The Chair

Excuse me Chair but as I started this thread I feel I should have the right to pull you up on a complete misconception you are reinforcing with your post.

The Chair nods sagely, and refers the honourable gentleman to the opening sentence of his post...

The Chair is far too sensible/cowardly to get drawn into this one. He is though reminded that religious "discussions" online are usually futile and tend to reinforce entrenched beliefs...

Please play nicely...

The following is posted on behalf of bigbadwolf

I've been keeping track of this thread since it's inception and have been genuinely interested in it's track and content. As well as hearing peoples experience of their course and uni life in general.

I went but didn't study for or get a degree. I went for a HNC diploma in Civil Engineering.

I'd never before even considered going to university but when I was working on a big job in Westminster I was a demolition foreman attached to the engineers. I found their profession intrigueing and diverse. I got involved with what they were doing in whatever minor capacity I could. In turn, they were impressed with the way I supervised the structual removal of a section of floors and gave me a heads up to the head honchos of the company.

I was invited to a meeting at the head office and was asked if I'd like to go to university to study engineering on their tab. I'd be released from work every tuesday and spend a the whole day in lectures and the laboratories. I had to work the remaining 4 days of the working week. To repay the company I signed an agreement that dictated I would contractually obliged to work for them for a further 2 years. I couldn't work for anyone else even if they offered more money.

This set up was ideal for me. I found the study quite difficult at first but I had the benefit of working with actual engineers for the remaining 4 days and I learned a great deal more about what I'd learnt in class such as figuring out how to work the theodlodite, leveling scope and all the formula's and equations that went along with measuring loads and stresses. My progress was also reported to the company to make sure I wasn't bunking off and that I was meeting my coursework deadlines. They had a vested interest in their investment after all.

I didn't really like uni life in general. I was a bit older than the majority and I seriously disliked the whole "lets go and get pissed after lectures" attitude. I also found them rude towards the lecturers and surly. After about 5 p.m I couldn't wait to get out of there.

Anyway...

What I'm trying to explain are the visible benefits of studying on a bursery agreement. The student doesn't have to worry about the massive debt they'd be otherwise saddled with. Also, in most cases they'll get to put what they've learnt into practice which in my experience was invaluable to make sure I passed and gained the credentials.

A lot of companies (especially the construction and heavy engineering industry) are waking up to the benefits of sending their employee's to study on their ticket. It encourages the individuals faith in who they're working for and makes the firm seem an attractive candidate to developers who are tendering out work because they know the contractor investing in it's work force will deliver a competent package of works carried out by competent individuals. It also shows the Commission of Investing In People that they're willing to give their people an advantage in their future career in an industry that most people don't want to be involved in.

The attitude towards going to university is, like most things, influenced by peoples attitude to class. If people started viewing vocational jobs/trades as the respectable jobs they are, then less people will feel pressured into going to studying for a job that's percieved to be "more respectable in that I wear a suit and wont get my hands dirty". A good friend of mine is a general building contractor who did an apprenticeship and he earns a lot more money than I do.

Over all I'm glad I went. It's given me the credentials to be independant and live a comfortable life. Bearing in mind that I don't have any dependents or real responsibilities like a mortgage.

Chair you did not answer my question about deleting posts due to 'Sun-style' writing or because it was simply off topic. I think it's too much deletion of communicative material (since we're on a wiki roll). Perhaps I'm not intelligent enough to be in the lounge and am missing the point of something which could very well be the case, but it is censorship and I don't think it's appropriate in this day and age especially as it was not malicious or libellous (and I am used to censorship living in China!).

This has not been an easy topic to oversee/moderate/"censor". It would have been simpler and safer I suppose to say merely that the deleted posts were "off-topic", but it did seem to me that, here and there, certain arguments/observations owed more to smear and/or sweeping generalisation than any basis in fact, which is why, perhaps ill-advisedly, I added the "Sun" feedback page comment. I did not suggest anything was "malicious" but I still stand by the warning about libellous or potentially libellous posts. And I am sure you are quite intelligent enough to be in the drawing room as well as the lounge!

It might help if the Chair could be a bit more specific about why these posts have been deleted. I haven't seen all of them (since some were deleted before I got a chance to read them) but my undeleted post was in response to iaineasy's now deleted one and, whilst I don't agree with his views, and still find his language inappropriate, I didn't feel it went so far as to warrant being removed.

In some cases posts got deleleted simply because they were responses to the "key" post which I deleted either because it was off-topic or possibly libellous. I did consider editing out parts of posts rather than obliteration but this did not seem feasible and in any case might have been even more unacceptable to the original poster than complete deletion.

I spent about fifteen minutes construcing my contribution to a couple of other points in this thread which- if you remember- I started.

Fifteen minutes to carefully articulate, but four seconds for the chair to read, judge and decide to delete.

I can only assume the chair did not understand my references,or understand the nature of an expansive discussion on a single theme- because all my references were completely relevent.

I can assure you I spent a good deal longer than four seconds. But I still think the Kinski/Tess stuff is too remote from the issues raised by Polanski's recent arrest and the original alleged offence to be on topic.

his Polanski discussion touches on ideas of the law and the passage of time, changing mores, personal culpability, whether we forgive artists more readily than citizens....interesting quesions? apparently not.

These do remain excellent questions for discussion but care should still be taken. Polanski is notoriously litigious, incredible as this may seem!

Several messages in this thread have been purged on grounds ranging from simply wandering too far off topic to resembling a feedback page of "The Sun" on a bad day.

To clarify:-

1) Libellous, or potentially libellous, messages will be vaporised.

2) The dictionary definition of "paedophile" is simply "a person sexually attracted to children"

However, I do not think that it is right that when couples have children that support for that child should come out of the public purse (child credits etc.)...(Chair: is this still in-topic? or should I start a separate thread?).

Start a new thread please!

Previous message deleted as the gratuitous name-calling was in no way suited to the ethos or raison d'etre of the Drawing Room.

More generally, The Chair has an extremely low tolerance for any message which purports to be some form of apology or explanation, but resorts to phrases like "I was only joking" or "It's just my sense of humour", or anything else along similar lines.

Warning: The Chair is in a bad mood and liable to throw this thread to the Lounge. To remind you, the original post was:

What is it about clowns that is so terrifying?