:clap: The Boy Owen got there first.

[Ash]

Sure there are, they just call them really sh1t universities nowadays, thanks to the genius of Labour and Tony Blair.

So many things to respond to on this thread it's hard to know where to start. Except to say that our Rich went to one of the best universities in the world.

[Burney]

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.

I would imagine you would attempt to measure an individual's contribution to society with respect to the number of hours worked over the course of their lifetime, the contribution that they might make if given equal opportunities in society etc etc. You could then measure the life expectancy of the average person with and without slavery and child labour and a use a fairly basic probability theorem to determine the contributions the slaves and children would have made. This would be offset against the advantages of cheaper labour amongst other things.

No idea what the conclusion would be but I'm sure this could be measured scientifically.

I've no doubt such a cost-benefit analysis could justify lots of horrid things.

[Peter]

No, my ideas are based on the good of the individual, not the collective. And however successful the Roman Empire, for its slaves and torture victims the system of the day was undeniably sub-optimal, from a scientific viewpoint or otherwise.

For individuals, the benefits of equality of opportunity and basic human rights for all can be objectively observed in, and verified by, science.

So why don't we try it?

[Monty92]

I never mentioned medicine. My question is how scientific study can ever embrace the notion of a societal 'better'..... better in what sense/whose opinion/to what end?

Sorry, let me just be sure I know exactly what's actually happening here. You are disputing the idea that drinking can be, and often is, beneficial to individuals and groups, and that these benefits can be scientifically measured?

My word. Ok, carry on?

[Ash]

Nice try, but the term post 92 is not an accident. All polytechnics became universities under John Major. Nothing to do with Mr Blair or the Labour Party.

Ooh, I say. That's what we used to call a :wallop:

[Monty92]

So why don't we try it?

It's a fair question

[redgunamo]

So many things to respond to on this thread it's hard to know where to start. Except to say that our Rich went to one of the best universities in the world.

That's just good breeding though, innit. If your parents can at least be bothered to ensure you attend the better sort of institution, it suggests you may be of the right sort yourself.

Of course, that isn't going to work for everyone, but if it did, then what would be the point of it

[Burney]

No, my ideas are based on the good of the individual, not the collective. And however successful the Roman Empire, for its slaves and torture victims the system of the day was undeniably sub-optimal, from a scientific viewpoint or otherwise.

For individuals, the benefits of equality of opportunity and basic human rights for all can be objectively observed in, and verified by, science.

Ah. 'The' individual. Where does he live, then? Is he the wealthy slave trader or the poor, abused slave? Because he can't be both.

To talk of 'the individual' is, by its nature, to talk of the collective since you are effectively taking an average of human happiness.

Also, you don't think our way of doing things has its victims? The child in the Cambodian sweatshop or the suicidal worker in the FoxConn tower might not agree. We've just moved the problem out of sight and thus largely out of mind. The benefit you derive is affordable consumer goods and for that you're happy to trade off the misery of someone thousands of miles away. So your equality of opportunity and basic human rights schtick is pretty blinkered and hypocritical. What's more, plenty of people outside our comfy little bubble can see it.

[Ash]

No they're not. Scientifically, women are physically inferior to men, meaning they should be discriminated against in certain types of employment. They also have a tendency to get pregnant, which makes them a nightmare to employ. Instead, our anti-discrimination laws exist in spite of women's manifest and scientifically-demonstrable inferiority. That in fact makes them anti-scientific.

There's an argument that womens' ability to bear children makes them biologically superior. Only relatively few men and a load of test tubes are needed for the male contribution in that respect.

I'm sure you don't tell your daughter that she's inferior.

[World's End Stella]

Aha! You are labouring under the old notion that only a certain number of students were qualified to go to university and that those universities could only cope with that number. Wildly untrue.

Entry requirements were never set at the level required to be able to do well on the course. They were set high to attract the best students to fill the limited number of places available because the government would only pay for so many. Thus free tuition actually worked as a middle class subsidy, all of us paying for the education of a small number of mostly middle class kids.

What Blair did was introduce a tuition fee at 3 grand. Immediately there were more places, lower entry requirements and plenty of space at our universities with hundreds of thousands of perfectly well qualified kids suddenly given an opportunity.

Paradise

So if that was the magical solution that opened up university to all these students, why is it now 9 grand?