NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm

UK bottom of child welfare list
Child in silhouette
Unicef says the study is the first of its kind for child well-being
The UK is bottom of a league table for child well-being across 21 industrial countries, charity Unicef has said.

The study looked at 40 indicators including poverty, relationships with parents, health and safety, behaviour, and children's own sense of well-being.

The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland headed the list, with the UK in last place just behind the US.

The Children's Society described the findings as "shocking" and said the UK was failing children.

CHILD WELL-BEING LEAGUE TABLE
1. Netherlands
2. Sweden
3. Denmark
4. Finland
5. Spain
6. Switzerland
7. Norway
8. Italy
9. Republic of Ireland
10. Belgium
11. Germany
12. Canada
13. Greece
14. Poland
15. Czech Republic
16. France
17. Portugal
18. Austria
19. Hungary
20. United States
21. United Kingdom
Source: Unicef

This is distressing. I know when I was a lad we used to do this stuff but I am baffled as to how things have gotten this bad.

Have things gotten out of hand?

A spokesman for the UK government said it had made progress on child well-being through a number of initiatives in areas such as poverty, pregnancy rates, teenage smoking, drinking and risky sexual behaviour.
BULLSHIT!

BULLSHIT!

QFT. We're number one in Europe for all those things.

Notice how its not US news. :p

I don't know why english people have kids, I'm tired of walking down the street watching parents scream and shout at them because they simply don't care about their off spring.

QFT. We're number one in Europe for all those things.
I'm doing my A levels at the mo at a 6th form comprehensive, and I see it get worse with each new intake every year. I know I sound like an old fart, but it's true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm



This is distressing. I know when I was a lad we used to do this stuff but I am baffled as to how things have gotten this bad.

Have things gotten out of hand?

UNICEF? If you're at the bottom of their list, it's probably a good thing. Unless, of course, you believe the United Nations is an organization that does good in the world.

BULLSHIT!

yeah...thing is though that its obvious that we as a nation have just stopped 'investing' in kids over the last 30 years...a perfect example is the removal of playing fields....seems to me that kids have no play to be...well kids...

hell I don't know...I don't have kids and am unlikely to have any...but this just seems wrong....

QFT. We're number one in Europe for all those things.

Yeah...and its wrong...is it that kids are not taught about responsibility? Bit hard that when 'role models' are splashed over the papers for doing drugs, being violent, abusing positions of power....

this has shaken me.

UNICEF? If you're at the bottom of their list, it's probably a good thing. Unless, of course, you believe the United Nations is an organization that does good in the world.
Well, my experience is that it isn't a good thing to be at the bottom of the list, so the UN must obviously do good in the world.:rolleyes:

UNICEF? If you're at the bottom of their list, it's probably a good thing. Unless, of course, you believe the United Nations is an organization that does good in the world.

Yes. I do think the UN does good in the world. I also commend the United States for setting it up.

yeah...thing is though that its obvious that we as a nation have just stopped 'investing' in kids over the last 30 years...a perfect example is the removal of playing fields....seems to me that kids have no play to be...well kids...

hell I don't know...I don't have kids and am unlikely to have any...but this just seems wrong....
There seems, at least to me, a definite pressure to be 'older younger' so to speak, which is not necessarily a problem in itself, but the adult traits kids pick up earlier and earlier only seem to be the bad ones.

Yeah...and its wrong...is it that kids are not taught about responsibility? Bit hard that when 'role models' are splashed over the papers for doing drugs, being violent, abusing positions of power....

this has shaken me.
The closest to that would have been PD classes. Waste of time and energy. It doesn't matter how many times you tell a class of stoned 16 year olds "don't drink/smoke/have unprotected sex/take drugs", the effect would still be the same if you said it once in Science.

Seems to be based on some pretty stupid criteria, though:

Children living in homes earning less than half national average wage - 16%

Is this why the UK is rated lower than, say, Poland? They could be living in homes earning a third of the national average wage and still be as well off as anyone in Poland.

Families eating a meal together "several times" a week - 65%

When I was a kid, my siblings and I usually had our dinner several hours before my parents had theirs. Does that mean that the government failed me?

Children who admit being drunk on two or more occasions - 30%

Kind of dependent on whether or not they admit it, and whether they're telling the truth if they do.

There seems, at least to me, a definite pressure to be 'older younger' so to speak, which is not necessarily a problem in itself, but the adult traits kids pick up earlier and earlier only seem to be the bad ones.

older younger...yes. It does seem that way. It seems that there are so many restrictions on being a kid though...then again older people get the shits when they see a posse of yoofs heading their way down the street...


The closest to that would have been PD classes. Waste of time and energy. It doesn't matter how many times you tell a class of stoned 16 year olds "don't drink/smoke/have unprotected sex/take drugs", the effect would still be the same if you said it once in Science.

PD??

You lost me a bit unless you are referring expressly about the drugs thing...

I am really trying hard not to stereotype here LOL ....But it seems to me that many kids just do not seem to give a shit about hard work...the hard work needed to succeed...

I blame chav culture, council flats and Scotland myself

Though to be fair there was some things like families eating together which seems fairly pointless to me however number 1 in the amount of people living in low income housing has left me speechless to be honest, how the hell did this happen?

YAY America isn't last in something!

Seems to be based on some pretty stupid criteria, though:



Is this why the UK is rated lower than, say, Poland? They could be living in homes earning a third of the national average wage and still be as well off as anyone in Poland.



When I was a kid, my siblings and I usually had our dinner several hours before my parents had theirs. Does that mean that the government failed me?



Kind of dependent on whether or not they admit it, and whether they're telling the truth if they do.

Fair points. What about criteria that was not 'stupid'?

YAY America isn't last in something!

*dances with TSI*

*dances with TSI*

Stop dancing, it hurts :( :p
But yeah, we're pretty sucky seemingly. It was fairly obvious with the hundreds of chavs wandering the streets.

so in the end was there a huge gap between the netherlands and the UK?

and how much of that gap was from things like those sited by nimzonia?

so in the end was there a huge gap between the netherlands and the UK?



When you rank countries in such a fashion, it always looks like the sun never stops shining in one, and fire and brimstone are raining from the skies in another, even if the gap is really rather miniscule.

When you rank countries in such a fashion, it always looks like the sun never stops shining in one, and fire and brimstone are raining from the skies in another, even if the gap is really rather miniscule.

Once again fair points...

I am trying to find the actual report but not having much luck at the moment...

Once again fair points...

I am trying to find the actual report but not having much luck at the moment...

Indeed, I would like to know what exact criteria they use.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm



This is distressing. I know when I was a lad we used to do this stuff but I am baffled as to how things have gotten this bad.

Have things gotten out of hand?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://lukevadernoooo.ytmnd.com/)

*uses the force to crush stuff*

I never thought England would ever become less child friendly than the US. The dark side enshrouds us all! :eek:

Indeed, I would like to know what exact criteria they use.

well I've searched and can't find it...nothing on the UNICEF site nor the childrens society.

however I did find a contact name and tel number of someone in the London UNICEF press office....I'll give them a call tomorrow morning....

to say I am not impressed is an understatement.

I should feel terribly alarmed, concerned and distressed, but it simply confirms the suggestion now propounded; namely, that there is an inherent, intractable and deep rooted problem with the young of Britain.

I blame Scotland

What's wrong with Scotland? What the hell could they do to kids in England? Bloody "stiff upper lip..."

Myrm: Hey, I've got a question: why do you say the U.N. does no good for the world? Why do a lot of Americans say that, come to think of it?

What's wrong with Scotland? What the hell could they do to kids in England? Bloody "stiff upper lip..."

Myrm: Hey, I've got a question: why do you say the U.N. does no good for the world? Why do a lot of Americans say that, come to think of it?


The majority because they're told it, and like most people in the world they believe what they're told when they're told in the right way by the right people.

When you rank countries in such a fashion, it always looks like the sun never stops shining in one, and fire and brimstone are raining from the skies in another, even if the gap is really rather miniscule.

yeah.

i sincerely doubt that there is much difference in child well being among the countries on that list and i believe that the biggest factor comes from the individual families that they are born into rather than anything done by the government or society at large.

I was raised by my parents, not by the government or the society around me.

Ultimately, a child's well being depends on the parents far more than anything else; a child living in poverty in Nigeria could have a better life than a child who lives in a wealthy country if they have a solid home life and upbringing.

yeah.

i sincerely doubt that there is much difference in child well being among the countries on that list and i believe that the biggest factor comes from the individual families that they are born into rather than anything done by the government or society at large.

Well I've lived in several of the countries listed...and there are marked differences.

One thing that is going on in the UK is that traditional playing fields (just open spaces to let people play sports) that are owned by city councils are being sold off willy nilly to developers...

Another issue is that the pride of being working class has eroded since the utter destruction of the UK's manufacturing base since the late 70's and 80's.

CHILD WELL-BEING LEAGUE TABLE
1. Netherlands
2. Sweden

Despite us being such faggotry enablers? How could this be!?!

it took some doing but I managed to get a copy...you can read find it here...

http://rapidshare.com/files/16427934/RC7_aw3fi.pdf.html

its a 1.5mb pdf file...

This leage table is odviously dundementaly flawed. I mean in poland, checaslovakia or even rural potugal children are put to work from a young age and often have to work MUCH harder in life and school to get anywhere. That just doesnt happen in the UK.

This leage table is odviously dundementaly flawed. I mean in poland, checaslovakia or even rural potugal children are put to work from a young age and often have to work MUCH harder in life and school to get anywhere. That just doesnt happen in the UK.

Now I'm not a grammar/spelling freak...but damn....you just slaughtered the English language.... LOL

I have posted a link to the document above...have a read...

I blame chav culture, council flats and Scotland myself

Though to be fair there was some things like families eating together which seems fairly pointless to me however number 1 in the amount of people living in low income housing has left me speechless to be honest, how the hell did this happen?
families eating together is huge in social development...this where families bond, where ideas and values are shared and taught...of course it helps to have a parents who actually communicate with their kids, my family meals have known been to last 2 hours, a very enjoyable time...

I don;t feel that I have beed deserted by socity. I have NSG to keep me comany.
*Hunces over computer and cackles*

it took some doing but I managed to get a copy...you can read find it here...

http://rapidshare.com/files/16427934/RC7_aw3fi.pdf.html

its a 1.5mb pdf file...

It can also be had straight from UNICEF.

http://www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf

A very interesting read and not surprising in the least. Probably the most amusing thing about it is that the Netherlands, the sex and drugs capital of the world, rates 3rd in Behaviours and Risks while America, the bastion of "Christian morality" comes in at 20. :rolleyes:

*golf clap*

Way to go... Assholes.

It can also be had straight from UNICEF.

http://www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf

A very interesting read and not surprising in the least. Probably the most amusing thing about it is that the Netherlands, the sex and drugs capital of the world, rates 3rd in Behaviours and Risks while America, the bastion of "Christian morality" comes in at 20. :rolleyes:

*golf clap*

Way to go... Assholes.

ah...they must have put that up today...I looked for it last night....thanks!

there is alot of interesting stuff there...but still I feel that we are in deep shit if kids are thinking like this...in the UK...

Notice how its not US news. :p

Because we already know. We just don't care.

Congratulations, Netherlands!

CHILD WELL-BEING LEAGUE TABLE
1. Netherlands
2. Sweden

Despite us being such faggotry enablers? How could this be!?!You know what I noticed?

The top three nations for child welfare all have legal abortion on request. I guess "baby killers" do a pretty good job of caring for babies, after all.

I blame chav culture, council flats and Scotland myself

Though to be fair there was some things like families eating together which seems fairly pointless to me however number 1 in the amount of people living in low income housing has left me speechless to be honest, how the hell did this happen?

I fully agree.

In regard to low income housing, the conservative in me suggests that if certain households had less children, and actually got a job, the issue would be reduced somewhat.

QFT. We're number one in Europe for all those things.

I don't knwo if anyone's said it yet, but:

CHAMPIONS! CHAMPIONS!

You know what I noticed?

The top three nations for child welfare all have legal abortion on request. I guess "baby killers" do a pretty good job of caring for babies, after all.

Well spotted!!! Never even crossed my mind to be honest...

it took some doing but I managed to get a copy...you can read find it here...

http://rapidshare.com/files/16427934/RC7_aw3fi.pdf.html

its a 1.5mb pdf file...

Thanks for trackin' that down. I'll take a look-see.

Yes. I do think the UN does good in the world. I also commend the United States for setting it up.

The USA didn't set it up. It was an internationally set-up organisation that grew out of the alliances during World War II.
If the USA had set it up I doubt they'd have allowed its first session to be held in London.

Ilaer

I should feel terribly alarmed, concerned and distressed, but it simply confirms the suggestion now propounded; namely, that there is an inherent, intractable and deep rooted problem with the young of Britain.
If it's inherent and intractible, then why bother at all, because it can't be cured?

Or is it the kind of inherent and intractible which is just pure hyperbole?

CHILD WELL-BEING LEAGUE TABLE
1. Netherlands
2. Sweden

Despite us being such faggotry enablers? How could this be!?!
The UN is full of liberals, and it doesn't include "moral uprightness" on the tests?

:p

If it's inherent and intractible, then why bother at all, because it can't be cured?

Or is it the kind of inherent and intractible which is just pure hyperbole?

Both. I do quite like the words, and I genuinely believe that "my generation" is a lost cause.

Both. I do quite like the words, and I genuinely believe that "my generation" is a lost cause.
*sighs*

Then why not attempt to do something about it instead of complaining about it in a Daily Mail-esque fashion?

*sighs*

Then why not attempt to do something about it instead of complaining about it in a Daily Mail-esque fashion?

Because there is nothing to be done. With over 1/3 of all children being bred in households reliant upon state benefits (see Daily Telegraph), juvenile crime, juvenile drinking, and general crime rates in augmentation, how does one solve the problem?

Because there is nothing to be done. With over 1/3 of all children being bred in households reliant upon state benefits (see Daily Telegraph), juvenile crime, juvenile drinking, and general crime rates in augmentation, how does one solve the problem?
Through better education, and funding for youth recreation schemes to keep people occupied, so that the next generation is a bit better off.

Through better education, and funding for youth recreation schemes to keep people occupied, so that the next generation is a bit better off.

Possibly. Alternatively, we could shoot murderers, rapists and repeat offenders, reintroduce competitive sports into the school and home, preclude single parents having more children, and introduce discipline into the classroom.

we could shoot murderers, rapists and repeat offenders
Yeah. Nice one. Bring yourself down to their level, instead of re-educating people.
reintroduce competitive sports into the school
Urmm do you not have local athletics competitions etc.?
and home
Free box of monopoly or scrabble (mother's choice) with your firstborn?
preclude single parents having more children
Why not just provide daycare along with the rest of education, so that people can work, instead of having to stay at home all day?
and introduce discipline into the classroom.
Wonder why people nowadays are often mistrustful of education in general?

Possibly because their parents were "disciplined" and hence the trickle-down information from them was essentially 'teachers will beat you and practise collective punishment, so why bother trying at all' ?

The USA didn't set it up. It was an internationally set-up organisation that grew out of the alliances during World War II.
If the USA had set it up I doubt they'd have allowed its first session to be held in London.

Ilaer

The only nation that was able to it was the US. If Truman did not buy into FDR's idea that there needed to be another international organisation there would not have been a UN.

Actually the session to found the UN was held in San Francisco.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/55407.htm

Yeah. Nice one. Bring yourself down to their level, instead of re-educating people.

Firstly, it would work. Secondly, such people don't deserve re-education, hence, why afford them it?

Urmm do you not have local athletics competitions etc.?

Yes, but equally, the failures who finish last are still celebrated. Provide a real sense of competition, and ambition to excel to avoid derision, and one would find that the aggression currently manifested as juvenile delinquency is translated into sport.

Free box of monopoly or scrabble (mother's choice) with your firstborn?

Free, and compulsory, after-school activities?

Why not just provide daycare along with the rest of education, so that people can work, instead of having to stay at home all day?

Because that costs state money that frankly is not merited, when my suggestion would work equally well, and be cheaper.

Wonder why people nowadays are often mistrustful of education in general?
Possibly because their parents were "disciplined" and hence the trickle-down information from them was essentially 'teachers will beat you and practise collective punishment, so why bother trying at all' ?


Utter bollocks. Disaffectation with education is due to a reduction in teacher authority, and thus a reduction in their capacity to discipline dissidents (assonance or consonance?;) ) back into line.

Possibly. Alternatively, we could shoot murderers, rapists and repeat offenders, reintroduce competitive sports into the school and home, preclude single parents having more children, and introduce discipline into the classroom.

Jeez which part of the UK do you live where they don't have competitive sports? Or do you not participate in such activities and therefore believe they just don't exist? Disicipline does exists in classrooms but this is often overlooked by stories of the loud minority of kids who disupt lessons and fuck it up for everyone else. There are parts of Britain that we could do away with such as chav culture but it's not as bad as everyone is making it sound. For example University applications are up 6% on last year.

Jeez which part of the UK do you live where they don't have competitive sports? Or do you not participate in such activities and therefore believe they just don't exist? Disicipline does exists in classrooms but this is often overlooked by stories of the loud minority of kids who disupt lessons and fuck it up for everyone else. There are parts of Britain that we could do away with such as chav culture but it's not as bad as everyone is making it sound. For example University applications are up 6% on last year.

University applications are up? Well that is reassuring. Many more thousands will now be the proud holders of a meaningless degree from an ex-polytechnic, all due to their school's assertions that it is "something they should do".

The number of applications should not disguise the undeniable diminution in academic standards, nor should you assume it does.

Firstly, it would work. Secondly, such people don't deserve re-education, hence, why afford them it?
Because they're people too, and the right to life is the number one right?
Yes, but equally, the failures who finish last are still celebrated. Provide a real sense of competition, and ambition to excel to avoid derision, and one would find that the aggression currently manifested as juvenile delinquency is translated into sport.
Urmm...

I don't know if things are done differently down south, but here, the winners are the winners, and everyone else should have tried harder.

Plus there are some who are going to be naturally worse at sports - smaller lung capacity due to premature birth, a general lack of natural strength etc.
Free, and compulsory, after-school activities?
Nothing to do with the home whatsoever. At all.

Plus, people would just skip them. They'd be another inconvinience to people already bitter about being "disciplined", as well as people uninterested in sports in general.
Because that costs state money that frankly is not merited, when my suggestion would work equally well, and be cheaper.
Don't really see what you're on about here.

If you get people into nurseries and playgroups from a very young age, and have single parents working when their children are at school, then you're going to have a double benefit of more money into the economy and children being in an educative environment from the age of about two years old.

If you start sterilising single parents, you're going to have an aging population that's of no use whatsoever, as well as low self-esteem within that group, that could easily lead to drug use, and hence, secondary crime like theft, which I'm sure you'll agree, is utterly undesirable.
Utter bollocks. Disaffectation with education is due to a reduction in teacher authority, and thus a reduction in their capacity to discipline dissidents (assonance or consonance?;) ) back into line.
Straight from the mouth of someone who went to a grammar school, and hence has very, very little experience of the working class in secondary education. You can get all the information you like from the Maily Telegraph, the Express, or the proper Daily Mail, but that's second hand sensationalism, and I'm pretty sure that you know that, too, in your heart of hearts.

There is quite a large problem with poorer youths being disaffected generally because, in their own words "it's like what their parents said it'd be" - prejudice from teachers, little catering for the desire for skills-based learning and they can't get into an apprenticeship or proper job from the age of 16, as they want with much ease.

Hopefully when Gordon Brown gets into power, this "individualised learning" stuff will quickly advance and people who want to be taught more practical skills, such as being a mechanic etc. will get to do so pretty much straight from secondary school - instead of how it is now, where they're stuck learning academic subjects they're not even the beginnings of interested in for 5 years before being able to do so.

And that was consonance - assonance is about similar vowel sounds, such as "gay day - hooray!"

University applications are up? Well that is reassuring. Many more thousands will now be the proud holders of a meaningless degree from an ex-polytechnic, all due to their school's assertions that it is "something they should do".

The number of applications should not disguise the undeniable diminution in academic standards, nor should you assume it does.
Just remember that when you get a 2/1 in History from York, it'll be totally worthless, then.

In fact, why bother at all?

Might as well just shoot ourselves now, really, instead of getting on with our lives, as we actually should.

UNICEF? If you're at the bottom of their list, it's probably a good thing. Unless, of course, you believe the United Nations is an organization that does good in the world.

*Puts up hand*
I believe the UN is an organization that does good in the world.

University applications are up? Well that is reassuring. Many more thousands will now be the proud holders of a meaningless degree from an ex-polytechnic, all due to their school's assertions that it is "something they should do".
It might be meaningless to you, but it isn't to the people that hold them. Most jobs now requite a degree of some kind, whereas they didn't years ago. Therefore, more people need to go to university.

The number of applications should not disguise the undeniable diminution in academic standards, nor should you assume it does.
What does that have to do with anything?

Just remember that when you get a 2/1 in History from York, it'll be totally worthless, then.

In fact, why bother at all?

Might as well just shoot ourselves now, really, instead of getting on with our lives, as we actually should.

Not at all. York has an academic calibre where history is concerned, as do Warwick, St.Andrews and Kings. Winner.

It might be meaningless to you, but it isn't to the people that hold them. Most jobs now requite a degree of some kind, whereas they didn't years ago. Therefore, more people need to go to university.


What does that have to do with anything?

No no no. Most employers like the kudos of having a workforce that is primarily graduate. A degree is not requisite for the majority of jobs, even within the city.

In regard to the latter, it is of the greatest pertinence. You suggest that education is to be celebrated due to a rise in university applications. Axiomatic to that is the contention that a rise in applications amounts to a rise in the quality of applicants. The opposite is held to be true by most.

Not at all. York has an academic calibre where history is concerned, as do Warwick, St.Andrews and Kings. Winner.
Doesn't matter. 2/1s are given out much more freely than before, even firsts are a lot more common than before.

Might as well go to France or somesuch and do your degree there. Might be worth more.

Or maybe a degree is a degree, and an employer isn't really going to care whether it's from Warwick or Wokington, as long as you've got one on your CV, eh?

Oh right its one story for you and something completely different for everyone else?

Just abour sums up Chris' attitude to life in general I'm afraid.

EDIT Time Warp!!

Not at all. York has an academic calibre where history is concerned, as do Warwick, St.Andrews and Kings. Winner.

Oh right its one story for you and something completely different for everyone else?

Doesn't matter. 2/1s are given out much more freely than before, even firsts are a lot more common than before.

Might as well go to France or somesuch and do your degree there. Might be worth more.

Or maybe a degree is a degree, and an employer isn't really going to care whether it's from Warwick or Wokington, as long as you've got one on your CV, eh?

I should imagine the value of a degree varies according to the nature of the company. Having spoken to corporate law firms, and the Telegraph, they do hold degrees from universities within the top 5/6, for a subject amongst the most competitive at present, in high regard.

Just because I attended the same school as you did you think you can time warp me! Damn you! Damn you I say! :p

*Puts on haughty voice"

But I attended in the 1980s, when it was a proper school, with discipline and proper attitudes....:D

EDIT ; Well thats the proof, time warped again!!

Just abour sums up Chris' attitude to life in general I'm afraid.

EDIT Time Warp!!

Just because I attended the same school as you did you think you can time warp me! Damn you! Damn you I say! :p

In regard to the latter, it is of the greatest pertinence. You suggest that education is to be celebrated due to a rise in university applications. Axiomatic to that is the contention that a rise in applications amounts to a rise in the quality of applicants. The opposite is held to be true by most.
It still gives the majority of people more skills than they used to have - not even you can deny that coming out of uni is going to mean that you've got some more training than someone who came out of their A-levels.

On the other hand, it's vaguely at the expense of you. Not much, since you mainly get out of uni what you put in, but you're ostensibly worse off due to a larger intake. And since you worship at the altar of The Blessed Chris, that makes all of the difference.

I should imagine the value of a degree varies according to the nature of the company. Having spoken to corporate law firms, and the Telegraph, they do hold degrees from universities within the top 5/6, for a subject amongst the most competitive at present, in high regard.

So what you are trying to say is that you advocate elitism and snobbery in education. :rolleyes:

Oh right its one story for you and something completely different for everyone else?

No. Perhaps some do require things spelt out in simple terms, but I like to think not.

The rise in UCAS applications is from those who apply to such esteemed seats of education as Rohampton, Newmarket and Leicester. The genuinely elite universities, and the higher spectrum of candidates, will remain at consistent level.

*Puts on haughty voice"

But I attended in the 1980s, when it was a proper school, with discipline and proper attitudes....:D

EDIT ; Well thats the proof, time warped again!!

And a tuc shop I presume! Yeah that's right the bastards got rid of the tuc shop. Damn you again I say!

So what you are trying to say is that you advocate elitism and snobbery in education. :rolleyes:

In essence, I advocate elitism. The merits of a real degree, for an academic discipline, from a genuie university, are dissipated by the plethora of students who attend joke univeristies for the sake of being "graduate".

And a tuc shop I presume! Yeah that's right the bastards got rid of the tuc shop. Damn you again I say!

Actually, my school still has one....;)

In essence, I advocate elitism. The merits of a real degree, for an academic discipline, from a genuie university, are dissipated by the plethora of students who attend joke univeristies for the sake of being "graduate".

So you think we should get rid of these so called lower universities?

So you think we should get rid of these so called lower universities?

Of course. Tuition fees would be precluded if the lower end of candidates and extablishments did not exist.

I should imagine the value of a degree varies according to the nature of the company. Having spoken to corporate law firms, and the Telegraph, they do hold degrees from universities within the top 5/6, for a subject amongst the most competitive at present, in high regard.
Doesn't really address the fact that degrees are getting more easy to obtain - and the prejudice against everyone not from the "top 5/6" is actually fairly ridiculous, in my opinion. Your exams are going to be, largely, exactly the same. Cambridge's exams won't be any harder than any other uni they're on the same exam board as.

And yet issues crop up - for example, my father has a first in accounting from Manchester - and failed to get a job once on the grounds of being 'not as qualified' as someone who got a mere third (I'm sure you'll agree, a third is basically a "well done for turning up on the exam day, and cheers for £9,000" grade) - but they got theirs from Oxford and hence were considered "better".

Ridiculous, really.

Of course. Tuition fees would be precluded if the lower end of candidates and extablishments did not exist.

So if you are not being a snob, why not advocate raising the levels of these so called lower universities to that of the elite ones? Surely that would give all candidates, regardless of their backgrounds, the opportunity of a first class education. Just because a system is expanded does not automatically mean its quality is diluted, and I for one would love to see you try to prove that in this case.

Doesn't really address the fact that degrees are getting more easy to obtain - and the prejudice against everyone not from the "top 5/6" is actually fairly ridiculous, in my opinion. Your exams are going to be, largely, exactly the same. Cambridge's exams won't be any harder than any other uni they're on the same exam board as.

And yet issues crop up - for example, my father has a first in accounting from Manchester - and failed to get a job once on the grounds of being 'not as qualified' as someone who got a mere third (I'm sure you'll agree, a third is basically a "well done for turning up on the exam day, and cheers for £9,000" grade) - but they got theirs from Oxford and hence were considered "better".

Ridiculous, really.

Absolutely

It still gives the majority of people more skills than they used to have - not even you can deny that coming out of uni is going to mean that you've got some more training than someone who came out of their A-levels.

On the other hand, it's vaguely at the expense of you. Not much, since you mainly get out of uni what you put in, but you're ostensibly worse off due to a larger intake. And since you worship at the altar of The Blessed Chris, that makes all of the difference.


Actually, omit the amusingly lilting irony, and you find a kernel of truth.

Not to be presumptious, but I might as well represent those who are disadvantaged by larger intakes. I genuinely merit a degree, and it is requisite to the career I will pursue, however, my financial situation does not afford me the means to read history whilst being self-funding. Thus, tuition fees, the result of a larger intake, disadvantage thousands like me.

In any case, I believe we've stablished that my concern for the ordinary man is miniscule.

So if you are not being a snob, why not advocate raising the levels of these so called lower universities to that of the elite ones? Surely that would give all candidates, regardless of their backgrounds, the opportunity of a first class education. Just because a system is expanded does not automatically mean its quality is diluted, and I for one would love to see you try to prove that in this case.

Because you presuppose that all candidates are qually intelligent, and that their needs are equal. That ain't so.

Actually, omit the amusingly lilting irony, and you find a kernel of truth.

Not to be presumptious, but I might as well represent those who are disadvantaged by larger intakes. I genuinely merit a degree, and it is requisite to the career I will pursue, however, my financial situation does not afford me the means to read history whilst being self-funding. Thus, tuition fees, the result of a larger intake, disadvantage thousands like me.

In any case, I believe we've stablished that my concern for the ordinary man is miniscule.

Which makes you a snob of the highest order. Those who fail to care for their fellow man generally fail in life. Good luck, pal, your gonna need it.

No no no. Most employers like the kudos of having a workforce that is primarily graduate. A degree is not requisite for the majority of jobs, even within the city.
So, you know more about what qualifications employees should have than their employers, correct?

In regard to the latter, it is of the greatest pertinence. You suggest that education is to be celebrated due to a rise in university applications. Axiomatic to that is the contention that a rise in applications amounts to a rise in the quality of applicants. The opposite is held to be true by most.
No, I didn't. I said that more and more people need to go to university and get degrees to get jobs. I didn't imply anything else.

Doesn't really address the fact that degrees are getting more easy to obtain - and the prejudice against everyone not from the "top 5/6" is actually fairly ridiculous, in my opinion. Your exams are going to be, largely, exactly the same. Cambridge's exams won't be any harder than any other uni they're on the same exam board as.

And yet issues crop up - for example, my father has a first in accounting from Manchester - and failed to get a job once on the grounds of being 'not as qualified' as someone who got a mere third (I'm sure you'll agree, a third is basically a "well done for turning up on the exam day, and cheers for £9,000" grade) - but they got theirs from Oxford and hence were considered "better".

Ridiculous, really.

Try dissolving said snobbery. Frankly, I couldn't care less though, since only those with Oxbridge degrees will be better off than me.

Actually, my school still has one....;)


Damn you! I blame all this "eat healthily or die" culture we live in combined with the fact that the Headmaster wants to be the first to try everything before any other school in Kent. He'll get his comeuppance on muck up day.

Which makes you a snob of the highest order. Those who fail to care for their fellow man generally fail in life. Good luck, pal, your gonna need it.
He already casually admitted to being a racist awhile ago, so compared to that, a snob is pretty much an improvement.

Damn you! I blame all this "eat healthily or die" culture we live in combined with the fact that the Headmaster wants to be the first to try everything before any other school in Kent. He'll get his comeuppance on muck up day.
*Giggles*

Ours tried that. It didn't work.

Which makes you a snob of the highest order. Those who fail to care for their fellow man generally fail in life. Good luck, pal, your gonna need it.

Not really. I don't deal with the common man all that often. Either socially, sportingly, or, I hope, professionally.

He already casually admitted to being a racist awhile ago, so compared to that, a snob is pretty much an improvement.

Its all hate of another group of people. It generally comes down to a lack of confidence, intellect and self worth.

Not really. I don't deal with the common man all that often. Either socially, sportingly, or, I hope, professionally.

Which proffession would that be?

To not care for anyone who are below you economically is not only ignorant and snobbish but kind of scary. The world needs to intergrate not to keep the divides in place.

Daily Mail editor?

Not to be presumptious, but I might as well represent those who are disadvantaged by larger intakes. I genuinely merit a degree, and it is requisite to the career I will pursue, however, my financial situation does not afford me the means to read history whilst being self-funding. Thus, tuition fees, the result of a larger intake, disadvantage thousands like me.
Oh crack out the fucking violins. We're all disadvantaged by tuition fees equally, and since from most universities, you'll get about four or five months off a year, it's not hard to work then, as well as maybe working your Saturdays at a bar or somesuch.

Not really very difficult to read history with all of those possibilities to support yourself, now, is it?
In any case, I believe we've stablished that my concern for the ordinary man is miniscule.
Aye, as well as any kind of foreigners, as well as black people. And that's something that'll bring you down when times are hard and you might have to *is shocked* mix with such people.

Oh crack out the fucking violins. We're all disadvantaged by tuition fees equally, and since from most universities, you'll get about four or five months off a year, it's not hard to work then, as well as maybe working your Saturdays at a bar or somesuch.

Not really very difficult to read history with all of those possibilities to support yourself, now, is it?

Aye, as well as any kind of foreigners, as well as black people. And that's something that'll bring you down when times are hard and you might have to *is shocked* mix with such people.

Which would be when?

Which proffession would that be?

Corporate law or political journalism.

Its all hate of another group of people. It generally comes down to a lack of confidence, intellect and self worth.

Not as such. I'm just not that tolerant.

Which would be when?

Everyday for the rest of your life maybe? Unless you live under a rock...However I don't know what career your going into so I may be wrong.

Corporate law or political journalism.
It's one or the other at the degree point.

Unless you choose "Corporate Law and History" or something, in which case it's actually neither, because you're underqualified for both.

Corporate law or political journalism.

Political Journalism? Pull the other one. its got bells on. Not having to mix with the "lower classes"? With an attitude like that you'll have to be on permanent watch for bogies whenever you eat out kid.

Not really. I don't deal with the common man all that often. Either socially, sportingly, or, I hope, professionally.
Just as long as your bins get emptied, your Daily Mail gets delivered and every bit of your pipe and slippers lifestyle that relies of the 'common man' runs like clockwork, you won't have to deal with the 'common man', will you? Or are you planning on living in a bubble, with only a butler giving you access to that horrible, nasty working class filled world outside?

Fuck me, snobbery and arrogance of your level is bloody hard to find.

Which would be when?
If you lose your job, perchance?

Corporate law or political journalism.

Not as such. I'm just not that tolerant.

Tolerence infers all three, generally being in a happy state with your life. Intolerence stems from anger. You have some serious issues.

Fuck me, snobbery and arrogance of your level is bloody hard to find.

.. outside of a PG Wodehouse novel:D

Corporate law or political journalism.

So everyday of your life. Guess what political journalism will mean you will have to travel to other nations or talk to ministers and such who are *shock horror* black or from an econmic disadvantaged background. I may be going into the same career. Corporate law? Oh noes ethnic minorities might own large companies!

I should feel terribly alarmed, concerned and distressed, but it simply confirms the suggestion now propounded; namely, that there is an inherent, intractable and deep rooted problem with the young of Britain.

No. There is something wrong with the adults of Britain. Children cannot be blamed for their own upbringing. Greed, apathy and short-sightedness amongst the baby-boomers and their children have doomed us all.

I was raised by my parents, not by the government or the society around me.

Ultimately, a child's well being depends on the parents far more than anything else; a child living in poverty in Nigeria could have a better life than a child who lives in a wealthy country if they have a solid home life and upbringing.

Not really. Children are raised by society. To argue that parents are the sole socialising influence upon individuals is flagrantly divurgent from the facts.

This leage table is odviously dundementaly flawed. I mean in poland, checaslovakia or even rural potugal children are put to work from a young age and often have to work MUCH harder in life and school to get anywhere. That just doesnt happen in the UK.

Why do so many people have the idea that Eastern Europe is somehow still stuck in the 19th Century? In real terms, a Polish child is going to have as much access to material goods as a British child (the minimum wage may be lower, but so are the costs of living).

No no no. Most employers like the kudos of having a workforce that is primarily graduate. A degree is not requisite for the majority of jobs, even within the city.

In regard to the latter, it is of the greatest pertinence. You suggest that education is to be celebrated due to a rise in university applications. Axiomatic to that is the contention that a rise in applications amounts to a rise in the quality of applicants. The opposite is held to be true by most.

When every other git applying for a job has a degree, then yes, it is essential.

There is no future in any career that doesn't require or request a degree in this country or anywhere else in the Western world. Unless you want to create another generation of the idle underclass, (which may not be the case, given your Feudalist tendencies), then universal tertiary education must be a top priority.

Tolerence infers all three, generally being in a happy state with your life. Intolerence stems from anger. You have some serious issues.

No shit sherlock. Took you that long to realise did it.

No shit sherlock. Took you that long to realise did it.
Or maybe he's just pointing it out and perhaps he's known it for ages, you cocky twat.

No shit sherlock. Took you that long to realise did it.

So sort them out instead of polluting others with your warped views, that is what a (supposedly) intelligent person would you dullard.

When every other git applying for a job has a degree, then yes, it is essential.

There is no future in any career that doesn't require or request a degree in this country or anywhere else in the Western world. Unless you want to create another generation of the idle underclass, (which may not be the case, given your Feudalist tendencies), then universal tertiary education must be a top priority.

No. It bloody well is not. The average office job does not necessitate a graduate to fill it.

We do not require a working population that is 50% graduate, and it is economically irresponsible to contend that we do.

Or maybe he's just pointing it out and perhaps he's known it for ages, you cocky twat.

Hence, why point it out then?

So sort them out instead of polluting others with your warped views, that is what a (supposedly) intelligent person would you dullard.

Oh wow. Now I'm complicit to pollution. Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;)


Frankly, I don't have time at present, and, although I should, why bother?

Hence, why point it out then?
Because perhaps he thought that you might not, since in some respects you are a fool of the highest.

Oh wow. Now I'm complicit to pollution. Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;)


Frankly, I don't have time at present, and, although I should, why bother?

Because social responsibilty is an integral part of human interaction, and you seem to be missing it. By that very extension you are limiting your own interaction with other humans to a select group and probably exacerbating your issues. Get some help for christ sake. You don't want to be a middle aged Daily Mail reader by the time your thirty, believe me.

No. It bloody well is not. The average office job does not necessitate a graduate to fill it.

We do not require a working population that is 50% graduate, and it is economically irresponsible to contend that we do.
Not really, because if we do have a working population that is 50% graduate, it's going to have the skills to adapt to whatever the current circumstances require - hence it might actually be better economically.

No. It bloody well is not. The average office job does not necessitate a graduate to fill it.

We do not require a working population that is 50% graduate, and it is economically irresponsible to contend that we do.
It would seem that employers, who I trust to know what they are talking about, would disagree.

Which makes you a snob of the highest order. Those who fail to care for their fellow man generally fail in life. Good luck, pal, your gonna need it.

Ah yes, because we all know that caring for your fellow man makes you successful, rich and well-hung.

[/DISNEY]

Are we to ascertain from this that a degree in history is the best way to succeed in the workplace? If the only benefits of a university education were to prepare somebody for their chosen career, surely the blessed Chris would have chosen to study for a degree more relevant to journalism or law?

I cannot see that a rise in the number of people striving to be better educated is anything other than encouraging. As a history student, tbC should recognise the dangers of inertia. A quest for knowledge is what brought about every one of the advances the human race has made, and whilst the economic viability of university degrees is a valuable point, a society in which knowledge and education is valued is one which progresses.

Unless, of course, our undergraduates are too busy laughing at the proletariat to actually make it to graduation.

EDIT:

Ah yes, because we all know that caring for your fellow man makes you successful, rich and well-hung.

[/DISNEY]

Alas, I have seen the error of my ways! I shall burn my copy of Das Kapital and fly to my club in order to experiment with my newly-acquired sexual prowess!

Alas, I have seen the error of my ways! I shall burn my copy of Das Kapital and fly to my club in order to experiment with my newly-acquired sexual prowess!

Best line from a first post ever!

No. It bloody well is not. The average office job does not necessitate a graduate to fill it.

We do not require a working population that is 50% graduate, and it is economically irresponsible to contend that we do.

No, it does not necessitate a graduate. But from a list of prospective employees, the ones with degrees will have more luck than those without. Whether people need degrees for the skills they bring to the workplace is irrelevent, because people will soon enough need degrees simply to obtain employment in the first place!

Global trade is liberalising, thus nations must specialise in what it is that they produce. Britain cannot beat the likes of China and India (or most of the rest of the world) in building cheap little widgets or growing crops. However, Britain does have the most well established, respected higher education network in the world. And so it only makes sense for us to concentrate on what we do best, which is fill the world with university-educated brainboxes.

UNICEF? If you're at the bottom of their list, it's probably a good thing. Unless, of course, you believe the United Nations is an organization that does good in the world.
UNICEF =/= UN Security Council (sorry, I smell a huge tar brush about to be deployed)

UNICEF know their shit, you don't.