National debt - BAD. Student debt - GOOD.

13»

Comments

  • TimCypherTimCypher Posts: 9,052
    Forum Member
    You couldn't possibly do that for every applicant for every subject. Take Manchester, that is an absolutely huge university. They could never handle that bureaucracy and lengthy process.

    Well, intrinsic in my thinking is that universities shouldn't have so many people passing through them...

    But, even without that, you can implement an admittance programme in stages, and technology can be a terrific enabler here.

    For example, in my company, we have plenty of folk apply for jobs, far more than there are folk available to interview them, especially with the current workload.

    So, a few years back, we introduced an online psychometric test - takes about 45 minutes to complete - results delivered instantly to corporate HR - and we used that as a pre-filter to determine who would move to stage 2, which, in our case, was a full-blown interview.

    Why not go for something like that?

    Regards,

    Cypher
  • Judge MentalJudge Mental Posts: 18,593
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    Because we can't afford it.

    Like every single last one of the cuts that will be made (and would have been made whoever was in power), this is a step backwards for us as a society. Unfortunately stepping forwards ultimately leads us over the edge.

    We can't afford not to have an educated population - and I simply don't believe the Tory rhetoric about the country being close to bankruptcy - yes some reduction in public spending was needed. But this is just a short term hatchet job.

    Better to step forwards and see where you are going than blindly fall backwards into an even bigger hole.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We can't afford not to have an educated population - and I simply don't believe the Tory rhetoric about the country being close to bankruptcy - yes some reduction in public spending was needed. But this is just a short term hatchet job.

    Better to step forwards and see where you are going than blindly fall backwards into an even bigger hole.

    There's nothing blind or bigger about it. We're falling back to the same level of public expenditure as in 2006. Unless everyone's suddenly been struck with short-term memory loss, people shouldn't have any trouble remembering what that was like.

    Don't listen to Tory rhetoric - listen to Labour instead. They recognised the imperative of cutting public spending too (and still do). This odd idea on DS that their cuts would somehow have been palatable compared the Coalition is a joke. Labour's program of cuts were more than 82% of the Tories' - a figure that grows over time as the effect of delaying the cuts disappears. If you think they wouldn't have been forced into taking similar actions, you're dreaming.
  • carnivalistcarnivalist Posts: 4,565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I didn't vote for labour-Liberal-Conservative either, but 80% of the electorate sadly do.

    No they don't. Only 65% of the electorate voted last time. so the main parties combined probably polled less than 40% of the actual electorate. The ConDem coalition may even have polled less than 50% of the electorate - even though they obviously combine two major party's votes. Most governments don't have much more than a third of the electorate's votes IIRC.

    Perhaps Abraham Lincoln should have said, "but you can fool one-in-three people once every five years"
  • Judge MentalJudge Mental Posts: 18,593
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    There's nothing blind or bigger about it. We're falling back to the same level of public expenditure as in 2006. Unless everyone's suddenly been struck with short-term memory loss, people shouldn't have any trouble remembering what that was like.

    Don't listen to Tory rhetoric - listen to Labour instead. They recognised the imperative of cutting public spending too (and still do). This odd idea on DS that their cuts would somehow have been palatable compared the Coalition is a joke. Labour's program of cuts were more than 82% of the Tories' - a figure that grows over time as the effect of delaying the cuts disappears. If you think they wouldn't have been forced into taking similar actions, you're dreaming.

    I don't think there is anyone saying that Labour wouldn't have had to make cuts. But I think Labour would have been making the cuts at a more manageable pace. Certainly not front loading the cuts to the extent of 13% in a single year - does that sound sensible to anyone?
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't think there is anyone saying that Labour wouldn't have had to make cuts. But I think Labour would have been making the cuts at a more manageable pace. Certainly not front loading the cuts to the extent of 13% in a single year - does that sound sensible to anyone?

    This idea that somehow Labour's cuts were going to proceed at a far more leisurely and reasonable pace is a myth. To quote the IFS "Perhaps surprisingly, given the concern Labour has expressed about derailing the economic recovery by tightening too quickly, the party’s chosen tightening path is front-loaded."

    The reality is this: half of the total difference in planned spending cuts (2010 to 2015) between Labour and the Tories expires at the end this year (2010/11). From next year onwards, the cuts they both pledged to make are much closer aligned. For example: next year (2011/12), the Tories aimed to cut £15.1 bn from public expenditure. For the same year, Labour pledged to cut £14.6 bn (96% of the Tory total).
  • Judge MentalJudge Mental Posts: 18,593
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    This idea that somehow Labour's cuts were going to proceed at a far more leisurely and reasonable pace is a myth. To quote the IFS "Perhaps surprisingly, given the concern Labour has expressed about derailing the economic recovery by tightening too quickly, the party’s chosen tightening path is front-loaded."

    The reality is this: half of the total difference in planned spending cuts (2010 to 2015) between Labour and the Tories expires at the end this year (2010/11). From next year onwards, the cuts they both pledged to make are much closer aligned. For example: next year (2011/12), the Tories aimed to cut £15.1 bn from public expenditure. For the same year, Labour pledged to cut £14.6 bn (96% of the Tory total).

    I would oppose cuts at this level and pace regardless of the party. I don't know how local government is expected to make these cuts by March without making huge numbers of people redundant and cutting frontline services.
  • VennegoorVennegoor Posts: 14,648
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I would oppose cuts at this level and pace regardless of the party. I don't know how local government is expected to make these cuts by March without making huge numbers of people redundant and cutting frontline services.

    It's easy, they farm out a lot of services they provide to the private sector; that's Gideon's ultimate goal anyway.
  • VennegoorVennegoor Posts: 14,648
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I sympathize with them. People point the finger at Oxbridge and say 'you're 50% private school kids, they only make up 7% of kids what are you playing at.' But if the best kids in terms of raw ability come from there, then is it a job for them at that stage to balance out the poor social mobility and huge gap between private and state? Tricky one.

    It is, but if it was my responsibility I'd impose a limit on the number of A Levels/Highers that can be taken in one year by students, whether from state or private.

    It still wouldn't be a level playing field, but it would stop parents essentially buying their kids into top unis at the expense of folk who can't.
Sign In or Register to comment.