Re: ::scr Technical Priesthood

[David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 06:05:59PM +0000, Adam C Auden wrote:
> I would argue that public funding means it has to be used in the public
> interest.  Now, I guess the question is, do we see access for all as in
> the public interest, or access for the clueful?

I know analogies are dangerous, but compare with the roads.

Everyone has access - they're public rights of way.  Some people, however,
have more access than others.  They're allowed to bring big bits of metal
with them and are allowed to go faster.  Those peple have - in theory -
demonstrated competence.

Regrettably, if roads were invented now, they'd all be toll roads owned
by greedy corporations, and if cars were invented now you'd only be able
to lease them and would be forced to upgrade every two years, and could
only drive to manufacturer-approved towns.

What we need is for manufacturers and service providers to do the
responsible thing and bundle training with their product.  I would also
like a pony.  Made of chocolate.

> You have to wonder, is this the best use of our tax, letting these people
> do a degree in basket weaving at the local uni (ex-polytechnic) just so
> they can work in a bar when they realise there is no demand for their
> skill. [again, extreme example, but you see my point]

Do you also apply that argument to people who worked hard to get a place at
Oxford, studied something pointless like History And German, and got a first?
That person is just as unskilled for the real world*, but I would argue that
his study is useful.  An HND in flower arranging is not.

* - he's working in academia

-- 
David Cantrell | david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

  emacs: for a brave GNU Word
             -- cdevers, in #london.pm