Probably not the most popular blog title you'll ever read, but these are my feelings nonetheless. First of all, let me address the Clegg issue. Yes, of course if a politician does not stick to the promises set out in their manifesto, then that is immoral and they deserve to be discreditted. But let's remember a couple of things: Nick Clegg is not the Prime Minister and is in a coalition with a party and leader who had always openly supported increasing student fees. The coalition government was formed over a few days last May where various policies had to be negotiated and compromised over. Maybe the decision had already been made at this point and should have been brought out in the open then. Either way, we need to stop looking at this in a black and white "Nick Clegg said he'd do this, but now he's in power and he's doing something else", which really isn't the case.
Another myth that needs to be dispelled is the "Poor people can no longer afford to go to university". If anyone took five minutes to look into the policies, it's very clear that this is complete rubbish. The fees are paid via student loans, which are increased to allow for the increased fees and are payed back when the university graduate is earning over £21,000. Thereby meaning that a very poor child still has as much opportunity, from a financial perspective, as a child from a wealthier background. A person's wealth at the point of starting a degree is completely irrelevant.
Now, onto the reasons that I feel that an individual's higher education is not the financial responsibility of the rest of the nation. Certain things in society are obviously the responsibility of all of us: Healthcare, children's education, local and national security etc. But I fail to see why I should bare the financial burden of an 18 year old's biology degree. A biology graduate is likely to be getting a fantastic salary if they work hard and should have no problem paying for the resources that got them there. University is about jobs and money. The argument that we need a better educated population has no weight at all to me. I don't see the value to society of someone getting an economics degree and then choosing to go into a completely unrelated field upon their graduation, because they are no longer interested in persuing a career in a financial field. That's not adding value to society, that's a gross waste of resources. By trade, I work as a trainer - in order for me to gain a recognised qualification, by the way of a CIPD Certificate in Training Practice, I would have to fork out, or get a company to sponsor me to the value of, £15,000. Unsurprisingly this hasn't happened. My father, by trade is a qualified driving instructor. A qualification also costing several thousand pounds. So why do these have to be privately funded up front, even though they are qualifications directly related to industries, that will directly benefit society? I'm not advocating these should be funded publicly, I'm merely drawing comparison. Why does it seem right to publicly fund an English literature degree but not a driving instructors qualification? Oh, because one is "accademic" and takes place at a "university" it is automatically assumed that it is our responsibility?
Apparently the increased fees are going to deter people from going to university. Great! If your commitment to your course of choice was so weak that it could be broken by the fear of slightly lower take home pay when you reach the equivalent of £21,000 per year then I'm glad you didn't wast your time on the course. Find something you genuinely are committed to and do that. Or if you're not sure, wait a while. I don't quite get the point that we need more graduates. We don't have enough jobs for the graduates we have, why do we need more overqualified people working in our callcentres?
I, and I'm sure you, have met countless graduates who are not using their degree at all and end up working an entry level job or going on to study something completely different. Ah, but university is more than just a pathway to gaining a qualification, it's a life experience that alters your perspective blah, blah, blah. Well, I'd quite like the life experience of travelling around the America's for a few months - much cheaper than a degree and will probably give me invaluable experiences, broaden my mind and make me a much more "valuable" member of society. So, essentially adding much more to society than a degree without purpose. So who wants to chip in for my trip? No one, really? Rather pay for Johnny's 3 year Star Wars degree?
No comments:
Post a Comment