University students in the UK should pay more for their loans and accept higher tuition fees as "inevitable", says a report from business leaders. What a load of utter tosh, so typical of our deliberately blind society and stemming from a complete refusal to understand how the education system should work and where it is going wrong in our day. If we only ran universities as funded centres of learning, instead of self financing businesses, reserving entry for the truly academically gifted alone, then the problems would vanish overnight.
So forget the insane vision being proposed, crippling our young people with even more debt is simply ludicrous. How can encouraging future generations to live beyond their means be conducive to a healthy society? And how will we ever inspire graduates to take up poorly paid but essential vocations, such as charity work, the priesthood, nursing etc.. if they have mountains of debt to pay off?
Instead we should return to the wisdom of previous generations...you know those days when this nation was not run by a moronic money obsessed bureaucracy that seems hell-bent on turning us into a banana republic. Let me tell a story to explain what I mean...
,
...Once upon a time, in the early 1960's, a young lad raised in a low-income one parent family on the 'Sherwood Estate' in Tunbridge Wells held no fears about his ability to enter University. He did not need oodles of money to cover fees, food and accomodation, because the government grant easily covered such things. There was not much left over perhaps but, even so, no-one went short of beer!
And social class was no barrier to entry, all that was needed was evidence of hard work and genuine academic promise. Now we do here need to accept the lamentable fact that remains true today -life is harsh and many lower classed children were at a disadvantage if their own families were dysfunctional. But nevertheless, anyone getting the grades could get in! And because this priveledge was reserved for the few, they were guaranteed a job on leaving, such was the demand for graduates in the market place. I know this to be true because the lad I write about is not fictional he was and is my own father.
Fast forward to 1992 and his son gained entry into University, only now the policy of the last few decades had kicked in and was messing up our education system altogether. It has only got worse in the meantime. Instead of funding on merit, academic institutions are now driven by economic forces. Students = source of income and so the entry bar was lowered simply to fill the coffers. Now add to this lamentable fact the very confused notion of inclusivity that argues that everyone has a ‘right’ to attend and the nonsense of today emerges.
Suddenly anyone and everyone goes to University, regardless of the value of the course or its impact on life. And of course there is subsequently much, much less funding to go around. Hence in 1992 I received the exact same grant as my father had thirty years before me. Only this time it barely covered accommodation fees meaning that huge debt was totally unavoidable...that is unless you were fortunate enough to come from a very wealthy family. How ironic, the so called 'inclusive' policy is leading to a system in which only the rich or foolish can afford to attend.
So now we have a university system in which money has overtaken merit and learning as the driving force behind university. I was lucky to get in before things got really bad, and even then it took the generosity of others and hard work to return to an even keel. The rich/poor divide is being driven further apart in broken Britain and so many clever children from lower income families will soon be deprived of educational opportunity. It stinks and it is not fair! Meanwhile less intelligent loafers will spend three years living out a hedenistic existence studying such futile ‘degrees’ as Madonna studies…and I do NOT refer to the Mother of God!
So let us be honest about the real problems facing society. We need to love and value those of all abilities and none. We need to give good advice to school leavers and help them value a move to work as much as entry to University. We need to teach youngsters that debt is a terrible thing. And we need to return to an affordable, merit based selection policy that rewards the bright regardless of family wealth. Then we might just get back to living in a nation in which degrees and school qualifications are actually worth the paper they are written on!
One correction. My student grant didn’t cover beer. That’s what vacation work paid for!
Well ok, but you get my drift! am told 30k is average debt of those graduating today
I wholeheartedly agree. I hope Britain doesn’t go down the road America has on this issue. Everyone is expected to go to college here, and most everyone has to take out ever increasing loans. Luckily by work, scholarship, and my parents’ savings, I was able to get a 4 year degree with no loans, but then came seminary, which was ridiculously expensive. I’m going to be paying on student loans for a long time.
I dread when my daughter (now about 4 months old) has to think about college. I’m trying to put away some money for her education, but with my own educational debt, it won’t come anywhere near paying for the whole college education she will need. I shudder to think what the average debt estimate for college loans will be in the year 2030.
Agree with every word! It is time we shook off the Thatcher/Blair legacy of subjecting every area of life to market forces. In certain crucial areas like health, education and transport, crude business models are simply not appropriate. Properly funding the education system is money well invested, because the benefits it produces (including financial ones in the long term) are immense.
The push to get as many people as possible through university seems worthy but I think it is misguided. Far better to give the option of (equally important) vocational training to those who want it, rather than try to turn everything into a degree. As you suggest, what purports to be an inclusive system in fact excludes or discourages students from lower-income families and anyone who is unwilling to be saddled with huge debts.
ejukasheeon-innit – Fr Ed, your spelling gets worse not better. Why not get your parish to buy you Microsoft Word which has a spelling checker. (Incidentally, it’s ‘privilege’ not ‘priveledge’.)
The spelling often reflects the amount of time available to check and edit
Interesting post. And I agree that work as an alternative to further education is something that should not be dismissed out of hand. However youth unemployment in the 18 – 24 age group is currently running at 20%. So the answer for some in a recession may be that doing SOMETHING for 3 years even if it is a degree of dubious merit at the University of East Chipping Sodbury is better than doing nothing.
I have just coincidentally finished a long conversation with my wife about the finances of Adult Education. Not entirely relevant (and probably not 100% accurate) but here goes:-
If the classes she teaches get 8 students, they run. The maximum is 14 but lets assume on average they can get 10 per class (I need to keep the maths easy).
Enrolment fees are a modest £250 per annum. 10 students would generate £2500.
That buys 30 lessons of 2 hours each.
For which the lecturer gets roughly £50 per lesson. That’s £1500 of the £2500 back to the lecturer.
So what happens to the £1000. Some of it will pay for the building, some for the IT equipment but not much else (students buy their own books). The rest is for the proverbial Admin.
Except…………..that’s not enough to pay for the old Admin. Those students’ fees need to be topped up by Central Government (I assume the LSC but in effect us) or the courses are not financially viable. How can that be?
If we accept that the costs of teaching and facilities are covered by the student fees what is the top-up paying for? My guess is its for more testing/examinations, league tables, new initiatives, “management and leadership”, Strategies and Visions, Local Authority oversight and administration overlaid with more of the same from Central Government. Indeed virtually anything except what we pay for: lifelong learning delivered by good teachers with a passion for their subject.
There can only be one justification for subsidised education – providing opportunity to those that cannot afford to pay. I have no problem with the idea of paying if I am able to. But I am not sure I want my taxed income being spent on another vision statement for a school or yet another monitoring system or worse another set of ill-informed and half-baked ideas introduced at great expense but quietly abandoned when they do not produce instant results. But I fear that’s what I will in effect be asked to pay for.
You’re dead right, as usual.
I graduated with a batchelor’s degree in science and quickly found that to work in my field of study required either a Masters degree or good fortune. I submitted over 40 applications and drew blank and was even advised by the Career’s officer to Sign On in order to get voluntary experience. My own father, who graduated in the late 1960′s, found a trainee post on graduation – and worked there for the next 30 years.
Ironically, I would be earning more than I am now had I left school at 16 and learned a trade, and would be more certain of applying those skills. It was a great experience which I wouldn’t have missed, but if I was offered the opportunity now, i am less sure which choice I would make.
There is a refreshing upturn in vocational qualifications, which are proving popular, especially locally run schemes where employers are offered funding to take apprentices.
What is also concerning is the expectation to repay the loan sooner after graduation.
Spot on, Father!
I was a student first time round in the sixties, the part-time MA in 1991, got “phudded” in 1998. Then worked as a lecturer for seven years. It was embarrassing to stand in front of kids who were being screwed for fees and lining up thousands of pounds in debt.
The money-driven approach also meant “rationalisation” of courses, with removal of options. One optional course of mine, drawing sixty-odd students a year, got chopped. Compare and contrast Birmingham in the academic year 1968-9, when three English dept students (Carolyn, Sue and I) were reading Italian as our supplementary subject. Sue specialised in modern Eng Lit, and wanted to study modern Italian authors. Sue and I wanted to do Dante and Petrarch. The Italian department provided two separate courses – one for Carolyn and me, the other for Sue.