So, it has been a year since my last post here. Since then, life has gone on: I have a new way to terrorise the country (called a provisional driving licence - soon to be full if all goes well,) I am a year closer to adulthood, a potentially terrifying thought, and for once I actually agree on things with the government. In fact, I thought I'd base this blog post on politics, and in particular an issue that will particularly affect me. This issue is, in fact, the rising university tuition fees.
As you may have already gathered (and if you hadn't, you're one of those who should certainly not be going to university,) I am a supporter of the cuts, which I gather from all the abuse I receive from my peers, is uncommon for my demographic. In fact, statistically it's precisely my demographic (white, very middle-class, young and rather spoiled) who tend to be socialists, expecting everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. I suspect that had I not two parents working at university, and therefore the understanding of the system, I should probably be a whinging socialist myself. However, if one really thinks about the issue they ought to realise a few things that make rising tuition fees actually look like an OK idea.
Firstly, one must ask oneself why exactly the fees are rising. There can only be one answer to this problem: the fact that the previous, Labour government spent a load of money they just didn't have, and the massive debt owed by the country had to be paid back somehow. In fact, if one digs deeper, an interesting and entirely feasible conclusion may be speculated - the possibility arises that Labour intentionally spend more than they reasonably can to make themselves appealing to the voter, so when the voter realises that actually what they're doing isn't good at all and vote the Tories in, the Tories have to make whopping great cuts which are a worse deal than what the taxpayer are used to, so Labour get back in again. It could easily be argued that it's simply a vicious circle of dirty tactics designed to make their opponents look bad.
There is one major problem with the cuts, however, and that is simply the sheer number of students protesting. Just for the record, I'm fine with the fact that they have the right to protest, but they also have the responsibility to keep it peaceful, and I am a firm believer that people should only get their rights if they adhere to their responsibilities. I'm sure you've heard about the case with a sixth former called Edward Woolard, who threw a fire extinguisher from the roof of the Millbank building into the crowd below. A couple of days ago it was announced that he would be gaoled for (I think) a year and a half. Cases like this make me so annoyed, it's just a load of students think they have the right to do whatever stupid and dangerous stuff they want if it means they can get angry for the sake of being angry.
Something else most students don't realise is the fact that they don't pay for a degree, they pay for the chance to study for a degree. Added to the fact that a lot of students go to university to socialise, get drunk and just prat about in general, I seriously think that if anyone really wanted to go to university to study for a degree, they'd go anyway, tuition fees wouldn't stop them. Also, if you consider that one can take out a student loan for all the tuition fees with no interest, that you only need to pay back when you're earning over £21000 per annum. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me! Something for those who would attempt to counter with "but then students would be in debt for the rest of their life!" to remember is that the whole point of a degree is that it's an investment, id est you pay more early on to increase the chances that you'll earn a lot more later on in life. That would also be my argument against the ignorant fools who claim that the fees rising discriminates against the lower class - only the richest people who attend boarding schools and whose fathers go out shooting foxes while their mothers sit at home and drink tea with their little fingers in the air actually pay up-front, so in most circumstances the wealth of one's parents has flip all to do with ability to pay for university.
I could go on about this for ages, but I have a maths lesson in a minute and should probably go. I am enabling comments, so if anyone disagrees and fancies being proved wrong, they're very welcome to argue. In vain. ;)
/rant
Lowri :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd like to say that any debt is not the best way to start off life. making the only way to afford a degree to get into debt is making debt a normal part of life, as against the sometimes neccesary evil it should be seen as. of course people shouldn't do useless degrees, and expect government funding, but for future scientists, philosophers, and leading specilists to be put off their degree as the result of the high price to pay in their future years, when scientists especially are already underpaid, is poor thinking on the part of the government. No ill educated society is going to have a meaning or purpose in the world. If you really want to reduce the cost of the education system, why not get rid of meaningless, unvalued degrees, and by doing so, gain access to money to fund important skills.
ReplyDeleteI repeat, if anyone really wanted to go to university (those interested in science, philosophy et cetera,) they would not let initial costs put them off. Something else I feel the need to repeat is the fact that a degree is an investment, and people should see it as such. It's a bit of a risk promising to pay such a large amount at the start, which may not pay off in the long-run, but it opens doors to higher paying jobs so there's a greater chance that they'd make a lot more over the course of their life.
ReplyDeleteI am all for getting rid of useless degrees, and I also think there ought to be fewer people going to university. After all, what value does any degree have if everyone has one? My mother was one of two people in her school year to do a degree(and she went on to do a Master's,) which was worth a lot then but because now almost half of young people go to university it's not worth as much. For employers to distinguish between the best people for jobs, they need other ways to distinguish between applicants because everyone has a degree. Statistically speaking, an undergrad ought to have an IQ of around 120 or above, which equates to around 8% of the population, in order to cope with what should be a lot of hard work for a difficult syllabus. The way it is, there's a lot of thinking that degrees just get handed out, and in a sense they do. If everyone with an IQ of 100 or more were to go to university (which is pretty much how it is now), courses would have to be easier in order for the same sort of ratio to pass (which I realise is not how it should work but sadly, it does.)
Apologies for my wittering, I hope it's clear what I mean.
Lowri
How on Earth can universities justify charging so much for university?? It's not one to one tuition; it's lectures. Students take their own notes and study from those. Yes the debt does need repaying but why does it have to be through raising tuition fees so drastically?
ReplyDeleteEven with a degree in one's pocket, finding a good job (and subsequently being able to repay a student loan) is NOT guaranteed. It is harder than ever for university graduates to find jobs, especially well-paid ones, meaning that graduates are often forced to accept low-paid jobs just so as they can get by, usually working alongside people who haven't been to university. Employers value experience and initiative, following the trend and going to university is not necessarily top of their agenda when looking to fill a position within their company.
On a different note.
Did you see any of the footage of the student protests on the news?
The police battering students??
Yes, SOME, students took things too far but these individuals should not be allowed to represent the entire student body. Having had the deputy prime minister break his pledge, students were understandably upset. There were petitions and marches and nobody listened. Students light a few fires and cause a stir, suddenly it's everywhere and the everyone cares about how this affects students.
I think that anyone with the conviction and determination to do well in life should be welcomed to university. When did Britain become a facist regime where a good education and well-paid jobs are reserved for the wealthiest and wisest? University c a n be a door to a better life, why shouldn't everyone be let through? Who are we to dictate which person deserves to do better than any other. All people are created equal.
OK then, you can talk about reducing the deficit more gradually when you can propose a viable alternative. Give me a full account of how you personally would pay back the debt and, if it's better than what the government are actually doing, THEN you can talk about how rubbish you think the cuts all are.
ReplyDeleteI repeat that a degree is an investment. True, not everyone does get the benefit from it, but the chances of getting a better-paid job are much higher if one has a degree. I never claimed that everyone with a degree would automatically get more money, in fact, I think you'll find I stated the opposite. Just to reiterate the point even further and really hammer it home, degree = investment, not guarantee.
Ah, but I never claimed all students at the protests were being violent. However, it's undeniable that there was deindividuation within the group, and it's inexcusable that there was any violence at all.
As for Nick Clegg breaking his promise, I can't understand why so many people are whining about that. As a Lib Dem, he could pretty much say what he liked because the chances of him actually ending up in power and having to keep that promise were very slim. Then again, I don't really count him as being in power, I see him more as a tea-boy figure. Who votes for the Lib Dems anyway? I read their manifesto and it would just not work. They try to appeal to people so they can at least scrape some power, in a coalition for example (which is obviously what happened.) They don't care about what they say! Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the truth.
Have you even read my blog post? Anyone with the conviction and determination to do well in life will not let fees stop them from attending university. Also, it's ignorant and foolhardy to argue that university will be reserved for the wealthiest, as you pay after you've graduated and are earning over £21,000 per annum (which is a higher threshold than the £15,000 Labour used.) However rich you are before you go to university has absolutely no bearing at all on your ability to pay, and it seriously annoys me whenever anyonr trots that argument out because it's just so incorrect. It's just students determined to see something wrong that isn't, because they're realising that "I PERSONALLY will have to pay more," and that's the essence of it. Students are selfish and want to save money for themselves. I dare you to deny that, because you know it's the truth.
Can I as an outsider on this argument who's interested on how people view the student protests, say that it wasn't just students 'protesting'. There were people there who probably turn up to any publicly announced protest just so they can start a fight. So in actual fact most of the students who were genuinely upset by the cuts were not the ones who caused chaos. But, there is an idea that physiologically the circumstance and atmosphere they were in could have lead to a 'pack mentality' and therefore why Edward Woolard might have picked up a fire extinguisher that day. Having said this I still stand by the fact that it was not solely the students fault for the unnecessary violence and that if the protests were a contribution towards why the tuition cuts were made the Government should seriously reconsider their decisions.
ReplyDeletei think you should do some living and then decide how to rule the country, all this coming from some teen is frankly a little pathetic.
ReplyDeleteSo, you're basically saying that as a teen I am not allowed an opinion on politics? I'm the same age as the demonstraters hitting the news, I just happen to be arguing for the side they're not. Are you saying you think the people protesting are pathetic too? To me, that sounds like a contradiction to your entire argument. Actually, I think that I'm more qualified than the majority of the students protesting to have an opinion, as I have done my research and have weighed up all the possible arguments to form my own opinion, instead of jumping on the bandwagon. Most of the students just saw it as them personally having to pay a bit more and were up in arms because they realised that they personally would be affected. Actually, to be honest, I'd rather I didn't have to pay an extra six grand per year to attend university, but I am mature enough to recognise that it's necessary in order to help the country pay back its debts, so more can be spent on public services in the future.
ReplyDeleteActually, my definition of "pathetic" would be someone who dismisses the opinions of youths. Particularly if they're opinions that don't tend to be held typically held by their own demographic, but by an older, wiser and more experienced demographic. If you see my point.
fagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfagfag
ReplyDeleteLowri, you need to live. I'm younger than you but I've lived a lot more. The only reason you're not complaining about the tuition rises is that you assume your parents will splash out and pay for you.
Well guess what. Mummy and Daddy can't support you forever. They're almost strapped for cash as it is, thanks to their highly demanding elder daughter, and their sick younger daughter.
Oh, do shut up, Elin. You're fine, you're just a bit of a dosser. Stop sympathy-seeking.
ReplyDeleteLol, like you everything that goes on. You don't even care.
ReplyDeleteI don't want sympathy at all. You're the one pretending to be "anonymous" and trying to get attention.
Note to Elin: I think you're confusing your computer monitor with a mirror. Now get off my blog. Bitch.
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell?
ReplyDeleteCorrection: the previous government did NOT spend ludicrous amount of money on university fees. If you take a look at the history books you will note that even the Thatcher government gave out almost universal grants to those seeking a university education. The slippery slope of which you approve was embarked upon by the Labour government you so disapprove of. But what exactly IS wrong with subsidising university education? It is ubiquitously practised in continental Europe as well as in Scotland! If we want to nurture talented and well-educated young Britons then we need to ensure that we're not pricing them out of the education they deserve. Otherwise wealthy foreign students will continue to take the skilled jobs and leave us behind.
ReplyDelete