Apologies - this response could and should be better written
but I am trying to look like I am working at the same time, and having to deal with constant interuptions.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 9 Nov 2011, 15:12, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

just because older generations got it for free
is not an argument. there are many more people in the country now, for a start. and the economy simply can't support it: look at the number of graduates who are unemployed.

this goes back to my previous argument: make it merit-based. if you get good grades and you are doing a good subject at a good university, it should be free. otherwise not.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 9 Nov 2011, 15:17, Reply)

Would you say the same for the NHS?
Will your merit based system allow for positive discrimination for those from poorer backgrounds or who go to shit schools, who are less likely to get the good grades than their more affluent counterparts, even if they are brighter?

Also, our education system is broken all the way down to the start - "good" secondary schools nowadays tend to train children to pass the curriculum, rather than give them a grounding in education.
Research shows that the majority of education funding should be put into early years if you are ever going to lift children out of poverty. That was one really good thing that the previous administration were doing, when they weren't out waging wars.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 9 Nov 2011, 15:26, Reply)

the problem with funding education in the early years
is if they don't get the support at home, it is wasted energy. somehow the parents need to be made to give more of a fuck.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 9 Nov 2011, 15:30, Reply)

The research shows that if you can do good work with them before the age of five
Then they stand a much better chance, regardless of how shit their parents are.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 9 Nov 2011, 15:32, Reply)