The University Debate

Student protests and the higher cost if education have both been in the news recently regarding the rise in tuition fees. It has become a polemic debate which has definitely polarized people - and not just on party political lines.

The main issue I have is the framework to increase access to poorer students. In principle I have no problem with helping the poor (I believe in equal opportunities for everyone) but handing out bursaries to the poor whilst making everyone else pay up to an extra £3000 a year seems very unfair. It's as if students are being judged through the success of their parents rather than their individual talents or merits.

Of course my major issue is that if loans are paid back after graduation and when you are earning at least £21000, surely someone's background before going to university is wholly irrelevant. After all £9000 a year is a lot of money for most of us, not just the poor, so how is it fair to grant certain people reduced fees when all students are ultimately on a level playing field once they are earning?

The argument that graduates get the high paid jobs is a half-truth too. There are only a certain number of high paid roles and you are at a significant advantage if you live in or near London. Certainly a lot of graduates I know only have modestly paid jobs meaning they are likely to accrue more in interest on their loan than they will pay back. This was the case for me for my first six years of employment meaning average student loan costs for many will probably be a lot higher than the current headline figure.

I believe an educated population benefits both the state and the individual so costs should be shared. I think the current rate of £3000 a year is reasonable - maybe £6000 at a push - but the £9000 most are planning to charge is ridiculous. I went to the University of Cambridge and my degree is not worth that much - why would anyone pay that amount to attend the University of Bradford? Of course the argument is that increased competition will improve standards yet league tables already exist and grades policies suggest students go to particular universities based on their ability so it's hardly a level playing field. And look at the railways and energy companies to see how disastrous the introduction of competition can be.

I see this as an attempt to reduce the university population after the last government's ridiculous 50% target. However is anything being put in place to aid those who will be deterred from higher education? After all an education is a means to an end - a job - and we should encourage people to become more educated and strive for roles which will benefit the country. Let's hope the apprenticeship plans and the economic development zones will prove to be beneficial.

My advice to those considering a degree starting beyond 2012 is don't bother unless you have a fixed idea on what you want to do. If you are willing to relocate to London (or maybe Leeds and Manchester) then even better. If your profession requires a degree then do one, if not you are better off getting the three years of professional experience. University changed me - it made me more confident and assertive - and although the course wouldn't be worth £9000 a year, perhaps that change in mindset was. Sadly though it's a huge price to pay and one I probably wouldn't if I was a prospective student now.

I agree that science and medical degrees should perhaps be funded more due to our shortfall in graduates in these subjects. But to dismiss arts degrees - and other vocational courses - I think is unfair, particularly as many do lead to jobs and thus wealth for the country. This is not to say universities shouldn't trim down their syllabuses to just include core courses but society is a rich tapestry to which we can all contribute. And we should be thinking of every means we can to encourage, not discourage, people from achieving their potential. So yes, fund the degrees we need and perhaps don't fund the ones we need less but don't deny people the chance to better themselves, nor introduce a policy that unfairly favours people due to the circumstances of their parents. It's pretty much how I see it anyway.

P.S. And did anyone really believe that £9000 would be the exception and not the norm? I hope the government stop this but I would be surprised.

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.

The University Debate

Student protests and the higher cost if education have both been in the news recently regarding the rise in tuition fees. It has become a polemic debate which has definitely polarized people - and not just on party political lines.

The main issue I have is the framework to increase access to poorer students. In principle I have no problem with helping the poor (I believe in equal opportunities for everyone) but handing out bursaries to the poor whilst making everyone else pay up to an extra £3000 a year seems very unfair. It's as if students are being judged through the success of their parents rather than their individual talents or merits.

Of course my major issue is that if loans are paid back after graduation and when you are earning at least £21000, surely someone's background before going to university is wholly irrelevant. After all £9000 a year is a lot of money for most of us, not just the poor, so how is it fair to grant certain people reduced fees when all students are ultimately on a level playing field once they are earning?

The argument that graduates get the high paid jobs is a half-truth too. There are only a certain number of high paid roles and you are at a significant advantage if you live in or near London. Certainly a lot of graduates I know only have modestly paid jobs meaning they are likely to accrue more in interest on their loan than they will pay back. This was the case for me for my first six years of employment meaning average student loan costs for many will probably be a lot higher than the current headline figure.

I believe an educated population benefits both the state and the individual so costs should be shared. I think the current rate of £3000 a year is reasonable - maybe £6000 at a push - but the £9000 most are planning to charge is ridiculous. I went to the University of Cambridge and my degree is not worth that much - why would anyone pay that amount to attend the University of Bradford? Of course the argument is that increased competition will improve standards yet league tables already exist and grades policies suggest students go to particular universities based on their ability so it's hardly a level playing field. And look at the railways and energy companies to see how disastrous the introduction of competition can be.

I see this as an attempt to reduce the university population after the last government's ridiculous 50% target. However is anything being put in place to aid those who will be deterred from higher education? After all an education is a means to an end - a job - and we should encourage people to become more educated and strive for roles which will benefit the country. Let's hope the apprenticeship plans and the economic development zones will prove to be beneficial.

My advice to those considering a degree starting beyond 2012 is don't bother unless you have a fixed idea on what you want to do. If you are willing to relocate to London (or maybe Leeds and Manchester) then even better. If your profession requires a degree then do one, if not you are better off getting the three years of professional experience. University changed me - it made me more confident and assertive - and although the course wouldn't be worth £9000 a year, perhaps that change in mindset was. Sadly though it's a huge price to pay and one I probably wouldn't if I was a prospective student now.

I agree that science and medical degrees should perhaps be funded more due to our shortfall in graduates in these subjects. But to dismiss arts degrees - and other vocational courses - I think is unfair, particularly as many do lead to jobs and thus wealth for the country. This is not to say universities shouldn't trim down their syllabuses to just include core courses but society is a rich tapestry to which we can all contribute. And we should be thinking of every means we can to encourage, not discourage, people from achieving their potential. So yes, fund the degrees we need and perhaps don't fund the ones we need less but don't deny people the chance to better themselves, nor introduce a policy that unfairly favours people due to the circumstances of their parents. It's pretty much how I see it anyway.

P.S. And did anyone really believe that £9000 would be the exception and not the norm? I hope the government stop this but I would be surprised.

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.

A Jolly Good Bunting

So the bunting is up in my home town (making it look like Bridlington on a particularly limp Wednesday in January), the cheap tacky flags are all in the shops and everyone is gearing up for a week of patriotic fervor (St George's Day + Royal Wedding). As I find patriotism a silly and potentially dangerous concept (see EDL), I will do my best to ignore it completely. Still, its presence is more insidious than Christmas decorations in October and I fear my street will be just the sort to hold a party. I am starting to regret not going away but sadly this was not an option due to my work commitments. So I will have to endure the media ramming it down my throat and telling me this is something I should celebrate. This only turns me off the whole thing even more.

Still, must look on the positives I guess. It's a bright sunny day, life is generally going well and in two weeks time it will all be over. Then we have the mud-slinging match that is the AV referendum to look forward to where politicians are treating the electorate like idiots rather than educating us with the pros and cons of the proposal (and even when they do, they both resort to using lies, half-truths and misrepresentations). Scaremongering appears to be the order of the day. Sometimes I really do despair.

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.

A Jolly Good Bunting

So the bunting is up in my home town (making it look like Bridlington on a particularly limp Wednesday in January), the cheap tacky flags are all in the shops and everyone is gearing up for a week of patriotic fervor (St George's Day + Royal Wedding). As I find patriotism a silly and potentially dangerous concept (see EDL), I will do my best to ignore it completely. Still, its presence is more insidious than Christmas decorations in October and I fear my street will be just the sort to hold a party. I am starting to regret not going away but sadly this was not an option due to my work commitments. So I will have to endure the media ramming it down my throat and telling me this is something I should celebrate. This only turns me off the whole thing even more.

Still, must look on the positives I guess. It's a bright sunny day, life is generally going well and in two weeks time it will all be over. Then we have the mud-slinging match that is the AV referendum to look forward to where politicians are treating the electorate like idiots rather than educating us with the pros and cons of the proposal (and even when they do, they both resort to using lies, half-truths and misrepresentations). Scaremongering appears to be the order of the day. Sometimes I really do despair.

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.