Or possibly a well regarded journalism course (there are some of those about), or something else 'traditional' in the arts like history (or possibly even Welsh, of course - depends where you want to be in 'media'!) to demonstrate language skills, research ability, logical thinking, and so on. Agreed, pretty much. The only slight reservation on that I have would be that there area certainly legitimate areas worthy of academic research and study into things like history/philosophy of 'the media' and the like, which I wouldn't want to see completely ignored, but that's really a very limited area (and not what alot of 'Media Studies' courses seem to be doing anyway). The current 'practical' aspects of most Media Studies courses are certainly a waste of time, though - that side should really be dealt with in a different way entirely. No point in having a degree based essentially on watching films and learning to use some video editing facilities. In the same way, 'Theatre Studies' courses that are practical based are a waste of time - the place for aspiring actors to train is a proper stage school, and (not to devalue their work in any way) the qualification of a degree is entirely irrelevant (same with singers, and so on - that's what music colleges are for). There's nothing wrong with academically studying 'the Theatre' as a topic (and in an inter-disciplinary way, including literature, sociology, history, art history, etc.), but that's a different thing from what 'Theatre Studies' seems to tend to do - give acting classes with some limited academic background, and call it a 'degree' because they do it for 3 years. Personally, I have very similar feelings about 'Nursing degrees' too - nursing is an inherently practical profession, and although some theoretical study is also required, I don't see any point in calling it a degree, then turning out thousands of nurses who now have 'a degree' and think they are too important and overqualified just to be 'ordinary nurses'. That seems to be the fashion now, though, but it's really pretty counter-productive to improving nursing. That's going a little far, in my opinion, but I do agree with the general thrust of improving vocational aspects, and would also like to see OU/Part time courses encouraged more. I don't think that it would be practical to abandon most purely 'academic' study at the undergraduate level, though - not every student will be able to work in the relevant environment before their have learned what they need to, and putting them into jobs which don't require such education would be likely to just take away those jobs from people who are well suited to them because they don't have such education, if you see what I mean. There is also a point worth noting about those subjects which require alot of practical experience of lab work, high level electronic equipment, and so on - it's really only universities that can be in a position to have those kind of facilities at a level of utilisation which allows undergraduates to gain experience on them without risking messing anything up! The principle, in my opinion, should really be whether the ultimate role to be fulfilled actually requires degree level (proper degree level) academic study and learning to fulfil it. If it doesn't, it shouldn't be offered as a degree at all - nothing stopping people studying a degree part time later on to progress (as I said, that should be positively encouraged). If it only does at a 'higher' level in much later years, it's pointless giving that education that far in advance because most of it will naturally have been forgotten by then. We still need full time academic study, of course, but it's just not the most suitable method for everything.
The subjects that include lab work are generally of high practical usuage. I think my plans don;t go far enough. Universities should be for people who really wnat to learn , now they are full of people often with no love for tehir subject buring 3 years to get a piece of paper to get a job that 30 years ago you just needed A levels for.
Yes, they are, but they need 'practise labs' to learn those relevant skills, and that's not something that can really be provided purely for training purposes within industry (and not doing it via University would also lead to people learning very specific and non-transferable lab practises for particular industry applications, which wouldn't be a good thing). Having a broad education in such things at undergrad level is pretty essential, and only Universities can really be in a position to provide that. There is certainly some truth to that, but the reality is always that 'education is wasted on the young' to some extent! I don't think virtually ending education of the young in Universities is really the answer to that, though.
Maybe I didn;t make myself clear. I think that You should work AND attend courses in your local college which would have labs. We don;t have abroad education at undergrad level, we have a very narrow one. If you want a broad education go and do an OU degree. It doesn;t mean ending educating the young. It does mean ending the incredibly wastefull holiday for 3 years that many of them take. I think education should be lifelong. That people should take vocational subjects first and more cultural subjects at a slower rate during their whole lives. I am a specialist in one subject but I have gone to University in the evening to learn completely different subjects.
That's a little harsh. Most enjoy their time at university, of course, but I don't see anything wrong with that in their 'down time' as long as they are working too. Many of them are working very hard, and many of those who aren't don't make it through the course anyway (not with a decent grade at the end of it, anyway). I certainly agree with that. Not all 'education' is of the formal kind, of course, not all things worth doing in life fall directly into the category of education, and not everyone find the time to do everything they'd like with their lives, but certainly people should always be looking to learn things (especially useful things about what they are doing or planning - that goes beyond 'work' and 'career' into issues like 'parenting' and 'dog ownership' and so on!), and formal education should be encouraged for everybody, of whatever age, as part of that process.
I don;t think most do work hard. Most just (*)(*)(*)(*) around. I'm a professional academic and I see it every year. A few are dedicated, a mumber are brainy enough to pass with a bit of decent work and many just coast along doing the minimum possible and at the cr@ppy colleges it means very little indeed. And whereas people doing sciences are working full time those doing arts subjects often have omnly a few contact hours per week and (*)(*)(*)(*) around the rest of the time. The deicated ones use the time to read everything onthe list, talk with each other and mash out the issues. the bulk cruise and watch Hollyoaks. I agree here. We need ongoing ,easy access courses and it used to be really good but the appallingly bad government of labour left us bankrupt (and the Tories haven't done well enough to reinvest)
Forcing bipartidism? Nice move of you If there is peole that would vote for other parties they should have the option to vote others. Not forcing them to the main parties. Even in this poll, that would make also wrong the results that you would getting, because it would not be close to reality. - - - Updated - - - Forcing bipartidism? Nice move of you If there is peole that would vote for other parties they should have the option to vote others. Not forcing them to the main parties. Even in this poll, that would make also wrong the results that you would getting, because it would not be close to reality.
A new ComRes poll shows Labour 36%, Conservatives 31%, UKIP 14% and Lib Dems 8%. The previous poll had a 6% Labour lead and there is the notional drop in the Labour lead and British voters may hesitate to hand back the key to manage the economy to Labour as the general election approaches and Cameron's media campaigns to woo voters may help the Tories turn the tables on Labour in the polls. [video=youtube;TRFsa0IkWEs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRFsa0IkWEs[/video]
To be fair...that is how they do street polling as well, I've only ever once been polled on the street locally, in an area with an SNP MP, and the poll was a LibDem originated jobbie.....and I couldn't get off with saying I'd be voting for "other" than the UK oriented parties. In order to get the result they wanted, I was asked IF there was no SNP candidate, which UK Party would I vote for, and as I'd spent nearly half an hour saying SNP as a reply to every voting/policy/principle question, I gave in and went for the LibDems as the least worst option so I could get away. Polls are crap and pointless, imo.
Pretty much. They are usually only very small surveys (the new ComRes poll is only 2002 people in total), their ideas of 'representative demographics', 'weightings' and so on aren't necessarily particularly accurate, they take no account of constituency factors and tactical voting (which has a huge impact on the actual number of seats), and they can sometimes include leading questions before the main one anyway. A survey using 2002 people to represent the entirety of the UK is completely useless. Anyone who takes too much notice of opinion polls needs to watch this: [video=youtube;G0ZZJXw4MTA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA[/video]
Imagine that in my country among sewer degrees like media, journalism (a very popular one), theatre, we have theology undergraduate degrees.............. for people to become priests and religion teachers..........................all with state subsidies. Then when they become priests guess what, they get employed by the church and have income, again, with taxpayer money. For a population of 20 million there are tens of thousands of Orthodox churches in this country. That means hundreds of thousands of priests. All of them 'work' full time and get paid the same as medics and teachers. People please tell me this is going to change soon. Every time I remember this I lose my senses. People say something optimistic about this to me please to calm me down! So there's only one option left... The Lib Dems
The direct state funding of the church is really a terrible situation, but the only answer to that is the ballot box, and the population voting for parties that will end it.
Religions shoulod be funded by their parishioners.The idea of Chruches being funded by taxpayers is absurd.
Paranoia? No, any paranoia. But that is pure bipartidism. A well done poll should include all the possible options, not the ones that you are only interested. At least the Spanish polls have option for others, or minoritary parties. And that makes the poll more realistic and close to reality.
