David49
Allira
It's all about "Chiefs and Indians" at the end of the day, the chiefs do the organizing, Indians do the work.
Not quite sure what you mean by that David49, who exactly are the Chiefs and who are the Indians?
The tradespeople we know tend to run their own businesses and are hands-on themselves. Their employees are well paid too.
You all really don't have a clue.
Yes a tradesman, a worker starts work as an apprentice and works his way up as far as he can, some stay as one man bands some develop massive businesses. It doesn't matter if a technician is a hairdresser or a software engineer, all learn a trade partly practical skills, partly theoretical, our education system does not provide the productive skills we need.
For those that are unsure, Chiefs are the bosses who do the planning and provide the finance for a business, the Indians are the workers who put the plan into action, make the money to pay for the company and pay for all the managers, administrators, regulators, and revenue collectors, and hopefully, a surplus to expand the business
Workers are the most important part and we don't have enough, we have to import migrants.
Do I value education?, of course, as a means earning a living, we have to have teachers, doctors, lawyers, all need to go to university. The whole aim of university is to earn more and have a better life style, great for those that are lucky.
"Uni" has become the ultimate aim of far too many, there simply aren't enough graduate level jobs. Far too many are taking low level degrees in subjects where there are few openings. Currently virtually anyone who want to go to university and study their choice will find a place regardless of whether the rose any prospect a job, this has got to stop. Places have got to be allocated to those disciplines the country needs, not the students dream.
Well we will never agree. I don't think that education is a means of earning a living, or worse, as a way to earn more - I think that is the fundamental difference in our opinions. I see education as a way of opening people to new ideas, to critical thinking, to seeing both sides of an argument, and in some cases to enriching the culture of our society. If, as a result, people earn more than those who work at lower levels, then so be it, but it should not, IMO, be an end in itself.
How do you know about 'low level degrees'? What criteria do you use to decide how a subject you have never studied is 'low level' or not? How much do you know about processes within universities that exist to ensure that standards are maintained? There are many, I can assure you.
The trouble is that if people refuse to see education as an end in itself, but rather as a means to an end, and that end is to become a 'chief' rather than an 'Indian', then that will be how they rate degrees, whether or not they have a clue about how degrees actually work.
Some subjects do lend themselves more readily to direct-entry employment, I'm not denying that. But others give us people who may work in all manner of areas, not necessarily linked to their studies, but they are able to make a case, to see through weasel words, to come up with strategies that promote efficiency and much much more. Some will go on to write plays, music, novels and poems, or make Art, but as the chances of 21 year olds getting things published or performed are small, in the meantime they may work in what you might see as non-graduate jobs. So what? They would have done that anyway had they not gone to university. Some may never be a success in the field they love, but might run night classes for amateur artists, or local dramatic societies. Who knows - one of those might give a chance to a future prizewinner?
I don't think there is anything wrong with young people having dreams. Without them they will never have dreams come true, as the song goes. Would you deny them the chance?
We disagree, but I have given reasons for my disagreement, rather than simply telling you that you don't have a clue. I think that is telling.