I was trying to say, not that there should be a limit but that there should be be some proportionality to the amount of students who can sit the exams and the no. of apprentice positions.
I'd prefer to be the wrong end of a cut off point than to have wasted the last two years, with nothing to show for it. I know having a limit doesn't seem very appealing but i think its better that reality hits sooner rather than later. On 19 Feb, 15:46, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > "It doesnt make sense that there is no limit > to the amountt of students that can sit the exams with no regard to > the future of those students." > > I certainly agree with all the sentiments herein. However, just > imagine if there were such limits and you found yourself on the wrong > end of a cut-off point? I think its just the way everything has been > going that regulatory bodies can't just limit access to professions. > The logic is that markets should do that - if the job is unattractive, > no-one will do it. If people are trying to do, it must be > attractive. But I think that works best on assumptions of perfect > information. Our real gripe, I think, is that people still have, as > you rightly say, the over-glamourised view of the job. I would hate > to see, however, any introduction of caps or limits. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
