The Coalition

[llcoolphil]

Pretty much year on year improvements in exam results...

Edited August 8, 2010 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

There is all ways some statistic he can pull out of thin air...

[oafc0000]

So despite the fact that all some employer organisations and all some higher education establishments point out that improved exam results is actually represented by a falling ability amongst students, you actually believe standards are improving because the government says so?

Edited August 8, 2010 by oafc0000

[llcoolphil]

If education is good, why, in the four places have I taught, had A-Level classes with students who have passed most or all there GCSE's, unable to write a coherent essay?

[llcoolphil]

Fixed for you Idiot

Edited August 8, 2010 by llcoolphil

[oafc0000]

Ok you find me a single employer organisation and a single Higher Education establishment - just one of each - that says academic standards are improving.

No you didn't, you can't vote for a coalition. You voted tory. And you posted a leaflet on here explaining how shit the lib dems actually are.

I keep telling you, but this is what happens when you lie and forget what lies you've told.

Edited August 8, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

My daughter is about to get somewhere between 3 As and 3 Bs (he says tempting fate!!) for science A levels and could no more write a coherent essay than fly to the moon. My brother, a professor, complains that his department spends too much time in the first year teaching basic english to undergraduates in order for them to be able to hand a piece of work in!

[llcoolphil]

Someone clearly disagrees with you regarding your daughter if she is on course for an A...

[llcoolphil]

You voted tory.

[oafc0000]

Go on then, explain to me the content of A level exams in Maths, Biology and Chemistry.

[oafc0000]

You knew the outcome of the election as you voted? How?

Bear in mind you have already told us that opinion polls are rubbish and cant be trusted when you answer this question

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Okay Phil, it's clear we disagree with each other mostly on ideology now, not on much practical that I can gather. Therefore arguing ideology never results to anything more than continous neil v's worm-esque debate.

This is highlighted by your opinion of "shit universities". I went to a relatively new university, Glasgow Caledonian University, I can assure you that some of my friends who done similiar courses at Strathclyde and Glasgow had just as much work, and on the same level of relative difficuilty, as I did. Does that mean I went to a shit university because the entry level is slightly lower (I'd also like you to know I could have went to Strathclyde but chose Caledonian for numerous other reasons).

I find your opinion of universities to be "shit" quite alarming, perhaps differing entry requirements and varying levels of difficuilty, but none to be "shit".

You see then our problem lies by what our definitions are, and not on anything that can ever be proven factualy. The same with how you place a heavy heavy careerist emphasis on education as well.

Out of interest, which organisations are you part of? Nothing personal in this, it would just be nice to know where you're coming from, since you know exactly where my stances lie.

[llcoolphil]

Well first of all, one would imagine she has written an eassay recently for you to have drawn a valid opinion on the subject... Secondly given she is on course for A then one would presume her work has been to a very high standard... I would be proud of her rather than doing her down in public... but hey, that's just me...

[Cardboard Box City]

Therefore arguing ideology never results to anything more than continous neil v's worm-esque debate.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Cardboard Box City

[oafc0000]

It was odds on how? Because the opinion polls you have said are rubbish said so?

Edited August 8, 2010 by oafc0000

[llcoolphil]

This is highlighted by your opinion of "shit universities". I went to a relatively new university, Glasgow Caledonian University, I can assure you that some of my friends who done similiar courses at Strathclyde and Glasgow had just as much work, and on the same level of relative difficuilty, as I did. Does that mean I went to a shit university because the entry level is slightly lower (I'd also like you to know I could have went to Strathclyde but chose Caledonian for numerous other reasons).

I find your opinion of universities to be "shit" quite alarming, perhaps differing entry requirements and varying levels of difficuilty, but none to be "shit".

You see then our problem lies by what our definitions are, and not on anything that can ever be proven factualy. The same with how you place a heavy heavy careerist emphasis on education as well.

Out of interest, which organisations are you part of? Nothing personal in this, it would just be nice to know where you're coming from, since you know exactly where my stances lie.

Edited August 8, 2010 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

Do you not take interest or know anything about your local government without some silly poll tell you

[oafc0000]

You said local government was just about emptying the bins. It was me and Kowalski who pointed out to you it was about more than that. Have you forgotten already?

[llcoolphil]

I think you need to work out what "tongue in cheek" and "throw away" comment mean God you need a social life

[oafc0000]

I reckon Wickerman two weeks ago, Kendal Calling last week and Summer Sundae next week suggests otherwise. Then we still have Eden and Alchemy to come after that. How much more of a social life do you think I need?

[llcoolphil]

It's funny you care about what I think of you

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Whether you like it or not, or whether you find it alarming or not, there is a great deal of shit university education out there and that's because standards have had to fall in order to get more people in Higher Education. There are odd decent departments amongst some new universities, but generally speaking, the standards are poor. I base this partly on going to university in 1984 and again in 1996 and my daughter going in 2010. The majority of students I studied with in 1996 would not have got in to university in 1984. My daughter would not have got into university in 1984 with her current standard of english. This is very much not students fault - they can only be taught and assessed as the state chooses to assess them. But if all HE establishments are saying that standards are dropping amongst new undergraduates, why are they lying?

Similarly, i look at people on here who have a degree. You lack judgement. Oaf and Markee have no judgement whatsoever, no ability to construct a cohesive argument and in oaf's case, no ability to construct a cohesive sentence. These are people with degrees. Again you can only be taught what you are and assessed how you are. Butb the idea that standards aren't falling is laughable. A university education used to be the biggest means to social mobility. That social mobility is now limited very much to which university you went to and if you went to one outside the russell group, it is non-existent.

This isn't something new Im saying. Ive pointed out that the more people that have a degree, the more a degree is devalued. I pointed out to you over a year ago that a first degree is now so devalued, that one needs a masters or some other form of post gradnow to do anything with it (outside the top 20 universities). Ive been saying for some time on these boards that we are conning young people into getting a load of debt that will leave them no better off.

And the idea that you had the same standard of education at Caledonian as someone at Glasgow, one of the UKs leading research universities, is laughable.

Im coming from my own point of view, not an organisation's. None of what Ive said is in any way new. You might want to try forming your own opinions now and then instead of just repeating others

[eFestivals]

Votes to 16 destroys the inequality of paying taxes without having the say to how they are spent!

Living wage increases the pay of those at the bottom moving away from inequality.

High pay commisions looking at curbing those at the top to bring them down closer to those at the bottom; tackling inequality.

Scraping tax breaks for private school and giving free school meals aims to tackle the differences between rich kids and poor kids, tackling inequality

Taxing homes which are at high worth to make sure those at the top pay a fair share, tackeling inequality.

Employees having a look at their employers buisnesses, to make sure its legit for all the workers, attacking inequality in the workplace.

Making sure that the cabinet is representative of society also attacks inequality.

I'd say the rest were things expected of socialists but not exclusive.

you're spot on - these are things that were expected of socialists.

So the qestion has to be asked: after 13 years in power, why were none of these things done, and why in fact did Labour often do things against these ideas (such as lowering taxes for the richest and increasing them for the poorest)?

[sifi]

you're spot on - these are things that were expected of socialists.

So the qestion has to be asked: after 13 years in power, why were none of these things done, and why in fact did Labour often do things against these ideas (such as lowering taxes for the richest and increasing them for the poorest)?

[oafc0000]

you're spot on - these are things that were expected of socialists.

So the qestion has to be asked: after 13 years in power, why were none of these things done, and why in fact did Labour often do things against these ideas (such as lowering taxes for the richest and increasing them for the poorest)?