Compulsory military service Whaddya reckon?

[nero_bolt]

She is an A grade bucket mouth and  nutter BUT does this idea of hers hold merit

Is it a  good idea or not

Me i like the idea

Lots of benefits would come from it and it would help a lot of unemployed youth get some experience, some training and even some pride in themselves

[polksaladallie]

---

*

One of my children had free University education (although it was nowhere near free), but they did not do medicine or law.  There is no way that I could have afforded for them do do those degrees.  Only children of the wealthy could put their children through those degrees.  Plus many children from wealthy China residents.

I was there, and was in contact with hundreds of 6th year medical students, and my opinion has not changed from yesterday.  As I said in the beginning, they were not a cross section of students, most were the privileged elite.

Your problem if you do not know the facts.

---

@*lady*godiva* wrote:

so now it is your OPINION based on one student in one university who wasn't even a medical student?

so no facts involved at all? No empirical evidence?

and what happened to "hundreds of students over 17 years"?

I have already covered why medical students were predominately from financially affluent backgrounds. That is not in dispute. I haven't looked at the statistics for the past 3 years, but I don't expect thay would have changed dramatically. The shift is happening, but not with any significant speed. It sometimes takes generations to change cultural "norms".

 FACTS " it is not the criteria for acceptance to medicne which has changed the type of student, it is the accessibility of that level of education."

---

One student?  I said hundreds over 17 years.   Can you not read that?

FACT.  Medicine was accessable ONLY to students of wealthy parents (in the main, some students were older and had their own money),  whether tuition was free or not.  Hence my point that they were the priveleged elite.  The criteria changed in the late 1990s, and a cross section of students were accepted after other studies.

"That is not in dispute"

Then why did you dispute it?

[polksaladallie]

---

*

One of my children had free University education (although it was nowhere near free), but they did not do medicine or law.  There is no way that I could have afforded for them do do those degrees.  Only children of the wealthy could put their children through those degrees.  Plus many children from wealthy China residents.

I was there, and was in contact with hundreds of 6th year medical students, and my opinion has not changed from yesterday.  As I said in the beginning, they were not a cross section of students, most were the privileged elite.

Your problem if you do not know the facts.

---

@*lady*godiva* wrote:

so now it is your OPINION based on one student in one university who wasn't even a medical student?

so no facts involved at all? No empirical evidence?

and what happened to "hundreds of students over 17 years"?

I have already covered why medical students were predominately from financially affluent backgrounds. That is not in dispute. I haven't looked at the statistics for the past 3 years, but I don't expect thay would have changed dramatically. The shift is happening, but not with any significant speed. It sometimes takes generations to change cultural "norms".

 FACTS " it is not the criteria for acceptance to medicne which has changed the type of student, it is the accessibility of that level of education."

---

One student?  I said hundreds over 17 years.   Can you not read that?

FACT.  Medicine was accessable ONLY to students of wealthy parents (in the main, some students were older and had their own money),  whether tuition was free or not.  Hence my point that they were the priveleged elite.  The criteria changed in the late 1990s, and a cross section of students were accepted after other studies.

"That is not in dispute"

Then why did you dispute it?

[debra9275]

have you got a link to an article, I wouldn't mind reading that & seeing the stats..

I've never seen that said before

[debra9275]

yes, it would be good to see the actual stats that statement is based on

[debra9275]

---

@*lady*godiva* wrote:

---

@debra9275 wrote:

Whitlam, whilst ultimately misguided, did try to address this issue with the introduction of free university, but it made very little difference. All this policy did was provide free education to those who could afford to pay and would have gone anyway, the numbers of those excluded due to financial reasons did not increase by any significant amount. That's because the issue was that kids weren't finishing school with the required education to even apply to uni - and it was more likely that those from lower socioeconomic environments were those not finishing school/leaving early.

is there any proof of that anywhere or is that just your personal opinion?

---

Yes, there is proof somewhere - it is not my personal opinion.

it was taught at University by either Dr Christopher Klopper, Susie Garvis or Dr Stephen Hay - I can't remember which one. but all three have industry accredited publications and peer reviewed journal articles on the subject

---

if you've quoted a passage from somewhere, surely you would remember where you saw it??

[debra9275]

if it came from Christopher Pyne, I don't believe it because it would just be propaganda for pushing through his own unsuccessful agenda

the ending of conscription, free education and the lowering of the voting age were all good policies for the Australain people at the time

[cherry*135]

LOL from referring to Academic articles (peer reviewed & published one would hope)  but only giving a quote from Chris Pyne in an Independent newspaper.

[debra9275]

yeah, OK , lol

I strongly disagree with your statement then

[cherry*135]

I didn't quote a passage from anywhere, I related what had been taught in either Development of Education, Structure of Education or the Sociology of Education. All three overlapped, so can't remember specifically where it may have been taught. I'm not even positive it wasn't taught when learning about Indigenous Education. Could quite easily have been taught in that framework as well when learning the reasons for low indigenous enrollment and general access to education.

Then it is just your memory of what you learnt, doesn't make it fact. Surely if you remember it well, you would remember what subject it was taught in or the author of it?

[cherry*135]

More interested in the one you can't remember where you read it from.

[debra9275]

I read it, but I still haven't seen any stats or articles supporting your earlier post, I can only take it that it was an opinion of "someone"