by Metiria Turei
The Tertiary Education Union reports today that Canterbury University is looking at further restricting student numbers because they are not being funded by central government for the expected growth. Notwithstanding that many universities, including Canterbury, spend a great deal on advertising that could be better spent on education, the issue is a serious one – especially in a recession.
There will be a continued increase in demand for tertiary education – much of it at polytech level as older people seek to reskill or upskill. But also as school leavers find it more difficult to get work tertiary education becomes the only viable option. If there aren’t enough jobs what else are people expected to do? Doing nothing only invites derision, so further education is the only option. The student loan scheme will come under increasing pressure as well as increasing numbers of unemployed people look for some way of riding out the recession that gives them a chance at getting a job. There is already a demand for early childhood teachers because more parents are going out to work. That same need will grow as people go to polytech or university as well.
Unless the government considers the issue of tertiary and adult education as a key plank of the recession package, the impacts of the recession will significantly greater than expected. Not just in that fewer people will be retraining in areas that are needed by the NZ businesses as they adjust to the changing economic environment but also in the costs of having many young people with nowhere to go once they finish school.
Education International are building a campaign on how an investment in education will assist in the relieving the pressures of the recession. They say:
UNESCO says the world needs 18 million qualified teachers just to meet demographic challenges in the industrialized countries and to achieve one of the key Millennium Development Goals – primary education for all children by the year 2015, in the developing countries. Many more teachers and instructors are needed for secondary and vocational education.
We can be part of this if the Government lifts its gaze.
Published in Society & Culture by Metiria Turei on Thu, April 2nd, 2009
Tags: , canterbury, Education, polytech, recession, university
More posts by Metiria Turei | more about Metiria Turei
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
“The Tertiary Education Union reports today that Canterbury University is looking at further restricting student numbers because they are not being funded by central government”
Come on Met, you know better than most that “central gov’t” does not fund anything, the tax payer funds the lot.
At times like this we cannot afford to “fund” anymore courses, it is about time that Students paid the full price for their education and that they took out loans to cover the cost of their study, you simply cannot keep asking the same middle class to pay for everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Bro – you can’t just cuzzy up to one of OUR MP’s like that – get orf ya rowdy bugger (won’t Tour Pakistan w’out a Helmet {BLOUSE} ) Vote Green or Say Goodnight Bro…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it would be quite helpful if we were to cut student allowances. This would free up a lot of money which could be used for more needing areas of Tertiary education.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah cutting student allowances is a great idea. Why should the poor be allowed to be educated? Then there will be fewer students and we could save even more money by firing teachers. Without students and teachers cluttering up the campuses our universities and polytechs will be free to get down to their serious core business; broadcasting expensive advertising, redesigning logos, writing glossy publications, putting up new buildings and hiring even more managers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore,
…theres this thing called a student loan…
…if your not working you can borrow from it…
…even poor people without employment can study in the absence of a student allowence…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
….and Education?…..why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The middle class doesn’t have any money any more.
Best think of ways New Zealand can be more productive, then you can spend it on the social niceties.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘Social Niceties’ Pete? Health Education and Welfare are the central Tenets of Civilization – America does badly in all three and just look at the Mess theyve made of themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@kiore1
As Sapient has pointed out there is such a thing as living costs. If they really need it there is also accomadation supplement as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would’ve thought that once all these extra students are trained, the recession will be WELL over, so it’s really just a run of the mill issue i would’ve thought…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If their parents are poor they get a fair bit of free money, and then there’s the up to $150/week you can chuck on your loan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d much rather the government spent money on student allowances than on subsidising the interest on student loans. The current set-up is an invisible subsidy, and it socialises people into the idea of borrowing to fund everyday expenditure. No wonder we have so much private debt in this country if we teach people that borrowing for living costs is a normal thing to do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>‘Social Niceties’ Pete? Health Education and Welfare are the central Tenets of Civilization
We do provide education.
We could provide free education if we were more productive.
But we’re not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Right
here’s the answer
We accept the fact that the minimum wage is the lowest amount a person can live on, and in the spirit of everyone making a contribution, reduce the tax rate on that to 5%.
We then accept the fact that most people earn less than the average wage, because that’s how you get an average, so we change the tax system so that income between minimum wage and average wage is taxed at 10% (a tithe).
We than accept that anyone earning above the average wage is a rich bastard, and tax all earnings above the average wage at 95% (making an equal balance with those on minimum wage 5:95 balances with 95:5 and creates a nice symmetry)
Now we have enough money so that anyone who can’t, or won’t work, can have education till they have learned enough. We have enough money so that the sick can be cured of their ills. We have enough money so that those who don’t want to work or learn, and are not able to live on sickness benefit can live on welfare.
AS LONG AS people capable or earning a good living don’t want to live good. If they do, they will high-tail it off to Ozzie, or anywhere else where their work can produce a standard of living well above that of the average wage. When that happens, we will have insufficient Central Government funding to do much more than keep a police-force going to stop the ultra-poor from stealing from the very poor who steal from the poor, which is all we will have.
HANG ON THOUGH! I lived through that before, it was called The 60s, it was in England, Mr. WIlson and Mr. Heath both said “the pound in your pocket will not be worth less” but it was.
Oh no! Not again!!
Hello! Brisbane job centre? Got anything for an intelligent earner with great credentials in eliminating waste and duplication in business activities? You have! Great! I’ll be there a week on Thurderday!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Atlas shrugged.
The left need to get over this silly idea that everyone is equal, or can be made equal.
They are not, and should cannot therefore be rewarded equally. I think it is moral and just to provide a safety net and a means to climb the ladder, but it is immoral to punish those who rise above others by virtue of their talents and abilities.
Not only that, it cannot possibly work, as Strings illustrates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Atlas has a good primal shrug — it’s not as though he never dropped the Ball.
Yair, Education – quantity and why, there’s nothing to stop us providing excellent standards too.
New Zealand is known as “The Great Experiment” by Austraian bean counters who use us to test out Laws on the people – handy Hey?
IdEal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP the assumption of “Atlas shrugged” is that everyone who is rich has become so because they are more talented than those who are not. Such an extraordinary statement requires extraordinary evidence, and not no evidence at all. One can manufacture any scenario one likes in a science fiction novel, but policy should be based on facts, not science fiction. I am sure I am not alone in my observations that there is very little correlation between wealth and talent; in any field. Wealth seems more a function of inherited privilege, and a certain ruthless streak or attitude. I have attended green party conferences and have been impressed with the high intelligence of those present, even though they are not very wealthy. I have also attended conferenced attended by the rich and powerful and my impression has been that these people are extremely dull and boorish.
This is anecdotal, but I can also cite from a recent publication in the British Medical Journal, which followed the fortunes of a number of children until adulthood. It found those with the highest IQ were more likely to become vegetarian, but that the vegetarians did not have any more income than their flesh eating, less intelligent colleagues. The conclusion of the study was not that becoming vegetarian improves IQ, but that those with higher intelligence tend to think more about moral issues, and buck the system, and this trend handicaps them in the main stream obsession with collecting more wealth at almost any cost.
Regarding education, it is both a private good and a public good, so I see nothing wrong with a student allowance from the state. The policy of cutting student allowances is inconsistent in this regard. On the one hand it considers education such a public good that it is FORCED upon anyone under 16, then suddenly it is not considered a public good at all, so those who want it have to pay for it. The common thread in these policies seem to be power, not educational excellence.
Personally I would increase the student allowance to a living wage on the basis that education is a public good and the public are paying the student to study. On the other hand this means that students have a greater responsibility to attend classes, complete assignments and pass the course. More pay will need to be accompanied by more accountability. Students will probably welcome this. I have a number of students who have to cut classes because of employment commitments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Wealth seems more a function of inherited privilege, and a certain ruthless streak or attitude.
Got some proof of that? You start off demanding proof of something you perceive I said, then you go on to make sweeping generalisations.
I said people are not equal. Some will rise above others. Some do so because it is handed to them on a silver spoon (Maori “leadership” on the treaty gravy train, for example) whilst others use their skills, intellect hard word or talent, and/or all of the above. It can be down to luck, opportunity, or any manner of conditions.
But we’re not equal.
Ive attended functions where the rich and powerful have been boorish. And met many who are down to earth and charming. Being rich doesn’t make you an as*hole, any more so than being a hippy makes you a nice person. I’ve met green voters who are intolerable, sanctimonious cretins who bear little difference to Na*is.
Many intelligent people aren’t rich because intellect is over-rated. Society really doesn’t need any more people with MAs in Sociology, Womens or experts in Political Science, or BCAs. They’re valued at what they are worth – which is a lot less than a plumber. A plumber actually does something useful, for which he is rewarded.
Education is a public good, but we’ve run out of cash. We spend more than we earn now. There is no more tax to be had until we raise productivity.
The pie cannot be cut any finer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don’t start on Hippies Peter…wrong Blog…personally I think they are not Generalizations at all.
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in
moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness.” : John Kenneth Galbraith
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Regarding education, it is both a private good and a public good, so I see nothing wrong with a student allowance from the state. The policy of cutting student allowances is inconsistent in this regard.”
You are still ignoring the fact that they would be able to get the student loan version of living costs. The money would not be getting redirected to other portfolios either, the students would benefit from increased spending on the tertiarys themselves. As it is a public good it is quite important that they enjoy the highest quality education possible. One such area where I believe funding is lacking is in the libraries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
Of course we’re not all equal. That is stating the obvious. However, why should this necessarily mean that people should get paid different amounts for their work?
Take an example: many low paid jobs are extremely important for the continued functioning of our society. These jobs may not require a lot of skill and talent (qualities you believe should be rewarded), but without someone doing these jobs, everything would quickly grind to a halt. Why should a relatively unskilled job, such as a cleaner, be paid less than a skilled job such as a doctor? Both jobs are important, both in their own way save lives.
You might argue that without a monetary reward, no one will have the incentive to put the necessary hard work into training to be a doctor. On the other hand, one could argue that someone with the talents required to be a doctor has a much larger choice of jobs they can do, and their job will probably be more stimulating and fulfilling than cleaning toilets.
One other thing: how does you ideology explain very skilled people doing jobs which have little or no monetary reward (e.g. volunteer doctors working in developing countries)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>people should get paid different amounts for their work
Because some work is more valuable than other work. Work is valuable if two conditions are met: the service is in demand and those people able to supply the demand are scarce.
That’s an elegant way allocating labour to where it is most needed. Not the perception of where it is most needed.
The guy who fixes my car is very valuable to me, yet the person with an MA in Women’s Studies, who can pontificate at length about womens role in society, is of absolutely no use to me. She may be of value to someone else, and that’s fine. That other person can pay her fee.
>>Why should a relatively unskilled job, such as a cleaner, be paid less than a skilled job such as a doctor?
Supply. There are plenty more cleaners where they came from, and you can start another one in five minutes. Labour is best allocated elsewhere. The same cannot be said of a Doctor. If there were very few people qualified to be cleaners, then the pay would be a lot higher.
>>One other thing: how does you ideology explain very skilled people doing jobs
It’s still all about reward. That reward may not be monetary, it may be spiritual, moral, feeling good, whatever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness
I don’t know about the word “superior”, but selfishness is a human trait. I acknowledge it in myself, and all those around me.
I don’t think your Green leaders would occupy the roles they do if they lacked selfish traits. Same goes for any leader.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good post kiore..
you might be interested in this..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/the-startling-effects-of-going-vegetarian-for-just-one-day/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It was Rand who discovered and explained the virtue of selfishness
“the purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_the_virtue_of_selfishness
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“BP the assumption of “Atlas shrugged” is that everyone who is rich has become so because they are more talented than those who are not.”
No….Atlas shows the difference between the wealth creators who ask for nothing from their fellows and the pull pedelers…the ones who suck up to politicians to get the State to reward them with other peoples money and to regulate their competition out of the market.
The latter hate the former but need them to leech off of as they are not capable of creating themselves…so they get the state to steal Hank Readens metal to share “for “the common good”….they nationalize franciscos copper mines for the same reaon but are incapable of running them….they are incompetant.
“Why should a relatively unskilled job, such as a cleaner, be paid less than a skilled job such as a doctor? Both jobs are important, both in their own way save lives.”
BP has already answered this but I would add…its because you and me, the market, value the rearer skill of the doctor more than the far more abudant skill of the cleaner….Its us,the consumers who decide what skills are worth more than others….we “vote” with our wallets. Its the fairest and most moral way to determine this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Re: Correlation between IQ and Monetry income.
Well, first off; there is a moderate but significant correlation between IQ and income (positivly corrilated). There is an extremly strong correlation between IQ and violence/criminality (negativly correlated).
The average IQ is about 100, they are imbeciles, unable to even understand the workings of the political system. The reason the correlation is only moderate is because the inteligent people whom use their intelligence to earn money tend to fall within one standard deiviation of the norm and at max two. socilogists, anthropologists, and vegetarians also tend to fall in this category, thus the correlation. The thing is that one or two standard deiviations from the norm is still the domain of the idiot; able to comprehand society enough to critque it and manipulate others but still too stupid to do anythign useful. Once you get to the third standard deiviation haowever you encounter moderatly smart people whom tend to move more towards the science side of things and the associated lower pay, thus weakinging the correlation. this is even more pronounced in smart people around four standard deiviations and is almot universal among truley intelligent people at around five standard deiviations plus. lol. Ive met very few inteligent greens, and ive met alot in my various green party roles. people with less than three standard deiviations above the norm cant be called smart, they are hardly even worth talking to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In a normal distribution, two standard deviations from the norm includes 95.5% – according to you, 97.75% of people are too stupid to do anything useful.
97% lie within three standard deviations. You are saying 98.5% of people are hardly even worth talking to.
99.99994267% lie within five standard deviations. So one person in New Zealand is truley (sic) intelligent.
Gee – I wonder who you think that is?
And while I am sure we are all flattered to think that, as readers of this blog, you think we are in the 1.5% of people worth talking to, if you have better things to do, like curing cancer or discovering the theory of everything, feel free to get on with it, although I suppose you can do both at the same time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don,
The speciallist measures lack any credibility and so do standard ones over about two standard deiviations, but thats beside the point.
Correct! Atleast on the first three counts.
Unfortunatly I can only confirm mine being four standard deiviations above the norm, and because Im so young and due to that have less experiance of the world I would likley fall bellow the average for those of that level in terms of useful expertise
People are idiots, imbeciles even. Thats why the world is so screwed in the first place. They are so illogical, and thats why i study them, thats why I droped my immensly logical physics/chem degree and choose the study of the illogical; psychology, its far more interesting. So unfortunatly I wont be discovering the theory of everything which i used to aspire to(though i think its not far away, it just needs a total rethink of the accepted knowledge, a job for someone new to the feild, or finding the cure for cancer (which I am convinced is the domain of the engeneer not the biochemist).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually a genuine idiot had an IQ below 24 and an genuine imbecile had an IQ below 70. In these days of political correctness the former are now deemed merely to have a Profound Mental Disability whereas the latter are subdivided into Mild and Moderate Mental Disability.
Three standard deviations above the mean is the MENSA threshold. Calling them moderatly smart is somewhat of an understatement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
so..where does that leave poor old toad..?
..stuck ‘tween idiot..and imbecile..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient is exaggerating, but I think what he says is true. If intelligence is normally distributed then half the population is below average. And that is pretty dumb!
But I do think IQ can be developed; maybe not as much as EQ, but still some.
Getting back to “Atlas shrugged”, Rand only managed to make her point by making all the capitalists basically decent people, and all the others borderline psychos. As I said you can manipulate your characters in a science fiction novel but not in real life. She also made some statements that were historically not true. Such as the USA being founded solely on freedom and hard work. No mention was made of the way settlers took the land off the Native Americans, nor of the huge role Negro slavery played in developing the infrastructure. Rand also appeared awkward at finding a way to make hereditary wealth appear acceptable. She managed again only by manipulating the character Francisco so that he was sufficiently talented to gain wealth without relying on his hereditary. But those who consider that wealth is a natural and ethical reward for talent do need to provide a reason why they allow inherited wealth in the real world, where many who have privileged positions did nothing to earn them, and would be incapable of doing so.
And BP you need to read through my posts more carefully. I never said wealthy people were a**holes. Many of them seemed pretty decent, affable people. But what I did say is they were dull and boorish, a totally different characteristic. By the same token I have not always found GP members to be particularly nice people. But IQ has nothing to do with niceness, more to do with talent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My personal theory was that when you smash particles together you will create what you are looking for. Unfortunately “… scientists have detected a new, completely untheorized particle that challenges what physicists thought they knew about how quarks combine to form matter.”
So I guess that’s that then.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-new-particle.html
—
“If we are so smart, why do you work here?”
“Intelligence has fewer practical applications that you would think”
Dilbert, on being asked to join Mensa.
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/1992-02-03/
>so..where does that leave poor old toad..?
>..stuck ‘tween idiot..and imbecile..?
On which side of him are you sitting?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient,
I think I have missed your point about IQ altogether, so this is probably a silly question (I just a bit curious):
Do you really think your IQ is four standard deviations above the mean, or are you trying to make some other point? Maybe it is a cultural thing, but very few New Zealanders I know advertise the fact that they might be talented or exceptional in some way.
ps. The IQ distribution is not normal. There is a bulge on the low side caused by brain injuries and so on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samiuela,
.
My point is that people are inheriently illogical, they have a habit of choosing the less than ideal soulution for a problem even when their own limitations of knowledge are taken into account.
The average westerner has a IQ of approximatly one-hundred points, we take that to be standard, normal, and acceptable but really we need to acknowledge that it is only in very very rare instances that we humans can even comprehend the world around us to any meaningful extent; wars of hatred, love, greed, and insult all come around not just because those in power are not as intelligent as they ought be, and they are usually atleast one or two standard deiviation above the norm, but because the people whom vest in them power are also not as intelligent as they ought be. Hitler was in immensly inteligent man, no neutral party could rationally deny this, his intelligence allowed him to see what he thought to be the best future for his people and what he saw to be the best path of acheiving that future. We now have the advantage of hindsight to see it was a bad idea but it came about because he was smart enough to overcome moral limitations and to manipulate others at will, but not smart enough to clear the remaining illusions and follow a path that really would benefit his people. Had the people been smarter, less susceptable to propaganda and more able to think critically, the holicaust would never of happened for, even lacking a massive average IQ, together they would of seen the perils of the path.
That old book “the bell curve” is controversal and much is wrong, but the manipulation of increasing the average IQ does show clearly that a more intelligent population is far less criminal; the more rational the more the favourable paths can be identified.
My arguement I guess is that we need to increase the IQ of the people, we need to breed an intelligent population if we ever want to accheive such airy-fairy things as world peace, or even decent social policy. I am not advocating my pet ethical-dilemma here (eugenics), we need to radically overhaul the education system, we need to teach how to think, not what to think. As kiore says; IQ can be developed. There is almost nihil genetic difference between westerners and africans, yet the african nations average what we would consider retarded whilst we average 100, it is not because of genetic difference but the demands on our life, what we experiance in life, and how we are taught to think.
The most significant detirminant of class is not money or opportunities given; it is the way that parents teach their children; how they read them stories and interact with them. Class is self perpetuating through this mechanism and it is the way one thinks that effects what opportunities they choose to take. We cannot mandate how parents must teech their children, we cannot practicaly introduce eugenics to a sufficent degree, what we can do is change the way our children are taught and teach them how to think, not what to think. In this way as the generations go on, even among the low socio-economic groups, Iq will increase and we will be better off, though less open to exploitation by sociopaths such as myself
As Don suggests, once IQ gets above a couple standard deiviations above the present norm the advantages die off very-quickly in practical terms, of course the depth of thought offers massive advantages in academia, somewhere that shouldint be discounted. though as mentioned previously, it is a disadvantage in sociology and anthropology as it just leads to frustration
.
what is more important than IQ is life experiance and knowledge, things that only time can give; though IQ vastly accelerates aquisition. 
Do i really beleive my IQ to be four standard deivations above the norm? Im training to be a experimental cognitive psychologist (cognitive neuroscientist, sounds cool, huh?) I know well how uterly flawed IQ tests are, how they standard ones are increasingly useless past one standard deiviation. I put little trust in them. I have done four tests in my life, the max score in those tests ranged from 155 to 165 and in each I maxed them out, so i can credibly say that i do, but i dont really give it any credance. I mearly use teh score as an arguementive point sometimes
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘Superior’ meaning something you won’t get hanged in Geneva for
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Returing to the Original thread; the re-introduction of neutral Ref’s couldn’t be more urgent.
The Bok’s have a schadenfruede attitude cos they won the world cup and are only ranked 2.
Absolutely Can’t give ‘em a whistle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “Unless the government considers the issue of tertiary and adult education as a key plank of the recession package, the impacts of the recession will significantly greater than expected”
So, when times are good we should spend more on education because money is available, and when times are bad we should spend more on education to reduce the impact of the recession.
It seems there’s never a bad time to increase education spending!
How much is enough? You don’t know, because you don’t have a market to reveal the price that people are willing to pay. So all you do is repeat over and over again that ever more money should be spent on education (and health, presumably.)
Enough! Simply tell us what percentage of GDP you think should be spent on these different sectors and be done with it. Otherwise, we’ll start to think that your vague calls for still more education spending are simply about appearing virtuous and superior.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient,
Your argument is quite muddled. On one hand you claim we need to “breed an intelligent population”, on the other hand you claim that the average IQ in African nations is due to environmental influences, not genetic differences.
I know very little about IQ tests, but a few minutes of searching using Google led me to this article about the “Flynn effect”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect Flynn observed that IQ test results had been rising significantly over just a few generations. Has intelligence has truly been rising at such a fast rate, or is it caused by a whole raft of environmental factors such as children staying in formal education for longer, people becoming more accustomed to test taking an so on?
One final point: plenty of people are naturally talented, but this is only half the equation. The other half involves training and hard work. Someone who has a high IQ but does not use it might as well have a low IQ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samiuela,
Not really, breeding is about more than reproduction; it is also how the children are brought up, how they are educated, and how they are provided for. The IQ in african nations is lower because the children are breed to deal with their environment and meet the associated needs, in western nations however they are breed for less hands-on matters such as formal education and because of this they develop ways of thinking that match that way of life. I appologise, I thought I made that quite clear. The flynn effect is another example of this.
IQ has a large prenatal influence and a large postnatal influence, we can relativly easily affect the postnatal influence so that shouldb e our first port of call and the effects on the postnatal environment will likley flow on to enhance prenatal factors in the next generation. postnatal being ones environment, education, etc and prenatal being genetics and the womb. The highest widly accepted estimate in psychology is about 70% influence from prenatal factors and the rest being postnatal; that is very significant.
Re: your final point; I agree, but no matter how hard one tries they can never surpass their IQ, so it is best to promote high IQ reguardless, though oviously promoting effort, etc is also desirable but can pnly go so far.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient,
Your argument that “the effects on the postnatal environment will likley flow on to enhance prenatal factors in the next generation. postnatal being ones environment, education, etc and prenatal being genetics and the womb.” is getting very close to what Lamarck argued. His views have not been widely accepted for over a century (except for a period in the Soviet Union whilst Stalin was alive).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1 on April 4th, 2009 at 11:18 am, said
“Personally I would increase the student allowance to a living wage on the basis that education is a public good and the public are paying the student to study.”
May I ask ‘FOR HOW LONG’?
I have a child who has been a student now for 9 years. They have accumulated 3 undergraduate degrees and are working on two Masters degrees, after which they expect to do a doctorate or three or more. Yes, an IQ of about 165. Yes, access to an ethnic based education fund that pays all fees and ’80% of the average wage in the country of study’ as long as a qualifying person is studying. In other words they are getting “a living wage on the basis that education is a public good”.
This is WRONG! I can’t blame the child for taking advantage of the situation, but I wonder how people out there would feel if they were living this life of academia without responsibility on the public teat!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ON the subject of identical pay for all . . . . . . .
There is a researched ‘fact’ in the Ministry of Education that the longer you stay in formal education the more your lifetime earnings will be. It is used to show pupils that staying in education after their 16th birthday will be good for them as time passes.
ON the basis that we should all be paid the same, irrespective of what we do, what, therefore, is the value of education? Surely, if we are to live in a ‘Utopian’ type society, where everyone is equal in earnings, and so life-style, there is no value to staying in the education system. One might as well get out as soon as possible and get onto the earning platform so as to be able to acquire capital goods to enhance quality of life. WE don’t need universities if all are to be treated equally.
IN this utopia, jobs with high stress levels (e.g. being chief executive of a company) are best avoided as there is no reward for accepting the health dangers that such positions naturally involve. The best thing to be is a road sweeper. No responsibilities and no stress. Go out, lie on the ground, blow the dirt towards a central point of wind disbursement, and at the end of the allotted time (you would of course decide this for yourself) go home and rest till the next work cycle arrives.
There will be no brooms, houses, televisions, broadcasters, chairs, beds, in fact no capital goods whatsoever. There would be no supermarkets, processed foods, farms, factories or bread. Why would anyone take on any role more difficult than the most simple, least energetic and self beneficial? Why would I get up in the morning and go out into the frozen wastes of Otago to herd cows into a barn and, using frozen hands, milk them for the benefit of others. I’ll just go catch a cow out in the wild and get enough for myself! After all, there’s NO benefit in contributing to others, they are all as good and as valuable as I am!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jesus wept.
Occupation: permanent student at the taxpayers expense.
What use is society really getting from this level of qualification? Would this student be studying these degrees if /she had to pay for it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS: The application of education may be a public good (depends on how it is applied).
Stacking up multiple degrees is of questionable worth to society, especially considering the cost. I’m guessing the inputs would exceed a few million by now – will the taxpayer get that back in increased tax revenue over and above being, say, a plumber/advisor/taxi driver?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue Peter.
Luckily Not at the taxpayers’ expense.
They attend university off-shore, and pay full fees with no subsidy. There is no value in this education, they (I am protecting my child by obfuscating everything to do with them,) are able to live a very pleasant life as a professional student, and was clever enough to work it all out for themselves. Worse, they claim no value, just that if there is a way by which they can be paid to study, which they enjoy, why shouldn’t they do it; a logic hard to refute.
The danger of universal free-for-all education is exactly what is happening in this situation. That is why I asked the question “for how long?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
“will the taxpayer get that back in increased tax revenue?”
Not in the world postulated on this site, where everyone is paid the same no matter what they do, and so will pay the same taxes!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>Not in the world postulated on this site, where everyone is paid the same no matter what they do,
On the other hand there is something not quite right with the dictum that the more you earn the more valuable you are to society. Even the weaker position that higher salaries are an incentive to more productive work is not without its pitfalls.
Would an Einstein not propose the Theory of Relativity if he were paid the same liveable wage as a plumber? On a different take, we have a history of relatively impoverished great artists and musicians producing great works of art like there’s no tomorrow. Of course, some believe in a world where only the production of functional goods is important and art works are of no consequence.
Perhaps there should be some incentive for most of us to perform – at least to our respective abilities. But we should be very wary of having a huge discrepancy between the highest and lowest earners.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trust fund/scholarship, huh.
If a trust is happy to pay for this, then that’s none of my business.
Nice illustration for those who demand taxpayers foot the bill for this sort of thing, though
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samiuela,
Lamarck? Really? Somehow I knew when I wrote that that you would misinterprit it in that manner.
The effects flow on not because of lamarckian evolution but because a more inteligent person is more likley to make better use of their resources and is less likley to drink heavily, smoke, and otherwise consume substances harmful to a fetus’ development. Due to this the prenatal non-genetic environment will allow for less disturbed development of the fetus.
Remember; genes are not blueprints for the human body, they are blueprints for protens and it is those protens that work together through the laws of physics to, without intention, develop the human form and all the cells and minerals of which it consists. If one messes with teh chemical signals which guide the development or otherwise causes modifications in what proteans are there then the form will be modified also, and in a form as complex as a human the probability is extremly high that such will have a negitive effect.
Simply put, poor children are screwed from the moment their conceived, even before taking genetics into account. And then the meathods used to develop their cognitive style disadvantage them even further; ts class self-perpetuation and it is that which we need to stop, but short of legislating a pregnant women inot a padded room with a strict diet there is little we can do about the prenatal environment and as such it is better, and more cost effective, to affect the postnatal environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings,
Sounds like a dream
Though I am rather confused as to why anyone would do three bachelors degrees, they have almost nihil value. Would be better to do one bachelor and two graduate diplomas; same value, less time, can do more of them and have more potential post-grad study that can be done where one actually does learn something.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
Sadly, where some people do double degrees, this genius did a triple! I must make the point that, while a technical genius, they have no basic common sense at all. They failed their driving test five times before passing it (the only thing he has ever failed in his life), and we have a family policy that NO ONE rides with him, we worry that conversation might distract him enough to cause an accident.
Blue Peter
Yes, a family trust-fund that is loaded with money from a one-off wise investment many generations ago. It has these lovely terms, and he is the first to ever sit back and work out a life-style based on it that suits him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)