3rd Level Fees Will Cause ITs to Die

[Pax]

(i) Assessing family wealth is collectivist, neo-conservative nonsense, not individualist neo-liberal nonsense.

"collectivist, neo-conservative nonsense," you're taking the piss with that one surely?

You define 'individualist' neo-liberalism differently to most I feel.

For this definition I can only recommend the historian David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" (1)

Now finding a close definition of neo-conservative....that's practically impossible. Although widening what we see as 'family' yeah I'm all for that.

(ii) Fetishizing third-level education is not helpful.

Why?
Was the fetishisation of second level unwarranted interference ?

_______
(1)
(
also the review, and quote, of the book below

'A Brief History of Neoliberalism,' David Harvey | open Democracy News Analysis

"Harvey traces the intellectual roots of neo-liberal thought to the Austrian political philosopher Friedrich von Hayek (author of The Consititution of Liberty). It is, Harvey says, a form of utopianism the dangers of which were first identified by Hayek’s contemporary Karl Polyani back in 1944:

“The idea of freedom ‘…degenerates into a mere advocacy of free enterprise’, which means ‘the fullness of freedom for those whose income leisure and security need no enhancing, and a mere pittance of liberty for the people, who may in vain attempt to make use of their democratic rights to gain shelter from the power of the owners of property’. But if, as is always the case, ‘no society is possible in which power and compulsion are absent, nor a world in which force has no function’, then the only way this liberal utopian vision could be sustained is by force, violence and authoritarianism. Liberal or neo-liberal utopianism is doomed, in Polyani’s view to be frustrated by authoritarianism, or even outright fascism”. "

and lecture,

A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 1/5
[ame="http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=PkWWMOzNNrQ"]YouTube - A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey 1/5[/ame]

[shutuplaura]

I'm going by college prospecti for postgrad courses. They were always cheaper for IT's when I was casting around for a course I liked. If this is a fallacy or has changed in the interval I'll take your word for it.

My other point still stands though - fees (probably, I assume thats how the government would go about it) would be leant to students and repaid through grad tax. the cost of third level in practical terms would be bourne directly by the student but would only have to be paid at a future date.

[stringjack]

"collectivist, neo-conservative nonsense," you're taking the piss with that one surely?

Of course. Well, with the neo- bits, anyway (which are generally a sign that the conversation has left the realm of reasonable discourse and entered Derridaland).

Why?
Was the fetishisation of second level unwarranted interference ?

No, but that answer is historically contingent. If fetishizing second level had worked, we wouldn't be having this conversation.