University fees are inevitably going to be standardised at £9,000/yr. No university can avoid charging this without being seen as inferior. The real scandal is not just this ludicrous level of expense, but the fact that in Scotland, the charge is 'nil'. What a complete joke. "United Kingdom" - fuck off, we are not united at all! The whole of the so called UK is becoming more and more devolved. This is not just limited to Northern Ireland, Scotland (that has long since got the best deal all round) and Wales (itching to catch up with the Scots) but even within cities, and cultures and faiths. Let's be clear about this; there is no integration, no assimilation, no single community, and in many cases no understanding or tolerance. There are clans and ghettos, no-go areas, segregation and levels of devolution far beyond the four parts of the UK. Anyway, I digress [that's Scotland's fault for getting an unfair advantage].
The second tier of scandal is that after spending (on paper) criminally high levels of dosh on a degree, the student's qualification is worth less than ever in the real world. Three or four years of work where it's hard to earn money, easy to spend (ie. £9k/yr plus expenses) and a reward of a degree that loads of other people who have passed can wave around seems a bit of a shit deal. So here we come to it, the real problem with universities and fees; too many people trying to get them.
The last Labour government more than any other faction in society, insisted that it should enable more young people to go to university, and did everything it could to push the poorer people in society to think they should participate. There were fundamental flaws and grave consequences for such an approach.
In the old days, getting a good degree was a great ambition to have, and would be a good start to a future career. Parents would delight in the success of their offspring, and talk to friends and neighbours about James or Julia, and about how well things were going and how marvellous he/she was. The fees were non-existent, although parental financial support was in most cases vital. The students themselves were at university on merit - ability to show they were capable of learning etc. So, if you 'went to university' you were clever, and different from the masses. Employers could deal with this, and if you had a degree, they often gave you a job on the basis of your being clever. So, employers could identify talent, parents could beam (and gloat) and be happy that the money they contributed to upkeep etc was well invested, and the students themselves were generally better off for the experience.
These days, we're all dealing with the mess created by the madness of letting over half of all youngsters become further education students and believe they are clever, and that it's their right to get a degree for attending a course. GCSEs of lower quality in spurious subjects and/or taught so that kids pass rather than understand, were the first fuck-up. The prevalence of course work in assessment and grading means that too many people get As [hence the need to get an A* now] and in some cases morons get a qualification. The establishment then rewards these idiots by encouraging them to stay at school with a weekly EMA payment. Then, after being awarded some A levels [this used to stand for 'Advanced' but now it stands for 'Average'] they are further encouraged, and told to claim their right to a degree from somewhere or other. With little work available [assuming the person has even half an ounce of inclination to work] it is often the case that the certified student progresses to uni.
The establishments are awash with average ability students, all gaining pieces of paper that say little about their abilities, intellect, common sense or anything else of relevance. Many pass degrees in Economics and Maths but cannot spell; apparently it doesn't matter anymore if you cannot spell. Is that why we hear of maths teachers who cannot write school reports properly? There are those who study History of Art but couldn't tell you what 8% commission might be on the sale of a Picasso at £1,000,000. There are Chemistry graduates who would (using the same example) struggle to believe that a Citroen could be worth £1Million. In summary, the benefit of degrees is often rather dubious. Well-rounded individuals whose intellect has been exercised (although exorcised is no doubt the correct word in some cases) and tested over a few years, such that they leave with a degree and real ability in the workplace/life, are few and far between. Instead, we have thousands of people in debt, holding degrees that mean little, with no work experience to their name (excluding supermarket and McDonalds part-time work) who expect to be catered for. Society has actually encouraged them to believe they are good/worthy/clever, yet makes them run up debts now, with no promise of employment at all, and employers themselves are at a loss to understand whom they should be employing.
If everyone in the country posted a parcel next week, and wrote "Fragile" on it (regardless of the contents) then it would not really help the Post Office to take care (as if it ever does) in an appropriate manner. Just as every menu and foodstuff now includes "May contain traces of nut", too much of anything is pointless - whether it's fragile (like the whole economy and education system) or nuts (like the twats who decided it was good to push everyone into higher education) or degrees (which are now in danger of highlighting a "degree of time wasting" before employment at a basic level, if available or even desired on minimum wages).
Students now have a tough time and it must be stressful - more so for the ones who are not actually good enough to be at university - and this will do little to help them learn. They are angry with the government. This one has inherited a big problem, and has not solved anything by allowing a £9,000 charge to be levied. The previous regime was happy to herd as many to the uni turnstiles as it could, irrespective of talent, in much the same way as it opened the floodgates on immigration [as it is now admitting to us all, although as quietly as possible]. Manipulation of the masses, whether through bogus statistics or policies on education and employment, or allowing mass entry to the UK for people who would be more likely to vote Labour, the champions of the poor [although those in the Labour government always do more than okay] have screwed students past and present - and future. The stupidity of funnelling (actually, kettling would seem most appropriate considering the times we live in and the police tactics for containing students on protest marches) the young towards higher education has served to create discontent, disharmony, disgust, dismay and was done with dishonesty.
Would a company with 200 employees train 100 of them to be first aiders? Of course not, that would be overkill. Would 100 be trained as pilots to fly the owner around in the private jet? Of course not. Should every car driver in the country be made to take the Advanced Driving Test? Hmmm . . . that sounds a good idea at first consideration - but like the 'university for all' option, it's not actually workable. Insurers would then give no benefit for those 50% who pass the Advanced Driving Test, as it becomes the norm. Everyone would have invested time and money to get a piece of paper. Useless drivers would eventually pass, even on the tenth attempt - just like thick students might get a degree eventually. Genuinely good drivers would struggle to get any benefit with a good insurance premium. Instead, it would all come down to a simple approach: get on and drive for a year, and then we will review. That's where we are now with graduates: get on and work for a year and then we will review.
So, the fees (excluding Scotland of course - sorry, I should say if you're a Scot, because there's discrimination against visitors to Scottish universities and payment is required) are awful and unfair. The only benefit I can see is that some teenagers considering going to university will have a close look at themselves, and decide against going. Perhaps in a refreshing way, they may challenge the bullshit that society feeds them, and make a personal assessment of their abilities, commitment and dedication. Many may find that they are not up to the grade, and going with the flow is hardly appropriate for £9k/yr.
The consequence of too many going to university is a fucked-up system. Universities themselves will collect the money, pontificate about standards, commitment to young people and institutional excellence. It is all (and will continue to be) bollocks. Shit courses and shit subjects will be generated so that shit teachers/lecturers teach students (many of whom are thick). The University will collect the £9k for each occupied seat, and laugh all the way to the bank. The government will eventually realise that all the thick people with degrees will never repay the money, because they are too thick to earn enough to get a job that pays sufficiently well to reimburse the state. That will lead to a shortfall, and the only way to balance the books is to raise fees so that those who eventually pay up will cover the deficit. It's a bit like the interest on your Barclaycard being higher than it needs to be, to cover fraud losses. There will also be those who shuffled into university and got a pointless degree, who in fact do earn enough to have to start paying back. However, many will be from backgrounds where family influences and traits could spark an unwillingness to do so. If governments insist on plonking thousands and thousands of so-called disadvantaged people in universities, it creates major problems - and the ordinary people themselves become disadvantaged. What a farce.
Market forces work to stop fucked up situations arising. Interventions create artificial bases and at some point, it all starts to unravel. The government might as well have peddled drugs. Isn't that a tried and trusted business method - hook the punter, then put up the price?
If I was 18 and looking at going to university next October, I'd quickly decide on a 'No'. I would no more take up a university course than sign a contract with Brighthouse to pay for a TV weekly, at 30% apr. Maybe the only takers are those with no intention of paying back (?)
I believe that fees should be capped at £5,000, and increased annually only by the percentage applied by the government to increase pensioners' allowances every budget. That would stop the government ripping off students while recognising older people's needs, and keep fairness/balance involved. The £5,000 should be levied to all students across the whole UK. Foreign nationals should pay more as set by each university, just as foreigners should be made to pay for NHS services. Each student should be reimbursed for non-attendance and failures by the university and its staff. If a class is missed because a lecturer is off, then a refund should be obligatory. If I pay for something and it doesn't work, I take it back and get a refund! Courses should be monitored, and students should have the chance to highlight concerns over shit they have paid good money for. There should be a removal of shit courses from universities who simply want to attract idiots and make money.
Student numbers should be reduced, as there's no point in a system where there's reduced means to distinguish talents/people. If another lane is added to a motorway, cars will come and people will use it. Soon, it will appear that the extra lane has always been there, and traffic issues will continue to arise, and too many cars will arrive more quickly at the place where the motorway narrows or at exits - and the road network will simply be fucked. Expanding the capacity of higher education, especially with shit courses, leads to more and more students filling up universities. At the end of the road, there's nowhere to go, and so the expansion was pointless, expensive and needless - and the once-good system is now simply fucked. Universities are self-serving and are run like businesses. Like the BBC with its licence fee money, universities sit back and collect - then decide what they want to do with the money. They should be held to account, and all students should be allowed to see declared finances, and see where their money has gone. I suspect that they have expenses that look no better than those of the MPs who were recently shown to be (in many cases) self-serving fucks.
I think that government policy has served to give one fantastic advantage to students, their greatest asset - a boost to numbers! It should be quite easy for students to cause a blockade at each campus and completely fuck up the system. That would be a lot better than going on marches.
...
No comments:
Post a Comment