 |
| Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images |
Firstly let me start by outlining my philosophical view on
education. I believe that education has its own intrinsic value and that
education should be aimed purely at increasing, deepening and diversifying our own
and our society’s knowledge. I do not see the value in education in order to
simply gain a collection of qualifications, or to increase personal earning
potential.
So with that said I am very uncomfortable with the shift in
emphasis of the benefits of university study away from personal, social and
academic development and towards future economic reward. I have sat through a
number of admissions presentations where several slides and many minutes have
been devoted to the salaries of graduates of Russell Group universities as
compared with other universities. With further slides on the career choices of
graduates broken down by both sector and by subject studied. I do not want to
have to tell potential students that the reason that they should come to
university is so that they can earn much more money than they could do
otherwise, it just doesn’t feel right.
So who am I fighting for free education on behalf of? Not
me, I’m through the system with fees of just over £3000 a year, which whilst
not what I would wish for is at least (as someone who has worked since the age
of 15) a tangible amount of money, unlike £9000, which I can’t even comprehend,
and is indeed more than many people earn in a year. I’m fighting for students
that are still in school and, just like me, have fallen totally in love with an
academic subject and want to study it to an even higher level, but who have no
idea what “getting a degree” actually means.
I like many other students have no point of reference for “graduates”, I’m
first generation of my family to attend university and the only adults I had
contact with growing up who had attended university were my teachers, which
only gives a very narrow view of what is possible with a degree. Despite many
of friends graduating this year they are still in the very early stages of
their “lives with a degree” so that’s also not much help to my wider view of
how my life will be altered.
Also no matter how much we push that repayments are linked
to earnings and the fees and maintenance loans will only be paid back when
graduates are earning over a certain wage, debt is still that: debt. Furthermore students from families
with the lowest incomes are the most debt adverse, and I would certainly be
running screaming from the prospect of nearly £40,000 of student debt for 3
years of study. Why spend three years racking up debt when you could spend 3
years working hard and earning money? This question is especially hard to come
up with answers to if you don’t know
anyone who’s chosen to do this, and you’ve seen your parents/grandparents/relatives/family
friends doing just fine thank you very much without a university education.
So in summation: I want all students, regardless of
background, who have fallen in love with a subject to not feel that there is
anything preventing them from studying it further. That is why I’m part of the
fight for free education.
I completely agree with you that education has its own intrinsic value (although I understand that other people may see it differently, so I don't have a problem with providing information on graduate salaries in admissions talks). I love my subject, and I think my years at university will be some of the best of my life. I also understand that the primary beneficiary of me doing a degree is me. Taking all this into account, I have no problem paying for my own education - why should somebody else pay for me to do something I enjoy and is only of any great value to me?
ReplyDeleteOf course, what I don't want is for this education to depend at all on my ability to pay, which is why I support the new system. It is precisely because repayments are linked to earnings that while this debt may look a lot like debt, it doesn't act like debt in any financial way. There are no penalties for not being able make one's repayments, it gets written off after 30 years no matter how much one owes, and it will not affect one's ability to get a mortgage, or any other loan. £40,000 does sound like a hell of a lot of money, but it is a small fraction of the total amount of tax one will pay over one's lifetime, with exactly the same method of payment. There is no rational reason to be put off going to university due to fears about ability to pay for it.
The problem is that people are worried about it, for the reasons you give. I don't want to see any students feeling that they are prevented from going to university for financial reasons. However, I disagree that it follows from this that university education should be free. With improved information and education about tuition fees, I believe that it is possible to convince any student that they need not be worried about paying for university.
I have two things to say in response, firstly I think it is sensible to argue that having an educated workforce has a much wider social and economic value then to just yourself so there is an argument in having taxpayer money to fund a university education.
ReplyDeleteAlso whilst I would like everyone to fully understand how the repayment system works, people are very confused by financial matters. Just think how many people wouldn't touch a credit card with a barge poll despite the fact that getting into debt and repaying it actually improves your credit rating and that credit cards have a greater level of payment protection against fraud. Also whilst there may be no rational reason to be put off going to university it doesn't mean that people aren't (UCAS applications are 10% down on last year according to figures).
Victoria - you justify the use of other people's money to pay for my education by appealing to "the much wider social and economic value" of having more graduates in the country.
ReplyDelete1) I thought that "education should be aimed *purely* at increasing...knowledge" (my emphasis). In that case we cannot bring in utilitarian concerns (social or economic) to justify spending other people's money on my education, because then the purpose of my education must, logically, be in part social and economic.
2) This value - its quantity and its relation to different degree courses - is actually where the meat of the debate lies. Does every graduation improve British society and the British economy to the extent that would justify £30000 of taxpayers' money? This is actually an interesting question and doesn't deserve to be answered with a simple 'yes'.
The other problem with your argument is that the first paragraph essentially 'squirrels' the debate. You define the purpose of education in such a way that the second and third paragraphs do follow logically: but if you want to persuade people who do not already agree with you, you'd need to explain why you think the purpose of education is "purely" the pursuit of knowledge, and also defend the idea that our degree courses as they stand meet this purpose to the tune of £30,000 worth of knowledge.
It is rather late in the hour to be making this point, but I wonder how frightened prospective applicants would be had we not written so many articles and gone on so many marches telling them they will be frightened. The last time that tuition fees were tripled, the rate of increase of applications did not slow at all.