Institutional Failure

A remark in an angry essay about climate alarmism on Bishop Hill set me thinking:

“This isn’t just individual failure, it’s institutional.”

And what are the institutions in question? They’re universities mostly. So perhaps the institutional failure is to be found in the universities.

In the UK  there were only about 10 universities up until 1900. Around 1905 another 6 “redbrick” universities were added. And then in the early 1960s another 8 “plate glass” universities were added. The Open University started in about 1970. And then, after 1992 another 74 new universities were added, many of them former technical colleges.

Where we once had 10 universities prior to 1900, we now have 100 universities. And over the past 20 years, the number of UK universities has quadrupled.

And when, roughly, did all the global warming and secondhand smoke junk science start really gathering momentum? In the 1990s, approximately.

Might the rise of junk science be related to the quadrupling of the number of universities?

Well, there are several ways it might. Firstly, it got four times easier to get into a university, and get a B.A. or B.Sc. And so the value of such qualifications fell correspondingly. You had to get an M.A. or an M.Sc, or maybe even a Doctorate, before anybody would notice you. So you had to stay in university longer and longer.

And if the 25 oldest universities had creamed off the very brightest and best produced by the school system, when there were 100 universities, the not-so-bright and not-so-good could enter universities. Where they were taught by not-so-bright and not-so-good university tutors.

The quality of the students fell, and so also did the quality of the teaching. And so also, by extension, the quality of the research carried out in them.

And when the quantity of universities increased, so did the quantity of research carried out in them.

So the universities started producing large amounts of low quality research. Also known as junk science.

And what had presumably been intended to allow many more people to gain academic qualifications actually ended up in debasing the educational system.

And maybe that’s the root of many of our problems.

I don’t know whether the UK is alone in having multiplied its number of universities ten-fold over the past century, but I suspect that it’s only been following the trends elsewhere, and that the same thing has been happening in the USA and across Europe.

If so, most countries will now have 10 times as many university students, and 10 times as many university lecturers and tutors, and be subjected to 10 times as much “research” pouring out of the universities. The universities will have become almost another industry, with their own (usually left wing) university ‘culture’, and generating people like Barack Obama (who I believe spent more or less his entire life in universities).

The solution to the problem would be to cut the number of universities back to their 1900 levels, adjusted for population to provide the same numbers of student places per head of population.

The tidal wave of junk science would die out overnight. The quality of universities would rise sharply, as only the best students were taught by the best tutors. And only the highest quality research would emerge from them.

Of course there’d be screams that the universities were becoming “elitist” institutions again.

But I think that might be a very desirable thing.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Institutional Failure

  1. Ivan D says:

    I think that you might have hit the nail on the head Frank. We are mostly subjected to mountains of utter crap because people can make a living producing it.

    • Some French bloke says:

      “We are mostly subjected to mountains of utter crap because people can make a living producing it.”

      A valid point, but it fails to account for the fact that the ‘utter crap’ has been widely and unquestioningly accepted by hundreds of millions for decades on end, and this holds true even now when the power of internet search engines has been available to many of them for a decade and a half (in China alone, over half a billion have internet access!). So it’s not so much activism or active support as sheer inertia that has made the whole thing possible.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        It only takes one man,one study,one move,a single sentence to totally destroy every pre-conceived junk fact ever taught……………….Challenge them and let them fight to defend their so called I believe in xxxx. When bullets start flying youd be surprised how quickly people will listen to reason and toss out BS.

  2. Marie says:

    Exactly, what I have thought for a long time. Everybody has to be at student now, and all the others are losers, and who want to be that? I am a student from 1962. Only 5 – 10%5% of a primary school class were students, and only half of them went to university. I did not. Now 75 % are students, but I don’t know the % part of them going to university. But I am sure, that the number is 10 times that of 1962.
    In Denmark, we had only one university in 1900, one more in 1930 ca. and then since 1970 3 more. We have 5. And I think it mirrors the UK numbers in % of the population.
    I have had the same thoughts all the way through, as you have.

  3. cherie79 says:

    I would say that a maximum of 20% are able to cope with a real university education! probably nearer 10%. At that level we were able to support them as I was supported, enabling the students to concentrate on studying without worrying about debts and sure of getting a good job on leaving. This is not possible with so many poorly equipped students going to second or third class ‘universities’ getting virtually worthless degrees and a false idea of their achievements. This is cruel since employers look at where you got your degree not what the grade is on a piece of paper. Making perfectly good technical colleges into pseudo universities was one of the worst mistakes of John Major’s government another was stopping the excellent State Enrolled Nurse qualification which suited great practical nurses who were not academic, making nursing a degree course when only a small minority of specialist nurses needed an academic qualification. Rant over!

    • Ivan D says:

      Good rant. Especially on nursing.

    • Marie says:

      I agree with you, cherie. 20% max. If you go back a hundred years and more, only rich people had the opportunity and that was probably not 10%.
      These pseudo universities, we have here too, nurses, teachers and business or whatever, all want to be academic.

      • cherie79 says:

        I was lucky enough to be educated in the 60s and thanks to selective education I had an excellent grammar school education. This from a very working class background but one where education and books were valued, that seems to be lost now along with the biggest expansion of social mobility ever.

        • Marie says:

          I was educated in the 60s too, and it was selective education. My mum had an academic education, but not much money. ;)

        • cherie79 says:

          My mother was very clever and qualified for grammar school but my grandparents couldn’t afford to send her there. They needed her small income and could never afford the uniform, with eight children it was never an option then but she was determined that I would have the chances she couldn’t have and for that I am eternally grateful though I didn’t appreciate it in my tempestuous teens! Her name was Marie too.

        • Marie says:

          :) Cherie. Uniform?

        • beobrigitte says:

          I was educated in the 60s too, and it was selective education.

          So was I, and, indeed, in Germany, too, it was selective education. The kids of the well-to-do families were sent to do the german equivalent of O-levels and A-levels, the rest of us stayed to be the non-educatables. Very rarely there was an opportunity for any of the ‘non-educatables’ to be recognised as someone who might pass O-levels.

          I remember being able to read when I started school. Books were valued by my parents and readily available to us children. I do not remember how I learned reading but I suspect one of my older siblings must have given in to my pestering.
          By the time I was in the 4th class, though, I had a reputation of being disruptive and since I did annoy about every teacher we had, none of them gave me credit for achieving anything. In any case, education for us girls wasn’t important; we’d get married, anyway. So we were told.
          I did spend 8 out of 9 years in school not listening to much. Let alone doing homework. It did annoy the teachers that I hardly made any spelling mistakes and that I somehow figured out the maths to the point where they could not fail me to having to repeat the year.
          I had a great social life at school, though!!!
          It was pure luck that in the 7th year I encountered a teacher who could handle me and he visited my parents. Hopes were dashed as there was no way my parent could have funded the travelling for me. (My parents both are from very well to do families, but they made the mistake of marrying each-other).
          In the 8th year of doing fluff-all in school another teacher must have felt sorry for me. At least he was interesting to talk to and genuinely did his best to answer all the questions I had. To this day I am grateful to this guy and I really do hope I get the chance to talk to him at our next class reunion to let him know that what he told me was mulled over and eventually acted on.

          When I finally passed my A-levels (in the early 1990s) as a lone parent of 3 it felt I had finally won a ticket to anything I WANT to do. (Not the shitjobs I did before for pennies, wishing the day to come to an end!!)
          We did celebrate. When I phoned my ex-partner to pick me up, he said: “yeah, no problem. Where are you?” My reply: “HOW THE FUCK am I supposed to know where I am???? Jusss come an pick me up!!!” Apparently I did slam down the phone on him. Luckily for me he remembered where he dropped me off the day before.

          Then came University. I was told that there you would have to voice your opinions based on your findings and conclusions, I was actually looking forward to it. I quickly learned that it’s best for your marks NOT to voice your opinion, less even make suggestions. And I spent my university years with little shits who only talked to me when they needed help.
          I left Uni after the Masters (for which the university fees were waived) and the proud announcement that funding from the tobacco industry no longer was accepted – the pharmaceutical industry was going to make up for that.

          Watching my offspring going through university was disappointing. I thought that ‘group-think’ ruled my university years; I never thought that it could get this bad.
          We all now possess certificates that isn’t worth the ink used to write them with!! And we’re all disillusioned.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank I had read somewhere that todays entire system was created by progressive policies back after the Civilwar and up about 1930. The medical colleges were bought up and turned into universities and all kinds of new degree programs were created like I gather the Liberal arts degree. Then the banking systems were targeted for regulation,railroads,steel, Then the FED followed by the FDA etc etc………….The!y did a complete realignment of civilization to their own standards and created endowments to make sure those creations were maintained into the future. They even had their hand in the first attempt as world control thru the league of nations and then with the UNITED NATIONS where they wrote up just what they truly meant to do. It wasn’t until you listed what was on a UN websire for he Copenhagen climate treaty that it all truly came together……They knew then the whole damned experiment was in jeopardy so they were rushing for an appointed world government body……………It didn’t fly did it.or at least that we know of!

    If world war is to erupt it will come frm these statists who demand one world government and the submission of everyone to it.

    People and nations will align/allie and fight…………….make no doubt they will.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Unless they back down and allow the world to settle back down like they did in 1933 yet Hitler didn’t want to let it die down he wanted the world domination as long as he was in charge of it. Remember Hitler was only carrying out what leftist Americans had already begun and likely the Victorians too of the earlier time………..
      What Im talking about is a book that should be written from the beginning likely starting back to John Locke and then to Darwin Himself. The enlightenment period wasn’t enlighted it was a means to rid the world of any body deemed unfit to exist in it……….

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The birth of EUGENICS and DARWIN supplied the science to back their skull measuring racism against whom ever they wanted excluded from society.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          We wont have peace and tranquility until these groups and cultural organizations are destroyed and nature is allowed to do its business without direction from Fanatics.

        • Yes indeed. After Darwin popularised ‘his’ Theory, the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept (not actually one of his quotes) soon began to be applied to people. It was certainly responsible for Hitler’s obsession with eugenics, which started decades before in other countries.

          This was happening in the first decade of the 20th century in the USA…

          Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims.

          It’s been the same system ever since. These big ‘foundations’ funding fake science to help form a global government. The rapid rise of universities could only benefit such a dishonest system, as Frank has explored.

          But eugenics, like evolution theory, was made in England (although long ages which made the Theory remotely plausible was made in Scotland). From the same article,

          In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton’s ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Mendel’s principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.

          Hitler didn’t appear in a vacuum. These ideas were all around. Marie Stopes was writing adoring poetry to Hitler while opening ‘family planning’ clinics, mainly in poorer areas, in the UK.

          She was a contemporary of ‘your’ Margaret Sanger, founder of ‘Planned Parenthood’, one of whose quotes is:

          A farmer would rather produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts…How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds.

          The Endarkenment!

        • Frank Davis says:

          the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept … soon began to be applied to people.

          The logic of eugenics is the inverse of the logic of the “survival of the fittest”.

          With an evolutionary (“survival of the fittest”) process, the outcome is unknown at the outset. Suppose a volcano erupts, and throws rocks in all directions, people are more likely to survive if they’re a long way from the volcano than if they’re close to it. They’re maybe also more likely to survive if they have a roof over their head. Their likelihood of surviving (their ‘fitness’) is largely determined by distance-from-volcano and overhead-protection. Using this information, it may be possible to predict who will survive, and who won’t. And the outcome is something that just happens, without any control or direction.

          With an eugenic process, the desired outcome (e.g. a smoke-free society) is known from the very beginning. And steps are taken to to attain this goal (e.g. expelling all the smokers, who have been determined to be ‘unfit’). And the outcome doesn’t ‘just happen’, but is consciously directed.

        • I meant that they are forcing the ‘survival of the fittest’ idea onto humans to produce, as you say, predetermined outcomes. In the eugenicists’ case they don’t want people who have mental illness or serious inherited physical disorders having children. Stopes wanted ‘drunkards’ and people of ‘bad character’ sterilised. The ones who obsess about a Nordic ‘master race’ want to go much further, of course.

      • “The enlightenment period wasn’t enlighted it was a means to rid the world of any body deemed unfit to exist in it……….”

        How refreshing to hear someone else say it too. Some people call it the Endarkenment.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    NERA’s Study on the Impact of Smoking Bans

    26 September 2014

    The Situation

    On 2 January 2007, the Village of Tinley Park, Illinois enacted a Clean Air ordinance prohibiting smoking in all public buildings and areas within the municipal corporate limits, including a comprehensive ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. However, following several complaints that the measure had negatively impacted local bars and restaurants, Tinley Park suspended the ban.

    NERA’s Role

    The Village of Tinley Park retained a NERA team, led by NERA Senior Vice President Dr. Faten Sabry and Associate Director Robert Patton, to conduct an economic analysis of the impact of smoking bans at the municipal level.

    Dr. Sabry and Mr. Patton constructed a database of communities comparable to Tinley Park that enacted smoking bans and a set of control communities without bans and used econometric analysis to estimate whether smoking bans have a long- or short-term impact on bar and restaurant revenues. The authors also assessed various aspects of smoking bans in communities that are comparable to Tinley Park, including legislation, mitigating efforts (exemptions and other measures designed to alleviate the economic impact on certain businesses), and effects on the local economy.

    The Result

    The NERA team found that 1) there is a strong seasonal effect on the revenues of bars and restaurants; 2) smoking bans do not have a long-term negative impact on bar and restaurant revenue; 3) while bar and restaurant revenue may experience a negative impact in the first three months after a ban is enacted, the impact is not statistically significant; 4) the results do not differ depending on whether the ban enacted was comprehensive or partial; and 5) a separate analysis of the Village of Skokie, Illinois (the only comparable community in Illinois that implemented a smoking ban long enough ago to observe subsequent bar and restaurant revenue) shows that there was no statistically significant impact on bar and restaurant sales associated with the partial bans on smoking in restaurants adopted.

    • The NERA study played the same sort of game the Klein studies played: combine bars and restaurants, including many restaurants that had already banned smoking for years, and you’re then able to hide the disastrous consequences for the minority of places that are almost totally dependent upon alcohol sales and a smoking clientele. Because of the small number of such places, their disaster never shows up as “statistically significant” and they’re able to lie and say “See? No effect!”

      Here’s how I described the trick in TobakkoNacht (p. 124):

      It is as though I was hired by the Ku Klux Klan to do a study showing that the closing of factories would not adversely affect the jobs of black workers in a town with a very sizable white population and a very small black population. To get the half million dollar grant for that study, I submit a grant proposal promising results that would not only support these closings, but also help generate more closings in the future despite Liberals’ concerns about black unemployment.

      But then I gather the data and discover that while the white population only lost an insignificant 2% of its employment, the black population lost a very significant 11%. What I’d been hoping to find was that the employment losses in each group were either nonexistent or at least under a non-statistically-significant 6% so that I could say neither one was actually shown to be hurt by factory closings.

      So what do I do? Simple: I take both sets of statistics, combine them, and show that overall there had only been a 5% drop in employment; not a statistically significant drop, even if it was quite real to the 5% thrown out on the streets. The much greater numbers of white factory workers (who only lost 2%) made it easy to hide the devastation dealt to the much smaller population of black factory workers (who lost 11%) when the two were averaged together. I am then able to “accurately” tell reporters that my research indicated that “white and black employment is not significantly harmed by closing factories.” Of course, that statement, with my tacit encouragement and carefully worded public expansions on it, rapidly transmutes into news stories proclaiming that “Despite fears, black employment is not hurt by factory closings!”

      Was it morally and scientifically correct to produce a study that simply lumped both sets of data together in this way? Was I being honest when I declared to the world that I had discovered that factory closures did not hurt the employment prospects of blacks and whites – without giving the media the additional information about black employment that was in front of me? Was I being honest while presenting my results in terms that I knew would be misrepresented by the media as showing that blacks were not hurt? Or was I, in David Kessler’s words, simply being “accurate” rather than “truthful”?

      The reference to Kessler is about how they can lie while still “technically” telling the truth. It gives them an “out” to put a clean face on their honor if they’re ever really forced to confront what they’ve done. Remember Bill Clinton denying sexual involvement with Monica Lewinsky? He got away with it by saying he was referring ONLY to full sexual intercourse.

      Hitler could honestly say he never gassed six million Jews. He’d be perfectly truthful: many of them died from being beaten, shot, starved, and tortured — not gassed; and he himself didn’t do it anyway: other folks did it on his orders; and it almost certainly wasn’t six million: it was probably something like 6,017,247 or 5,986,843; and some of them probably weren’t Jews anyway, but just got mislabeled.

      Antismokers are EXPERTS at lying: they know how to do it so it’s very difficult to catch them at it, and they know how to leave little hidden safety exits and trapdoors they can slip through if someone actually comes close to proving their guilt. The only way it’ll ever be fixed is if a significant number of them are taken to court and found guilty of the harms they’ve caused and punished for what they’ve done.

      – MJM

  6. castello2 says:

    Ah the good ole days?

  7. waltc says:

    Aside from (presumed) bias on the part of NERA –whatever the hell that is– aside from the fact that like most “researchers” who find what these guys claim to have found, they likely included fast food places in the wide category of Restaurants and didn’t count at all the bars that were forced to close– this is what you get when you deal in broad terms rather than with individuals, whether individual people or individual businesses. That’s the great trick of academics. I’m sure a study by similar guys would prove that smoking bans, taxes, employment policies, propaganda etc have had an infinitesimal effect on the broad population of any given country by simply overwhelming the huge effect on the country’s smokers with irrelevant population-wide stats.

    On the main topic: the problem is broader than universities, tho they give operational bases to these particular covens. The problem, seems to me, is cultural or part of the temper of the times. Yeats again, writing of a time when “the best lack conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.” That’s what the Bishop-Hill article seems to be bitching about– that the academics who know better are silent.

  8. Marvin says:

    Those who can…do, those who can’t…teach :)

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    The contagion begins………….when the states cant pay what others promised its over and no court order will make it happen. In fact the courts issuing orders to states to pay may well find there areno more courts if legislators decide to dump em!

    Kentucky Pension Crackdown Bankrupts Health Agency: Muni Credit

    By Margaret Newkirk and Darrell Preston
    September 25, 2014 8:00 PM EDT

    When Kentucky last year required employers to stop shortchanging state pensions for the first time, its largest mental-health agency filed for bankruptcy.

    Seven Counties Services Inc. in Louisville couldn’t pay the mandated 38.7 percent of payroll to the Kentucky Employees Retirement System, up from 6 percent in 2005, said Gwen Cooper, the agency’s lobbyist. The bankruptcy may let it escape obligations to the retirement plan, potentially costing other participants $100 million during the next 30 years, according to Moody’s Investors Service. If other agencies follow, that could swell to as much as $2.4 billion.

    “What happened at Seven Counties is just a microcosm of what is going to happen,” said Jim Waters, president of the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a free-market research and advocacy group in Lexington. “They can’t afford to pay that much of their payroll to benefits and still provide the services they are supposed to.”

    The pressure on the nonprofit, which pulled 1,100 employees from Kentucky’s pension, shows the challenge of bolstering retirement systems for state and local governments, which routinely fail to save enough to pay for benefits in the years ahead.

    Cost Consequence

    In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie this year went back on a pledge to put an additional $2.5 billion into the pension system after tax collections trailed forecasts. When Tennessee forced Memphis to reserve more for retirements this year, the city moved to cut retiree health benefits to cover the cost, prompting protests by police.

    “The problem for pensions is the unfunded liability and the cost,” said Keith Brainard, the Georgetown, Texas-based research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. “For Seven Counties, the cost was so high they wanted to get out of it.”

    So far, they’ve succeeded. In May, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge ruled that the nonprofit no longer had to pay into the pension and that the state had to continue benefits to qualified employees. Kentucky is appealing.

    Backing Out

    Other pensions have faced pressure. In Orange County, California, the council of Villa Park, a 6,000-person town, moved forward Sept. 23 with plans to pull out of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which has also battled bankrupt San Bernardino in court over debts. A hospital in Colorado Springs, Colorado, that sued to drop out of the state retirement system agreed this week to pay $190 million to do so.

    Few are under as much pressure as Kentucky. It has the third-highest pension liability relative to revenue, behind Illinois and Connecticut, according to Moody’s. The Kentucky Employees Retirement System is the most underfunded U.S. state pension plan, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

    The plan, which covers most state workers, has 23.2 percent of the assets needed to meet promised benefits and has sold investments to cover retirement checks, said William Thielen, the executive director of Kentucky Retirement Systems, which oversees the five state-run pensions. The liability has grown because of investment losses and the state’s failure to contribute enough for 15 of the past 22 years, Thielen said.

    Stopping Now

    In April 2013, Democratic Governor Steven Beshear signed legislation aimed at ending that practice.

    “This is going to stop at the feet of our children,” said Waters, of the Bluegrass Institute. “It’s going to crowd out funding for education and public safety.”

    With the state’s own contribution set to rise, the governor asked that $99 million be cut elsewhere to make up for the cost.

    Investors view the overhaul as a positive development.

    Kentucky, which has about $6.4 billion of revenue-backed securities, doesn’t sell general-obligation bonds. Its debt gained as the average yield on a property-and-buildings bond maturing in 2031 fell to 2.78 percent Sept. 16 from 2.995 percent on Sept. 8, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The yield was near top-rated benchmark general obligations at 2.77 percent for that day.

    “The reforms were positive, but they didn’t contemplate withdrawals from the system,” said Gene Gard, a money manager with Lexington-based Dupree & Co., which manages about $1.4 billion, including some Kentucky debt. “We’re concerned about the withdrawals, but right now they seem limited.”

    Open Doors

    About 15 percent of the fund’s members are employed by nonprofits. Mental-health agencies joined after Kentucky replaced psychiatric hospitals about 50 years ago with the organizations, many of which were staffed with former state workers wanting to keep their pensions. By 1974, the legislature allowed the governor to admit any nonprofit employer.

    Last year’s overhaul required members to offer new hires retirement plans whose payoffs vary according to what the worker puts in.

    Employers, including the state, paid more starting in July to reduce the liability over 30 years and cover the new plans.

    Seven Counties filed for bankruptcy last year, unable to bear the increase.

    “We would have gone out of business,” said Cooper, its lobbyist.

    The state is subsidizing the increased contribution for nonprofits for two years, said Steve Shannon, director of the Kentucky Association of Regional Programs, which represents mental-health agencies. Without that help, he said, others might drop out, too.

    You’re Rehired!

    Other nonprofits are looking to avoid the higher payments and at least two ended up in litigation with the state., a Lexington mental-health agency, sued to keep some employees it has hired since 2011 out of the Kentucky plan. While won an initial ruling in court, Paul Beatrice, the agency’s chief executive officer, said it has decided to drop the case.

    Another, Kentucky River Community Care, which operates in eight counties, went further. It refused to pay into the fund for employees whom it fired and then rehired through an employment agency it set up. The state sued to stop it.

    J. Whitney Wallingford, attorney for Kentucky River, declined to comment, citing the litigation.

    “We consider it a sham,” said Thielen, the executive director of Kentucky Retirement Systems.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      So hows the Federal government going to pay out Trillions in bankrupted local and state pension plans………….print it! Roflmao…………….get ready libtards your retirement plans are lets say…………..not worth the paper you demanded them on!

  10. Pingback: Health Care Challenges for Retirees | AnjumsList

  11. Pingback: Are Business Degrees Worthless? | AnjumsList

  12. I hadn’t thought about the radical expansion of ‘universities’ in this way before, but it’s very interesting.

    I was just talking to a friend a couple of days ago about half of school-leavers going to uni and yet we’re having to import all these doctors and dentists (we were talking about the NHS as usual!). Our local GP surgery (three practices in the one building) is huge for a town of just 10,500 and a few tiny outlying villages and they are five GPs short.

    What are they learning at uni? As Yuri Bezmenov said in the 80s the plan is to get them into universities to learn useless subjects and of course bombarding them with socialist propaganda, which is where his department came in when he was a KGB subversion agent.

    I had put the ridiculously high numbers enrolled at tertiary ‘educational’ establishments down to the following social engineering ‘advantages’:

    a) Unlike when I started on a BSc course in 1981, I received a decent grant and my train fares were paid from home (and both parents worked), but today, without grants and with tuition fees (except for viewers in Scotland), students are leaving uni with debts in the tens of thousands and often have degrees which are worthless in the real world (what passes for real these days).

    So it creates a nation of debt slaves.

    b) As I said, it’s another period of time for subjecting young minds to socialist claptrap. Tons of it.

    c) It reduces the workforce. As others have said, many people are at uni who aren’t suitable. It means that more immigration is needed to do the jobs that maybe the majority in tertiary education would be better off doing.

    d) And now, like the many thousands of fake charities, it’s another way of producing ‘experts’ to lead us towards that global Utopia!

    So we have everything needed here: a dumbed down, ‘progressive’ ‘intelligentsia’, deep in debt and slaves to the system – having to keep producing the requested ‘statistics’ and ‘facts’ to order to be able to pay off their loans built up as students and keep up with the cost of living and the immigrants of course are here in such large numbers to divide and conquer.

    Why the KGB even bothered wasting resources subverting our institutions is a mystery when we’re far better at it ourselves.

    • “students are leaving uni with debts in the tens of thousands”

      er, Stewart? I’m afraid you’re a bit behind the times laddie. I believe just TUITION (not to mention other expenses) is up over the $40,000 per year mark at some U.S. Ivy schools like Harvard. Add in the living expenses and you’ve got a possible debt of HUNDREDS of thousands at graduation.

      – MJM

  13. carol2000 says:

    “And when, roughly, did all the global warming and secondhand smoke junk science start really gathering momentum? In the 1990s, approximately.”

    More like, after 40 years of nobody attacking the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud, the generations that have never heard anything but anti-smoker lies began to take over. They were selected for positions of power by the older generations because they were conditioned to think of smokers as second-class citizens and wanna-be-quitters, and simply carried out the policies as their elders wanted them to do.

    “The solution to the problem would be to cut the number of universities back to their 1900 levels, adjusted for population to provide the same numbers of student places per head of population.”

    Sure, attack the physical trappings but not the bad ideas.

  14. roobeedoo2 says:

    Another Tory MP resigns from the party and joins UKIP – Mark Reckless:

    Another by-election coming up.

  15. prog says:

    Near as dammit private ‘education’, whereby 10’s of 1000’s of kids pay £10’s of £1000’s to be dumbed down and brainwashed.

    My other half, an ex teacher, believes it’s the relatively uneducated that pose the greatest threat to the system. She also recognised the way teacher training became politicised in the mid 70’s. Gave up teaching in 1983 to raise a family and never really considered returning to the profession.

  16. beobrigitte says:

    University…. Before Labour came into power there was a great system; those who wished to catch up on education were financially supported but had to do the rest themselves.
    Then it all changed. Labour announced that ALL people should go to university. Even those (and my old school class is full of them!! – Nevertheless they are wonderful people!!! I love every class reunion!!) who are not inclined to pursue academic education.

    WHAT was wrong with that those who WISH to attend university do so and others build their lives around what they CAN do? At least we had e.g. plumbers who knew their job! Now we struggle to find those that aren’t conmen!

    These days a degree and Masters aren’t worth the paper it is written on nowadays. Worse even, there is this con of “earning well” after spending up to £9000/term (?Year) of borrowed money with an increasing interest rate on university tuition whilst the bar-jobs for student have been replace with jobs in the sex industry. (Purrfect Dave and blathering Nick must LOVE that, whilst forgetful Ed has forgotten about that, too!)
    A degree (worthless!) produces per student at least ca. £30,000 debt before they start working as unpaid interns or at a £15,000 p.a. wage. Needless to say, starting a family and buying a little place (WHO wants to rent when you can’t even SMOKE in what is your home!!! and apart from that, you leave f*ck all for prospective offspring!) is being delayed by more years than we can produce ‘healthy’ offspring.

    Long term thinking isn’t tobacco control, less even politicians.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.