A chilling vision of the future?

Written By: - Date published: 10:51 am, July 19th, 2010 - 41 comments
Categories: education, humour - Tags:

41 comments on “A chilling vision of the future? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tsmithfield 1
    19 July 2010 at 11:15 am

    The problem in the logic of your post is that it is based on the assumption that more money = better education, when sometimes more money = more waste.

    • Tigger 1.1
      19 July 2010 at 11:28 am

      ‘Waste’ being stuff that employers don’t rate as useful?

      • tsmithfield 1.1.1
        19 July 2010 at 12:24 pm

        If employers don’t rate it as being useful then it probably isn’t.

        • Ari 1.1.1.1
          19 July 2010 at 2:15 pm

          Bullshit. Employers don’t care about civics, but that’s useful.

          That’s not to mention that “employers” are not some amorphous block. Some employers want foreign language skills, others don’t. Some want science, others could care less. Some want economics or accounting skills, others don’t. If you’re asking for things that any employer finds useful, almost anything could be on the cards. If you’re asking for only things that every employer finds useful, then people will be thoroughly undereducated.

          • tsmithfield 1.1.1.1.1
            19 July 2010 at 4:42 pm

            Obviously I was meaning individual employers considering their individual circumstances. Since employers put up the money and take the risks they are usually very attuned to wastage in their own organisations. Hence my comment.

        • NickS 1.1.1.2
          19 July 2010 at 2:22 pm

          lolwut?

          Have you forgotten workers are human too? And as such generally benefit from courses that encourage them to critically think, even if the courses aren’t related directly to their future jobs. Then there’s also such “lowly” things as knowing how to cook, or budget and hobbies which help keep one sane and provide social interaction outside of work, all of which adds often to make for happier, less stressed out workers.

          But I guess all you really want are automatons who will not question orders and work without complaining or asking for better wages and working conditions.
          /sarcasm

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.2.1
            19 July 2010 at 4:20 pm

            That wasn’t sarcastic at all as that’s exactly what the RWNJs like TS want.

          • tsmithfield 1.1.1.2.2
            19 July 2010 at 4:53 pm

            “But I guess all you really want are automatons who will not question orders and work without complaining or asking for better wages and working conditions.”

            Yeah…its called robotics. Have you been keeping up with play in the meat industry lately?

            • NickS 1.1.1.2.2.1
              19 July 2010 at 5:24 pm

              …

              Have you noticed yet there’s plenty of jobs robotics can’t presently replace at present?

              And while a future where robots do everything would be nice in terms of freeing up people to do other stuff, it will likely work out cheaper to keep using people for many jobs. Unless we end up with something like the situation in Ken Macleod’s the Stone Canal and The Cassini Division, and then uploads and pirated human minds might become a bit more economic. At least in space.

              • tsmithfield …
                19 July 2010 at 7:46 pm

                I was just commenting that there were already “workers” out their that met the description that Nick gave. Not that it was desirable for all workers to meet that description.

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 1.2
      19 July 2010 at 11:35 am

      Whilst on the topic of waste, what do you think of Anne’s new proposal to hire more staff for whole new unit in her department- do you support that?

    • mickysavage 1.3
      19 July 2010 at 12:55 pm

      TS

      So less money equals better education?

      • comedy 1.3.1
        19 July 2010 at 1:00 pm

        About as meaningless as more money = better education.

      • tsmithfield 1.3.2
        19 July 2010 at 2:11 pm

        Micky, yes, and here is how it could happen.

        Scenario one: Lots of money is spent on 100 courses of which only 50 have a realistic prospect of ending up with a job.

        Scenario two: The money is spent only on the 50 courses which have a realistic prospect of ending up with a job. The same number of students are now funneled through 50 courses with corresponding economies of scale.

        • Ari 1.3.2.1
          19 July 2010 at 2:19 pm

          Education is about more than preparing people for jobs, TS. It’s also about preparing people for life in general, and increasing their understanding of our society and culture, and other societies and cultures.

          • tsmithfield 1.3.2.1.1
            19 July 2010 at 3:12 pm

            You mean like night golf courses and sing-along courses ari? 🙂

            My example applied obviously to tertiary courses. IMO if someone wants to do a course at the tertiary level that does not have a realistic prospect of a job at the end of it, then they should pay for it themselves.

            • prism 1.3.2.1.1.1
              19 July 2010 at 3:27 pm

              ts If you don’t want a life don’t argue against others having one. Being a human is more than getting a job, any job. And doing creative things can be a job if you work hard and are lucky in finding the thing that will be popular. Peter whatisname has made quite a hit from being creative, clever and lucky I think he is now Sir Peter. Have you had your knighthood yet?

              • tsmithfield …
                19 July 2010 at 4:07 pm

                Prism, last time I looked there were plenty of jobs in the creative area, including film, architecture, graphic design etc etc. I don’t know what your point is there. So long as there is a realistic prospect of a job it doesn’t bother me.

                If you want to study something that has a very low prospect of a job (e.g. Media Studies) then that is fine. But if the government is to fund it then it should be as an elective in a degree towards a subject that does have the prospect for a job, rather than as a major in that area. However if you want to major in an area that has no or little prospect for a job then the student should pay not the government.

                • Richard …
                  19 July 2010 at 4:20 pm

                  Why is it so important to you that government only pays for vocational education?

                  The government is not in business. It doesn’t exist to meet the needs of business.

                  Media studies is actually quite useful for an informed citizen — as much of what we are told about the world is reported in one form or another by the media.

                  • tsmithfield …
                    19 July 2010 at 4:27 pm

                    Because taxpayers are funding it and expect those who undertake education to become taxpayers themselves.

                    As I said, no problem with studying media studies. Heck, I did a paper in that myself during my degree. But it was an elective rather than a core subject.

                    • Richard …
                      19 July 2010 at 5:01 pm

                      Sure, taxpayers fund the education of other taxpayers.

                      So?

                      That doesn’t mean that we are funding education to make those who undertake it better taxpayers. The taxpayer funds education because educated people make for better citizens. Contributing more to the government tax revenues doesn’t make someone a better or worse citizen.

                      Similarly, taxpayers don’t fund the health system because they might personally (might) need the hospital facilities. We fund the health system because its a good idea for the sick to be looked after. Same thing with education.

                    • tsmithfield …
                      19 July 2010 at 7:44 pm

                      Richard, we expect a strong future tax base to support all the social needs etc the government wants to fund. It is therefore important that our education system serves to strengthen that tax base.

                      However, I would be willing to make a concession on my position. Given that there are a few jobs even in the most obscure of courses then I would support a scholarship system that allowed the government to fund enough courses to meet the demand. This would ensure the government was betting on likely winners in these areas.

                    • Zaphod Beeblebrox …
                      19 July 2010 at 10:56 pm

                      What have you got against a creative society? Turning our unis into technical colleges with automatons regurgitating figures is an exercis ein futility

                    • loota …
                      19 July 2010 at 11:03 pm

                      Here’s a clue tsmithfield, the primary purpose of the tax base is to help create a great community and a great society for all of us to live in.

                      It is however not the primary purpose of living in this community and this society to create a great tax base. (Unless you are a NACT of course…).

                    • tsmithfield …
                      20 July 2010 at 6:13 am

                      Sorry Loota, but that was a very poorly thought out post.

                      Firstly, if having a “great community” includes all the social aspects that the left loves to fund then it is impossible to have a “great community” as you would like to describe it without a strong ongoing tax base.

                      Secondly, WTF. NACT is all about reducing taxes. Labour is the party that loves to increase taxes, so you are completely on the wrong planet there mate.

                    • tsmithfield …
                      20 July 2010 at 6:26 am

                      “What have you got against a creative society? Turning our unis into technical colleges with automatons regurgitating figures is an exercis ein futility”

                      Zaphod, you obviously have no idea what I am talking about. Slap yourself on the back of your head and re-read my posts. Especially the one where I said:

                      “Prism, last time I looked there were plenty of jobs in the creative area, including film, architecture, graphic design etc etc. I don’t know what your point is there. So long as there is a realistic prospect of a job it doesn’t bother me.”

                    • Richard …
                      20 July 2010 at 10:17 am

                      tsmithfield: “Given that there are a few jobs even in the most obscure of courses then I would support a scholarship system that allowed the government to fund enough courses to meet the demand.”

                      This seems to be exactly the sort of planned economy nonsense that fundamentally doesn’t work whether it is attempted by the left or the right.

                      It is much better, I think, for the taxpayer/government to fund all willing students equally. Let the students study what they want to study. Most students will pick courses that have a direct thread to a vocation or employment. And if employers want more people to study specific things, then employers should offer scholarships etc to entice students into those courses.

                      The very last thing that we want is for a government bureaucracy to be trying to predict education paths that result in future winners and losers.

                • Whiskey Tango Mike Foxtrot …
                  19 July 2010 at 4:44 pm

                  Then these electives would be hugely more expensive to take than the sponsored courses.
                  This would lead to class distinction through access to education
                  and ushering in the new Dark Ages.

            • Richard 1.3.2.1.1.2
              19 July 2010 at 4:04 pm

              Society pays for education because education makes people better/happier/more informed.

              Not because it makes them more employable.

              Employers might well be interested in employable skills — and that’s fine. That’s why industry sponsors/assists with some sorts of education.

              That doesn’t mean that the skills and knowledge that employers value are the same as those that wider society values. There is some overlap, but they are not the same.

  2. Fabregas4 2
    19 July 2010 at 11:43 am

    Tolley’s latest folly is a quite natural progression for her and this government.

    Lets say that you want to bust the teachers unions. You try to be divisive in many ways. Paint teachers and principals as being self interested, lazy, plain useless. But it doesn’t work very well. Having failed to get the country to hate teachers you decide that you might just have to get your hands dirty. But then you finally realise that you gave power over schools away 26 years ago to save some money and that Boards now run schools. If you sack them you run the risk of community uproar and even worse them handing it all back to you. What to do? I have a dumb idea – establish hit squads in your local areas to go and pressure schools. What would you call them “Miniero’s”.

  3. loota 3
    19 July 2010 at 12:47 pm

    In 2007 Australia was spending AU$17.75B on education. In their latest budget, education spend has gone up by 86% to AU$33.00B

    Their economy is going to be even further ahead than ours in a few years’ time and will be more heavily knowledge, high tech and research based.

    So why isn’t National following the lead given to us by the Western Island, if that’s what they truly aspire to?

    NZ is being run by the B Team.

    • comedy 3.1
      19 July 2010 at 12:59 pm

      Have you got a link for that Loota it’d be interesting to have a look at what the Ausi’s are doing.

      All I could find after a quick google was the bit below.

      “In addition to the $4.4 billion Education Tax Refund, the $19.3 billion education budget, to be delivered over the next four years, also included:

      A $577.4 million National Action Plan to boost literacy and numeracy in schools.

      $2.5 billion (over 10 years) to enable all secondary schools to access up to $1.5 million to establish their own trade training centres.

      Almost $2 billion (over five years) to fund 630,000 new training places to target skills shortages.

      Universal access to early childhood education for all children before they start school at a cost of $533.5 million.

      Further funding of $200 million to provide schools with new computers and ICT needs, as part of the Government’s
      $1.2 billion Digital Education Revolution.

      $20 million to develop the new national school curriculum.

      More than $62 million to establish a National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools program.

      About $16 million to improve Orthodox Jewish Schools.

      The $577.4 million literacy and numeracy package replaces the former Howard Government’s tutorial vouchers scheme, where students not meeting national benchmarks received a $700 voucher for extra lessons. It also replaces summer schools for teachers, where top teachers were given a $5000 bonus to attend summer teaching schools on maths, English, science and history.”

      • insider 3.1.1
        19 July 2010 at 1:40 pm

        Doesn’t Australia have a very strong private schooling system? I’ve heard about 1/3 of students in secondary school are private. None of my Aus colleagues had their kids in state schools, even though they were all living in very good areas.

        So couldn’t this be an argument for increasing vouchers/private schooling?

        • prism 3.1.1.1
          19 July 2010 at 2:00 pm

          I seem to remember about vouchers that researchers found them useful for delivering the most bang for the buck, by providing them to children from low income families. The rest are able to fend for themselves, though help with ta

  4. prism 4
    19 July 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Mucked that up. I was going to say that tax relief is helpful for all parents.

    But the book I am reading Old School Tie by Paul Thomas NZ author puts the conservative and widespread educational direction for private schools well – ‘religiosity, hard work, puritanism and conformity’. Says most of it, put in materially aspirational and classist also.

  5. Nick C 5
    19 July 2010 at 5:59 pm

    “Cutting education is the dumbest thing a government can do”

    Really? So even if the previous government were to raise education spending to 90% of GDP it would be bad to cut it?

    Seems like a silly question, but the point is there must be an optimal level of money to spend on education. Otherwise why arent we slashing every other budget and borrowing as much money as we can in order to fund education? This government may have just decided that the optimal level of money to spend is below what is currently being spent.

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 5.1
      19 July 2010 at 7:37 pm

      Too many new prisons to pay for.

    • loota 5.2
      19 July 2010 at 11:07 pm

      Australian federal spending on education 2007-2008 was $17.75B.

      Australian federal spending on education 2010-2011 is set at $33.00B.

      That’s an 86% increase in three years.

      I’m going to bet that they don’t care what some pointless hypothetical ‘optimum’ is and will increase again strongly next budget.

      Thanks for showing the way Australia. Nick C, aren’t we supposed to be imitating our Oz cousins so that we can achieve their success? Or is digging up the ground the best we can do in terms of imitation?

  6. John 6
    20 July 2010 at 1:09 am

    US is getting big education cuts as per the Neo-Liberal faith cult:
    Some American thoughts on this cult which is practised here as well:

    .”neoliberalism”.

    These are policies of the right wing and corporatists, and the “centrists” who’ve gone along with them, who have sought to privatize everything, and to steal from the middle class to aid the wealthy.

    This has been a clear uninterrupted path since Ronald Reagan came to office.

    However, far from representing “liberalism”, or even attempting to disguise itself as “liberalism”, it has instead mocked liberalism and made “Liberal” the “L-word”.

    What’s “liberal” about that?

    What’s “neo” liberal about it?

    What does this term “neoliberal” mean?

    I think your use of the term does liberalism a great disservice, and helps the rightwing in its attempt to disguise what it has been doing.

    Neoliberalism the correct term. It describes the corporate-driven policy, embraced by both the Republicans and Democrats since the 1970’s, which holds that the market comes first and people come second. That is why both parties have been cutting taxes gutting services while financing war and occupation. Education, healthcare and human services fall by the wayside yet the CEOs and shareholders bring in record profits every year. It has been 30-plus years of unsustainable greed, and now the entire system is nearing its end.

    “neoliberal” is this brand of economics exactly as you describe. There is nothing “liberal” about its political viewpoint so the label is a bit confusing unless you are an economist.

    And yes, this has been an issue for a long time and unless we change course from where we are, getting rid of all those neoliberal economics people (including all of Obamas staff), we are bound for destruction. As Haiti.

    if we cannot or will not change course the plutocrats will turn us into beasts of burden, dull and unthinking. Slicing and dicing education while turning it over to the private sector guarantees your children will not have the skills to think their way out of a paper bag. It’s not just happening in the USA, read the foreign press. This is a class war of epic proportions. Marx was right. Government exists to protect the haves from the have nots and unless we stand up for democracy, equality and human rights that is exactly what government will become here.

    When the rich via corporate fascism claim the power to decide the fate of everyone, we get proposals and policies which arise from their limited and most certainly short-sighted perspective of privilege which says that only children whose parents have made something of themselves (this means they have made a substantial amount of money) are worthy of a first class education. The rest can only be left to their own resources to perhaps rise above their unfortunate condition, and change classes. This perspective, echoed in gov’t., will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, the camel being the US empire. This unsustainable and ridiculously nouveau riche approach signals the beginning of the end of America as a beacon of hope to the world. When the middle class dissolves, so will America’s promise. Note to the petty protagonists: it’s too late to stop now, that will be the work of future generations, if they can muster the resources. Enjoy what is left while you can, while we who actually think feel revolted in the sickening glow, imagining how different it could be.

Links to post