Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:17 am
#1576746
It's common sense to fund the areas of shortfall more than those where there is; a) a surplus, and b) reduced level of contribution to society.
For example; where's the logic in continuing to fund any number of law degrees when there's already a surplus?
That courses should be presented to prospective students as being equal, IMO, is wrong.
I'm all for someone choosing to do a degree in whatever subject they wish, however having an expectation that the tax payer should foot the bill irrespective of subject choice is wrong.
My initial response was to FD suggesting funding universities from taxation wasn't without it's challenges.
As I suggested another consequence of undergraduates not contributing is the attitude they have to their chosen subject, career path and indeed education. If it's all paid for it's much easier to go to university, much easier to waste one's time there and also much easier after the degree to simply shrug one's shoulders and go off work as a waiter in a cafe.
For example; where's the logic in continuing to fund any number of law degrees when there's already a surplus?
That courses should be presented to prospective students as being equal, IMO, is wrong.
I'm all for someone choosing to do a degree in whatever subject they wish, however having an expectation that the tax payer should foot the bill irrespective of subject choice is wrong.
My initial response was to FD suggesting funding universities from taxation wasn't without it's challenges.
As I suggested another consequence of undergraduates not contributing is the attitude they have to their chosen subject, career path and indeed education. If it's all paid for it's much easier to go to university, much easier to waste one's time there and also much easier after the degree to simply shrug one's shoulders and go off work as a waiter in a cafe.
Spooky liked this
Misc.