The way of the world

Stop wriggling you twat. You originally agreed with Ginge's puerile
assertion;

You didn't intorduce any caveats.

Now you are, rightly, introducing those caveats. With those caveats I
would agree with you.

But that doesn't make my taking Ginge, and you, to task for /your original
comments/ any less valid.

 

Interestingly enough, a lot of the less-well-known directors of blue chips
companies did go on to higher eduction.[0]

[0] Did you mean "further". I did mean "higher".

 

Sounds a bit like the new dry Blaney actually GAF.

 

Yes, in the sense of onwards and upwards.

On a personal note I did a a five year 'management training' scheme with a
well known London hotel group - probably one of the best craft training
schemes in the world at the time. The lights came on when I went to work for
a Merkin co and I realised I still knew diddly squat and that a trip into
higher education would be beneficial, which I took. I only know slightly
more than diddly squat now - but had hell of a great time doing it and it
opened up a lot of doors that would have otherwide been shut. Could I have
done the jobs? Almost certainly, but not as well.

Buzby

 

I think he did with the words "It also depends on the peronality of
the non-graduate, of course. Not everyone is capable of being an
effective manager, no matter how much experience they may have."

Hope you're not starting arguments coz you're bored, Ben ;o)

 

I try to sin in moderation.

 

Rolls-Royce, BAe, Wood Group, in fact any ISO9001 (2000) organisation
should be investing in training (and demonstrating that they have).

 

Just less tolerant.

 

They're not the same thing. Further Education is, say, someone of 30
re-doing their O-levels because they fucked them up when they were 16.
Higher Education is going to the next tier, eg A-levels after O-levels.

 

But he didn't start with that. He started by lauding Ginge's absurd
notion.

I'm too busy to be bored.

 

It's incredibly easy to argue with. It depends how you think society
should be run and who benefits from society and the actions of the
people within it.

All we will end up doing here is arguing about terminology. Cane's view
of a nanny state is probably my view of a government that is trying to
support its population and ensure that people are not unnecessarily
disadvantaged. This is why I don't greatly object to paying my income
tax to fund education, the health service, state benefits, pensions,
employment support schemes etc. I am better off than many people and I
think it is only right I make my contribution to supporting society. (I
assume) Cane would rather he kept all his money for himself and then
decided what he bought and from whom - be that defence, education,
medical services whatever. The detritus of society that don't impact him
can go hang.

I am one of the most uncompetitive people around - I can't stand the
mindset it engenders in a lot of people. Hasn't stopped me doing OK for
myself. The world doesn't solely function on the basis of *me*
competing against everyone else so that I have the best for myself.

I know little about the benefit system thankfully. For every example of
some scrounger (and yes they do exist) that the Sun or the Daily Mail
can dredge up there are probably far more completely deserving cases
that fully warrant the receipt of cash from the state to ensure their
human rights are adequately maintained.

As for PE - well I certainly see the value of it in the curriculum. I
hated it when I had to do it because I'm useless at sport, I have very
little interest in sport and I'm not competitive. If there was a
qualification in it I would fail - and there is nothing any teacher
could do about it.

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

Yes, but it wasn't in your first post on the topic.

 

Paul Corfield wrote:

<snip>


hear, hear [1]


[1] what was the decision on this?

 

It'll certainly be entertaining.

 

Oh dear - I'll be getting an ASLEF application form in the post

no idea.

 

No, lets call it something young, modern and dynamic, something not
associated with years of shitty work or cheap labour. Lets call it YTS.

 

good, that's two of us.

 

Oh I didn't mean that you had to win against some other bod to qualify but
it would be nice it kids came out of classes at 16/18 fit and healthy.

 

which is why I said I see the value of having it in the curriculum - to
try to reduce "porky pig" syndrome. Can't see the point of an exam at
all.