't self serving, it gives people their own choice.

The above becomes more apparent the longer people are in education and it is not specific to the age of school leavers.

So again, why is education for all after the age of 16 one that can be dismissed because it will not benefit everyone, whereas education below the age of 16 is one that can be considered beneficial to society? There is a clear shift in stance based upon something completely *arbitrary* (* your words).

Do you have any evidence that suggests that compulsory education for all until the age of 16 benefits everyone more than at 21, that is not economic in nature?

As I was suggesting in what I said that this in reply to, a line has to be drawn somewhere, because a case can otherwise be made for endless education.

Where the line is drawn is of course always arbitrary. A decision has to be made about it by someone.

From my point of view, 16 is around right as the age to end compulsory education. At that age ('normal') people are mature, or intellectually developed, enough to properly understand the concepts and operation of society's rule (such as the legal ones), and to make rationale choices for what path they might take into their later life. At a younger age, while they might understand about what's right and wrong, they'll find it more difficult to fully grasp concepts such as the finality of death (which is of course why we have such things as an age of criminal responsibility) which is the ultimate rationale driving our legal system. It's about getting a balance across all such things which a person is able to understand, before their compulsory education is ended.

Beyond 16, then I'd say that little extra understanding is gained of concepts within society. What is gained in later years instead is how best to exploit them or interact with them, but these are things which are leant because of an interest in them or benefit from them. It's the exploitation or interest which is economic in nature, while the grasping of the concepts is societorial (is that even a word? ... still, I'm sure you get it).

No, I have no proof I can give you for why 16 is about right - but there's probably stuff out there which backs up that idea. To me it seems about right.

[worm]

What I've put forwards isn't self serving, it gives people their own choice.

[eFestivals]

So who are you to tell people that they'll benefit from attending school?

I'm telling no one that, unlike you.

I simply laid out some obvious rationale behind why things are as they are, in answer to your question.

So you cannot tell me that the argument for an educated society being better than an uneducated society is wrong because you agree.

On the basis of what you were meaning when you said that, yes I can. You were applying a very specific meaning to 'educated', as well you know.

All you can say is that you disagree on the level of education that is required.

yes, I disagree with you on the level of education - on a sound basis, from the reality of the world. You know, the reality that you don't do.

And because you think that the benefits of an education are for the individual to determine, otherwise we're being patronising, you can't very well tell people whether they should go to school or not due to a particular benefit.

I rest my case.

PMSL - so you're putting forwards a case for all children to be free of parental wants are you? Because that's the only logical outcome of that 'case'.

If you want to make the case for children to be fully independent and free of parental influence and guidance, make that case. Don't spout some worthless bollox and pretend it's something it's not.

(mind you, I should point out that your idea only leads to 100% child death, so you're not alive to make that case ).

[Betsy]

Aye, there's quite a few witless people who can't see the joke too.

'Some people say I'm a hypocondriac, but they don't have cancer do they' is a fundamental classic in black humour Chief.

[worm]

I simply laid out some obvious rationale behind why things are as they are, in answer to your question.

[worm]

Black humour is not everyones cup of liquidized baby

[eFestivals]

Thereby offering the rationale as an argument.

yes, but an argument to have with those who came up with that, and not me.

You laid out the rationale that education betters society using a solid example. You didn't use an example of a standardised education to the age of 16. If you did mean that then you didn't present a relevant example, as showing that a better informed society creates a better functioning society does not exclude further education.

try some cost/benefit analysis.

You clearly pointed out the benefits of an education in your argument. So why can't I point out the benefits of a further education in mine? After all, they're just an extension of the education people get at school.

try some cost/benefit analysis.

[feral chile]

Then they should look away.

[grumpyhack]

Not good enough. 'if you don't like it, don't engage' would rule out any change in the status quo. ideas and attitudes need to be challenged. Otherwise, we don't progress.

30 years ago, i was having to put up with jokes about hanging coats on my nipples, working 'under' men, getting told off for slapping a customer who had the temerity to grope me. and I was fighting my corner, like millions of other women around me.

'if you don't like it get out' is not a viable alternative. 'if you don't like it, change it' is far more acceptable.

[feral chile]

it was. And fascist too.

What I've put forwards isn't self serving, it gives people their own choice.

As I was suggesting in what I said that this in reply to, a line has to be drawn somewhere, because a case can otherwise be made for endless education.

Where the line is drawn is of course always arbitrary. A decision has to be made about it by someone.

From my point of view, 16 is around right as the age to end compulsory education. At that age ('normal') people are mature, or intellectually developed, enough to properly understand the concepts and operation of society's rule (such as the legal ones), and to make rationale choices for what path they might take into their later life. At a younger age, while they might understand about what's right and wrong, they'll find it more difficult to fully grasp concepts such as the finality of death (which is of course why we have such things as an age of criminal responsibility) which is the ultimate rationale driving our legal system. It's about getting a balance across all such things which a person is able to understand, before their compulsory education is ended.

Beyond 16, then I'd say that little extra understanding is gained of concepts within society. What is gained in later years instead is how best to exploit them or interact with them, but these are things which are leant because of an interest in them or benefit from them. It's the exploitation or interest which is economic in nature, while the grasping of the concepts is societorial (is that even a word? ... still, I'm sure you get it).

No, I have no proof I can give you for why 16 is about right - but there's probably stuff out there which backs up that idea. To me it seems about right.

[feral chile]

And 30 years ago Mrs GH was being asked at job interviews if she had a temper to match her red hair.

[worm]

Not good enough. 'if you don't like it, don't engage' would rule out any change in the status quo. ideas and attitudes need to be challenged. Otherwise, we don't progress.

Edited January 22, 2011 by worm

[worm]

And 30 years ago Mrs GH was being asked at job interviews if she had a temper to match her red hair.

Edited January 22, 2011 by worm

[worm]

yes, but an argument to have with those who came up with that, and not me.

Edited January 22, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

That's hardly the same thing though. That joke rests upon a positive embrace of a prejudice against red haired women. Same with the nipple example put forward by feral. That isn't black comedy, it's just unfunny.

What I said said nothing about cancer or people with cancer. It said everything about a hypercondriac. That's black humour.

[worm]

I wasn't sure whether it was making fun of the persistent delusions of hypochondriacs, or referring to the Cry Wolf syndrome. Or both.

[eFestivals]

I specifically said that I could see no reason other than economic, so you're just changing the goal posts again.

No, what you're saying is me moving the goalposts is me showing you that there's more than just the economic to this.

But in regard to just the economic, there's a diminishing return to the overall scenario of education. You get more bang for your buck in educating people from zero up-to a certain mid-point than you do from that mid-point to a high level - and the resources allocated to any govt expenditure is based on what 'the people' feel is fair or what the govt feel 'the people' will stand.

The simple fact is that 'the people' don't back strongly enough your own idea of educating everyone to degree level for it to happen.