You are reading a single comment by @andyfallsoff and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
They only used points because for some reason people fetishize the idea of "Australian points based system".
andyfallsoff-
Yeah that's my impression too, there's no point (ha ha) in putting it this way otherwise.
-
I imagine it's something to do with being able to prove Scientifically! (it's got numbers!) that they're better / more deserving than some other group. Or that the other group is definitely worse, more likely.
I assume this announcement today is just to get a favourable headline to racists for the day. They're not going to be able to do without migrant workers - the UK is already at the lowest unemployment level in decades (and I vaguely remember from economics classes that full employment is a unicorn anyway).
SwissChap
christianSpaceman
Honestly this 'point' system is a bit ridiculous - you have 50 points by default if you satisfy the base requirements, leaving 20 that you need to get. So it can also be put this way: you qualify (beyond the base requirements) if
you work in a 'shortage occupation'
you have a STEM PhD 'relevant to the job'
the job earns you £25.6k+
the job earns you £23.04k + and you have any PhD relevant to the job.
Is a number of points of 70+ virtually guaranteeing you get a visa, or is it a case of "get as many points as possible to increase your chances of not getting randomly rejected"?