This week, in an effort to demonstrate their level of responsibility, students protesting against the rise in tuition fees broke into the Conservative party headquarters and set it on fire. Well done, what a stunning effort by the future of our country to demonstrate their maturity. It's a sad indictment of the predicament in which we, as a nation, currently find ourselves. The basic fact is, we've managed to reach unprecedented levels of debt, and we have to get out of it. I'm not going to take the traditional line of blaming Labour for this financial crisis, largely because all politicians are products of the society in which they live, and the requirements of their jobs are dictated by the will of that society. But enough of the blame game, this is about finding a solution.
For a number of reasons, I personally agree with the rise in tuition fees. University is, in essence, private education, and as such it should be paid for by those who benefit from it, rather than being subsidised by government (that is to say, taxpayers') money. You wouldn't expect to see the taxpayer pay for private schools, and university is no different. If we want our universities to compete in the World Rankings with those from the US, or the rapidly improving universities of the Far East, then they need money to do that. A rise in tuition fees would also encourage families to be more responsible in planning for their childrens' futures. Take the United States, for example. Families set up a 'college fund' when children are born, and pay into it every year in order to provide the money for a university education. This year, Harvard's tuition fee for first years stands at $34, 976. Do you see the centre of Boston being set on fire by angry students? No, of course not, because that fee corresponds to a system that is entrenched in American society. Private universities, paid for by the individual, out of money that has been earmarked for that individual's education. Logical, simple, effective. I completely accept that not every family can afford a college fund, and that bursaries are therefore an absolute necessity. This is, in fact, the one major caveat to my view on the situation: high tuition fees are acceptable, as long as a portion of the money generated by them is set aside to help those who cannot afford the fees themselves. While I agree with the idea of universities as elite institutions, I am fundamentally opposed to the idea that that elitism should be based on economic and social background. The only qualification necessary for getting into university should be academic excellence, and as a result, it is crucial that those who fit that category but cannot afford the fees be able to gain bursaries to help them do so.
The subject of academic elitism is my most central argument. Universities are supposed to be elite establishments, the pinnacle of academic excellence, where those driven to pursue study should aim to be. This is no longer the case in the UK. Instead, university has just become another stage in a person's life. This, again, is the result of society pursuing a warped idea that every individual has to demonstrate academic excellence. According to The Times, there are currently 127 Universities in the UK. To put this in context, there are only 66 official cities in the UK. How is it, then, that universities are supposed to maintain their elite status, when so many exist. They have been created in an attempt to make an academic university education available to all, but in doing so, their creators have simultaneously devalued the university system as a whole and sent out a shocking message that vocational careers are inferior to academics. Herein lies the real problem of the British university system. Such a large number of universities requires substantial financial support. If the government supports one university, it must support all, so it is forced into a situation where it either commits to funds that it simply cannot afford, or alternatively follows its present path of raising tuition fees so that these institutions become self-sufficient. In order for students to attend these fast-becoming-compulsory establishments, they take out a student loan under the assumption that they will reap the benefits of their university education and be able to pay it back in no time at all. This is, of course, hugely flawed, as the majority of large companies will employ something of a prejudicial approach to their selection of applicants, with the names of established universities being infinitely preferable to those of the newer institutions. As such, those gaining degrees from Universities lower in the league table are unable to compete in the job market with those from, say, the top 40, making it harder for them to pay back the debts incurred by their student loans, thus increasing the pressure on the government to continue to fund the Student Loans Company.
One potential solution springs to mind. Draw a line under the top 40/50 universities. Those establishments should retain their university status. Institutions below that mark should instead focus on vocational subjects, which, in spite of society's apparent shunning of them, are of vital importance. The academic degrees offered by these institutions are of little benefit to those who receive them, because they are simply unable to compete in the job market with those who have equivalent degrees from higher ranking universities. These vocational institutions could be funded by the trade unions responsible for the different vocations, who would in turn see that funding returned to them by the huge influx of people into those various professions. Equally, large businesses reliant on the influx of academic students could help to fund the universities, and would equally recieve increased manpower as compensation. This would enable larger bursaries to be offered for those unable to pay tuition fees, while the actual tuition fees themselves might be able to remain slightly lower as having a smaller number academic institutions would in turn enable funding to go further.
Our society of political correctness will probably disapprove of such an analysis. Well, frankly, I disapprove of today's politically correct society. Our attempts at offering equal opportunities are utterly flawed. We focus on academics, while failing to emphasise the skill and ability required by vocational professions. I am an academic and a thinker. I have a job lined up for next year, following the completion of a Masters Degree, as a Consultant. Can I fix most household appliances? No. Do I understand how the engine of a car works? No. Could I build a house? No. Are any of these examples less important to society than my academic qualifications or my future role as a consultant? No, of course not. So why are we trying to make everyone go to university? Why are we so obsessed with academics? Why are we tipping the scales against those with the skills to follow more vocational careers?
David Cameron speaks of a 'Broken Britain'. If this is indeed the case, then it was broken by our minds more than our actions. It was broken by our prejudice against vocational professions, and our emphasis on academics. It was broken by our attempts to make everyone the same. In the process, we overlooked the true beauty of our society - that it is composed of millions of different individuals, each with their own skills and abilities, each one as valuable as the next. Only by overcoming our prejudice and striving, as a community, to see that beauty again, will we ever really fix our society...
No comments:
Post a Comment