If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Education
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
From http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/people.asp
Why is there such a difference?Nearly 30 per cent of adults aged 16-74 in England and Wales have no qualifications. In the North East this reaches 34.7 per cent and in the West Midlands borough of Sandwell it is 45.5 per cent.
London, the South East and the South West have fewest with no qualifications (26 per cent or less). London has 31 per cent with degree level or higher. However, the North East has just 15 per cent and Corby in Northamptonshire is the lowest district with 8.5 per cent.
0
Comments
perhaps,
but I really don't know. ...Maybe its like Wales..they spend all the money on improving the South while the North suffers from underfunding, bad roads and neglect etc .
I think it has a lot to do with culture.
Because back in "ye olden days" when it was only a small proportion of people who went to university they would almost always go to work for the government or the media or the banks in the City - all in London. So this created a natural leaning towards the South East which has only increased as more people become more qualified because people with the same qualifications tend to group together and there are less job opportunities for people with degrees in the North because there are less people with degrees in the North for firms to hire so they move south... it's a vicious cycle which should be tackled by the government but they haven't got the balls to properly address the North/South divide and it's damaging both the underused North and the overheating South.
Why not? There is a strong externality argument for leaving education in the public sector, since the private sector will tend to underprovide.
So?
You really are an A grade idiot aren't you? The states role in education is not only desirable but wholly necessary - my god this has been a consensus between virtually everyone in the Western world since the 19th century. If you do not have state provision of education, education is underprovided because it would be an expensive resource for most families to afford. Also the quality would deteriorate as the best teachers were attracted by the biggest pay checks and so you'd get an infinite multiplication of the private/state divide in education. Plus you'd get some parents who would just sit their kids down in front of Channel 4 Schools shows and call that an education. The states role is necessary because if we are less educated we are poorer and more divided as a nation. Get your head out of those textbooks and into the real world!
So? Voluntary charity could provide for those with no financial means to support their education.
The state's role shouldn't be to educate people. It should only protect people from force and fraud.
And you seriously believe that charity could raise the same amounts of money? The rich would spend their education money on privately educating their kids and the poor would have peanuts in comparison to fund the education of poor kids - hence there would be a huge division in educational quality. Also what about the economies of scale achieved from having the state as the main single provider of education? They would be lost which would unnecessarily increase the cost of education.
Okay, assuming you're right on the role of the state but I don't believe you are but that's a matter of opinion. If you have an undereducated majority who are unable to get decent jobs and a well educated minority who are able to get the well paying jobs - you therefore increase the disparities in wealth, therefore it is much more likely that the undereducated will turn to crime to get the things they couldn't get because of their lack of education - therefore it is in the interests of the vast majority of people that there is state education to protect people from the crime which would be committed if there was no state education. And more simply for the second part - isn't it a lot easier to defraud stupid people?
I doubt it.
Is that going to be a Monocrap one liner or am I going to get an explanation as to why you believe that's so?..
..or can't you find the answer in your textbooks?
Monocrat: "I don't read any textbooks."
Clearly he doesn't want to educate himself.
I am always in favour of people wanting to gain knowledge and if I can help anyone with that I'm more than willing to assist someone who is seeking to further their knowledge but thank you for that wonderful pre-judgement of me.
Maybe you should start then? I suggest some economics about economies of scale, monopsonist employers and merit goods for a start.
But back on topic - can you provide a further explanation for the question I asked you earlier or not?
No thanks. I already have enough knowledge of politics from the textbooks I used to read.
To me it's no consequence that 'the poor' couldn't finance their education. Charity is better at aiding the poor then social security.
You should throw in some economics, it explains a lot of the points about property rights and so on that you are unsure of.
So you would rather have the poor unable to develop their education to get out poverty and you would be willing to see a huge underclass with all the negative consequences that would generate? Charity is not better at aiding the poor than social security, firstly it isn't targetted for the poorest groups; secondly, you can't guarantee that everyone who needs support will get it and thirdly, the amount given to charity will be nothing like the amount social security can provide so you'd have people starving and dying in the streets - is that really what you want?
I don't think there would be an underclass.
That much is true!
Can you defend that point of view?
I say there would be an underclass because the lack of a decent education because of the underprovision if it wasn't provided by the state - all economic sense backs this so don't suggest charities would plug the gap; they couldn't - so you would have a huge number of undereducated people who would only be able to compete for a limited number of low skilled jobs and so those in work would be on the minimum wage while the vast majority of these people would be on Unemployment Benefit because they would be no jobs they could apply for. Meanwhile, those who did have the skills would be earning more and more as more skilled jobs are demanded thus leading to a huge gap between the privately educated minority, and the poorly educated majority thus leading to a huge underclass with the increases in poverty, ill health and crime this would lead to.
I was going to join in....then I saw monocrats one-liners and hastily pressed the back button.
Yes.
No. With education provided for in a free market, all would be able to find suitable education for their children.
As for minimum wages, that needs to be scrapped as too high a level causes unemployment.
Actually the free market would lead to an underprovision of education because education is a merit good - meaning it has a delayed benefit so people won't see the point on spending money on it. Also you talk about a "suitable" education, this interests me, you mean you're perfectly happy for the rich to be able to afford a high quality private school education and for the rest of the nation's kids to make do with whatever they're given even if that's just watching the schools programmes on TV or having one old battered textbook between 10 with unqualified teachers. Because that is what would happen if you got rid of state education.
Since we've had the minimum wage unemployment has only fallen, how would you explain that? Also the minimum wage has a positive effect on the economy - as poor people who benefit from the minimum wage spend a greater proportion of their income it helps contribute to growth in the economy.
Really? What a short memory you have - I remember back in 1999 when the minimum wage was introduced the CBI and the Tories said how the £3.60 rate would lead to huge unemployment - now it's £4.20 so why does 80p extra mean huge unemployment when we've already increased the rate by 60p already over four years? If we put the minimum wage at £4.99 would we avoid the huge increase in unemployment that you would get at £5.00 - or is it just because the unions are asking for £5.00 that you oppose it?
You could then safely put the minimum wage up to £5 (which despite what capitalist greedy bastards and tories claim it would not bankrupt anybody) knowing that no employees would be sacked as a result of Company greed.
See? Problem solved!
I like your selective ethics.
Marxist, huh?