Fixed for priority reasons. While California obviously has an illegal immigrant problem, they are bleeding money from industrial outsourcing from what I understand.

It's supposed to take 4. 

Additionally US bachelors degrees are more broad.  You are required to take a lot more classes not directly related to your degree.

If your an english teacher your still expected to be above competent in subjects like science etc.  The thought being that a more broadly edjucated person is better at making broader decisions rather then being more narrow in thinking.

If they cut the lower 50% of universities (in the UK and US) then we wouldn't lose any actual talent (very few of the people coming out of them do graduate-level jobs; most of them take soft options like Media Studies or Psychology and then do nothing with it).

Then they could use the funding to decrease the costs for people who got good A-levels and are studying core subjects the economy needs like the Sciences, English, Maths, History, Medicine...

And yet they're talking about raising tuition fees to £20000 ($31000) per year (that's not including living expenses or books) for top universities. And little help for anyone who's not on unemployment benefit or whose parents are divorced.

I disagree with you there. If I had to state which universities would receive reduced funding first obviously the bottom 50% would be looking at cuts. But I do think that the lower 50% have credentials that speak for themselves. One of the smartest people I know is my best friend, he went to University of Birmingham, one of the best universities in the world, and got a good degree in English. Now he is doing his PGCE at Wolverhampton university, one of the worst in the country, but they are ranked as one of the best in the country for doing teaching degrees.

Same story with me, I did my undergraduate degree at a mid level university, it didn't particularly perform well in most subjects. But I went to study at their faculty of technology and engineering, which is a national centre of excellence and fairly hard to get into. Now I'm doing an MPhil to PhD, I certainly wouldn't call my education a joke... It really is a shame the rest of my university was a complete shambles.

What I'm trying to say is that the bad universities occasionally have their moments of pride. Genius can occur in the most unlikely of places.

Although I do think raising the tuition fees for the higher standard universities is a complete shambles of a policy.

Yeah, the real problem is Califronia's tax rates being too high, buisnesses and people are fleeing California left and right.

It creates a vicious circle.  They want more social support for the poor, so they raise taxes on the rich and buisnesses.  The Rich and buisnesses leave so they end up with less tax revenue and more people in need... so they raise things more... so more people leave.

Up until they are where they are now, where they are trying to cut stuff... except they're cutting pretty much everything BUT the things they should cut.

A lower corporation tax is needed in the US (and for the UK imo) it seems like the logical way to reduce industrial outsourcing because at the moment the tax rate is regressive.

Honestly, university ratings are themselves a joke.

The truth is... teachers and universities don't matter.

If you look at a lot of the top schools... their famous professors don't actually care about teaching and only hold classes so they can run experiments out of their college.


Teachers, funding, pedigree... these aren't what make great universities great. There isn't that much difference between an amazing teacher and a decent teacher once you get to college level.

The main difference. Is the Students.

Swap the student bodies of Harvard and Montana State... and i'd wager you'd be surprised.

Harvard wouldn't be able to do much with Montana State students... and Montana State would suddenly be one of the best colleges in the country.

Students and their drive and willingness to learn are what drive great schools. They're great because they get the students most equipped and most wanting to learn.

It's just like sports teams.  I mean, sure coaches are fairly important, but what do you think would happen if Aston Villa and Chelsea just changed rosters?

I kinda like a new tax suggestion i've seen.

Completly change how industry taxing works.

Instead of being taxed for being in a state or country.  You are taxed by how much buisness you do IN that state or country.  Outsourcing no longer saves a company.  Plus companies are given huge incentives to work in your state... since they basically have no effective tax in the traditional sense.

If they are export only.  They don't pay any taxes in your state yet you get their economic growth of your area... and import only people pay you.

Sure you don't collect taxes fromt he export only people... but they're still bringing jobs and economic growth to your country AND their workers are getting paid... which you can collect tax revenues from.

Nice use of Aston Villa

I agree, the students are the most important thing. You could say the two examples I gave would further go to support this. At the campus where I did my undergraduate degree, students were expected to have had grades at high school that were pretty much double what the rest of the university expected. The students were of a general higher calibre than the rest of the university (Trying not to be rude).

Same as my mate, to get on his teaching degree he had to have a very good degree from a good university, even though the university itself is poor.

Students make the university.