In article , Aidan Stanger
writes
By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant
number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further
education or vocational training, perhaps; not University).
But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit?
Who is "they"? The University admissions process, or the potential
students?
The potential students. The University admissions process is not capable
of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if
at all).
Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for.
How does ease of determining how deserving they are alter the original
proposition?
Which proposition did you consider to be original?
The original proposition (original = "what started this discussion", not
"novel") was that not everyone would benefit from a University education
(whereas they probably would from nursery education).
Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it.
If the courses are inappropriate to their needs, that seems a bit of a
waste of everyone's time.
If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.
Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those
for whom a University education is inappropriate.
The dropout rate from many of the more recent Universities demonstrates
that they are currently accepting some students who perhaps shouldn't
have been there.
"Nearly 40% of students are dropping out of some universities
because of high debts, poor teaching or an inability to cope
with their coursework, according to new figures published last
week.
"Critics claim one of the reasons behind the high drop-out rate
is that too many students are being admitted who cannot cope.
http://www.iee.org/OnComms/Circuit/benefits/dropout.cfm
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"