Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You're being a little bit silly. No one (that I know of) is seriously claiming that Berkeley (for example) should admit every applicant regardless of academic qualifications if and when tuition fees are abolished.

What use is a free University for all if very few can actually get in?

Smoke and mirrors.

Originally posted by Eladar
What use is a free University for all if very few can actually get in?

Smoke and mirrors.

The point of abolishing tuition fees is not so that everyone can get in, the point is that finances don't become a barrier to entry so the most qualified can get in. So the point is to deny entry to less qualified applicants with a lot of money in favour of more qualified applicants with less money.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The point of abolishing tuition fees is not so that everyone can get in, the point is that finances don't become a barrier to entry so the most qualified can get in. So the point is to deny entry to less qualified applicants with a lot of money in favour of more qualified applicants with less money.

That may be your point, but it isn't the point in the US. The point in the US is to bring about social justice when everyone has a college education.

Originally posted by Eladar
That may be your point, but it isn't the point in the US. The point in the US is to bring about social justice when everyone has a college education.

Your imagination is running wild.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Your imagination is running wild.

How much do you actually know about education and the US liberal leadership?

Originally posted by joe shmo
1) Your individual replies to portions of my response are inconsistent...as usual.

Please try and establish the 'as usual' claim. Name one other time when you thought my replies were inconsistent.

Then I ask you if we have 4 times that amount ( that you don't know) and you reply "Yes"
Not an inconsistency. I do not need to know how many currently employed educators you have to know, without a doubt, that you could easily find four times that many if you needed to.

2) I have absolutely no idea how you are interpreting my argument to be "we don't have enough skilled people so lets stop teaching"
Well I suggest you go back and read your own post again.

3) Your use of the term "advocate" in the context of your statement below is completely and utterly incorrect.
But I am certain you understood the sentence. That all you have in response is a dictionary tells us all we need to know.