|
| + Visit Derby County FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Not a popular view but one I happen to agree with.
As regards degrees v apprenticeships...again I completely agree, absolutely a case of ‘horses for courses’...it’s just a pity that the latter tends to be looked down on in comparison to the former. Sheer unfounded snobbery imo.
Tend to agree there swale, but usually speaking paid off by the death of a relative with a house worth excessive amounts on the open market and that value accumulated pretty much for free y the parent/grandparent
Yes HND does exist, and often accepted on par with a degree (after all, its the same course, level and criteria, just marked from day one and doesn't require the 3rd year). I disagree that apprentiships are looked down upon, if anything I'd say people are happier to take on someone fresh from an apprentiship with workplace experience, than a wet behind the ears graduate who thinks they're something special but can't tie their shoelaces.
When I finished in June 1977, I owed the bank the princely sum of £100...had a full time job lined up for September and a holiday job to see me through till then. Those were the days!
I do honestly think though that there is a case to be made for those that use their qualifications for the ‘benefit of the State’...eg those who go on to work for the NHS or state funded schools etc for a minimum period of ‘x’ number of years to be excused repayment of any qualification based debt. Tin hat at the ready! Thoughts?
Surely most jobs benefit the state? And teachers get paid too much, get too much holiday, too much pension anyway.
Agreed Adi...bunch of sciving lily livered lefties, the lot of ‘em! Nurses too...and don’t get me started on doctors...going round saving people’s lives and extending life expectancy like they do...and who’s going to pay for it? You and me...that’s who!
‘Surely most jobs benefit the state?’ In so much as employed people pay and generate tax revenue I suppose you’re right, but beyond that...do they?
Don’t those who spend four or more years training to then go and spend a minimum number of years - and possibly a lifetime - working directly for the country deserve some sort of ‘break’ in that respect?
It was different in my day and I’m not moaning at all...but it took ‘A’ levels and four years of qualifying to then spend thirty years working directly for the country. To do that nowadays would involve racking up a much more sizeable debt than was the case back in the seventies. Where’s the incentive?
No sympathy from me, I have one of those debts. Seeing as I fund the wages of these teachers, why should I then have to fund their priviledge for discounted education too? If they love the country so much, why didn't they teach me for a reduced rate?