Student Protests!

Before I state my views I this I should make the disclaimer that I'm currently at University and locked into the old standard of tutition fees, so the rise in tutition fees won't affect me and I'm pretty lucky for that. People might point at this as a reason for my views or they might not, whatever.

Anyways I think the rise is probably justified. The fact is that for many years in this country the poor working classes have been supporting the middle classes to go to university and accquire better jobs, earn higher wages and further entrench them as a middle class more affluent and seperate from the working class. This doesn't make sense to me, we're supposed to live in a dynamic society where the differences in class are lessening and anyone can make anything they want out of themselves. However we still have an education system whereby the poorer majority are supporting a generally more affluent upper strata (still only around 40% of teenagers go to uni) to entrench themselves as middle class and gain better jobs. Many people will have put thousands of pounds into the universities system over their lifetime via their taxes and yet never seen any of the benefits of a university education because of lack of opportunity or a lack of academic prowess. That's not particularly fair.

Surely this is wrong and we should expect those better off to foot a good percentage of their higher education. Let us remember that Higher Education is not like Primary and Secondary Schooling, it is not an essential nor is it needed for life skills or progression in life. Many of our richest businessmen such as Richard Branson never stepped foot in a university in an academic way.

Indeed a large amount of the problems in funding universities since the turn of the millenium have come about as a result of trying to expand university education to those that shouldn't have it. Labour put forth this ridiculous notion of 50% of young people going to university. It sounds good on paper but it's not in reality. Firstly because of the massive bulge in funding these extra places have had a large part to play in the state no longer being able to afford to pay for it. This lead directly to the introduction of first top up fees and then tutition fees. Had the system stayed more elitist then the state would still have been able to fund the more limited number of students. Secondly a great deal of degrees especially those coming out the new 'universities' (formerly polytehnics) are irrelevant and useless wastes of time. They exist merely because of this idea that has developed over the past two decades that teenagers should go to university and it's a part of growing up. Things like Media Studies degrees and photography degrees. These are not things that should be taught at universities. Furthermore any relevance they have to the workplace could be accquire via on the job training and apprenticeship programs. These subjects shouldn't be taught at all (Media Studies), should be taught at local higher education colleges or should be vocationally based/apprenticeships. So what we've undergone is a massive expansion of both student numbers and a great expansion of largely useless degrees alongside it. This stretched the system to breaking point and resulted in students having to part fund their education.

The numbers initially look very scary jumping from £3,290 p/a to £6k - £9k p/a. This will undoubtedly leave the new batch of graduates after myself in more debt. However a few points must be pointed out. Firstly universities will not be able to charge £9k unless they show they are broadening access and helping those from poorer backgrounds to get into university. A very good idea and something which may annoy the Oxbridge colleges a little considering they still heavily discriminate against those from less privledged backgrounds. Secondly if you're from a poor background the repayments of your loan actually become more generous under this new tutition fee regime. You don't start repaying until you earn £21,000 (compared to £15,000 for myself) and the interest rates for low earners are miniscule. The repayments are 9% on the margin, so if you earn £22,000 p/a you'll only be repaying £90 a year in student repayments. It is in fact a better deal than what I got considering I start repaying my loan at a much lower threshold After about 35 years your debt is wiped out. Student loans also will not affect your eligibility for mortgages or normal loans. Considering £90/12 = £7.50 a month. I highly doubt any bank is going to turn away a highly educated person with a well paid job because they have a loan costing them £7.50 a month. Finally the tution fees are forwarded to you upfront, a minor point perhaps but something many of the radical lefties protesting tend to forget when they say it'll block working class access to university education.

So what we have is a situation where yes you will come out of university with more debt than at current but it's a very attractively structured debt. Indeed more so than current university structures. Furthermore the universitites will be required to broaden out access to working class people. This I think undermines the fallacy of many of the very middle class people protesting against this mood. They often use the concept that this will stop working class people from entering university as a reason for their protests. This is an absolute strawman, the system still remains very beneficial and helpful for those from a working background. Who it will affect the most is the middle classes who linger between being too rich to get student grants and the lower repayments but not being quite rich enough to comfortably afford the tutition fees. I do feel bad for these people but their constant use of the poor is a bit of an underhanded political trick. The fact is that these middle class people will have to adapt to a more American mindset of university, where they'll have to save up for their children to go. Yes it'll be tougher than now but it'll still be affordable and more importantly they can afford it.

Furthermore paying for their education makes more students motivated because they obviously have a financial stake in it and it'll also improve our universities by making them more responsive to students needs. With students funding something like 1/2 the cost of science degres and most the cost of humanities degrees the universities will no longer be able to ignore them. It'll also have the lovely side effect of gutting out most of these useless degrees that have sprung up over the past few years as people will not be prepared to pay £27k for something of dubious academic merit and certainly little career benefit.

Some of you may well disagree with me, I know I'm one of only a small cluster of students at my university who actually are slightly in favour of the rise. However a lot of the scare stories are just that scare stories. Taking Joe as an example if I may, yes he will come out of university with more debt than myself. However he'll come out with a better repayment scheme than myself and also will start repaying at a higher wage. If he's working class (I have no clue) he won't be particularly disadvantaged by the reforms other than the higher loan, indeed they will probably enable him to access more institutions. Furthermore theres not really much fear involved in a government loan, you see the money go off your wage packet each month and it's basically a tax. It's not like you're going to lose your house or be kneecapped if you don't keep up with repayments.

If he is middle class yes his family will be hit by the reform and may have to tighten their belts but it must be remembered that he is the one that will benefit from his university education. The £27k should be looked upon as an investment not a burden. Sadly the times are gone were the government can support the student population and although I feel bad for the students coming after me, the deal the Conservatives and Lib Dems have struck is actually the best of a bad situation. The alternative is to retract University education to 30-35% of the population and have them wholly state funded as they used to be, however I don't see this being particularly popular amongst the country as a whole either.

PS. Joe you'll have a vastly larger budget than £6-20 per week for food and drink. In my first year I had about £50 a week plus £1k a year bursary from my university. In fact I wasn't -that- much worse off than when I was working a 40 hr week in a minimum wage job for a year before I went to Uni.

Dave, a lot of it depends on the way the individuals perceive it and no doubt it’s different for everyone.

I don’t see it as a debt or a massive burden because of the way it is paid back, and more importantly neither does Emma. Yes both of the girls are unhappy that the fees are rising, and Emma went to London for the main protest, but they both understand that they have to earn good money before anything is paid back and then it’s only a small percentage of their future salary. I suppose it’s because at the moment they find it incomprehensible that they will ever be earning £27,000 a year. Also isn’t a mortgage a far greater burden and there are a lot more people with mortgages bigger than Emma’s uni debt, and some are not much older.

I agree with the sentiment that you pay as you go along, hence why no credit cards for any of us and a mentality that both of the girls also have. But sometimes it is a necessity, not unlike a mortgage.

Personally, and it’s only my opinion, but I fully believe that a degree if not essential will certainly be a help for future employment. Don’t get me wrong it’s not the be all and end all, but I would say that a majority of people earning over say £40,000/£50,000 have some form of higher education. In my opinion it opens up opportunities.

As I said previously, one of the big things is whether you think you need a degree in the first place. How much difference does this small piece of paper actually make?? I left Knowles Hill with NO GCE’s and only 1 CSE (grade c maths). I joined the navy and was fortunate to earn a very good living from it without the need of a degree, however during my time I did gain a few A levels and a degree myself, and at present I am studying for my masters. Do I need them?? Yes I needed my degree for my current job, strangely enough my degree isn’t in my current field of work, it just proved my learning capability and that’s another way people look at degrees, not necessarily for the subject studied but for the type of education the person is capable of achieving, which does make a degree important and does make them worth getting yourself ‘in debt’ for.

That said, Katie is a different kettle of fish, having just nailed her GCSE’s, she is now undecided about whether she even wants to go to university. It’s not the fee’s that is putting her off either, but after going to a rather strict school she’s not sure that she wants to continue studying and questions whether she needs a degree to do the job that she wants to do. As with both of them we will support whatever decision they make.

As for any negative effects once again it depends on the individual. Some will see it as a debt, while others will see it as a necessary move (evil is too strong a word) to enable them to go on and possibly have a bright and prosperous future.

Also £27,000 maybe steep, and for medical students it will be £36,000, but they can’t expect to be educated for free and then go out and earn a larger salary than most of the people paying taxes that go towards current university fees. You don’t get anything for free and neither should you expect to. The girls are not happy with the rise, but I personally I believe that the cost of university fees, and just as importantly the way that it is paid back, are just about right, unless of course Graduate Tax is a possibility?

Lambie I hardly think the 92nd can be classed as a scab just because he believes the rises are justified or necessary. ;D

So what does Nick Clegg do? I don't understand politics that much, but when I listened to it all on the radio, I thought there was no way he could keep to the promises he made and had to do the next best thing. Have I got that wrong? I do agree one should not go back on a promise, but how could he keep them?

He should have said that upholding opposition to tuition fees was non-negotiable instead of warbling on about AV (which in all likelihood will not pass the referendum in May). Cameron was desperate and would have formed a coalition, even if it mean that Clegg would not have been Deputy Prime Minsister.

I don't actually think 92nd is a 'scab' - it was a joke! He's as entitled as anyone else to his opinion...I just hope it takes him a long time to get served in his SU bar

If it provides greater economic value to have people going through vocational degrees at local higher education colleges and apprenticeships than to have people doing silly degrees at University. Then a reduction in university places and universities would be entirely beneficial both for the individual and the nation.

Personally speaking I'd like to see more carpenters, mechanics and electricians in this country and less people with degrees in Drama, Photography, Media Studies etc. The people that do these apprenticeships and the like will also be far better off being directed to these avenues rather than wasting three years in university studying a subject with no transferrable value at a lowly regarded institution.

19th century mill owners said the same about 'schools'

Do you mind me asking what it is that you study?