Friday 10 December 2010

Fighting in the Streets (part 2)

Poor journalists may call this a rebuttal but that suggests a polarity of opinion on a subject which is more grey than popular press may give it credit for. So for what it's worth, here's what springs to my mind regarding the recent tuition fee increases and protests/riots. If you haven't already absorbed R-Man's ever-eloquent take on the subject, do have a read of that as well.

The common argument against these tuition fee increases is that it prices the poor out of going to university. I simply fail to see this point of view: students are given loans for the money, which they only have to pay back when they can afford it. I really can't think of a simpler way of putting it: it doesn't matter if you're poor now, you can have the money and give it back when you're no longer poor. If you stay poor then no worries, you'll never have to pay it back. Also, maybe it's just luck, but every protester I've seen interviewed seems to have been dropped off from their home counties mansion in their mother's Range Rover, failing to give credence to the arguments spilling from their lips.

In addition to the widespread misunderstanding of the basic tenet of the student loan, my blood boiled at the recurring cries of "Education should be free!". I agree - and what's more, education IS free. Go to a library. Go outside and look around. Talk to people. Get on the internet. Don't whine because the government won't pay for your bin of death anymore. I don't like to let too long go by without a reference to Frank Zappa, so here you go:

“If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.” - FZ

We're already lucky in this country to get a good quality of free education well into our teens. Nothing is free, and if we can't pay for universities with tuition fees then it will all have to come from taxation. I'm sure the moment another tax increase is suggested, or the relocation of funds from healthcare or schools is posited, the very same angry mob will rear its head again. As a people we have still learned nothing from the recession and cannot curb our greed and feeling of unearned entitlement.

On the subject of angry mobs, I find this sort of protest to be cowardly: it's brawn over brains. Any idiot with an ill-thought-out opinion and poor grasp of the facts can join a baying mob. If you want to make an intelligent difference then play your part in the democratic process. Write to your MP. Register to vote. Run for office. I wonder how many of the student protesters made it to their polling station back in April.

Affordability aside, I do recognise an issue with the underlying assumption that getting a degree increases your chances of earning a good salary. Going back some years this was a reasonable assumption, as a degree represented a high level academic achievement that only a minority of the populace could achieve. However since the Blair mandate to have 50% of people going to university, this has been watered down and a "degree" could be in anything from Mathematics at Oxford to Hairdressing at Wigston Magna Polytechnic. In fact there are many young people going to university now who would simply be better off getting a job or learning a trade; every year of school leavers has a handful of people who shun further education and are earning substantial sums by the time their peers don the cap and gown.

I think this leads us nicely to where R-man and I meet on our opinions: that the root cause of this issue is the "pile it high, sell it cheap" approach taken by the previous government. Now we need to realise that all we've poured money into a worthless investment, and need to return to paying the right price for the right fundamentals. Ring any bells?

10 comments:

  1. Well said sir. (C-bomb, not leg)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, I've changed my mind after re-reading this blog, and digesting all of the other good sense written in the Daily Mail in recent weeks and years. We should use the philosophy in this blog across the board... give loans to minors in order to fund primary education.... they only start to pay back when they get a paper round.... lend cancer sufferers the money for chemo, to be paid back when they're strong enough to do a sponsored run. I'm almost sure that this wouldn't put poor people off going to primary school, or battling cancer, and after all, its them benefitting from the education and healthcare, so I believe I am right in thinking that they should be the ones that pay.
    And when our children decide they want to be an architect or a doctor or some other career that in the stupid olden days could only be achieved by going to university we should just tell them to look for the 'how to become a qualified architect' section of the local library, and keep going back every day until they've qualified. Then they could save themselves £50k.
    All the old fashioned ridiculous methods of levelling the playing field across divisions of wealth is obviously outdated. Every man for himself I say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. have i been censored?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Second time lucky!?:

    Having re-read this blog entry, and the Daily Mail for the past few weeks/ years I've changed my mind. I agree. In fact this philosophy should be used across the board.... give loans to minors in order to fund primary education....They can start paying back when they get a paper round. Lend cancer sufferers the money for chemo... they can repay when they're strong enough to do a sponsored run. After all, its them benefitting from the education and healthcare currently paid for by us, the taxpayers.... and not everyone has kids. Or cancer. And as if poor people would be put off putting their kids into primary school, or battling cancer by the prospect of life-long debt?!!!?
    And after all, education is already free, as you say.... All these silly professions, that up until now have depended on people actually being taught in university. In years to come I look forward to sending my kids to the local library to find the 'how to become a qualified architect' section. Based on the new fee structure, that will save them at least £50k.

    The outdated ways of using tax to redistribute resources and level the playing field, breaking down the divisions of wealth in order to create a balanced society suddenly seem ridiculous and old-fashioned. If poor people really want to become lawyers they should accept that they will be poor lawyers, with monthly payments for the privilege of an education that should be preserved for the privileged.
    Every man for themselves, I say.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i wouldnt have put it exactly like C-bomb- but i too am sick of the sense of entitlement these hooray henrys have....free NHS, free education to 16, welfare state, democracy...is that not enough...oh moon on a stick as well?!
    some countries have no free education....the USA charge up to $50,000 a year for 4 years for university.
    we have to make cuts somewhere....its this kind of greed that got us in such an economic state in the first place.

    it would be nice leg if it could be all free for everyone for everything - but it isnt. so where do you suggest we make the cuts....

    i suppose vodafone could just pay their tax bill....now i feel like ian hislop...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dude, not deliberately censored, yours and another comment had been picked up on the website's "automatic spam" filter. I've fully restored it; all for freedom of opinion here! Thanks for contributing, it's a thought-provoking topic.

    I think you and I agree on most of the points you're making; I am in no way advocating the "every man for himself" scenario you're painting me into (as I indicated at the start of my blog, this isn't a black and white issue, and I am most certainly somewhere in the greyscale). It's awesome that we are able as a country to pay for the level of healthcare and education that we currently do, my point is that in terms of university education we have [by sheer virtue of this debate occurring] reached a point where we're spending too much and getting too little in return.

    My personal view of the ideal scenario is that the best candidates (regardless of wealth/status/background/etc) should be able to study the subjects that will enable society to continue functioning and moving forward - architecture as you point out, medicine, sciences, maths, etc. Should we be sacrificing this to make sure Joe Average can spend 3 years studying Cocktail Engineering at Yates? I'm going to stop myself veering onto this at length (for now at least)...

    Going back to the debt issue, I'd welcome some figures on the reality of how much these repayments will impact people in the years to come. My aggravation is that the press and protesters seem simply to be reacting in a "COST MORE MONEY? ME NO AFFORD! HULK MAD!" way rather than a considered, calculated response - and all the genuine evidence I've seen so far simply doesn't entail this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is all interesting stuff, and it is good to find everyone has an opinion on socialist values and their place in modern life.
    The debate here, as elsewhere, is in danger of becoming 'free degrees for all at whatever cost versus life-long debt for the underprivileged' which is obviously over-simplifying the depth that this subject deserves. It's a shame that the new system buys into this black or white mentality.
    I'm also getting bored of hearing the response that if you fundamentally disagree with the notion that saddling the large proportion of people who go to university with crippling debt then you should be expected to somehow solve the economic mess that an already debt obsessed system has resulted in, with a one liner. Ridiculous.

    So..... where does that leave us?

    The country managed free tuition fees for decades... and yes, there were less options then, and a smaller proportion of the country at university. The quality of education was higher, and the prospects for graduates arguably better.
    This model should be the goal. Rather than setting up a system which seriously undermines the possibility of a university education for people from low-middle income backgrounds, the reform should be based on fairness for students, and maintaining a high quality and broad spectrum of educational opportunities.
    Maybe a points based system that awards funding to a fully diverse cross section of courses, yet limited in terms of numbers, and dependent on quality. And I am including the arts in this, C-Bomb. I agree that funding for courses should take into account the level of worth within modern society, but this includes subjects which may veer away from 'vocational'. From what you're written it sounds like this sort of approach could be agreed, depending on the details.
    I can accept a debt based system to a degree, but it should be limited way below the £6-9k/ year currently being twatted about.
    I'll get my people to talk to your people and we'll get moving on this. There's no time to lose - my daughter will be of university age in just over fifteen years, and if she chooses that path I want her to have something approaching an equal footing with David Cameron's clan.
    Peace out.
    x

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is all interesting stuff, and it is good to find everyone has an opinion on socialist values and their place in modern life.
    The debate here, as elsewhere, is in danger of becoming 'free degrees for all at whatever cost versus life-long debt for the underprivileged' which is obviously over-simplifying the depth that this subject deserves. It's a shame that the new system buys into this black or white mentality.
    I'm also getting bored of hearing the response that if you fundamentally disagree with the notion that saddling the large proportion of people who go to university with crippling debt then you should be expected to somehow solve the economic mess that an already debt obsessed system has resulted in, with a one liner. Ridiculous.

    So..... where does that leave us?

    The country managed free tuition fees for decades... and yes, there were less options then, and a smaller proportion of the country at university. The quality of education was higher, and the prospects for graduates arguably better.
    This model should be the goal. Rather than setting up a system which seriously undermines the possibility of a university education for people from low-middle income backgrounds, the reform should be based on fairness for students, and maintaining a high quality and broad spectrum of educational opportunities.
    Maybe a points based system that awards funding to a fully diverse cross section of courses, yet limited in terms of numbers, and dependent on quality. And I am including the arts in this, C-Bomb. I agree that funding for courses should take into account the level of worth within modern society, but this includes subjects which may veer away from 'vocational'. From what you're written it sounds like this sort of approach could be agreed, depending on the details.
    I can accept a debt based system to a degree, but it should be limited way below the £6-9k/ year currently being twatted about.
    I'll get my people to talk to your people and we'll get moving on this. There's no time to lose - my daughter will be of university age in just over fifteen years, and if she chooses that path I want her to have something approaching an equal footing with David Cameron's clan.
    Peace out.
    x

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think we can meet on this leg, good work. And I would totally include the arts in my "because I say so" approach to what cuts the mustard... in fact out of fairness I did science and arts at university.

    Let's not settle for your or anyone other's daughter being simply on an equal footing with Cameron, we can do better than that in 15 years I hope!

    Good debate going down. Boodledang.

    ReplyDelete