Thread: Rise in UK Tuition Fees - Can we trust ANY politicians?

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

Education alone doesn't do the trick. The only thing that can stand along in bringing all the people together in the world is love.

I don't care what anyone says, you are my guy (girl or dude), Robin, it always comes back to love with you like it always comes back to violence with me. YouTube - The Love Boat


And I'm not trying to put you down but just being a little lighthearted here. I like the self-educated too! I especially like them when their dark, thick lipped Portuguese known as the "The N....." that wax eloquently in poems and fix up splendid dishes for their homies. Joseph Barboza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joseph "The Animal" Barboza (pronounced BAR-bow-sa) (September 20, 1932 – February 11, 1976) was a Portuguese-American mafioso and one of the most feared mob hitmen during the 1960s. He is reputed to have murdered at least 26 men in his lifetime—yet never proven.

He was bull-necked and weighed between 168 to 175 pounds by the time he reached adulthood. Joe was fluent in Portuguese, Italian and Spanish language and self educated caused from lack of formal schooling. He was a skilled chef who cooked for his family and members of his crew authentic Portuguese cuisine dishes and later after graduating from cooking class as a sauce, vegetable and roast chef, learned how to cook French cuisine, mostly with wines. Barboza had swarthy looks and thick, shiny, dark brown naturally wavy hair, dark eyes and thick lips. He was married to a Jewish woman and fathered a daughter in 1965 and also a son...

Barboza was given a one-year prison term, including time served. He was paroled in March 1969 and relocated to Santa Rosa, California where he enrolled in a culinary arts school and is rumored to have killed ten more men. In 1971, he pleaded guilty to a second-degree murder charge in California and was sentenced to five years at Folsom Prison. At prison Barboza became an amateur poet and wrote poems portraying the evils of the La Cosa Nostra and his own fearlessness, "Boston Gang War", "The Mafia Double Crosses", "A Cat's Lives" and "The Gang War Ends". Additionally, he was a talented artist.

Hello -- earth to WF. Earth to WF!

I think what Robin was getting it is there are many venues to learning, and formal education is only one of them. In the case of brain surgery, that is a highly specialized trade, and without the benefit of a medical school and its system of teaching that has been refined and refined for as long as there've been medical schools, and without the resources it provides (dead bodies), I think someone would have a very hard time learning how to be a brain surgeon.

In the case of the arts, I think formal education can play much less of a role. Education can't teach taste, nor how to connect with people's emotions.

Originally Posted by caelum

I think what Robin was getting it is there are many venues to learning, and formal education is only one of them.

I agree. I recall in a different thread Sam once made what I thought was an excellent point on intelligence. Sam basically suggested that being able to evade and escape human hunters bent on tracking and killing you was more a demonstration of a persons intelligence than route memorization for many standard academic tests.

Academia is found of sitting nicely theorizing about predators and prey, evolution with its competition, or cooperation, and its variation and selection.

But academia never applies it so well as the serial killer or those that survive predation.

The serial killer is largely self taught. Where does university teach one how to live as a civilian and hunt other civilians for leisure and trophy? I recall an FBI agent that specialized on serial killers saying that serial killers are more difficult to catch than normal murders because they only get better at their craft the more times they stalk and kill.

Here's a book - I've never read just browsed it on Amazon - written by a corrections officer that graduated college with a B.S. in psychology and a minor in biology. He claims to have grown up in the desert with no running water or electricity. He was formally educated, academically wise, in violence through martial arts training.

At one point in one page - offered on Amazon - he says something along the lines, "You are not what you think you are you are what you are." I love it.

His pages xv, xvi, xvii are applicable to this thread with regards to learning, formal education, or I suppose philosophical discourse of knowledge or learning.

Book: Amazon.com: Meditations on Violence: A Comparison of Martial Arts Training & Real World Violence (9781594391187): Rory Miller: Books






A person and society still needs Dentists and Maxillofacial surgeons taught in university and clinical environments under qualified tutelage. The library or "self education" won't do. Not if you want to better protect your community and nation. You will need an accredited culture that requires minimum standards not just in tests but in schooling.

The military has established a certain level of accredited schooling and culture for the tracking and killing of other humans. I haven't seen this on the campus of Marquette University or UW-Milwaukee though.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

The only thing that can stand along in bringing all the people together in the world is love.

Love should be something one does. Those who preach it should really know how to practice it. Telling everyone that the world needs love while flaming those who disagree with points raised comes over the same way as preaching forgiveness while practising judgement.

"They talk about a life of brotherly love, show me someone who knows how to live it." Bob Dylan, Slow Train Coming.

I just think it's amusing that in a discussion about higher education, people bring up two extremes on either side of the spectrum that really can't be argued. Surgery and the arts. I'm mean -- what's the point?

Originally Posted by JosephB

I just think it's amusing that in a discussion about higher education, people bring up two extremes on either side of the spectrum that really can't be argued. Surgery and the arts. I'm mean -- what's the point?

It would be good to see some discussion of the actual topic in the OP. The vote is going through the House of Lords today with the Labour peers pledged to vote against the government. If the proposal is successfully opposed then it will be back to the House of Commons for a revision. I think the real issue is whether the majority decide that the government needs to be given support for the overall good rather than the specific issue.

Meanwhile there are more student demonstrations taking place today.

It should be interesting. Otherwise, I don't have a dog in this particular hunt.

Costs vary wildly here, anywhere from 2500.00 a year for a community college to 40,000.00 or so for a private university. I'm guessing the average cost for a state university is 10,000.00 a year these days. How much a student pays is all over the map too, based on need and whether or not you'll qualify for any scholarships.

I haven't looked into why tuition has gone up so much -- or what is it about operating costs that have increased so much to justify it. All I know is, the cost is going up exponentially, far outpacing inflation, and people are having to borrow more and more money. I can't even imagine what it will cost in 10 years when my oldest child graduates high school.

Because the costs are determined by the individual schools or state university systems, I don't know that any protests would be very effective. But it seems like something has to give at some point.

Originally Posted by JosephB

It should be interesting. Otherwise, I don't have a dog in this particular hunt.

Costs vary wildly here, anywhere from 2500.00 a year for a community college to 40,000.00 or so for a private university. I'm guessing the average cost for a state university is 10,000.00 a year these days. How much a student pays is all over the map too, based on need and whether or not you'll qualify for any scholarships.

I haven't looked into why tuition has gone up so much -- or what is it about operating costs that have increased so much to justify it. All I know is, the cost is going up exponentially, far outpacing inflation, and people are having to borrow more and more money. I can't even imagine what it will cost in 10 years when my oldest child graduates high school.

Because the costs are determined by the individual schools or state university systems, I don't know that any protests would be very effective. But it seems like something has to give at some point.

The House of Lords has voted in favour of the increase so it's going to go through. There was a lot of vocalised opposition, including accusations that the government is using "sledgehammer economics" when it should be seeking to gain increase through nurturing, but it's the votes that count

Can we trust politicians (returning to the thread):

Love? Big Beatle fan here.

Everyone would agree most politicians have gotten a decent education on their rise to the top. And nearly everyone would have t agree that there is always a stench near that top, where the elected gather to discuss ways to line their pockets.

Though I think all should be educated, I wouldn't be running around town gloating about the fact that I have a degree in this and a degree in that. What do those degrees amount to? That a person has paid for his learning and that, under certain government rules, he or she qualifies for a particular job.

Everyone cannot be a Shakespeare, but everyone can learn as much as he or she wants to--alone or any other way.

Personally, I wouldn't give those crooks who run the learning institutions a dime. Let them go get a job or rob a bank.

It’s really not about “trusting” politicians. Anyone old enough to vote should know the drill. When a politician says, “I will do this…” what he means is, “I propose this -- and whether or not it becomes law or policy depends on getting it through legislation and probably a lot of other things I haven’t considered. Weigh it against what my opponent is proposing.”

It’s all theoretical. To consider these proposals or party platforms or whatever “promises” is pretty dumb. And if you think they are, then you get the elected official you deserve. Mostly, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. That's not to say politicians never pander by proposing things they know aren't likely feasible. But those often fall under the category of, "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Maybe free university for all might be an example. Well -- let the voter beware.

It’s also naive to think politicians are motivated solely by greed. Many things motivate them: power, prestige, perks, idealism, the genuine desire to do good etc. It’s probably more about ego and “look at me, I’m a senator!” more than anything else. It isn’t all about "lining pockets."

Some people do seem to manage to accumulate wealth, if not in office, afterward – based on connections and fame. But there are a lot more efficient ways to get rich. And considering the scrutiny politicians are under, receiving graft outright isn’t something that is easy to get away with these days.

I'd argue that politicians are in it for the power, not just the wealth and attention. Hell, I'd love to be in a position of power.. but my motivation is quite a bit different to that of 'most' politicians today.

I've rarely voted. We have our voting days and sometimes I get dragged along, due to friends/family who say things like 'omg, how can you not want to vote?!!" Like it's a sin.. so I go along with the routine to prevent arguments; and then I draw skull and crossbones on the politicians names that I recognise (which isn't many).

Why do this...? Because I don't think there's much difference between one politician and the next. Because I've not noticed any difference in my style of life that varied due to a change in power. Because I believe politicians cannot be trusted.

Of course.. there's also a disinclination to care about politics. It just makes my life a bit simpler and easier.

Well, if you lived here, you would see that despite what some people say (mostly the uninformed) there are significant differences between political parties. There are also differences between politicians as individuals, even if it means choosing between the lesser of two evils. I feel obligated to vote. And yes, life is simpler and easier if you just ignore what's going on.

Originally Posted by JosephB

Well, if you lived here, you would see that despite what some people say (mostly the uninformed) there are significant differences between political parties. There are also differences between politicians as individuals, even if it means choosing between the lesser of two evils. I feel obligated to vote. And yes, life is simpler and easier if you just ignore what's going on.

It's really a case of choosing between poisons much of the time. I usually go for the one that looks like it's going to be least painful.

I do sometimes think, if I myself wouldn't know what to do with the leadership of a country, how can my vote ever be "properly informed"? And if I was one of the "elites", how much confidence could I have in the average person to vote with the right criteria in mind? My suspicion is that many politicians feel this way to some extent. The situation is made worse by the fact most decisions are made for us by unelected bureaucrats, anyway. The right to vote seems like little consolation and perhaps that explains a lot of the apathy the average person has towards politics in general.

Originally Posted by Mermaid on the breakwater

It's really a case of choosing between poisons much of the time. I usually go for the one that looks like it's going to be least painful.

.

Finally, an intellectual voice.