It's an issue which has been the cause of deep political uprising and unrest among many in recent demonstrations and parliamentary confrontations. A rather significant level of damage has been caused and protestors in their thousands appeared to give strong and valuable views on the matter. However the question, simply put, is can the actions of the government be justified with regards to such a matter?
Well in my opinion yes they can, or at least to the greater extent. The government recently introduced legislation that states "all children or adolescents under the age of 18 must be in full time education", whether this be college, school or even an apprenticeship, education is still therefore a compulsory right until one reaches the age of 18. Well you may be wondering quite exactly what this has to do with the raising of tuition fees? For the most part the action taken by the government to ensure young people stay in education until they reach the age of 18, simply suggests that they are keener and in greater need of academic success. After all the main reason we are provided with any education in the first place is merely so we can go on to pay tax as a senior working member of society, right?
Now with reference to universities and the raising of there annual fees comes a number of arguments both for and against. For starters, you could argue that in raising the cost of fees, the quality of education provided by the given establishments will also follow an upwards trend. Obviously Oxbridge and the like, will still have no reason to fight for their students, however other universities, especially those that rank averagely are certainly going to have to up their game in order to attract a full complement of fee paying students. After all if the lever of teaching is poor, students will not bother wasting £9000 a year, and simply look elsewhere instead. Although this is not overtly guaranteed, it is more than likely that instead of students alone competing for places, it will also be the universities themselves competing for students. Not only does this ensure universities increase the standard of their teaching it is also likely to have the subsequent effect of pulling education standards up across the board. Therefore theoretically increasing the quality on average of degrees achieved by students ( I.e from a 2:1 to a 1st).
Another crucial argument lies in the fact that the fees have been increased so significantly. Beforehand average fees were around £3500 a year for most universities however how can the government justify such a dramatic increase? Well to begin with, look at the cost of private sector education which currently ranges from around £10000 a year for base rate fee paying schools to up to £30,000 for the higher class establishments. This is all very fair as in my opinion private sector education is a brightened alternative for those among us that can afford it. The question being why such an uproar at universities charging more? The fact that the maximum cap on fees now sits almost 10% below that of the most affordable private schools is only a testament to the work undertaken by the government. In essence before the rise was introduced everyday taxpayers were funding universities and providing the majority of the money used to run and maintain them. Quite frankly the taxpayer does not pay to run private schools, so why should we pay to fund universities?
The important thing to remember here is that university is an option, not a right or a definite. Nobody is forced to go to university, unfortunately nowadays many who do not attend university are frowned upon, especially amongst the middle classes. In my opinion this should not be the case, many people feel an obligation to go to university simply because their friends are doing so. Subsequently many take somewhat ridiculous and pointless degrees just for the sake of it ( golf course management etc). Less than thirty years ago universities used to be a place where those who had achieved well academically in society could go and study an academic subject ( something testing and respectable). Thankfully with the increase of fees now undertaken, many people will now be discouraged from attending university and enrolling in a pointless, unnecessary degrees which have little or no significant place in society. This may sound slightly harsh but I truly believe the increase in fees will cause those wishing to attend to consider further both the course they take and it's potential for success in later life. As well as making the student think, it will no doubt provide universities with a more willing cohort of students; those that implicitly chose university and weren't just made to feel like they should go.
An argument has been put forward by many protestors that the increase in fees hits the poorest to the greatest extent. In fact this couldn't be further from the truth. The conservative party are branded for being harsh and sometimes unfair on the poorer i'n society, quite the opposite i'n fact. The poor will suffer very little as a result of the increase, merely due to the extensive bursary and funding programmes i'n place for this who can't afford to attend.
However teenagers with middle income parents, who do not wish to fund their children through university will be worst hit. There is little to no support in terms of direct finance for such a candidate. Although i'n order to compensate for this lack of support the government has introduced a very clever lending scheme ( which is open to all) this allows candidates to borrow money to pay their fees and is only repayable upon earning over £22500 a year ( increased from a prior £15,000 per annum). From my perspective this scheme on behalf of the government is very fair and motivates candidates to get a job as soon as possible after leaving university. Hence benefiting society through not only having more skilled or academic workers but also lowering the national unemployment rate.
With all these factors taken into consideration, why should we be so opposed to the increase? I believe we should embrace the changes and be thankful all universities still cost less than base rate fee paying schools. Not only this, but the level of education is also likely to increase hence marking the way for a better and more competently educated Britain.
Yes we are going to have to pay more for such a privilege, however in economic times such as these we should take that more as a given than a shock. Nevertheless there will always be those who oppose the policy, and I respect you for doing so, but in my opinion I have fully justified why the government has the right and essentially the need to raise university tuition costs.
A good post and well thought out, one point I would make as an Employer is that as long as everyone is attending university the degrees are mostly pointless. I have interviewed many candidates who have a Masters from some "middle ground" universities and they have been practically illiterate. I would rather have someone who had a real passion and spent time getting experience for life than someone who racks up pointless pieces of paper.
ReplyDeleteAlso I am sorry but I have to point out that "there" is directional (i.e. It's over there.) where as "their" is possessive (i.e. Protesters in their thousands.) – “They're” is the contraction of "They Are" - otherwise you have written a very well constructed argument for your age.
Thanks, thats another very good point however i didnt have the time nor space to include all of the many points which could have been touched upon. With regards to the grammatical error, i put this down to the autocorrect on my phone but nevertheless thank you for pointing it out!
ReplyDeleteHave you researched into bursarys and funding available for poorer families? Because although I agree - some are available - the higher fees are much less likely to encourage poorer families to consider attending University, which could result in higher unemployment levels. It also gives middle to upper class families a huge advantage, as parents will still have to pay a huge amount (even larger than before).
ReplyDeleteI also feel that if the tuition fees are being raised, the tutorial hours should also be raised - some courses offer around only 8 hours of tutorial a week - why should you have to pay thousands of pounds a year for this?
Also several grammatical errors and typos.
Just to begin with this is a blog, I repeat a blog, something I have written in around an hour using my phone, therefore spelling and typo errors are only natural. Apologies if this offends some but the nature of such a post only concurs a degree of innacuracy.
ReplyDeleteI have indeed researched the bursaries available to poorer families and to an extent I agree they are somewhat lacking. However the fundamental factor here is that every candidate, regardless of their financial situation is entitled to borrow all of the money through a student loan. This makes university accessible to all despite their current wealth!
In response to your tuition argument, I disagree, universities were beforehand to cheap and overly funded by the tax payer. However now, although expensive in relative terms compared with previous prices they are in fact very affordable considering the quality of tuition a student will recieve (deeply knowledgeable lecturers etc).
Yes but if the standard if teaching meets the rise in tuition fees it will seem fair and since we won't find out until we're at uni we will be the primary response to the change. So all the naive protesters are in theory wasting their time as the government won't change their decision and the students could have spent the time studying rather than in some cases being moronic.
ReplyDeleteChris, that's moronic.
ReplyDeleteUniversity is now not accessible to all, FULL STOP. And all because of these tory wankers...
ReplyDeleteJosh you are wrong, just the same as the tories where wrong to cut ema, education and public spending in general. Take the ema for instance, it was a vital part of some young peoples lives who are from less privileged background, unlike yourself. Just because you come from a modest background, does that mean you should not be able to attend further education just because you cannot afford too? The ema provided vital means for many young people to get transport to college or buy books and equipment. I really would like you too see some of the conditions some people in this country live in, many young people too. If you say you are representing a young generation, you are very wrong, a politician should help out those most in need before those rolling in cash. Your ritch tory prime minister cannot even comprehend the suffering some people go through, ofcourse he can cut the NHS or education in poor boroughs/counties, he has no need for such things. His private hospital and school await.
ReplyDeleteI would like too see you defend some of the tories stupid policies and cuts in some of the poorest boroughs in the UK rather than stabbing at the past and Labour. It is completely unfair to raise tuition fees. There is NO argument to it. Its back to the day of the witch Thatcher and the upper classes wiping their asses with everyone else. The lower classes are now being punished for the mistakes of the bankers and their fat wallets, the poorer you are, the more you lose...
ReplyDeleteOk James: that's a very interesting argument and please don't for one minute think I do not wish to support the poor and encourage growth and development within society and the various classes. Might I also point out that despite coming from a somewhat affluent background my parents have already said they are not going to pay a penny towards my further education choices! Therefore leaving me in a worse off position than any poorer person who has the ability to access the now extremely substantial grants scheme. It's interesting if you have a read of the government report on the matter it actually states that in charging more for university there will as a result be more money available to those from poorer backgrounds. Take for instance a family earning under £25000 a year, they can access £3250 a year in the form of a maintenance bursary and then a further £3750 a year in the form of a maintenance grant. Leaving a total of £7000 in accommodation finance available which in my opinion is a substantial amount, much greater than that available under the previous system at least...
ReplyDeleteIn terms of EMA I entirely see and understand your point however the system was widely abused and over 90% of the money given was spent on things entirely unrelated to education. Subsequently a new system which is due to be announced anytime soon will give money to those who really need it to attend college or sixth form education.
Dave
Blame the bankers. A common comment amongst those who cannot see that the economic crisis was in fact caused by the labour overspend on public services rather than just the banking problem. I agree to an extent it was their fault and they are partially to blame but a society where we tax the rich unfairly and give to the poor is really not fair. If you think it's unfair then you clearly need to do some deeper research into the topic and realise that in fact the system is indeed very fair and progressive.