The big day is here; despite student protests unseen in this country for nigh on four decades, Government (and in particular Lib Dem) fears of a revolt by backbenchers and cabinet ministers alike, Parliament votes today on a motion to triple the cap on tuition fees from £3,000 to £9,000 (give or take a few pounds), and the bill is almost certain to be passed. The issues surrounding tuition fees have been covered far better in other places by more intelligent people than I, but I’m going to give you my take on this, a graduate with little else to do.
So what does the tuition fees row boil down to? It comes down, as ultimately all things do, to money, and where it is going to come from. Even at the current system of £3,000, the government heavily subsidises each university course, especially in the sciences where equipment in labs (for example) drives up the actual cost of the degree, and ensures the government has to pay a lot more than the £3,000 each student contributes. The actual cost of a degree is more closely related to the fees a foreign student would pay, which is a substantial amount more than the £3,000. Therefore, the government has taken the decision, at a time of huge austerity cuts, to channel more money into earlier-years education, and to provide less of a subsidy to higher education. To make up for the shortfall the government is giving universities the ability to charge substantially higher fees. The logic makes sense, given the huge financial rewards that can be offer from a university degree; surely the student should make a greater contribution towards the cost of his/her education? While this is a particularly bitter pill to swallow; £9,000 worth of debt is paltry compared to a potential £27,000 worth of debt, realistically this had to happen at some point; the cycle began when Tony Blair ended the huge government subsidies in 2004 and introduced tuition fees, it was accepted then that they would have to go up, it just so happens he left it to his coalition successors. There are some advantages to this system, as I will outline at the end, but here I will look at the student protests, and my take on what they are doing wrong.
It is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight these protests would be inevitable; having been at Sussex University for the past three years, the student protest culture has been festering, and all it needed was something like this for it to explode into an even more extensive nationwide movement. What does irritate me about these protests however is twofold, that many of the protestors central argument is that “these Tory ministers got into Oxbridge free; all we’re asking for is our god-given right to go to University for free and enjoy everything that you all had,” This frustrates me because it not only ignores simple political realities; not only do cuts HAVE to be made, this has been in the pipeline for years and for the good of the country university funding needs to move more into the hands of the students. Additionally, the two situations are not comparable, the fundamental structure of the country has changed, it is like comparing apples and oranges, Xbox’s and Playstation’s, while they share common characteristics, they are very different beasts. The protestors provide no alternatives to where the money will come from, apart from the government, which cannot afford it.
I would also like to point out I have no issues with peaceful protest, even if I do disagree with the motives behind the protest. Everyone has a right to express their opinions in a calm and measured way, and especially in this issue reasoned debate can only help. What I will not condone is the way students behaved both at Millbank and their attack on a police riot van. I also refuse to condone the kettling of students at the subsequent protests. The problem was that because of the way students behaved at Millbank that the police had to be aggressive in subsequent protests in order to prove that something like that could not happen again. It is easy to forget that if that fire extinguisher had been a foot to the left or right we would have lost the life of a police officer. And then we would be dealing with a hugely different set of circumstances. As bizarre as it may sound, I would recommend watching the final episode of the Channel 4 Documentary, Coppers (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/coppers/4od), which deals well with the pressures police are under during riots.
My other major issue is with the President of the NUS, Aaron Porter. Forgive me if I have a personal vent here. I have fundamental issues with the NUS to begin with, at no point in my three years at University did I consider it to have considered my viewpoints and to have represented me, apart from the numerous times I used it to go and see films and to get an extra quid off going into clubs, I might as well have not known it existed. But I have a peculiar grievance with Aaron Porter, he is effectively being groomed to become a Labour MP at the next election; he is a paid up member of the Labour party and makes no bones about this, that he is proclaiming to represent the views of all students angers me. He does not represent me. He is a career politician attempting to claim credit for something he did not organise. The career politician thing frustrates me equally, in an interview in the Times today he proclaimed that after he leaves the NUS, he wants to get a “proper job,” on asked on what his definition of a proper job is, he replied, “I would love to head a think-tank.” THAT ISN’T A PROPER JOB! THAT IS A POLITICIANS IN WAITING’S JOB! That he proclaims to represent all students is a fallacy/ That he now considers himself head of the movement against tuition fees, despite that he did not do any of the initial organisation, or indeed organise today’s protest (organised by The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts) smacks to me of a man trying to make a name for himself, not as someone who is fighting in students best interests.
Finally, let me point out the possible positive points of increasing the cap, if implemented correctly. If all universities charge a blanket £9,000, then obviously this will not work. What the cap should be encouraged to provide is a market for degrees, each course should be charged at the rate it is worth. Let me give an example, Oxford is currently top of the The Complete University Guide’s ranking for politics, therefore the cost of its course would be justified in being at the top of the cap, you are paying for a truly work-class education which will put you at the top of recruitment lists when you leave university. If however you go down the table to Greenwich at the bottom, the value of the course is significantly less, therefore the cost should be significantly less. (http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=8727). By creating this market it should solve the issue of over-saturation in the university marketplace; the Labour government’s target of 50% of the population was both unrealistic and foolish, not only has it increased the amount of subsidy going to universities, it has also increased the number of “Mickey-Mouse,” courses which do not provide any real benefit to society. The extra money which students will be paying should also enable students to be able to demand more value for money, as in the American system. They will now be able to demand more contact hours, better email contact (a frequent problem at Sussex!), a better quality of lectures and more extensive feedback on coursework. When lecturers have to justify the larger fees being paid by students, the quality of education must improve.
This is my take on the tuition fees row. Obviously, feel free to agree or disagree; everyone I know feels strongly about this one way or another. I’ve also written this incredibly quickly this morning to get it out before the vote (1,400 words in an hour and a half, who said writing dissertations was hard!), so any errors let me know and I’ll correct them. Also, the flow isn’t brilliant by time pressures don’t help! Thanks for reading.
