The post on the health debate in America will have to wait, because as many of you will have heard, the debate about university fees has reared its ugly head again, with the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) suggesting that fees should go up, loans be reduced, and less students be let into higher education. So, according to the CBI, not only should students have to pay higher fees, but they should also be given little, if any, money to live off while they study.
Now, one thing always strikes me whenever this debate resurfaces, namely that the biggest advocates of the 'students should pay more' argument fall into two types of person:
1) Mr/Mrs never-been-to-university-and-never-will: In the vast majority of cases, this type has an image in their head of students being the stereotypical layabout who sits around watching daytime tv and eating toast all day, then getting drunk every night. Naturally, this is all on the back of Mr/Mrs never been to..'s taxes. Granted, there are some students who lay around and don't study when they should be, but these are the minority in many cases - not to mention, they tend to be the ones who realise they've wasted three years around graduation time on picking up a 3rd class degree in film & tv, so there is some justice. My own experience from graduation this year is that those who didn't put in the work didn't get the results.
As for drinking, well thats another long paragraph potentiall in itself. All I will say is that in my experience, students get drunk a lot less than those in full time jobs. The main point, however, is that this person sticks rigidly to this negative stereotype of students and is all too quick to blabber on 'Have Your Say' about how students should get no help at all and should get jobs instead of studying.
2)Mr/Mrs forgotten-how-they-got-where-they-are: I can almost forgive the ignorance of the first type - its an easy view to hold when you don't know any different. But I really can't stand the types (such as those who run the CBI) who actually went to university themselves, yet still advocate raising fees. This is nothing less than climbing the ladder to the top, and then pulling it up out of reach of those at the bottom - and it is despicable. Especially so when you consider that these people got to where they were on the back of FREE university education, and were given grants on which to live.
I'm a realist about this though. I know we shall probably never see a return to free higher education, and I can accept students paying towards their degree if it means good quality institutions and teaching. What I never have been able to accept is attempts by those in power to introduce hikes in fees and reductions in grants that restrict who goes to university. Yes, I agree with the CBI that the 50% target isn't right (there shouldn';t be a target at all). However, for me, no person should be restricted in their educational opportunities because of their level of income. The kind of measures the CBI suggest will only set this country back by many years by restricting university education to those with the ability to afford it, rather than opening it to everyone who has the desire and academic ability to do a degree.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Both good points, but 2 is the important one; they're not interested in social mobility, and they don't see the point of taxpayer funded education because they hate tax, and the state. To them, university is a means of maintaining bourgeois hegemony, and enforcing massive debts will keep the oiks out.
ReplyDeleteThe usual cry is 'why should a dustman pay tax to educate a future surgeon?'. The answer is that a) dustmen need surgeons, and b) the surgeon will pay a lot of tax which will benefit the surgeon. Case closed.