A lot of universities are a total waste of time. Does a degree in gambling studies from a former poly really help anyone in the real world or benefit the economy in any way? To be honest it would be much better for less academic people to get practical training in things like carpentry or whatever. Something useful.

If an individual is able to complete his or her degree and is able to pay for it then that is fine.

I would say it is wrong to deny person A acces to Uni but then demand that he pays for person Bs tuition.

Then again person A or person B should not pay for person cs apprenticeship.

That would be the job of the private sector, to invest in the future of the private sector.

Originally Posted by DougieG

A lot of universities are a total waste of time. Does a degree in gambling studies from a former poly really help anyone in the real world or benefit the economy in any way? To be honest it would be much better for less academic people to get practical training in things like carpentry or whatever. Something useful.

Wow Dougie are you now saying a degree is not usefull?

Are you soon quitting Durham to begin an apprenticeship as a Mason?

I can see why given the amazing stonework you see each day there in Durham, it would inspire many to greatness!!!!!

Originally Posted by JAMC

The government target of getting 50% of people under 30 into higher education should be scrapped, the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) has said.

BBC News - Call to scrap 50% university student target

What do you think? Does higher university attendance result in a devaluation of the 'degree' as a standard of educational attainment? Should the target be reduced from 50%? If so, what should it be? Should there even be a target for university attendance?

Despite churning out far more people with degrees than ever before, sadly the UK has been slipping further and further down the international league tables of educational standard In my view it's only the really high achievers who should get degrees; far too many people are leaving university with second rate qualifications which have little relevance to what they want to do in life but who seem to think that a degree will open all kinds of doors for them. Sadly in the real commercial world this just isn't the case and many of these people, in particular those from universities which are former polytechnics, would have been far better served doing some kind of vocational training.

Unfortunately to politicians from both sides of the political divide it seems that education is just another means of point-scoring than properly developing potential for the future of the country.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Wow Dougie are you now saying a degree is not usefull?

Are you soon quitting Durham to begin an apprenticeship as a Mason?

I can see why given the amazing stonework you see each day there in Durham, it would inspire many to greatness!!!!!

There's different levels and you know it. Obviously a law degree from Durham or a politics degree from Newcastle are worthwhile. As I said before, a media studies degree from Croyden is not.

The economy would fail if only those who can afford it could go to university. The privelidged are rarely the people best equipped to academically excel.

Originally Posted by Midas

Despite churning out far more people with degrees than ever before, sadly the UK has been slipping further and further down the international league tables of educational standard In my view it's only the really high achievers who should get degrees; far too many people are leaving university with second rate qualifications which have little relevance to what they want to do in life but who seem to think that a degree will open all kinds of doors for them. Sadly in the real commercial world this just isn't the case and many of these people, in particular those from universities which are former polytechnics, would have been far better served doing some kind of vocational training.

Unfortunately to politicians from both sides of the political divide it seems that education is just another means of point-scoring than properly developing potential for the future of the country.

You would I hope expect them to pay for their own tuition though wouldent you?
The High achievers that is?

Originally Posted by DougieG

There's different levels and you know it. Obviously a law degree from Durham or a politics degree from Newcastle are worthwhile. As I said before, a media studies degree from Croyden is not.

The economy would fail if only those who can afford it could go to university. The privelidged are rarely the people best equipped to academically excel.

How about an RMN from Bradford or a BA in History and politics from Huddersfield?

How does an Ambulance chasing degree help the future of society?

Id say a vocational qualification as a Paramedic has more value.Media studies from Croyden could be of use more use than getting criminals off scott free or jailing people for selling food by the pound or a banana that is too bent......

I think there's a fair bit of elitism going on here. While its true that Labour's push for 'university for everyone' created dodgy degrees and saddled people with debt for little real reason, I think the true test of whether or not a degree is useful or not is a.)whether you get a job out of it or not and b.)how it develops you as a person. In short, it is what you make of it.

Now speaking as someone who went to a former polytechnic and came out with a 2:1 and got a job out of it, I think it was a worthwhile experience. I worked while at uni and came out with a debt of only a few grand, which I paid off pretty quickly. I know people who've gone to the so called 'top unis' and found it very difficult to find work in the field they studied. A degree in politics or social sciences MAY help with a career in the telesales industry but not significantly more than any other qualification

EDIT: Just to be clear, scrapping the 50% target is a good idea, as alternative sources of training and education simply HAS to be a good thing. But suggesting only the top universities are worthwhile or that only the most gifted academically should go is not a sentiment I agree with.

I see nothing coming out of it rather than the chicken come home to rust, if you had done this 01 or o5, you will all have had your ways, now die in silence or disgrace yourself will you bints ?
L.o.l

Originally Posted by pauli007001

You would I hope expect them to pay for their own tuition though wouldent you?
The High achievers that is?

Not necessarily, no; you mustn't confuse 'high achievers' with having an ability to pay. There are plenty of exceedingly bright kids from financially poor backgrounds; there are also plenty of kids who go on to achieve a great deal in later life but who show little promise in their earlier years at school, or indeed during the first few years in the job market.

But I do think that education is one of the few areas in government which should, in general, be available free of charge to all; it perhaps represents the single most important aspect of building a better society and a better country for the future than any other form of government expenditure. It does need a very major overhaul though, so that our kids are directed towards the type of career to which they're best suited. Having said that there is still a place for fee-paying education if someone chooses an educational path which isn't standard or which turns out to be a choice which flies in the face of professional advice and conventional wisdom.

Originally Posted by angelcountry

I see nothing coming out of it rather than the chicken come home to rust, if you had done this 01 or o5, you will all have had your ways, now die in silence or disgrace yourself will you bints ?
L.o.l

One in the hand is better than two on a bus AC. Jumping fences is highest of the whole college, but stitting on them is pain in the arse. Live loud and prosper, logic bint not as you know it l.o.l.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

I would say it is wrong to deny person A acces to Uni but then demand that he pays for person Bs tuition.

If A benefits from B's skills and expertise 10 years after graduation, is there a problem?

What so often is forgotten in this debate is that we educate people for a reason - we cannot indiviually be experts at everything, and society is built on the concept that different skills congregated together can produce something greater than they otherwise could produce alone.

Originally Posted by Midas

Not necessarily, no; you mustn't confuse 'high achievers' with having an ability to pay. There are plenty of exceedingly bright kids from financially poor backgrounds; there are also plenty of kids who go on to achieve a great deal in later life but who show little promise in their earlier years at school, or indeed during the first few years in the job market.

But I do think that education is one of the few areas in government which should, in general, be available free of charge to all; it perhaps represents the single most important aspect of building a better society and a better country for the future than any other form of government expenditure. It does need a very major overhaul though, so that our kids are directed towards the type of career to which they're best suited. Having said that there is still a place for fee-paying education if someone chooses an educational path which isn't standard or which turns out to be a choice which flies in the face of professional advice and conventional wisdom.

How would you provide it free of charge to all? Would the lecturers at Uni work for free? How about Buildings maintenence and heating, how would those be paid for?The money has to come from somewhere, where do you suppose that might be?
If the high achievers are so smart surely they could figure out a way to earn enough to pay their own way, many illiterates have become millionaires in a shotr period of time.
M O'Donnell the building contractor in Yorkshire for example is just able to sign his own name but managed to become very wealthy in a year or two after moving from Eire to the UK.Just My opinion, not a rant a denigrating post or any kind of slanging.

Originally Posted by JAMC

If A benefits from B's skills and expertise 10 years after graduation, is there a problem?

What so often is forgotten in this debate is that we educate people for a reason - we cannot indiviually be experts at everything, and society is built on the concept that different skills congregated together can produce something greater than they otherwise could produce alone.

Would that benefit be for free in repayment for person A paying for person Bs education or would that depend on the expertise, of course person A pays out for person B because person G(overnment) decided to restrict access to Education only to those who were politically connected then person B earns a huge income whilst person A earns crap in a ****ty and dangerous job and has to grovel to his social superior(person B) Id say that sums it up pretty well, Totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

person G(overnment) decided to restrict access to Education only to those who were politically connected

That's not actually true though Pauli. Or am I just politically connected without realising it?

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Would that benefit be for free in repayment for person A paying for person Bs education or would that depend on the expertise, of course person A pays out for person B because person G(overnment) decided to restrict access to Education only to those who were politically connected then person B earns a huge income whilst person A earns crap in a ****ty and dangerous job and has to grovel to his social superior(person B) Id say that sums it up pretty well, Totalitarianism.

This is a fair synopsis of the movie V for Vendetta but I don't remember any of this happening in real life. As JM says, we must ALL be connected politically then, genius! What an accomplishment for New Labour, they got us all politically connected by going to university! Hold on, except that didn't happen either. Damn Pauli. Stop lyin will ye, its just confusing.

Scrap 50% targets. In fact, targets is one of the things Labour really did do incredibly badly. They set targets, they set projections, announce initiatives, always look like they're busy. But then they fail on those targets, get the projections wrong, go over budget and we realise they don't actually DO anything!

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

That's not actually true though Pauli. Or am I just politically connected without realising it?

You might be!!
Seriously though that used to be the criterea in the 70s and 80s, be a bit smart and motivated get into Poly, be the same and have a Parent who is a Union Bigwig and Cambridge was all for you.
Targets are stupid and if a person wished to invest in their own future and earning potential then let them, just dont expect others to pay for it.
Unless I can convince the Government that i need welfare at a grand a week and a different Slapper in my bed 5 nights a week and they pay for it, maybee then i will agree to cough up a few bob for my social superiors uni fund.

Originally Posted by DTE

This is a fair synopsis of the movie V for Vendetta but I don't remember any of this happening in real life. As JM says, we must ALL be connected politically then, genius! What an accomplishment for New Labour, they got us all politically connected by going to university! Hold on, except that didn't happen either. Damn Pauli. Stop lyin will ye, its just confusing.

Scrap 50% targets. In fact, targets is one of the things Labour really did do incredibly badly. They set targets, they set projections, announce initiatives, always look like they're busy. But then they fail on those targets, get the projections wrong, go over budget and we realise they don't actually DO anything!

It was a rhetorical statement on what would happen under the system JM proposed, the same happened in Soviet russia!!

Originally Posted by pauli007001

It was a rhetorical statement on what would happen under the system JM proposed, the same happened in Soviet russia!!

I miss the part where I proposed anything?

Originally Posted by pauli007001

How about an RMN from Bradford or a BA in History and politics from Huddersfield?

How does an Ambulance chasing degree help the future of society?

Id say a vocational qualification as a Paramedic has more value.Media studies from Croyden could be of use more use than getting criminals off scott free or jailing people for selling food by the pound or a banana that is too bent......

I hope next time someone runs you down in a car or you get assaulted for no reason by a policeman that you will stick by your principles and refuse to employ a lawyer.

If a criminal gets off then either there wasn't enough evidence against them to be sure or the crime was a legal technicality that any juryman could see was nonsense. Remember the lawyers don't convict. The jury does. Blame the entire public if a guilty criminal is let off, all a lawyer does is present the argument.

This is a stupid tangent anyway.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

I miss the part where I proposed anything?

JMAC, Sorry for the confusion.

Originally Posted by DougieG

I hope next time someone runs you down in a car or you get assaulted for no reason by a policeman that you will stick by your principles and refuse to employ a lawyer.

If a criminal gets off then either there wasn't enough evidence against them to be sure or the crime was a legal technicality that any juryman could see was nonsense. Remember the lawyers don't convict. The jury does. Blame the entire public if a guilty criminal is let off, all a lawyer does is present the argument.

This is a stupid tangent anyway.

So person A is refused access to Uni and goes to work in a ****ty low paid dangerous job but still has to pay for person B to get a law degree.
Years later he gets assaulted by a plod and Person B demands that person A gives him a huge chunk of cash to do his 10 mins chatting in court(that 10 mins of chatting in court costs person A between a fortnights and a months wages, it earns the lawyer enough for lunch).Why should person A pay twice, once to educate and again for services, what does person A get apart from a sholt life of pain and struggle whilst Person B gets to live in luxuary because of person A paying for the education of person B.
Basically you are wishing to create/maintain a class system, with a new aristocracy of Lawyers paid for by the poor.

Now as for Juries do juries convict in a bench trial???
Or is the conviction usually based on which Lawyer lies best?

I think it's the way they've done this university promotion thing which has been wrong. They've made it easier to get into university in order to reach their targets, but what you really want to do is keep University as exclusive as it once was, while improving schooling so more students are able to get into the universities and courses they want to.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

I think it's the way they've done this university promotion thing which has been wrong. They've made it easier to get into university in order to reach their targets, but what you really want to do is keep University as exclusive as it once was, while improving schooling so more students are able to get into the universities and courses they want to.

Spoken like somebody with no experience of getting into a British uni.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Spoken like somebody with no experience of getting into a British uni.

You can't just give everyone a university education when they don't need it. Otherwise employers will realise that in order to get quality workers, they'll have to up the qualifications needed, meaning people who really want a job will have to stay at uni for a lot longer before they become employable. Personally I think they should have played up the options outside of university, such as TAFEs and the like. Pushing hairdressers into arts degrees because you want to look good in statistics is not the way to go.

Piles of things wrong with this. It will be a pleasure to make you look a fool.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

So person A is refused access to Uni and goes to work in a ****ty low paid dangerous job but still has to pay for person B to get a law degree.

In your system NEITHER would go to university if the law student didn't have rich parents, leaving the country with two poorly paid people rather than one. Plus, by your logic in pretty much the entire rest of your ideology, that person should have worked harder and got a place at a good university so it is their fault anyway. That's your belief, not mine.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Years later he gets assaulted by a plod and Person B demands that person A gives him a huge chunk of cash to do his 10 mins chatting in court

Depends what you mean by a 'huge chunk'. A common law high street and a barrister from a normal common law chambers practicing tort and administrative law will probably bill about £1000 between them for a few days' work, that's before tax. If they have a good enough case that they win then the costs will almost certainly be recovered from the other side.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

(that 10 mins of chatting in court costs person A between a fortnights and a months wages, it earns the lawyer enough for lunch).

You don't know much about the real world of law do you? The only lawyers who make a huge pile of money are ones working for shady corporations or for business giants like Microsoft etc. Private cases rarely bill hugely above £40,000 per year. A huge number of lawyers don't even make that. I know it's still a nice salary, but not exactly the champagne-guzzling lifestyle you are trying to portray. A lawyer usually eats in court, too, where meals cost about five pounds. If they aren't, most bring food from home so that they can keep working through lunch or go out and get something quick like a Subway or Boots meal deal around 3-5 pounds, like any other city worker.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Why should person A pay twice, once to educate and again for services, what does person A get apart from a sholt life of pain and struggle whilst Person B gets to live in luxuary because of person A paying for the education of person B.

Luxury? It's not bad living, certainly, for many lawyers, but only ones in corporate and commercial law. Lawyers in criminal or common law (which includes negligence, trespass etc) rarely make above £20,000 for their first few years, rising to £50,000 eventually if they work hard and get hold of the better cases. It's in the interests of the country to have well trained lawyers, just as we need doctors and schoolteachers. I'm not sure you understand the importance of law on society. Try something by Bentham or maybe the Politics of the Judiciary. I don't think the Early Learning Centre do a book on the importance of the rule of law and the importance of lawyers, so you might have to jump into the big boys' stuff straight away. Even a basic Introduction to Law book would do.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Basically you are wishing to create/maintain a class system, with a new aristocracy of Lawyers paid for by the poor.

Not an aristocracy. A meritocracy where the brightest children can ascend to the top positions regardless of their background. You are the one trying to create ARISTOCRACY by only allowing the rich to enter well-paid professions.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Now as for Juries do juries convict in a bench trial???
Or is the conviction usually based on which Lawyer lies best?

So both lawyers lie? Interesting. I think you will find neither lawyer ever lies in a case because s/he would lose their jobs and be hauled up against the professional complaints commission. You might find solace in the idiotic idea that if a person on trial is not convicted their lawyer must have lied, but believe it or not a huge number of people accused of crimes are innocent and without honest and eloquent representation they would be sent to prison regardless. Plus the idea that BOTH lawyers can ever be lying in a case is hilarious.

The following is quite a common reasoning:

Who protects the people? The police, by catching criminals.
Who watches the police and protects the people from them? The government, by disciplining and regulating them.
Who protects the people from the government? The courts, by striking down illegal decisions.
Who protects the courts from making wrong decisions? The lawyers, by presenting the best arguments possible.

The lawyers are therefore the ultimate check on the freedoms of the country.

It seems to me that the crux of pauli's argument is this;

Why should person X pay for the (further) education of person Y and then pay for their services when they need them? i.e. why should they pay twice?

The short answer is that this is the only way it can work.

The long answer is that to do anything else is to rupture the social contract between the generations. We go through three stages of life; infancy or adolesence, adulthood and old age. Barring a freak accident, an individual will move through all three stages during their lives and the only stage at which they won't be dependant on others is the one in the middle.

Long ago society realised that if the innovations and standards of living they had attained were to be maintained into the future, education of the next generation was paramount. The only way progress can happen is if the totality of knowledge from previous generations is passed succesfully onto the next.

I expect that when he was young, pauli received an education. That education gave him the basic skills he needed to go on and become a productive member of society during his adulthood - at this point he would be a net contributor of resources (tax revenue, economic output, any measure you care to mention), rather than a net consumer of resources like he was when he was a child. The abilities pauli uses now to earn a crust didn't develop by magic, he was taught the vast majority of them by individuals who themselves are now in their old age (and dependent on the contribution he makes to survive) - and any new innovations that he developed himself are a net bonus that can be passed onto the next generation. Once pauli enters old age, he will once again become a net consumer of resources and will again be dependant on the adult generation to produce the food, energy and other resources he'll need to survive.

Saying that an adolescent should pay for his own education is essentially a cop-out from the responsibilities that the current generation have to the next under the social contract. If pauli doesn't want to set aside the resources needed to teach the next generation the skills required to maintain (and improve) the current living standards he enjoys, he cannot expect to enjoy those same standards in his old age, as he will be dependent on individuals that themselves haven't been educated to the same standard as those that came before.

In pauli's scenario the cost of using the solicitor his taxes helped pay to train do not primarily mitigate the costs of the solicitor's education, but rather bolster the bottom line of the firm or partnership that he happens to be working for at the time. The benefits of his education will be realised in small incriments over many years. The very fact that pauli can find a decent solicitor in the first place is testiment to the fact that the educational arrangements put in place did their job. After all, had pauli refused to pay for the education of the solicitor, or solicitors in general, the chances of him being able to find a good one reduce dramatically - and of course when any skill becomes scarce it commands a premium. I can't help but wonder how pauli would feel about paying only for the solicitor's services instead of his education, if those services cost 10x their current rate?

Person X pays for person Y's education (and then again for their services) because person X stands to benefit, directly or indirectly, from doing so in the long run - and will at some point be reliant on the skills they paid to develop to sustain them.

Put crudely pauli, if you refused to teach me how to sow seeds, don't expect to be fed when you're too old to sow them yourself.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Piles of things wrong with this. It will be a pleasure to make you look a fool.



In your system NEITHER would go to university if the law student didn't have rich parents, leaving the country with two poorly paid people rather than one. Plus, by your logic in pretty much the entire rest of your ideology, that person should have worked harder and got a place at a good university so it is their fault anyway. That's your belief, not mine.



Depends what you mean by a 'huge chunk'. A common law high street and a barrister from a normal common law chambers practicing tort and administrative law will probably bill about £1000 between them for a few days' work, that's before tax. If they have a good enough case that they win then the costs will almost certainly be recovered from the other side.



You don't know much about the real world of law do you? The only lawyers who make a huge pile of money are ones working for shady corporations or for business giants like Microsoft etc. Private cases rarely bill hugely above £40,000 per year. A huge number of lawyers don't even make that. I know it's still a nice salary, but not exactly the champagne-guzzling lifestyle you are trying to portray. A lawyer usually eats in court, too, where meals cost about five pounds. If they aren't, most bring food from home so that they can keep working through lunch or go out and get something quick like a Subway or Boots meal deal around 3-5 pounds, like any other city worker.



Luxury? It's not bad living, certainly, for many lawyers, but only ones in corporate and commercial law. Lawyers in criminal or common law (which includes negligence, trespass etc) rarely make above £20,000 for their first few years, rising to £50,000 eventually if they work hard and get hold of the better cases. It's in the interests of the country to have well trained lawyers, just as we need doctors and schoolteachers. I'm not sure you understand the importance of law on society. Try something by Bentham or maybe the Politics of the Judiciary. I don't think the Early Learning Centre do a book on the importance of the rule of law and the importance of lawyers, so you might have to jump into the big boys' stuff straight away. Even a basic Introduction to Law book would do.



Not an aristocracy. A meritocracy where the brightest children can ascend to the top positions regardless of their background. You are the one trying to create ARISTOCRACY by only allowing the rich to enter well-paid professions.



So both lawyers lie? Interesting. I think you will find neither lawyer ever lies in a case because s/he would lose their jobs and be hauled up against the professional complaints commission. You might find solace in the idiotic idea that if a person on trial is not convicted their lawyer must have lied, but believe it or not a huge number of people accused of crimes are innocent and without honest and eloquent representation they would be sent to prison regardless. Plus the idea that BOTH lawyers can ever be lying in a case is hilarious.

The following is quite a common reasoning:

Who protects the people? The police, by catching criminals.
Who watches the police and protects the people from them? The government, by disciplining and regulating them.
Who protects the people from the government? The courts, by striking down illegal decisions.
Who protects the courts from making wrong decisions? The lawyers, by presenting the best arguments possible.

The lawyers are therefore the ultimate check on the freedoms of the country.

They do indeed lie, often unknowingly, you should be able to see that, the police lie the defendants lie those representing liars are liars themselves.
However back to your falsehood that only Juries convict criminals in the UK, why can you not answer my question about Bench Trials, or do they not tell you about that until your second year?

Meritocracy where those who meet the criterea to get into Uni under the proposals made on this thread, however good the intentions, the criterea will eventually end up like those in the former soviet union, the person with the right connections is best qualified.
The book smart kid at school should be elevated above his lessers, the ones who excell in less bookish subjects.Bookish folks become the bosses less bookisk are subject to the controll of the bookish, it sounds like typical communism to me, intellectuals lording it over the workers, thet was Trotskyism in a nut shell wasnt it?That then became stalinism.
If a person is smart why can he or she not get off their arse and work their way through uni ( or is the 12 hour week too much for them already). Gotta say it, my Wife managed to go to buisness school and to work a full time Job in order to pay her way through school then again she is truly smart and motivated, are you telling me that the leaders of the future are incapable of funding their own education?How then can they be expected to lead the nation in their field of choice when they are incapable of the simplest tasks of money managment.

Originally Posted by JAMC

It seems to me that the crux of pauli's argument is this;

Why should person X pay for the (further) education of person Y and then pay for their services when they need them? i.e. why should they pay twice?

The short answer is that this is the only way it can work.

The long answer is that to do anything else is to rupture the social contract between the generations. We go through three stages of life; infancy or adolesence, adulthood and old age. Barring a freak accident, an individual will move through all three stages during their lives and the only stage at which they won't be dependant on others is the one in the middle.

Long ago society realised that if the innovations and standards of living they had attained were to be maintained into the future, education of the next generation was paramount. The only way progress can happen is if the totality of knowledge from previous generations is passed succesfully onto the next.

I expect that when he was young, pauli received an education. That education gave him the basic skills he needed to go on and become a productive member of society during his adulthood - at this point he would be a net contributor of resources (tax revenue, economic output, any measure you care to mention), rather than a net consumer of resources like he was when he was a child. The abilities pauli uses now to earn a crust didn't develop by magic, he was taught the vast majority of them by individuals who themselves are now in their old age (and dependent on the contribution he makes to survive) - and any new innovations that he developed himself are a net bonus that can be passed onto the next generation. Once pauli enters old age, he will once again become a net consumer of resources and will again be dependant on the adult generation to produce the food, energy and other resources he'll need to survive.

Saying that an adolescent should pay for his own education is essentially a cop-out from the responsibilities that the current generation have to the next under the social contract. If pauli doesn't want to set aside the resources needed to teach the next generation the skills required to maintain (and improve) the current living standards he enjoys, he cannot expect to enjoy those same standards in his old age, as he will be dependent on individuals that themselves haven't been educated to the same standard as those that came before.

In pauli's scenario the cost of using the solicitor his taxes helped pay to train do not primarily mitigate the costs of the solicitor's education, but rather bolster the bottom line of the firm or partnership that he happens to be working for at the time. The benefits of his education will be realised in small incriments over many years. The very fact that pauli can find a decent solicitor in the first place is testiment to the fact that the educational arrangements put in place did their job. After all, had pauli refused to pay for the education of the solicitor, or solicitors in general, the chances of him being able to find a good one reduce dramatically - and of course when any skill becomes scarce it commands a premium. I can't help but wonder how pauli would feel about paying only for the solicitor's services instead of his education, if those services cost 10x their current rate?

Person X pays for person Y's education (and then again for their services) because person X stands to benefit, directly or indirectly, from doing so in the long run - and will at some point be reliant on the skills they paid to develop to sustain them.

Put crudely pauli, if you refused to teach me how to sow seeds, don't expect to be fed when you're too old to sow them yourself.

Adolescent?
University is a place of learning for ADULTS who surely can find a job if they are smart and motivated, my wife managed it.

As for the rest, we workers who would be expected to pay for the bookish fops to get ahead in order that they can lord it over us well into old age(whilst letting us know daily what scum we are and how superior to us they are), whilst we the workers die young because of our hazardous jobs and the impact of them on our health.We the workers will not see old age because we die young to fund lives of luxuary for our betters, By paying for the education of those smarter(and therefore more importaint than us) and for again paying to support those lazier(and therefore of a greater value as a human than us) with welfare.We suffer whilst the Lazy and those who reckon they are superior to us live in luxuary.Even then If we go on and work hard and pay for our own degrees we are told by the likes of Dougie that our degrees are inferior to his because we paid for em ourselves in a place we could afford(what Dougie would call a Dirty Poly, Ugh).
No a man should pay his own way in life, and enjoy his life in freedom.

I owe nothing to society, I have repayed what I owe from being taught in school that I was an Inferior being, i payed Tax since i was 16.I owe you or any country nothing, you want something you shoulg get if yourself, if you cant be bothered then do without, its called being an adult, being responsible, it is called Freedom.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

They do indeed lie, often unknowingly, you should be able to see that, the police lie the defendants lie those representing liars are liars themselves.

If a lawyer at any point feels that his client is lying to him he is obligated by convention and law to either withdraw from the trial or to make the lie clear to the judge. You don't know anything about it I suspect, but then I wouldn't expect you to.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

However back to your falsehood that only Juries convict criminals in the UK, why can you not answer my question about Bench Trials, or do they not tell you about that until your second year?

Bench trials only happen in England and Wales after a jury has already convicted and if the defendant appeals. Every person in a UK prison has been found guilty by a jury in a Crown Court. Again, I wouldn't expect you to know.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Meritocracy where those who meet the criterea to get into Uni under the proposals made on this thread, however good the intentions, the criterea will eventually end up like those in the former soviet union, the person with the right connections is best qualified.

So aristocracy, keeping the rich rich and the poor poor, is better then according to you.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

The book smart kid at school should be elevated above his lessers, the ones who excell in less bookish subjects.Bookish folks become the bosses less bookisk are subject to the controll of the bookish, it sounds like typical communism to me, intellectuals lording it over the workers, thet was Trotskyism in a nut shell wasnt it?

Elevated? Possibly, yes. You would hardly send a potential plumber to Oxford, would you? It would be an enormous waste of resources. Yet you would send thick people to Oxford and Cambridge providing they could pay for it themselves. Sorry, we tried that for 800 years and it failed miserably. I know you don't understand things but don't take this as a personal dig. Not everyone can be academic. Society needs bin men and builders as much as it needs lawyers and accountants.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

That then became stalinism.

Sending only clever, rather than only rich, people to university is not the fundamental principle of Stalinism.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

If a person is smart why can he or she not get off their arse and work their way through uni ( or is the 12 hour week too much for them already).

The truth is people simply don't do this, and those who do never get the best results in their degree. So you have to choose between either having only a tiny number of poor but clever people getting an education which is forfeited by being forced to constantly work during it, or having simply the cleverest people getting good educations and creating a great country.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Gotta say it, my Wife managed to go to buisness school and to work a full time Job in order to pay her way through school then again she is truly smart and motivated, are you telling me that the leaders of the future are incapable of funding their own education?

Yes I am. Geniuses like Lord Denning had to work academically for 12 hours a day to get where they did. No room for a job. You have a business degree from some 'university', you wouldn't understand the level of work that is actually required.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

How then can they be expected to lead the nation in their field of choice when they are incapable of the simplest tasks of money managment.

Because they will be much cleverer for having understood the finer points of diminished responsibility in tort than for stacking shelves in *****.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

I owe nothing to society, I have repayed what I owe from being taught in school that I was an Inferior being, i payed Tax since i was 16.I owe you or any country nothing, you want something you shoulg get if yourself, if you cant be bothered then do without, its called being an adult, being responsible, it is called Freedom.

You're almost comically arrogant. Read up on social contracts. You CAN live outside of the social contract, but then you have no protection from crime, terrorism, no protection if you don't have enough money for your retirement, no protection from ANYTHING. You're quite possibly the most arrogant person alive if you think that you can survive for five minutes without the police and the government. And other people, for that matter.

Tell me, would you rather all doctors were idiots whose parents could pay for them to go to medical school, or that they were the most intelligent scientific minds of their generations regardless of economic background?

Originally Posted by pauli007001

thet was Trotskyism in a nut shell wasnt it?That then became stalinism.

Even ignoring your misinformation about the relationship between Trotsky and Stalin which was strained at best, homocidal at worst (I think perhaps you meant lenin rather than Trotsky?) your implications about Stalinism and education are really quite feeble. Stalin persecuted intellectuals as they were the people best equipped to see through his propaganda and expose him. Not sure how executing people without a trial can be seen as elevating them to a higher level.

Originally Posted by DougieG

If a lawyer at any point feels that his client is lying to him he is obligated by convention and law to either withdraw from the trial or to make the lie clear to the judge. You don't know anything about it I suspect, but then I wouldn't expect you to.



Bench trials only happen in England and Wales after a jury has already convicted and if the defendant appeals. Every person in a UK prison has been found guilty by a jury in a Crown Court. Again, I wouldn't expect you to know.



So aristocracy, keeping the rich rich and the poor poor, is better then according to you.



Elevated? Possibly, yes. You would hardly send a potential plumber to Oxford, would you? It would be an enormous waste of resources. Yet you would send thick people to Oxford and Cambridge providing they could pay for it themselves. Sorry, we tried that for 800 years and it failed miserably. I know you don't understand things but don't take this as a personal dig. Not everyone can be academic. Society needs bin men and builders as much as it needs lawyers and accountants.



Sending only clever, rather than only rich, people to university is not the fundamental principle of Stalinism.



The truth is people simply don't do this, and those who do never get the best results in their degree. So you have to choose between either having only a tiny number of poor but clever people getting an education which is forfeited by being forced to constantly work during it, or having simply the cleverest people getting good educations and creating a great country.



Yes I am. Geniuses like Lord Denning had to work academically for 12 hours a day to get where they did. No room for a job. You have a business degree from some 'university', you wouldn't understand the level of work that is actually required.



Because they will be much cleverer for having understood the finer points of diminished responsibility in tort than for stacking shelves in *****.

A Lawyer does as he is paid by his client, I have seen blatent lies told in court, lies that are as transparent as your superiority complex when discussing your superiority because you attend Durham and not ( as you say)"Some University", arrogant, superior and snobby is how you come accross.
Bench trials are used in Magistrates courts to convict criminals on lesser offenses, ususally those carrying a prison term less than 12 months. Your claim again was a blatent lie when you said I know Nothing about it, you also lied about how bench trials are used in the UK, Not everyone in UK Jails has been convicted by Jury.I have been jailed in the UK several times and never once was I convicted by a Jury.Many people in Jail in the UK have not been convicted, they have been Remanded in Custody when Bail has been denied.

The system you propose is designed to create a new aristocracy, and drive the poor into servitude, it is based on the principles trotsky wished to deliver to the soviet system, they were refused by Lenin yet incorporated into Stalins education system, the end result being politically conected folks getting into Uni others being forced into servitude.


My wifes Buisness degree is not from "Some University"( that superior and arrogant attitude again, I am better than all the thickos cos i go to a better uni, now lick my shoes Peasant) she attended U Mass Amhurst for her BBA and then Northeastern for her MBA, she worked in low paid jobs to pay for her BBA such as Campus security(actually allowed her to study whilst at work, a smart way of doing things) she had an internship with a large corporation during breaks.During her MBA she worked in that same corporation whilst studying, but i suppose the two Universities she attended are "some" because they are no Harvard?She got better results than 90% of her class, Oh dear your theory is wrong, you just want to save your time(after the 12 hour week) to go on the lash and make irritating and arrogant comments to the peasants.

I would send a potential Plumber to Oxford, the level of training, time and effort to learn that trade is far greater than attaining a law degree, the mathematical knowlege a plumber must have is far more difficult than that of a Lawyer, but you wouldnt accept that, you are an Intellectual a plumber is, how would you describe it again.....Thick. My Brother, a carpenter/cabinet maker spent 6 years learning his trade, his work is like art, he also would be smart enough to go to any Uni, he just enjoys what he does, what a dirty thick peasant hey Doug, working with his hands, Ugh!!

Study 12 hours a day my arse, its a 12 hour week in Uni, then a bit of reading, a plumber must work his 40 to 60 hour week and then study during his apprenticeship, Plumbers are without a doubt smarter than Lawyers, they are far less arrogant too.

In a nut shell you want people to pay your way because you consider yourself to be their superior, you will make as little difference to the world or the country as anyone else( the beliefs you have that you are going to be different is common amongst young folks like you) you will see this as you begin togrow up, your education will benefit you more than any other person, yet others must pay for it, all other arguments are making up excuses for your selfishness.
Social contract my arse, I never signed that contract.