JRS: In article , dated Fri,
28 Jan 2005 03:36:24, seen in news:uk.transport.london, Aidan Stanger
posted :

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it. 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.

There is something to be said for allowing new adults to decide whether
or not to spend three years of their lives on some combination of
education and time-wasting.

But it is not reasonable for time-wasting to be intentionally subsidised
by the productive community, unless the productive community positively
decides that it should be so. Of course, any process of deciding
whether a new adult will "study" or work, whether decision is by the new
adult or by the institutions, will inevitably make imperfect judgements
in some cases; but that leads only to unavoidable accidental waste.

And it is absolutely unreasonable to have university-grade academics
wasting their time and talent, ultimately at community expense, in
dealing with those who will, by inability or idleness, not benefit
significantly thereby.


All university students should be invoiced termly for the *full* costs
of their education, visibly discounted by a list of all of the grants
and subsidies as the university receives for them (the final sum may be
zero or less). At the end of each year of "Study", their performance
should be reviewed to see whether the university can recommend that the
grants and subsidies are worth renewing; the standard should be less
than "will eventually pass at present performance" - more like "might
pass if performance improves as we think it could".

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

Dr John Stockton wrote:
posted :

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it. 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.

There is something to be said for allowing new adults to decide whether
or not to spend three years of their lives on some combination of
education and time-wasting.

But it is not reasonable for time-wasting to be intentionally subsidised
by the productive community, unless the productive community positively
decides that it should be so. Of course, any process of deciding
whether a new adult will "study" or work, whether decision is by the new
adult or by the institutions, will inevitably make imperfect judgements
in some cases; but that leads only to unavoidable accidental waste.

And it's better to waste a small amount of time and money than to waste
students' futures.

And it is absolutely unreasonable to have university-grade academics
wasting their time and talent, ultimately at community expense, in
dealing with those who will, by inability or idleness, not benefit
significantly thereby.

Don't be so quick to assume that the academics' time and talent would be
wasted! Firstly a student not putting sufficient effort into the course
is likely to take up less of the lecturers' time than one who is.
Secondly, even those who don't succeed academically are likely to learn
something useful.

All university students should be invoiced termly for the *full* costs
of their education, visibly discounted by a list of all of the grants
and subsidies as the university receives for them (the final sum may be
zero or less). At the end of each year of "Study", their performance
should be reviewed to see whether the university can recommend that the
grants and subsidies are worth renewing; the standard should be less
than "will eventually pass at present performance" - more like "might
pass if performance improves as we think it could".

Well that's one way to increase the dropout rate, and it sounds
expensive to administer. Surely it would be better to give everyone as
much opportunity as possible? It's not as if the economy (and indeed
society) doesn't benefit.

In message , at 00:48:06 on
Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked:

And it's better to waste a small amount of time and money than to waste
students' futures.

If that's the case, why are the students so unwilling to contribute to
the "small amount of money".

Surely it would be better to give everyone as
much opportunity as possible? It's not as if the economy (and indeed
society) doesn't benefit.

But it seems there is massive over-supply of graduates, so few are
getting the jobs they expected. Three years taken up, and in the end all
they are employed do is ask "do you want fries with that".
--
Roland Perry