Should students pay our bills?
Perhaps it's an Oxford and FT thing.
First we had Ed Balls (schools minister, ex-FT commentator, educated Keble, Oxford) suggesting cuts in the schools budget and today Richard Lambert (director general of the CBI, ex-FT editor, Balliol, Oxford) proposes that university students pay increased tuition fees.
When I heard what the CBI was recommending, I assumed this would be predicated on a hard-nosed capitalist analysis.
The argument, surely, would be along the lines of saying that a student should pay a price that captures the uplift to his or her earning power from the relevant course and qualification, the private gain, as opposed to the benefit for society.
That would have a certain ideological coherence, and might well resonate with many of the business group's members. Although it might not appeal to all of you.
However that's not really where the CBI's task force (led by Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of Centrica, old Etonian, Caius, Cambridge) is coming from.
And probably a good thing too.
Because there's rather more art than science in establishing a "fair" price for higher education, one which allows the purchasers (the fickle 18-year-olds) to believe that they really will have a lot more delicious jam tomorrow if they burden themselves with substantial debt today.
In fact, strikingly, the CBI is almost voting for Christmas - in that it actually wants companies to pay a bigger price for the benefits they receive from university.
The CBI is unambiguous that the UK's putatively world-class higher education system is not a free lunch for companies - which need to be a bit keener to pick up the bill for keeping themselves and the UK competitive in the global marketplace.
That said, there's no suggestion that this bill for companies should be in any sense obligatory - just a voluntary contribution to the greater prosperity.
So the CBI recommends that companies sponsor more students to do the courses - especially in science, technology, engineering and maths - that are particularly valuable to them.
And it says that they should pay signing-on bonuses to students who take the degrees they want.
Which for those in the private sector who fear that the bonus culture is on the run is probably an example of inculcating the faith while the tomorrow's leaders are still young and pliable.
In the round, the CBI wants much greater collaboration between universities and business.
That's a refrain we've heard many times over the years. But this is probably not the time to ignore it, since indebted, no-growth Britain needs to start paying its way in the world pretty sharpish.
So what is the argument then for whacking up what students pay - and not as a voluntary tariff?
Well it's simply that the CBI assumes - uncontroversially - that with the national debt inflating rather faster than A-level results, there will be tough public-spending choices for a government of any colour in the coming year or so.
And it believes the realistic alternatives are cutting research funding, slashing teaching budgets, reducing student numbers or whacking up the financial contribution made by undergraduates.
Presented with that unappetising menu, the CBI thinks the UK will be least damaged by demanding that the young pay more for their own improvement in two different ways: by pushing up tuition fees; and by increasing the interest rate on student loans to the rate actually paid by government for servicing its own debt.
Which may be rational, so long as the deterrent effect of higher fees is not too great. And so long as those from poorer backgrounds are protected through maintenance grants and special bursaries.
However, there is also an issue here of inter-generational social justice which the CBI ignores.
More by luck than desert, the generation of Lambert, Balls, Laidlaw and even Peston have had it pretty good.
We had free university education.
We have saved for a pension over the many years of a bull market and when companies and the public sector felt obliged to offer gold-standard final salary pension schemes.
We managed to get on the property ladder before house prices became ludicrously inflated.
And guess what? It was our generation which royally messed up the economy with the inadequate governance that led to the credit crunch and the worst global recession since the 1930s.
We're - on the whole - alright Jack, thanks to the accident of when we happen to have been born.
But those leaving school and university today face an altogether bleaker future: a drought of jobs; a bewildering and unappealing set of options for saving and investing; over-priced residential property (even after the "correction"); relentless fearsome competition from India, China, and so on.
And there's the costs of providing a health service and welfare state to sustain an older generation - of Lambert, Balls, Laidlaw and Peston - whom the actuaries say will go on and on and on (heaven help us).
By contrast, it is also striking that the CBI concedes that the cost to taxpayers of our higher education system is not great compared to other wealthy economies.
So some may well argue that as and when a new government decides to make cuts or increase taxes - to fill the hole in the public finances created by the current generation - its first instinct should probably not be to penalise students. Shouldn't the older generation bequeath them something other than debt?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
One way to cut the costs, is the increased usage of the Open University model,ie learning on the job or do the work at evening.The idea that you can only get a degree if you leave home and do it full time is outdated in this computer age.
However from a personnel perspective leaving home and going to university was the best thing I did.
Complain about this comment
Robert,
Maybe that this is just one toll signalling the end of higher education as we know it. When more and more higher education establishments from all around the world are posting for free many courses on youtube.com/edu, when Carnegie Mellon launches an "Open Learning" initiative (http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/), perhaps that if the "I" in ROI goes up people will demand much more "R" for their money. Market at work.
Complain about this comment
Maybe the 50% of all kids should go to university is an unattainable, unaffordable objective - leaving aside whether it would actually do any good. If the numbers were reduced to say 1/3rd of school leavers would UK economy suffer?
Fortunately my children have at least 2 general elections to go before they go to university so the policy will change at least 3 times before then but I am expecting the cost to be £10,000 pa per student (in todays prices) some of which no doubt the bank of ma and pa will be funding
Complain about this comment
If you want to start a social uprising then this is possibly the quickest way to go about it.
No jobs for graduates, universities in financial trouble, unobtainable house prices and now increasing the new tuition fees.
The only way to create a revolt faster is a poll tax or to cut state benefits.
P.s. Robert - stop stealing my phrases "We're - on the whole - alright Jack"
Complain about this comment
Robert said
"Shouldn't the older generation bequeath them something other than debt?"
Sadly Robert - this is all we have to offer thanks to the greed of a few individuals and the assistance of our corrupt Government system.
Hopefully the next generation will find forgiveness before they decide to burn the lot of us. However I wouldn't blame them if they didn't - it's not like we've been responsible is it?
Complain about this comment
If Blair and Co hadnt wanted to try and send half the population to University to gain degrees in useless subjects, we could have carried on with a great system that worked well and produced our professional sector.
(I didnt go to University by the way)
But, usual labour, screw everything and keep digging. New rules and laws that dont work and then new ones again to try and make two wrongs into a right. We are governed by the most inept bunch of politicians the world has ever had to endure.
The people who did qualify and get good jobs paid large amounts of tax on their later earnings anyway.
Who pays in the end for all the useless new initiatives ! US, the poor taxpayer. Scrap the whole Blair mantra and slash the costs and sack the quangos and we will have plenty left to pay the students education costs.
Also get the Universities to work a full year instead of half a year and half the years the students need (and make the University staff do a decent years work ) Some common sense would sort out many issues.
And of course, it goes without saying. get rid of the real problem ! Brown ! The man who bankrupted Britain. Morally, politically and financially.
Complain about this comment
One of the most stupid proposals I've seen in a long time. Surely the tendency of (young) people today to get themselves into debt so willingly is one of the key causes of the mess that we're in. Forcing students to get even further into debt before they even start is completely the wrong thing to do. Once they're already £30k in debt, they are on the slippery slope.
There are almost certainly far too many people getting degrees these days - and I say that primarily out of concern that many of them are never going to get jobs that need or make use of their degree. It's not a recipe for job satisfaction - especially if they have got into a lot of debt to get that degree. An awful lot of job vacancies insist on candidates having degrees, not because the job actually needs one but simply because it's an easy way of weeding out weaker candidates. So if you want to save money, then reducing the number of student places would make much more sense than charging students huge amounts of money.
One other concern I have about the tuition fees is that for many "academic" subjects they already seem extremely high compared with the costs of actually providing the education. OK, for medecine or engineering I can see that costs are high. But for something like maths or history or law, you go to lectures (often well attended so the costs per student are low), you study in your room or in the library, you attend a few seminars and you turn up for the exam. How much does it cost? It can't be that much. There must be a lot of cross subsidising going on, either subsidising other subjects or I suspect more likely subsidising research.
Complain about this comment
What 'Joined up thinking' we have from our Leadership Elite, my children will have to find more to pay for their courses, their 'loans' are inversely related to my income and assets, I have assets, but no income and am rapidly running out of savings (Oh yes I forgot, I am near 'old' and a contractor, so finding work is almost impossible now thanks to the idiots whose 'spend spend spend' profligacy has led us to the brink (and maybe beyond) of ruin). Thus to get my children through Uni I will have been made penniless as it is my assets that are assessed for my 'adult' children's ability to obtain loans, loans they won't get as long as I have the assets, and if I liquidate them to pay my Children's fees etc, I have no pension. If they have to pay a fortune for UK Education, I will encourage them to apply abroad, as they may as well pay a fortune abroad and, hopefully stay there. Mind you given my children are being encouraged to apply to Oxford, maybe that is a good thing and they shouldn't go - aren't all the idiots who got us into this mess Oxbridge Graduates?
Complain about this comment
What next ?
Extra taxes on babe's calpol ?
While we are here.
Return to 17.5 % VAT equals £8billion apparently.
Maybe there should be a extra tax on, say, salt..Oh no that's been done long ago.
How about something else...text messaging ?
6.5 billion person to person texts a month apparently. 0ne pence extra each in tax, equals about £780 million a year.
Nearly £4 billion in a five year period...tempting perhaps,for some politician's.
Complain about this comment
"Putatively" is not strong enough a word to use before the phrase "world class education system" if applying it to the UK. I got a physics degree 20 years ago and now interview, work with and supervises some of the new science grads of today. I can tell you (a)academic standards have definitely slipped and (b)new grads have been conditioned to believe they are in some way special, a finished article, etc rather than a work in progress so they need to be continually pandered to, told how wonderful they are and get given rapid pay increments in order to inspire them to do any work. Part of the problem is that Universities now view students as customers. Hence they tend to mollycoddle them and prefer not to mark them down as it may lead to prospective future students favouring other competitor uni's/colleges. Oxford and Cambridge may have better maintained standards but the rest are in this bidding down war. We might be better off just importing our tecnhical grads at least from Eastern Europe where they seem to have better training and work ethic.
Complain about this comment
The older generation had bettter hope that the youg'uns don't wake up and realise they have been sadled with at least 2 generations of debt or its going to be intergenerational war... keep borrowing today... the kids will pay... still at least your intergenerational house price ponzi scheme has collapsed... still they are only robbing the future... every indentured debt graduate will become a lead weigth on the public purse when they leave this cursed society for kleptocratic spivs which created it.
Complain about this comment
If everyone goes to university, who's going to clean the streets and serve fast food? It's not a great advertisement for higher education or financial affairs if our social sciences graduates all end up flipping burgers for a living.
Kids have to be left to find their own level to a certain extent. If everyone has a degree, their value is worthless.
Complain about this comment
I agree that companies should do more to help students, may be not just in form monetary assistance but in form of on the job training, as I did not do any form of "Proper" work expereince during my degree, I struggled to find work after, so to make the degree worth the extra cost, I think actual work experience would greatly help.
Complain about this comment
My personal view is that that students should get a full maintenance grant and have their course fees paid.
However, as the country is almost bankrupt, the arithmetic of this means that far far fewer students will be able to go to university than do now.
My preference for a rationing model is to eliminate all courses that are 'ologies' (see the ancient BT advert with Maureen Lipman) and only provide funding for traditional subjects, English, History, Modern Languages, Pure and Applied 'proper' Science, Mathematics and Engineering. (I include economics in the list of 'ologies' which, for the time being, we cannot afford. If economists hadn't wreaked the world's economy I might have had a more sympathetic attitude!)
But I do think that those students that do go to university should get a full (means tested) grant and have their fees paid.
Complain about this comment
.....Robert, in the not too distant future the young will come to hate and despise our baby boomer generation. Not only did we spend their future income by insisting on bringing our own consumption forward using debt, but will then have the temerity to ask them to pay for treatment via the NHS that will keep us on this earth till we are in our 90's. It could well be that the power of the 'grey vote' may even persuade politicians that it will be worth their while to grant free cosmetic surgery, free health club membership etc to the over 70's so that they can retain their looks. After all, there will be more old voters than young ones. Whatever did this generation do to deserve the likes of us? Regards geoff (aged 50).
Complain about this comment
Brilliant piece once again, Robert.
In addition, perhaps a good time to raise the scandal of exhorbitant university tuition fees already being charged for postgraduate courses. My daughter has just finished a 1 year taught masters course. The prospectus showed single year tuition fees, depending on the subject, ranged from about £6,000 to, ....wait for it ....., £17,500!! Courses containing in the title the word 'business' or 'management' or economics' were at the higer end of the range.
Years ago, the criterion for university entrance was academic ability rather than ability to pay. Now we seem to speeding in the opposite direction.
Complain about this comment
'The argument, surely, would be along the lines of saying that a student should pay a price that captures the uplift to his or her earning power from the relevant course and qualification, the private gain, as opposed to the benefit for society.'
The issue with this is that not everyone who goes to University gets such an uplift and it is quite legitimate for some to pursue a poorly-paid career – one that might have significant social benefit.
This is why I've always argued that we need to monitor the average pay of graduates relative to that of non-graduates and only start collecting student loan repayments when a graduate's salary rises above that of their none-graduate peers.
This would be fairer and would not unduly punish those that study with an objective that will provide little or no personal enrichment in relative terms.
I did write to the Lib Dems years ago suggesting that this might be a more realistic policy than abolishing tuition fees altogether. But they simply sent a boiler-plate response talking of the importance of free education for all. It has been clear for ages that this position is fantasy.
But that doesn't mean we can't make the current system fairer.
Complain about this comment
Seeing as there will be no jobs for the 500,000 uni students who graduate each year, for at least the next 10 years, it probably makes sense to chop the numbers and if the way if doing that is by upping the fees so be it
Another lost generation
Complain about this comment
Haven't we reached the stage where we can seriously consider aboloshing the monetary system?
Technology has become so advanced now that we could probably make machines to do all the essential jobs.
Complain about this comment
The only problem is, those with the most money are in charge.
Complain about this comment
Once upon a time if you had the right qualifications you could attend university on a local authority funded grant. This was adjusted according to your family income and usually students worked their vacations to eke out the grant. What was wrong with that?
Now we have about 40% of youngsters going to something they call `uni' where they pay through the nose with borrowed money for poor facilities and inadequate tutoring for courses that verge on the irrelevant.
As a consequence graduate unemployment is rising and only the very fortunate get the really top paid jobs in which they learn to rob the taxpayers of their hard-earned.
I think it is about time we stopped this ramp and returned universities to being dreaming spires rather than vulgar degree-factories. We badly need good education in this country rather than inflated qualifications.
Complain about this comment
It amuses me that people come to this blog and hint towards some sort of social revolution in the offing. Any sort of revolution requires effort and nobody seems to have any energy at all these days. What this Government and some of the major banks have been getting away with of late is absolutely outrageous...but really, Governments and big business have been getting away with murder for years. We all know that. They know we know. But to stand up to it takes effort, it takes getting out of one's comfort zone.
Yet nothing really seems to be changing because those in control, really in control, can put forward an agenda which makes change very, very tricky indeed, especially when change is going to cost you and me and everybody.
Free change? Bring it on! Of course, there's no such thing. Free change is simply a euphemism for more of the same. When did we all lose our will to fight for what is patently right?
I remember reading The Winslow Boy as a child and marvelling at the words "Let Right Be Done!" but now it all seems somewhat whimsical. Nothing wil change, right won't be done - you've only got to look at the case pinned to Megrahi to see that right isn't what the powers that be are interested in. The American Government had vested interests in Syria and Iran, Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait and all of a sudden Syrian forces are fighting beside Americans - best not antagonise a potential oil ally, so let's not do the right thing and attention was turned to Libya. 'Right now', maybe. But not right for generations.
So, we'll saddle our kids with debt and move on, supporting on our shoulders the very men and women who have ridden on our backs for generations. Our children will judge all of us.
Complain about this comment
john from hendon @ 14
My view is that students should get a full maintenance grant and have their course fees paid. However, as the country is almost bankrupt, the arithmetic of this means that fewer students will be able to go to university than do now. My preference for a rationing model is to only provide funding for traditional subjects, English, History, Modern Languages, Pure and Applied 'proper' Science, Mathematics and Engineering
I agree with you, John, and would just tag on one more (extremely important) caveat ... that the state assistance is only available to children who have been to a state school from age 13 to 18
Complain about this comment
'The argument, surely, would be along the lines of saying that a student should pay a price that captures the uplift to his or her earning power from the relevant course and qualification, the private gain, as opposed to the benefit for society.'
Or, put another way - "go to University because it will increase your earning power - an even bigger chunk of which we're going to take off you".
How is this supposed to inspire people?
The point of Universities teaching the top few percent is that we, as a society, benefit from their knowledge. Punitive taxation based on implicit jealousy is insane.
Complain about this comment
RP, big up for managing to get in the phrase worst global recession since 1930's into a discussion into student costs, shame on you for not bring in a banking aspect.
I'm sure this will make me unpopular but if a family chooses to take a child out of state secondary education then they should pay the full cost of any later university education. Why should the tax payer pay for a privileged education which is not selected on a meritocracy basis.
If Universities are to benefit the UK and be equitable then imo their students need to be those whose skills will be developed by the highest academic training not those who are out just for a jolly or because there are no alternatives for them.
I understand your net present value of tax scenario to value university education but this does nothing to alleviate social inequality. You only have to consider that the next government of the country is likely to be run by former bullingdon clique members to see how universities play their part in maintaining the old school boy establishment.
British industry can help by investing in the country's youth by apprentices, direct training, paying fair wages and genuine career guidance. In my day my friends could not believe that I would chose university over a job, I can't help thinking that the aspiration level for university has reach 50% is due to lack of alternative.
In terms of research funding I feel it is likely to be tainted if commercially funded. I would have gladly researched the failings of banks but I bet nobody would have funded, assisted or even read it before the credit crunch
Finally despite the national debt I still believe the young will be left with a comfort of life almost incomparably better than any generation before it, as we have all had. It’s a wonderful world!
Complain about this comment
Brilliant article Robert.
The 'baby-boomers' have well and truly shafted today's young. Yet, still they scream for MORE!
A horrible, horrible generation. (The 'boomers' I mean).
Complain about this comment
At 27, having graduated 5 years ago and been in permanent employment for virtually all that time (I worked freelance for a while but the recession made it a little too unstable) I'm still paying back my student debt and will be for some time yet. And that debt is the money I spent on actually attending university (fees, rent etc), rather than the money that kept me in beer for the duration of the course (I had a job to pay for that bit...)
Yet I'm actually quite lucky, in that students currently pay far more than I did, and in all likelihood will have to pay even more in the future. Even leaving aside the (to me) obvious questions around the 'value' of a degree now compared to a couple of generations ago, this seems a deeply unfair situation. My generation and those that come after me are being bequeathed a legacy of economic, social, cultural and environmental devastation, with the very real prospect that much of the damage done is irreversible.
To all the older posters therefore (and indeed the doubtless many more reading and nodding in agreement) who say that the younger generation are self-indulgent, overly pandered to, nannyed and disrespectful; to those who claim that the value of grades are lower than in previous years, or that the youth of today are lazy, arrogant and looking for success without any of the requisite hardwork attached, I say:
Thank you for your honesty - it will make it all the easier when we're in charge of a battered, bloodied planet, and we're all still up to our eyeballs in your debt, to vote 'yes' to the referendum on an involuntary euthanasia bill for all over 65s...
Complain about this comment
I enjoy the concept that degrees are simply handed out when you pay your tuition fees. What this seems to imply is that only people with money should have degrees. Our country prides it self on the fairness of the system we live under but increasing fees will just destroy most universities and therfore more jobs and heritage. I agree there is a problem but i dont think it is the students that should suffer.
Complain about this comment
'The argument, surely, would be along the lines of saying that a student should pay a price that captures the uplift to his or her earning power from the relevant course and qualification, the private gain, as opposed to the benefit for society.'
The counterargument, however, is that the higher tax burden on those who do earn more due to their graduate education does provide a proportional cost to balance the private gain. Surely this is what is implied by the increacing percentages of the tax brackets. Governments investing in individuals in return for an increace in the tax revenue.
Complain about this comment
"Shouldn't the older generation bequeath them something other than debt?"
Hell yeah, springs to mind....
I'm just leaving my 20's and have been lucky enough to buy a flat, but I have a hefty mortgage, not a huge income, not a chance of a pension, and still about £15k in student loans.
The audacity of todays leaders of industry, who have made their way after free education and the exploitation of others who have since had to pay for it, is shocking.
Lets see if those who are in this position would agree to raising taxes on their over inflated incomes, shall we?
Robert - would you be willing to do that to give the younger generation the chances you had?
Complain about this comment
Ridiculous! One of the many things that have to be done to make the UK competitive - and really this is what any future is about - is to make education available to more people and to stop the life-on-debt culture at its very roots - the student loans.
Complain about this comment
Robert, I must say that you raise a particularly valid argument in terms of the social justice that is lacking from the thought process of the CBI. I start university in two weeks time, and will pay the £3,225 tuition fees, along with the accommodation and food costs which will take the yearly fee to well over £10,000. I have no real great urge to attend university as a purely academic pursuit, but due to institutions like the CBI and other business leaders, without a degree there would be no chance of getting into the type of career I want to pursue, such is their insistence on only taking graduates who they then train anyway in their graduate training programme!
The qualification inflation is somewhat ridiculous and just leads to a majority of students accumulating debts quickly, sounds like GB's government to me... Even a child knows that spending money that you simply don't have is plainy irresponsible and unsustainable. Obviously GB doesn't understand the basic rules of living within ones means, since in numerical terms, he has borrowed, in the past 3 years, more than in the preceeding 300 years combined. Only begrudgingly does he accept that cuts have to occur, leading to certain people such as those at the CBI, or even Ed Balls the education minister to look at the nation's youth as a prime area to be cut- mostly because there is little say as we represent a small percentage of the voters! Then we will have to pick up the tab, great...
Complain about this comment
In the 1960's about 10% of pupils left school for a university education.
Now the figure is around 50%.
Educational standards have not improved. High School standards have been dropped, and curricula expanded to include many less challenging subjects.
The fact is that some university graduates are unfit for work in the big wide world, being unable to spell or write coherently for employment purposes.
All this so-called education expansion is the result of successive governments trying to improve their images by increasing educational opportunities (of whatever standard).
No wonder employers baulk at supporting this politically inspired monster.
If education returns to a "Quality not Quantity" focus, government will soon have the employers back on-side.
Complain about this comment
Surely a better question would be "should students pay their own bills" A resounding yes from me. I paid to study for my degree through OU - what is the difference Robert??
Complain about this comment
What is the problem here - this is one important part of globalisation.
Get the middle and lower classes into debt as soon as possible. If we have to spend their lives working with their noses to the grindstone they won't be able to see our 'betters' fleecing every penny they can out of us.
Also, this will undoubtably make profits for big multi-nationals someway.
How long before you start your life with 'original debt' as soon as you are born?
Complain about this comment
I'm a student. I study a real subject at a real university, just in case anyone is interested, he are my views:
Linking loan interest rates to government debt interest rates adds uncertainty which would scare off some students. Much better to account for the ongoing subsidy of interest by increasing the amount charged in the first place in the knowledge that the governement will see an expected loss on each loan. Maybe they could provide insentives for early pay-off that would be a win-win for some students (although, granted, not many, since it makes much more sense to have debt at RPI and put down a larger deposit on a house - for example).
We already charge students for the privilage of university, in the forms of a 40% and now a 50% tax band, for which I am far more likely to endure than students who finish education at 16.
If the Government does want to raise some revenue and increase our competitiveness and GDP, therefore reducing the relative debt, they can fine students who don't turn up to lectures and abuse the 10k plus subsidy we do still get for education. I'm 100% for that - although I might think differently 8am Monday morning.
Complain about this comment
Is it any wonder graduate unemployment is high, and that the fees will have to go up?
I mean Robert, El 'Gordo has spent the last 12 years Educashing le dunderheeds with MEDIA STUDIES DEGREES
LOL, this country is a LAUGHING STOCK!
Complain about this comment
peter @ 25
well hello there! ... the first person ever, as far as I can recall, to agree with me that the university grant should come back BUT be available only to children who have gone to a state school from age 13 to 18 - always surprised about the lack of support for such a fabulous and progressive idea - I love you
Complain about this comment
From a graduate, and post graduate, from the last year of full maintenance grants I find the current situation appaling.
Graduates more than pay back their tuition costs/maintenance costs through better wages nd higher tax/NI over their working life. Fact.
Why should Uni Students, the people who will staff the so-called high-tech/skills economy we are told is the saviour of us, be charged for thier ourse whereas 'thick' people doing ead-end training gt 30 pounds week dumb-money to keep them off the dole ueu.
Also other unfair courses like Nursing/teaching where the playing field is not level with say Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Accountancy etc - etra inentives or a 'signing on' wedge.
Too many people in this country
Too many people at university doing waster courses
Too much debt.
Too much red tape
Too many marketeers
Too many politicians
Too much waste of money
This country needs to 'Downsize' and start living within it's financial and environmental resources, and put UK, Commonwealth and Friendly Nations (USA, Japan, Korea, India, Thailand, Israel) first, and be damned to crazies/religous zealots/dictators/scroungers).
Complain about this comment
I got five As at A-level, in well-regarded subjects, so it seemed reasonable to presume that going to university would be worth it for me. I have chosen to become a pharmacist, so I need to spend 4 years at university at approximately £7k/year. I will therefore graduate with around £30,000 of debt. This is my reward for living incredibly frugally on less than £4,500/year for four years. Have any of you ever tried that? From that money, I need to pay for all of my rent, food, bills, clothes, books, transport, etc.
Live on £86/week for a year (remember, not £86 disposable per week, £86 in total) and then tell me that I ought to be receiving even more debt. Most of the people complaining that we're being subsidised would spend more at a single lunchtime than I can in a week.
And in case anyone's curious, here's what the BBC has to say on the poverty line:
"On 2006/07 figures, that is £112 disposable income a week after paying taxes and housing costs."
My disposable income is £12/week.
Complain about this comment
15. At 5:58pm on 21 Sep 2009, geofffromleeds wrote:
.....Robert, in the not too distant future the young will come to hate and despise our baby boomer generation. Not only did we spend their future income by insisting on bringing our own consumption forward using debt,
Hmmm, If one buys a house (putting a large deposit down), has NO other debts and runs a 1000 banger. How does tyhis person satisfy your 'consumption' theory?
How does one, consume a house as this is where most of the debt comes from...
Complain about this comment
23. At 6:43pm on 21 Sep 2009, sagamix wrote:
I agree with you, John, and would just tag on one more (extremely important) caveat ... that the state assistance is only available to children who have been to a state school from age 13 to 18
Roll on the spiteful jealousy/social engineering card again.
Students who have been to a Private fee-paying school, have saved the taxpayer thousands over the years not having to educte them.
Full Uni maintenance grants for all
Uni Tuition Paid for all
Decent schools for all.
Level playing fields.... for ll.
Tax on Cricket/Rugger next?, as they are 'posh boy' sports ?
--
NB I'm a product of a Scottish Comprehensive education, and a full maintenance grant paid education at a proper UK University, not a degree shed.
Complain about this comment
It was our generation which royally messed up the economy with the inadequate governance that led to the credit crunch and the worst global recession since the 1930s ... we're - on the whole - alright Jack, thanks to the accident of when we happen to have been born ... but those leaving school and university today face an altogether bleaker future: a drought of jobs; a bewildering and unappealing set of options for saving and investing; over-priced residential property (even after the "correction"); relentless fearsome competition from India, China, and so on ... and there's the costs of providing a health service and welfare state to sustain an older generation ... so some may well argue that as and when a new government decides to make cuts or increase taxes - to fill the hole in the public finances created by the current generation - its first instinct should probably not be to penalise students ... shouldn't the older generation bequeath them something other than debt?'
Well put - an excellent article again ... and many great comments from bloggers too. IMHO setting a target of 50% of people going to university is a joke, the CBI comments are a disgrace and the Government need to think very carefully about what they choose to do in this area ... for instance young people also have a choice where they live (n.b. they can move anywhere in the EU without restriction), and if hard-working young people move out of the UK to work elsewhere then there will be few value/wealth creators at all here in the future and no-one to pay the taxes necessary to subsidise any public services at all (or to pay off any of the debts) ... and the whole system will continue a downward spiral ... until widespread social unrest hits the streets ...
Instead of passing more debt on to future generations, what about introducing a new tax - a 'Land Value Tax'* (which a number of other countries currently have) ... as it's known to be particularly effective at targeting rich landowners who own most of the land, assets & wealth ... as this group can more than afford it, it can't easily be 'passed on' and they also can't avoid it - unlike most/all of the other taxes aimed at them**! It would raise large amounts of tax and would allow other taxes to reduce as a result. It would also push landowners to make more land available for housing - which would partly tackle the over-priced residential property market we still have too. A small fraction of this tax revenue could be used to subsidise free tuition fees and provide maintenance grants (e.g. more 'means-tested' grants) for future generations of value/wealth creators (e.g. so long as they are UK residents and continue to stay in the country). Let's also reduce the number of students going to University from the stupidly high target of 50%, support proper vocational apprenticeships and scrap/replace all the poor quality courses we see today e.g. most of the very expensive, and yet completely flawed, MBA programmes ... which teach students 19th century management practices instead of 21st century management practices (i.e. outdated courses, which partly got us in this mess, and which are often referred to as 'Maybe Best Avoided' - even without all the debt)!
* take a look at http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/08/land-of-free-but-whos-paying-for-it.html for instance.
** NB the Government have allowed 'land' to be one of the very few things exempt from inheritance tax too!
Complain about this comment
Absolutely agree with Peston about the intergenerational inequity arguement. Despite it's apparent rudimentary nature, it should be seriously considered in debate about how to deal with national debt.
Some of the comments on this blog seem to be slightly ignorant, however. Claiming that eliminating the 'ologies' would do this country any good is ridiculous - Economics in particular!!! To give just one example - knowledge of Economics, coupled with studies of international processes in Politics, Geography and Sociology will be key to understanding Globalisation - THE most fundamental (ongoing) change in human economic and social interaction of modernity - the fact that one can comment on this blog from anywhere in the world is testament itself. An informed position on this phenomenon is key to any country's success over the next few generations, whatever your political stance. Getting rid of subjects such as these would be simply disastrous. Such a move also takes this country towards punishing cultural plurality - not providing funding for certain arts subjects and artistic degrees would be outrageous in my opinion.
Other comments suggesting that we should return to times of universities of 'dreaming spires' also show so little understanding of what the university system is about and it's history, it's scary that they're suggesting such a fundamental shift. A range of institutions of differing perspectives provides plurality of acquiring knowledge and epistemological advance.
Complain about this comment
A proper reform of the education system was needed in the 90s, instead various governments chose to massively increase the numbers of students going through the system. Since universities saw themselves as businesses, they focused on courses that 18 year olds would sign up to, instead of courses that businesses actually wanted.
The student loan system is badly thought through and subject to abuse. Accommodation, book costs and fees should have been billed directly to the loans company, instead of paying lump sums into students bank accounts. I know of a child care nurse who will probably never have to pay back her £5000 loan, which she used to buy a car, because she's only on the minimum wage.
Another issue is how you would quantify "an uplift in earning power". I have an electrical engineering friend who chose to specialise in heavy current ten years ago and work for an energy company. He currently pays higher rate tax. Another electrical engineering friend took a job at a telecoms giant at a similar time, was made redundant several years later and retrained. High salaries are often due to market shortages in unfashionable industries. Energy companies seriously struggled to recruit graduates during the telecoms boom, and many graduates were shed from those same telecoms firms several years later. Given that both of my friends had similar backgrounds and similar degrees, one now earns twice as much as the other. Often it's down to being in the right place at the right time, and luck.
Complain about this comment
Your interpretation of the CBI's comments today is an interesting one, but what about the arts degrees? start charging 5,000+ for those and you'll loose out considerably.
I like the idea of your generation giving something back. Fancy sponsoring me through the CJS course at Cardiff next year? I've been accepted and currently working in a call centre to pay the £6,000 tuition fees!
Complain about this comment
#32 al2975
"I have no real great urge to attend university as a purely academic pursuit, but due to institutions like the CBI and other business leaders, without a degree there would be no chance of getting into the type of career I want to pursue, such is their insistence on only taking graduates who they then train anyway in their graduate training programme!"
This is really at the root of the problem.
Further education can serve a number of purposes
1) specialised vocational training (but the world changes so fast these days that it's often out of date within a few years - probably still of value for certain subjects like engineering and medicine)
2) abstract training of the mind to solve problems etc - the classical view of education. Could in theory apply to any subject, but is probably best done using traditional subjects such as maths,
history, science etc where the breadth of the subject allows greater scope.
3) a means of selection for future jobs.
The educationalists like to think that a University education is all about (2). In reality it is almost all about (3) these days, with a little bit of (1) thrown in for some subjects. Most students go to University, not because they particularly want to broaden their minds, but because it is a requirement of potential employers in order to get any kind of decent job (even those jobs that don't require a broadened mind).
Businesses would probably be better completely ignoring the often meaningless academic qualifications and running their own intellegence tests to sift out the better candidates. Not sure how many still do this, but I've known a number of companies in the past that took this approach.
Complain about this comment
And for my final point on this blog, what's the point of staying in the UK AT ALL?
I am getting ripped off, left, right and centre. Or at least I thought I was, nothing compared to what's coming eh?
Complain about this comment
Where does all the money go? It certainly doesn't go on 'teaching' as I understand it.
I'm just about to go into my 3rd year of my degree. Last year I had 6 hours of contact time a week (several hours more than students I know in other subjects). Teaching occured over 22 weeks out of a possible 52. During a lecture, the lecturer reads aloud a powerpoint presentation that is available on the intranet anyway. These are written several years beforehand and are edited marginally each year to keep up to date.
So I personally pay £3,225 tuition fees for 132 hours of teaching. By this reasoning, each student in my lecture theatre is paying £24.43 per hour long lecture. 200 people attend the lecture.
But I'm one of the lucky ones - half the students in the year below me only get to see their lecturers via videolink because the university is so money hungry it takes on more students than it can accomodate. They are converting single rooms into twin rooms for this years freshers.
So, I ask again, where does all the money go? University is not value for money.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I can see their point, even if firms (who have no money) take on and sponsor students and then graduates, very few of them will be able to apply their knowledge to making things. Just one example look at James Dyson , the hoops he had to jump through no one would touch him. So what we will end up with is the cream being scooped up and sold into slavery and sold to the highest bidder.
You make no mention of medical students, are they no part of the great plan ?
Now I agree far too many folk go to university today, to do worthless degrees. But they were in part encouraged to go as they were told as I was told , get a degree, it sets you apart from the others when looking for a job.
And why do universities need to put their fees up, they do well already from what I have witnessed from their property, fees, and their part in being a landlord.
Are there any CBI leaders directors of any of the University campus accommodation sites ? Their charges are eye watering
Complain about this comment
Students should learn how to live on a shoestring. Alcohol is not a necessity. Austerity is a good thing when you're young- it toughens you up. Students today think that blagging some dosh off your folks is survival. Welcome to reality- it couldn't come soon enough.
Grants were suitable in the 70's and 80's when a far smaller proportion of the population went to university or polytechnic. There's no way a government can afford to send the whole population to university- so someone else has to help pay-either the student,their family or business.
Excuse the pun but far too much has been taken for granted.
Complain about this comment
some posters make me smile.....
14 My preference for a rationing model is to eliminate all courses that are 'ologies' (see the ancient BT advert with Maureen Lipman) and only provide funding for traditional subjects, English, History, Modern Languages, Pure and Applied 'proper' Science, Mathematics and Engineering. (I include economics in the list of 'ologies' which, for the time being, we cannot afford. If economists hadn't wreaked the world's economy I might have had a more sympathetic attitude!)
I graduated in Economics in 1986 and have not had a single day unemployed since. Yes, I have been lucky but have also worked hard and had difficult times, including redundancy recently and negative equity in the 1990's. In all that time I have paid plenty of tax and do not begrudge a penny. Unfortunately, now 50% of people go to uni - not the 10% back then. So, if people want to go we will need to dig deep to pay. I do feel that those who are now coming out of uni need to remember that 40% of them would not have had the chance to go in the 80's. I went to school with many people who would have liked to go - but did not get the chance. So to imply that we are all tight is maybe a little unfair!
18 Seeing as there will be no jobs for the 500,000 uni students who graduate each year, for at least the next 10 years, it probably makes sense to chop the numbers and if the way if doing that is by upping the fees so be it
Another lost generation
Of all the absurd posts this takes the biscuit. How do you know that there will be no jobs for graduates for 10 years (note no jobs - not a single one!). It seems to me that we have gone from the one extreme of ‘boom forever’ to the other extreme - the bad times are here forever. As an economist, I suspect that this is little different to other times we have been through. Yes it will be difficult but if businesses stay calm and watch what they do, they will survive and continue to be able to supply goods and services and employ people. Certainly that is what I spend my days trying to make happen. Hopefully others will as well.
Complain about this comment
The government should be working flat out to encourage those of us with five star index linked pensions to drink, smoke and generally abuse our bodies. Then we will pass away quickly, ensuring that the pension providers, the treasury, and our futureless, unemployed (but well educated) children can cash in our houses, have the proceeds heavily taxed and pay off their debts.
If this was adopted along with assisted suicide and conscription for the over 45s, the UK could be out of debt in a few hundred years!
By the way the new UK trade initative to sell weapons of mass murder to our former sworn enemies is a real winner - a totally unexploited market.
Complain about this comment
I was a Training Manager in the electronics industry nearly 30 years ago. At that time we had the Engineering Industry Training Board (EITB). Companies had a choice, they either spent a fixed percentage of turnover on training and development or they paid a levy at that level. Unfortunately Maggie Thatcher stopped it, apart from construction.
Whilst that structure was primarily focused on internal training (apprentices, graduates and management) it also covered graduate sponsorship. A wider application of such a system across the whole range of industries could be used to increase student sponsorship in those areas of most use to commerce.
But I suppose in this crazy world all that is far too logical.
Complain about this comment
THAT SHELF STACKER PROBABLY HAS A DEGREE OR TWO TOO.
Student loans are not repayable until the graduate starts to earn 16,000 pounds or more.
Given that a lot of them will come out into an unfairly competitive jobs market a lot of them will end up on minimum wage.
The only way we are going to get the money back is to increase the minimum wage to greater than 16,000
(and how the CBI will squeak)
Complain about this comment
#49
Nothing in the public sector is value for money. The Home Office is not fit for purpose. I wouldn't trust the MoD to procure my lavvy paper. The Student Loans Company can't be trusted to give away money. And if I ever visit London I will be very vary of the cops.
For too long a job in the public sector has been a job for life, no matter how much you make a mess.
This will not improve until we get a Thatcher for the Civil and Other Public Services.
Complain about this comment
A really excellent blog, Robert, and your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's education policy has turned out to be a complete con.
They come up with a so-called brilliant idea, which needless to say is based around a 'target' - "hey, Gordo, 50% of school leavers going to university, how does that sound?". Then they realise three things:
a. the only way they can achieve this is by dumbing down everything - school exams and university exams, everything.
b. it ends up costing far too much money
c. the only way to pay for it all is by forcing students to take out huge amounts of debt.
Bad, bad, bad result. Topsy turvy thinking and a really dumb plan from the start.
Quite apart from anything else this gets people into the habit from a very young age of borrowing money first and paying back later, when we are trying to persuade people to forgo early consumption, save first and then spend once the money is in the bank (...... that savings ratio in Europe/US compared to China/Far East anyone?)
Yes, no question that education must be free - the Lib Dems have the right idea.
(PS I thought you should have declared your own cards, Robert as in Balliol College, Oxford, and ex FT Finance Editor and Sun Tel Business Editor).
Complain about this comment
#49 You are right - my generation has learned the price of everything (and everyone) and forgotten the meaning of "value".
My generation, and that's the CBI's generation, discovered North Sea oil and gas (as a student I worked on the surveying) and then we blew it all in less than 40 years. It was just party-time over and over again. All "money and mammon", as one of my friends said to me.
I fear revolt is your only answer - it's the only way your generation and those that follow will get anything back.
Complain about this comment
Dontcha ya´ll see: We have the spent at least the last 30 years deskilling the economy. Yet we want more people to go to university. Why is this, and how does this add up?
Maybe it is just providing occupation for the young, whilst simultaneously offering them false hope and tying them into the debt treadmill.
Now out come the CBI saying quite overtly lets turn the screw on the student population.
There was a time when students were politically aware and could be expected to seek to defend themselves. Now they just send text messages to each other bemoaning their debt levels.
When will people wake up? - If you are not willing to fight you are going to get screwed into the ground. If you are a student, understand this - the clear plan is to screw you into the ground for the rest of your lives.
If you sit back and take it, can you really complain? They are telling you that you are the best and the brightest. You are telling them the exact opposite, and oh how they laugh at your self induced ingnorance and impotence.
Complain about this comment
I agree that our generation had a great start - and blew it. But I do not understand the current policy on university. My degree was pretty useless (modern languages - reading old books mainly). What we need is a bit less of that and a bit more vocational education and training. Why not make a degree free to people who use their local university? And why not bring back technical colleges, which are accessible to people who are in work. Pottering about Oxford in the 60s, reading Goethe and Hugo, was super - but I doubt that the country has got its money back from me. Sorry.
Complain about this comment
Its so hypocritical of politicians like Balls et al to play the "students have got to pay card", when these guys had free top class education. These people just do not live in the real world. By the way if you have got a child going to university expect it to cost circa 12k per annum now all in (more if its a course like medicine). Tuition fees are 3k+ plus a student loan (sliding scale) of say 4k plus top up from Bank of Mum and Dad of 4/5k.
The amount of debt we are in is astronomical and our children will be paying it off when they are working soon enough. Balls and his Chums wants to crank up the cost whilst they are at University as well- its pathetic.
Complain about this comment
#21 Stallinic
Yep.
Eloquent and straight to the point as usual.
Complain about this comment
neil @ 42
students who have been to a private fee paying school have saved the taxpayer thousands over the years not having to educate them
that's a very generous way of looking at it, I must say - a slightly more hard boiled interpretation is that their parents (by opting for that) are perpetuating a deeply damaging cycle of inequality, and the result is talent wasted on a colossal scale - it's not the Politics of Envy (oh hackneyed phrase) in play here, it's empirical common sense - talking, as you do, about taxing rugger and cricket is only to trivialise the issue - you're not engaging with it properly - likewise declaiming "decent schools for all" ... meaningless platitude, I'm afraid, without the necessary measures to bring it about ... no, we need to make some radical changes, otherwise we'll just carry on drawing our political and business "leaders" from an absurdly narrow pool - and we've seen how competent they all are ... haven't we, Neil?
Complain about this comment
Good Evening Mr Peston and to all of your contributors; What a splendid topic, it really lit some fires under the nethers of your readers.
Complain about this comment
60. rskippo wrote:
'but I doubt that the country has got its money back from me. Sorry.'
I don't know, rational, well punctuated, grammatically correct and no spelling mistakes, what more do we want from a university education. I'm sure that you also know the correct spelling of lose as opposed to the current crop who seem to think it is spelt loose.
(lose is what happens to your memory after a night on the lash, loose is what your belt is when your trousers fall down)
Complain about this comment
The problem would appear to lie in the culture of our lords and masters who have neither experienced the state education system, or likely not had their Oxbridge place given to them by proxy of their public school. Increasingly we are told that the Balls of this world are high flyers meriting our defference and admiration, yet they continue to make decisions on the publics behalf based upon their limited world-view. Blunkett had such a bad education as a visually-impaired student that he through his sheer willpower alone became a Sheffield Councillor, M.P. and Minister, quite a recommendation for his education most would have thought. Yet as soon as he is Minister for Education he brings in legislation that places a whole range of problems unto a state education system little prepared for the influx of specialist needs. Mr Balls makes statements concerning reorganising the state education system that strata of management can be removed; large organisations merged all without repercussions for the teacher and the students. Ignorance is a wonderful thing when your a politician, you may or may not seek advice from civil servants (who in the main have had limited experience of the state system); educationalists in their ivory towers who since the Thatcher initiative of the market place strife for funding above understanding. Truely great leaders stand on the shoulders of others and in education a swathe of research and understanding is treated as an inconvenient truth, money does not drive the world (even bankers should now be able to understand that).
Thirty years ago this country was taken into the moneterist garden with promises of greater personal control, yet the hidden weed was greed that strangled the blossoms and fruit. The CBI and its pampered bastions of industry (what industry) with inflated salaries, protectionist remuneration packages, unsustainable pensions now think that those who wish to gain the larger portion of the rewards (that graduate qualification perports to provide) should pay more in fees and interest on their debt (demonstrating their ignorance of the very thing that has brought the country to its present condition - excessive debt).
An Italian social philosopher, whilst in a Facist prison, pondered the disparity in social conditions and why the status quo continued unabated, and proposed the notion of hegomony. That those of privilege must believe they are so because they have earnt it, and those unprivileged must believe they are so because they did not make the appropriate effort/sacrifice. When Jenny Lee championed the Open University the underprivileged were given an opportunity to become upwardly mobile, graduate status became available to an ever inceasing number of the previously disenfranchised. Polytechnics and larger Further Education Colleges (with an element of Higher Education) then gained University status - because the bastions of industry were crying out for more and more graduates. Not because they had a need for the higher educational standards provided, but because they saw it as a cheaper option than training their own staff. Head hunting is now the norm within commerce and banking, overpay for candidates that have experience and knowledge gained elsewhere. Sounds familiar in the Banking sector where wonderkind were grabbed from retail and commodities to bring the promised quick buck.
While we persist with a two tier system that enables privilege to replace merit, where the hegomony is that selection makes for good education, when it is merely a vehicle for lazy educators, the fact that public schools do not get 100% grade As in everything reflects the paucity of talent having chosen the supposed top 5% of the population. As with Galton in the 19th century we confuse hegomony with meritocracy, the generations of lawyers, military officers, doctors, judges, university professors, politicians are reflections of restrictive practices that inculcate our social order. Balls and the CBI now continuing the path set by Thatcher want to place wealth as another barrier to a truely meritocric society. It is interesting that the number of middle-class bancrupcies increased in the early years of student debt as middle-class graduates cottoned onto the notion that the money owed after uni. could be wiped clean through an accounting nicety.
In France and Germany the process of university education is seen as a hard struggle to both gain access and successfully achieve. Graduates are seen as a resource not a commodity, schools as advancing social cohesion not delineating the haves and the never to haves. In both countries the school education is both developmentally structured (in that you learn to write and read with basic arithmetic before anything else) and broad in its compass. Students have a far greater knowledge of their own culture and that of others, how many European children are not relatively fluent in at least two languages. Education is seen to be above politics, only in Britain (and America) is it allowed to play with the future generations as it does in England and Wales. National curricula are seen as sacrosanct, not annually modified to suit some political statement of outcome, school organisation is strong with state taking precidence over private (in France if you choose to go private the privilege is only in the amount you pay). Oxbridge the bastion of English education with selection of the few from the even fewer, with private schools representing 60%+ of intake, providing a disproportionate number of politicians (and bastions of industry and banking) acting as a gentlemens' club of access to power and control. Of all public servants in this country only the police do not have graduate only intake, increasingly these institutions influence the fabric of our society, yet increasingly they restrict access to the larger portion of the population. I do not argue for weakening stringent entry requirements, but I would argue that the selection goes far deeper when candidates of equal qualification are segregated by means that are not open to public scrutiny - any institutions obtaining public funds should be liable to such scrutiny. Famously a London Medical School in computerising its application scrutiny revealed its concealed racism in excluding candidates with non-Anglo/Europen names (I believe the Racial Equality Board had some later input into their selection criteria).
As we tumble into moral decay of greed, protectionist nepotism while the bulk of society is asked to stump up the pain and suffering the actions of the Fat Cat CBI and the sumbling Balls merely indicate the total disregard these people have for the rest of us.
I wonder what the educational background of Mr Peston and colleagues would turnout to be - the danger is that control also entails what can or cannot be discussed as relevant.
Complain about this comment
I was at University in the early 60s. I finished in heavy debt and it marked me for years. I was a miser and lacking in generosity. I could see it in myself and did not like it, but lacked the willpower to break clear till I was over 50.
I paid my own children's university costs in full. They are now kind and generous adults in their late 30s. I am very proud of them.
Going purely on my own personal experience, I say do not contemplate this path of making students pay more and more. It will mark them as it marked me.
Complain about this comment
Children whose parents paid for them to go to secondary school should pay the same fees as they paid at their schools for their University education. Children who paid no fees, i.e. went to state schools, should not pay fees.
Complain about this comment
#52 blogjt Are you poster #14 in disguise? As you certainly make his point for him!
You write "As an economist, I suspect that this is little different to other times we have been through"
Maybe you should abandon suspicion and concentrate more on analysis. So pray tell the people when was the last time that the worlds largest economy with a GDP of about $15 trillion attempted to rescue an entire banking sector when just one bank (JP Morgan) has a derivatives balance sheet of $87 trillion.
But don´t worry everything is hedged - apart the bits that aren´t. Like the bits with China when the Chinese government has authorised its companies to default on derivatives obligations with foreign banks should it not be in their commercial interests to settle.
If you are an economist then I am pumpkin.
Complain about this comment
What I always found odd about the Blairite proposition was that it was projected that "university graduates earn a lot more, so they should be happy to pay".
That was undoubtedly true when only a small percentage of young people went to Uni. Many wen into fairly specialised (hence high demand) jobs. Some went straight into - or worked rapidly towards - management positions.
It just seems rediculous to assume that the UK economy will create every more high-paying jobs simply to match the number of graduates available. Typically Blairite/Brownite economics.
20 years ago I was hiring graduates into what were effectively call-centre roles. (And some had a fairly limited grasp of the core discipline they waved around as qualifications. And that was way before Universities introduced remedial classes for first-years to make up for deficiencies from the secondary tier of education!)
Complain about this comment
Robert
You paint a depressing picture for students today - I doubt it was any better for many of the older bloggers in their day. Rubbish accomodation at Uni [heating was an optional extra], no spare cash then when you started work you had to wait for your turn to be promoted as the union stranglehold dictated who was promoted and when.
However I do lament the passing of the grant, as it was a great leveller for all social backgrounds but the bottom line is we cannot afford that system for the present number of students.
I would however favour subsidising selected "useful" degrees and encouraging people studying the "oligies" to study at their local unis.
Complain about this comment
"Joining the CBI gives you the opportunity to directly influence the legislation that affects your business.
Our credibility and reputation for lobbying are unsurpassed. The CBI strives to ensure the best conditions for your business to prosper."
Taken directly from the CBI Website.
So, you can see that they are far from objective, no more than the taxpayer's alliance. It would be nice if they could concentrate on keeping their own house in order instead of having a pop at students. One has to wonder about the politics in raising this now, at the start of the 'conference season', perhaps they are merely attempting to deflect the media from the Liberals attempts to raise taxation through a higher rate on £1m plus properties and higher incoome taxes which will hit CBI members hard.
Having benefited from a grant aided education at a Poly in the 70's I came out of it with a vocational degree, debt free and have been employed by the same organisation for 33 years, today. I have supported my two sons through a combined 9 years at excellent Universities and whilst one should find no difficulty paying off his student loan as a solicitor within a few years the other will struggle to clear his debt as a history teacher and struggle to afford to buy a house for maybe a decade.
To suggest that students pay more now is ludicrous. The rich should pay more on their bonuses and basic pay packages.
Complain about this comment
I do agree that some students should pay much more closely what their courses cost if we are to retain tuition fees, becuase it is an untruth that all courses cost the same
On that basis, therefore, all doctors, dentists, vets etc will have to pay back proportionately more as they are likely to earn more, but their cost of training is also substantially more
This policy, however, will be resisted but has its equivalent in the US
In fact I suspect that a policy which I would like to be introduced is "education - free at the point of use" and that would apply across all age ranges. It would mean that our society would never be ashamed about "missing" schooling, because it could always be caught up
On top of this, however, there must be opportunity because there is little point in churning out graduates when they are simply moved into the burger flipping jobs and thus deny the possibility of less educated people advancing or jobs
There must also be opportunity for people who wish to be gas fitters, plumbers and other artizans because the rest of the economy rely upon these positions
The problem that I see with your prognostications Robert, however, is the scheme you propose relies upon selection of the best from an education system where such is shunned by all but the private sector. How do you select the best when the exam systems do not produce those results?
Complain about this comment
'And why not bring back technical colleges, which are accessible to people who are in work.'
You don't need technical colleges, a large proportion of Universities will allow people who are currently in work to study for a degree part-time.
Complain about this comment
66. honestgeraldinho wrote:
I'm not usually lost for words but in this case, well put.
Complain about this comment
Good Evening Mr Peston and to all of your contributors.
What a splendid theme, it truly lit some fires under the nethers in some quarters, and rightly so. It was interesting to note the divide between graduate/non-graduate and the saner solutions to this dilemma. I particularly warmed to the idea of rationalising the output to 'pure' degrees, eg Maths, Eng.Lit/Lang, THE Sciences, History, Geography (NB: the subject that deals with topography, rivers, oceans, the World - do you get the picture?), and filtering out all of the 'social' degrees eg media studies, PT or PE, management etc from the 'Spires' and confining them to the second tier of 'Unis' that were formerly called 'Poly's'.
I know that these statements might be construed as inflammatory, in a non-pyrotechnic sense, but is that not what debate is about? I am going to dangle a second piece of rabbit fodder now and I do so as a man, long-retired, who screwed up my secondary education and thus did not have the opportunity even to apply to a University. (My long-suffering father, a senior Engineering Officer in the Royal Air Force, aspired to my placement at Oxbridge, or at least London). Instead, I joined the Royal Air Force as Aircrew and through the rigorous academic and physical training pursued a half-decent career therein; I use that term to qualify my remunerations and accommodations over 30 years - the flying and world travel were of the very best, if not, the best and most assuredly priceless.
Here is my point; during most stages of initial and periodic/refresher training, examinations for promotion etc, all Military Services ensure most personnel, if not all, can write well. That does not mean in an A A Milne style of whimsey, or the Bard's sense of antiquity and drama, heaven forbid, but to show the ability to construct a sentence, to spell correctly and punctuate effectively; above all to convey the message without let of misunderstanding or lack of comprehension. It was pertly named 'ABC': Accuracy, Brevity, Clarity. It therefore saddens me that upon reading the comments to your article I stumble through most of them because of an astonishing lack of the aforementioned, some from 'Posters'. ( I like that, I had to study the word and context several times before I cottoned-on; as I said, I didn't go to Uni.....)
How do the QCA and other marking bodies cope? On the evidence herein and in other forums, the low level of literacy reflects badly not only on the individual, but also on the entire education system. It demonstrates a lack of care and pride in one's work - who is not to say that this may also be the case in the individual's work ethic? I rest my case. I rest my pen and my arms, but for one final barb - have so few of your contributors heard of 'Spell-check'? Only as a last resort of course.
Complain about this comment
66. honestgeraldinho wrote
(very eloquently) 'any institutions obtaining public funds should be liable to such scrutiny'
Any public body spending public money and any private body receiving public money should publish (at time of spend or receipt) exactly how much has changed hands and what for.
For too long we have heard of 'Commercial Confidentiality' in public/private dealings, local authorities holding meetings 'in camera'. If they are spending public (my) money then they should publish it so that we (I) can see that it is money well spent.
Quangos (including educational ones) of various types reinvent themselves as 'not for profit' LTD. companies which means that they are exempt from the FOI act and can spend our (my) money as they see fit without let or hinderence.
This Must Stop.
Only when PUBLIC MONEY is PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE can we (as the public) make a decision as to where this money will be spent in the future.
Cuz I'm pretty sure that WE (as the public) are being RIPPED OFF on all fronts be it education, health, defence, overseas aid.......
Complain about this comment
geraldinho @ 66
indeed so - well drafted and worth the effort
Complain about this comment
Robert - this post is both insightful and challenging - and raises the real moral issues faced today*. Given this I was hoping you'd be the person covering this subject on the ten o-clock news too. Disappointing you were not - as the real issue you've quite rightly raised here was not addressed. Keep up the good work - you're doing a great job challenging what needs to be challenged ... when most others are either missing the point, or preferring to generate a quick headline and gloss of the real issues (e.g. 'Shouldn't the older generation bequeath them something other than debt?')
David Clift, Future 500 Leader
Complain about this comment
#59 armagediontimes
It was easy to protest when the worst that would befall you was a bit of teargas and a cracked skull (on the day of the event)
Today, the POT act means that participation in any event not sanctioned by the state can be prosecuted years after the event on the flimsiest of evidence, coercion both overt and covert is rife, this government and the state apparatus is out of control (but with the best of intentions)
Protest=Subversion=Terrorism
You are not welcome.
Students are there to study not protest.
Complain about this comment
At last we are getting to the core of what has gone wrong in UK economy and society.
A high tax welfare state (including good pensions) and high family home prices cannot exist together. As a pair they are unaffordable.
Across society, those whose agreement was needed to create a high house price economy, all voted and influenced for their own enrichment while watching their grandchildren and those of their secretaries, being put in to creches at a few months old. Be they newsnight editors, senior bankers or our friend's parents, greed consumed them and still does. We owe them nothing.
In the coming years, whatever the mechanism, wages will grow relative to house prices and savings. The generation who exploited their own children, dependant on savings and house prices, will be on the recieving end of the values their own actions created in their children.
Complain about this comment
#81
The generation who exploited their own children, dependant on savings and house prices, will be on the recieving end of the values their own actions created in their children.
Sow and ye shall reap.
One day all those hoodies and ASBO kids will be in charge, and we will be old, helpless and at their mercy, it's a good job we instilled the values of loyalty, compassion etc. into them.
Complain about this comment
Students should not pay the bills created by the older generations. The mortgage lending banks, flanker bankers still on telephone number salaries, and economic chiefs e.g. Lambert and Brown must take responsibility, and act on that responsibility. Students must not be expected to bail the 'oldies' from what is quite clearly the mess they created. Students have enough debt as it is due to disproportianally inflating fees - we need to work as a country, not look at one group, to pay the bills.
Complain about this comment
My God, what monsters have we bred ?
'Thank you for your honesty - it will make it all the easier when we're in charge of a battered, bloodied planet, and we're all still up to our eyeballs in your debt, to vote 'yes' to the referendum on an involuntary euthanasia bill for all over 65s...'
'Across society, those whose agreement was needed to create a high house price economy, all voted and influenced for their own enrichment while watching their grandchildren and those of their secretaries, being put in to creches at a few months old. Be they newsnight editors, senior bankers or our friend's parents, greed consumed them and still does. We owe them nothing.
'In the coming years, whatever the mechanism, wages will grow relative to house prices and savings. The generation who exploited their own children, dependant on savings and house prices, will be on the recieving end of the values their own actions created in their children.'
They don't need to protest, they have time on their side.
Complain about this comment
Morning Robert,
may I ask what this blog has to do with bankers or banking?
I would like to make the following observations:-
1) If the Conservatives had proposed the tuition fee system, there would have been a lot of opposition from the CBI but as it was Labour who introduced this system, well they are all pretty straight kinda guys,aren't they?
The system hasn't achieved Labour objectives (al la Comprehensive Education) so it should be dismantled forthwith.
If anyone in Government states that we (as a nation) can't afford something like University education, please remind them how much they are throwing away supporting a failed banking system.
2) I was at university at a time when a certain Jack Straw was NUS president. He called for a general student strike to complain about the unfairness of the "parental contribution" system that was then in operation. My, how times change now he is a Government minister!
The old system before student loans company was formed worked, and worked well, if one applied oneself (I managed to get a company grant to help me pay my bills).
I left university with no debt largely because credit cards weren't available to students and I did a sandwich course which allowed one to earn as well as study.
The stewardship of education under Labour government has not produced positive results at any level and I fear that the employment prospects of new graduates will be dire (as it was in the early 70's).
So what's to be done? I see nothing positive in the CBI recommendations but as we found recently, the Conservative party supports the Labour party when education is debated in The House.
Complain about this comment
If I arrived in the Dragons Den with a proposal: Give me £142,000 over my lifetime of the next fifty years (about £3,000 a year) and I will boost the economy. The Dragons might consider it and then, presuming they were not out for whatever soundbite, take 50% of whatever I make. That is the scenario the CBI is pitching for: 50% of whatever graduates make. But what the CBI ignore is that the Graduates are the Dragons investing in themselves.
It is not a matter of intergenerational justice but, mor profoundly, of fundamental justice. People are being coralled into education, charged to be there and then given - frankly - no return on their investment. Why should they do it?
The CBI and the Balls Peston Generation need the creation of a vital, dynamic and thriving economy that can be provided by a younger generation of graduates working hard and sustaining the lifelong bubble of privilege that the Baby Boomer Generation has. Whichever way the Younger Generation is manipulated - because the Older Generation is most definitively "in charge" (although not in control) and arranging the situation to suit themselves. Regardless of future generations. Regardless of the issue being Intergenerational Justice or a moer Fundamental Justice, the Balls Peston generation is ensuring that the burden of financial obligation - that magical £43,000 of debt we all have from the "Profit Crunch" subsidy - does not fall to them.
An old fashioned Marxist might comment about the resurgence of class. A more jaded voice would point out that the ruling class is of a generation.
Complain about this comment
'Across society, those whose agreement was needed to create a high house price economy, all voted and influenced for their own enrichment while watching their grandchildren and those of their secretaries, being put in to creches at a few months old. Be they newsnight editors, senior bankers or our friend's parents, greed consumed them and still does. We owe them nothing.'
These people will be holding the reigns of power in twenty years time.
This is very, very frightening,
where was I when personal freedoms in the UK were being eroded, safe behind 'boom and bust abolished'.
Where was I when WMD were claimed in Iraq, did I attend the David Kelly funeral, did I stand up for the Guildford Four, did I stand up for anything, NO
Am I ashamed as to what has been done in my name, YES.
Am I to blame for what has been done in my name, YES.
Because I am weak in the face of overwhelming opposition I have allowed these things to be done in MY name, extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation, TORTURE, in my name, the list goes on.
That I could be threatened with any of these things on UK soil using UK law without having done anything wrong but to question their merit has meant that I have not had the courage to stand up to those who IN MY NAME would use those powers against ME and my kin
Just what kind of legacy are we leaving for our young ?
What is wrong with the people in power ?
How can I hold my head up high in front of a youth who legitimately claims 'What have you ever done for me, grandpa?'
What ?
Sorry Son, I did nothing,
Complain about this comment
@sagamix
So children parents who have no faith whatsoever in the state system, who scrape together and sacrifice to get their children a better education than the state can provide, should be penalised in further education. And this is "equality"?
Well that's mighty fair, I'll say.
So I guess private tuition out of hours should be banned too? That's not fair.
And parents helping their kids learn by getting them interested in academic matters should be prevented from doing so too I suppose? After all, not everyone's parents do that so it would be unfair!
Where is the line, and why exactly do you feel that children should not be able to benefit from the hard work and love of their parents?
Your poisonous, jealous sort of thinking is exactly what leads us to the New Labour school of though. A race to the bottom, because anyone getting a good education based on the blood sweat and tears of their parents is obviously over-0privileged and should be punished.
Retrogressive horse-puckey.
Complain about this comment
Hey Pesto !
Ok lets wave the magic redistribution of wealth wand from those of us who benefited in these greedy times and maybe at the same time swap the roles of those Oxbridge types in banking with those in politics.
Then instead of having people of so called conviction but with no ability to improve the nations wealth we will have people with no conviction but with great ability to improve the nations wealth.
Complain about this comment
Our nation does incredibly well, turning out armies of educated morons. Let well enough alone.
Complain about this comment
# 69 - # 69 welcome pumpkin – you must be looking forward to Halloween.
The point is that shocks happen. I could name many but the oil crisis of the 70’s or the dot com boom are good examples. Many people argued that those were the end of our way of life but we came through them all. Yes they are tough and we need to make sure that we learn some real lessons from each. But the idea that this is Armageddon is in my view well over the top. We will live through this recession and move on. Many of the vitriolic comments on this and other blogs are driven by a political attempt to knock the government. While, in some ways, that is justified it does not help in a mature debate on the real lessons that need to be learnt and the real actions which need to be taken.
Complain about this comment
So if your generation royally messed up to leave us (me too) with a bleak future, when the rich ones from that generation retire early (which would be around now), we twenty-somethings should be entitled to some restitution from the pension pot.
In an ideal world of course!
Complain about this comment
I remember the good old days when the Director General of the CBI was a captain of industry (you know where they actually make things) having worked their way up through the company organisation and in some cases actually built up a company from scratch. Now we have this chap Lambert who has worked at the keyboard as a newspaper hack, done a sabatical at Harvard and was appointed onto the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee.
Yes I can see that he would fully understand what UK industry needs ... not. So he wants bigger loans when the Student Loan company is struggling to find the money to loan this year's intake! And the SLC is struggling as last year's graduates and those before have not all found work at a salary level that would enable them to start paying off their loans.
We are back to what started the credit Crunch in the first place - too much debt not being paid back. This burden will also curtail this generations's consumption patterns which in turn prolongs the recession. If this is what constitutes logical thinking, then I am afraid that it is time to confine the CBI to the scrapheap.
Dumb and dumber encapsulates neatly these two Oxford graduates.
Complain about this comment
Three questions
1 If you earn more following a degree you will pay more tax so why do you pay now as well?
2 If you can benefit from additional education you pay but if you benefit from affitional health care either because of genetic or lifestyle factors you don't even if you can afford to. Why?
3 The state used to collect tax and then deide how to spend it, so motoring taxes aren't all spent on roads. Now, in addition to this approach the state collects tax ia specifi charges. Does this reveal anyting other than the inability of the state to properly allocate the tax it collects to the places it wants to spend it?
Complain about this comment
#14 John-from-Hendon
Normally enjoy what you have to say but this was too personal
First degree = geOLOGY (that's a full science with lots of engineering and maths)
Professional training degree = hydrOLOGY (maths, physics and engineering)
Paid for in full without state aid or parental monies and NO debt in strike ridden '70's. Worked 15-20hr/wk plus all holidays (when not on compulsory field-work trips).
Not that its helping me much right now.....
Complain about this comment
#87 I whole heartedly agree, it's time to make a difference and blow the establishment totally out of the water.
Personally speaking I will hope and pray for people not to vote for ANY of the major parties. They were all sitting there doing nothing but rake in the cash while the economy bubbled, WMD didnt exist, war after war, mass immigration, a coordinated destruction of English culture and our manufacturing industry decimated (still being decimated ala Mandy).
On education no one will grab the bull by the horns and state that the majority learnt in this so called education system is USELESS and politically BIASED.
Why should anyone pay for jumping pointlessly through hurdle after hurdle only to find in the work place they dont have a skill set worth squat ?
The education system should be dismantled, thrown in the dustbin, those that have created it should be thrown out of the country and a new work based skills system should be created. Tests should be banned unless the career being aimed for requires a great deal of information to be retained - for example a Cabby or a Pilot. All other careers paths should be based on results - ie Can the student do the task at hand ? Of course this would require a close relationship with business.
The education system as it stands specifcally gives teachers and the rich the ideal avenue to progress their children to the top of the career tree - the other children who are too niave don't even realise what is going on and aren't even unaware they are being held back by those supposedly "teaching" them.
Like so much in the UK the education system is not fit for purpose other than serving the education system itself - utterly pointless and useless.
As regards who should pay ??? What morals does our dear so called "Prime Minister" have ? A Scott making the English pay through the nose while those in Scotland get free education. Never mind the other oldies in power who have ALL had the opportunity of free university education.
Get ALL of these self serving corrupt MP's out yesterday, it wouldn't be soon enough.
Complain about this comment
I agree with a previous comment that moving from the home environment into university lifestyle is the best possible start to an adult life for many people. However.... I cannot help but think that with a little more study each year by students we could reduce the burden of debt on young people by shortening course duration by a year or more without any reduction in quality.
Complain about this comment
gothnet @ 88
no, it's not driven by envy, it's about equality of opportunity and raising standards - our obsession with private schooling is very peculiar (to us) and, what's more, it's very peculiar
Complain about this comment
I suspect most people agree that the 50% rate is a nonsense not least because it means that half the population are going to know that they are going to pay towards the education of the "elite" 50%, all of whom would expect to earn more than those who dont go to uni.
The second point is that a huge number of the 50% who do go are going to become tremendously disillusioned if the degree they achieve does not turn out not to be all that it was cracked up to be in future job opportunities or earning power and they are saddled with a huge debt for the privilege.
The third point is that a lot of children who go to uni are going because it is the aspiration of their parents - hardly a basis for a successful outcome given how stroppy young people can be in their late teens (rightly so as they seek to make their own decisions).
When I was at Grammar Schoool in the 1940s it was closer to 20% and the route to Uni was clearly defined. It was exclusive and a lot of great people were excluded. The fact that I didnt go on having won a scholarship was my own fault. Oddly, I think I did better than I would have done had I got a degree in those days - enrolled into CIMA by the army as a mature student at age 29, qualified as a Chartered Management Accountant in two years and ended up as a Senior Civil Servant. With not an O or A level to my name.
If you look at the old 20% proportion it would be quite easy to focus those students, plus probably ten per cent more, on the degrees that the country needs - not what the individual wants. That is the quid pro quo for giving the student the opportunity. If that could be linked much more to companies and to the public services as the CBI suggests then that would be a positive - rather as football clubs do already. Over 30% and you are beginning to have to include apprenticeships and training for important tasks like nursing, assistant teachers, social workers and military and the police. None of those necessarily need a degree, but do need a formal protracted period of training and development which would be far more value than a degree in a spurious subject.
Thus I think the whole debate should start from the needs of the country, allied to the need to give young people the best opportunity they can to succeed whether at uni or not, allied to further education opportunities for late developers of the kind I had. Not as at present - give everyone an education and then hope that what comes out at the other matches what we need.
I know this is the wrong time to expect a reduction in uni places - the Government would do anything to avoid more young people appearing on the unemployed stats.
Complain about this comment
Debt is now a way of life....FACT. I can't have sympathy for the people complaining about wanting to do a certain job and having to live off of a certain amount a week because of student debt. Thats just life. Thats what you want to do, its your choice...thats how it is.....At least you can get a student loan. I want to fly for a living with the airlines and that will set me back about 70K .... yes 70! So get over yourself! I can't get a bursary so i have to work for a couple more years to finance my training.......doing a "dead end job"...its not becasue i am thick, its because some careers don't have the luxuray of a student loan, and becasue of which, we have to take responsibility for our own actions and future.
I do agree that there are too many people at Uni, There are to many pointless courses. You can get a degree in making beds i am sure!
The trouble is i do find that a lot of graduates come out and Expect a job or higher salary. What you need to realsie is that Uni is such a popular thing to do now, its almost as common as an A-Level or GCSE...so why would you be worth more?
Complain about this comment
#91 blogjt Your musings encapsulate a broad swathe of the systemic weaknesses threatening to engulf the age of rationality.
You say you are an economist, and urge a mature debate on real lessons that need to be learned and real actions that need to be taken.
You studiously avoid explaining how a $15 trillion economy can rescue an entire banking sector where just one bank has derivatives exposure with a gross value of $87 trillion.
Is this not a mature question? Is there nothing that can be learned by looking at these two numbers? Or do you think that rationality requires that we just close our eyes and hope it all goes away.
An economist should have some understanding of perspective. You say that the dotcom bubble and the oil crises (there were two: 1973 and 1979)of the 1970´s were claimed to represent a systemic risk to our way of life. This is manifestly untrue - no serious analyst ever suggested that these events could of themselves plausibly act as an harbringer for the end of the post war economic model. There is however plenty of analysis that suggests that flawed policy responses to these events planted the seeds of the current crisis.
If policy was so flawed in the past (think the Kissinger "rejectionism" model for the Middle East peace, and the Greenspan loose money policy) then what rational basis exists to suppose that policy responses today are any more informed?
One way of creating such a rational basis would be for economists to answer prefectly reasonable questions, and not try to hide behind a fog of empty rhetoric.
Maybe reasonable questions cannot be answered, because the answers are so unreasonable.
Complain about this comment
I've quickly scanned this blog and see many references to the NU Labour target of 50% school leavers going to Uni.
The best explanation I've heard as to how this target was arrived at is this.
Gordon... 'I think Gordon we should aim to have 60% going to University'.
Tony... 'We can't have that it would make the 40% that don't in the minority and discriminated against. No it should be 40% going to University.
Gordon... 'No that would make the 40% that do a privileged class. We can't have that' Oh no!.
Tony... 'Then what do you suggest?.
Gordon... 'Ummm. Let me think'.
Tony... 'Um'.
Tony and Gordon in a brief show of unity... 'I know 50%. Yes 50% that makes it all fair. 50% privileged and 50% discriminated against and we're in the clear. That's our policy then. We'll have 50% going to university'.
Complain about this comment
@101. armagediontimes
Took a hundred posts but finally the Peston blog is back to the banking crisis. Well done. NOT.
Complain about this comment
Face it - it's not in the Governments interests to educate as it might end up with a population which can question it's irrational and idiotic behaviour.
However messing with the students is a dangerous game for Governments - your history lessons should have taught you that (or those of you who listened)
Complain about this comment
When did universities become about training for anything other than research? The whole degree structure is designed and aimed at giving undergraduates a solid foundation in their subject, so that they can then specialise in post-graduate research, then specialise further as an academic.
The vast majority of the country do not want to become researchers - the vast majority of the country should not be trained for work at a university. By all means, a university is a place which will change your life and teach you how to think, but it is not fit for the purpose with which it is being put to use. Let us not forget that the university exists to benefit society with the research it produces, for without this knowledge we would not have industry in which to work.
Students are not the customers of universities, they are like interns to their professors. There is no right to be educated for the needs of their future employment, other than as researchers. How can it be any other way? Instead, employers should be asking for industry certification in the particular skills that they require.
Instead of lumbering millions of students with debt they can't afford and qualifications they can't use, shouldn't the government be funding and encouraging young people to take courses in a relevant certification, and funding universities to do what they are designed for - research? (and the training of young people to become researchers?)
Complain about this comment
88. At 02:10am on 22 Sep 2009, Gothnet wrote:
@sagamix
So children parents who have no faith whatsoever in the state system, who scrape together and sacrifice to get their children a better education than the state can provide, should be penalised in further education. And this is "equality"?
....errrr - you've started at a point of in-equality by being able to opt out of the state system making the argument weighted in your favour.
Adding phrases like 'scraped together' doesn't cover the fact that you have been able to afford what others cannot. Some people can scrimp and save all they like they could never afford private education.
You cannot start from a position of inequality and then compare further equality from that position - it makes no sense.
If you look at your argument the reason that 'you have no faith in the state system' is purely because others opt out of it - indicating to you that
a) There's something wrong with it
b) The 'most intelligent' are being removed from the state system.
There are a lot of parents out there who think they can 'buy their childs future success' by paying for private education. Sadly by the time most kids reach school it's too late to change their learning abilities.
This is why private education is a farce - only those parents who 'fear their child won't be educated properly' will use private education - and this is usually because they have no confidence in their own intelligence - i.e. "I want my child to have a better chance than I did" - which indiactes your own lack of self belief.
I on the other hand want my child(ren) to have exactly the same opportunities (or lack of them) as I did - otherwise they will not grow up with the same abilities I have (which I am proud of)
Only parents can improve that by spending time with and stimulating their children in the early years - however this directly conflicts with the Capitalist society which ensures we're working longer hours and go back to work sooner following childbirth.
Simply working harder to earn more money to pay for someone else to do the job you would have done better would not be accepted if it were plumbing, or carpentry etc.
However it seems an exception is always made for education - maybe it's the lack of it in the first place which causes the lack of thought into choosing private education.
....just think about it for a minute...anyone can be rich and afford to send their kids to a private school (lottery winners for example) - but how many can say they made it through an inner London comprehensive and managed to attend Oxford?
Which version would you be more proud of?
Complain about this comment
"3. At 4:55pm on 21 Sep 2009, Justin150 wrote:
Maybe the 50% of all kids should go to university is an unattainable, unaffordable objective - leaving aside whether it would actually do any good. If the numbers were reduced to say 1/3rd of school leavers would UK economy suffer?
Fortunately my children have at least 2 general elections to go before they go to university so the policy will change at least 3 times before then but I am expecting the cost to be £10,000 pa per student (in todays prices) some of which no doubt the bank of ma and pa will be funding"
I have just costed my son going to universaty...
At the moment
3,300 tuition fees (ALL universities he looked at charge the MAX)
5,800 First years accomodation
800 Course recomended first years books
2,400 50per week food/washing bill for 40 weeks
---------
12,300 For first year alone or 30-36K over 3 years.
Yes he could save 2000 ish by not using the university students digs but its still over 10k
What a good start in life having 30+ debt when he leaves!
The average sal of students leaving the course 3years ago was 20k, 2years ago was 19.6k and last year was 18k. 30% of last years leaves do not yet have a job. This is a good science course in a good university!
Yet the goverment still states University is worth it.
But then the goverment manifesto stated thay would NOT bring in top-up or tutition fees and they only wone the vote because the scottish MP's knowing it didnt apply to their kids voted it in for the rest of the UK!
Complain about this comment
The mantra was 'we want to encourage young people to go to university to get a degree because those that do tend to have higher wages and standards of living'
Well, who wouldn't want a slice of that?
The catch of course is that there just aren't enough highly paying jobs and the more graduates that get produced the lower the chances of getting one.
There are 350 FTSE350 companies, say 10 people on the board and 10 in the management team. Second tier, maybe 100 people, third tier maybe 1000. That means about 40,000 top ranking jobs in these companies.
You could go on and say OK there are about 500 local authorities in the UK - another 40,000 top ranking jobs.. Fire service, Police..., Schools
Civil service.... who knows
NHS - maybe 60,000
Anyway there are perhaps 600,000 senior management jobs with all the perks and pay that these offer.
How long do the individuals stay in these posts (or just move from one to another) - say 15 years (age 50 - 65)?
So the chances of any one of the 300,000 or so graduates being produced each year reaching heady or even moderate heights is pretty low.
Some will start their own business, some will be civil, mechanical, electrical or chemical engineers or doctors and nurses but most will do jobs that were done for many years without a degree or debt.
According to http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=169329§ioncode=26
One quarter to one third of jobs previously non-graduate are now graduate positions.
Its hardly surprising that the finance industry, property development, estate agency has been appealing to the young- its one way to make money without flogging through the ranks to 'earn' a senior role
Complain about this comment
#104 writingsonthewall. Maybe you should be better disposed to private education as you are mixing up your tenses. Messing about with students WAS a dangerous game. Not any longer, the betting of the oligarchs is that the population in general is so supine that it will offer no resistance, no matter how banal or inane the policy and no matter how great the lie.
Student, pensioner, employed, unemployed, sick, healthy - none of it makes any difference, If you wont, or can´t, stand up and fight you are going to get crushed.
Complain about this comment
Shock horror the CBI finally when it's all too late and the damage is institutionalised they decide that business perhaps should contribute more to educating the workers it needs to be competitive in the future.
Crocodile tears I am afraid from a group which is relentlessly representative of greed in our society and is part of the problem in our society.
Had Lamberts predecessors and members not spent much of the last 30 years reducing the amounts they spend on training their workforce of the future and passing the responsibility to central government much may have been different. Had they not complained bitterly about training levies, that was a great one, that they could better spend the money on training themselves rather than contribute to general levies and then when the levies and requirement to train was lifted procedeed to do neither, train nor contribute, but gosh look at those profits and forget the smaller business who now could not compete nor get trained staff.
Seeking more graduates/higher level trained at someone elses cost whilst complaining they need lower taxes to compete, well how else can they oversupply the market to get the costs of employing educated people they need down.
The CBI is just a representative microcosm of our society in general - they want something (trained people who will earn money for the owners) and they don't really want to pay for it.
Same with every other area of public policy - we would like more spent provided it is someone elses money or in the current climate - we want it cut provided it doesn't actually affect ME. Well avoidance of difficult questions and failure to appreciate the moral hazard of societies choices is what gets us to where we are.
In debt up to our eyeballs but unwilling do more than try to think of ways to pay it back with someone elses money. A recent California election presented 6 resolutions to electors to try to resolve their budget problems, 5 which either cut services or increased taxes in general and one which specifically affected only public officials - guess what 5 failed and one passed, you don't need to be a genius to guess which one passed. The one that did not affect ME.
Our electoral process and political system only ever produces the same results - we are now seeing a hairy shirt contest of who can cut the most but without actually cutting anything we might value or use. Painless cuts because deep down much of the electorate are unwilling to vote to anything that might affect us directly unless that means more money for us. (ergo NHS is sacrosanct, education well its efficiency but same 'quality').
We need to stop thinking of money as being ours in perpetuity - we can fund free education and student grants - easy simple, no living person suffers. 100% Inheritance tax on money and assets. Dead people don't need educating, no longer need healthcare, don't need roads (excepting a relatively short trip) and crucially don't get a vote (though from recent elections I am not entirely sure about that point).
The older generation can fund their replacements. It is how our society got to where it is, the wealthy gave back to society the surplus benefits of their wealth to fund a general improvement in society. It is also for example why US system is better, their rich still endow privately 'public' amenities to a far greater extent than our rich do (they seem to favour endowing offshore banks and other unproductive institutions). There is a reason that many institutions are named as they are in the US other than respect for a life well lived - these people gave substantial parts of their wealth to found them and support them (as opposed to the silly academy system here where tiny donation gets power but all costs are borne by someone else).
We need to consider that the wealth we accumulate through our own efforts is ours to do what we please with whilst we are alive but when we are gone - that stored wealth reverts to benefit of society as a whole since we gathered it from society as a whole during our life since is it surplus to that persons needs. For every person with more than average means someone lost out - that's capitalism but we are not going to change that so no point trying just try to deal with the fallout.
Somewhere along the road the purpose of working hard and saving for your old age got lost. The purpose is to provide for yourself - we see now, free old age care, greate debates over why when an old person needs permanent residential care they should not have to sell their house to pay for it so that the house can be passed down to their family. The Conservatives inheritance tax 'vote winner' of increasing the tax free amount - giving money to dead people in my view whilst promising the rest of us cuts and higher taxes probably to pay for the debt these dead people racked up on our behalf. Well thanks a bunch.
If the next generation want the cash from this house - well look after your parents and use the cash from the house to fund it. Don't expect society as a whole from the richest to the poorest to fund it so that the money is available to those in their will tax free.
So we can and should fund student course (tuition and teaching costs)and seek to provide the best education we can to give the following generations the skills to enable them to support themselves without starting working life in extreme levels of debt. It is what most have had and now we seek to deny it to others which is obscene hypocrisy.
Take the views expressed by the younger contirbutors and think on - if all we are seeking to do is load them with debt so that money can be returned to our pension pots, free care or artifically lowered taxes them we will reap what is being sown and it will not be pretty.
Complain about this comment
On a more personal note...
Students of my era did not have PCs or mobile phones or ipods etc. I was the only person I knew with a credit card which I never used. I never knew why I was sent this. Virtually no-one had a car. You phoned home once a week, didn't go home unless essential because it was expensive to do so, spoke with old friends in the holidays, didn't eat out or go to clubs, holidays were spent with parents or not at all, Christmas holidays were spent delivering the post and Mr Bloggs had three sweaters that lasted for years (I still have one as a momento of the time).
The students I knew lived within their means and some who didn't get a full grant also didn't get a top up from their parents either
We had an 'arrangement' with the National Westminster branch near where I worked to be able to draw a check on an account at another branch.
You needed a 10% deposit to get a mortgage and needed to save with the lending institution for 2 years. Oh and only half the second salary was counted. No mortgages were fixed rate and the interest rate was, in my experience never lower than 8%. It was no easier to buy a house or a flat in the south east then as now even for a couple of moderately capable bloggses.
We have lived sensibly and paid off any debts as we have gone along
We have paid our taxes and have, hopefully turned our kids into useful adults
So, I don't know who the WE Robert refers to are. We refer to THEM and THEY
Complain about this comment
#107
If you paid for your sons university costs it would be from taxed income too, so actually, the cash required is rather more
Complain about this comment
And finally
despite all the students and costs Mr Bloggs and Brother Bloggs have to scour the world for chemical engineers
Complain about this comment
Have you heard the one about a bunch of crooked MPs commissioning a study, with taxpayers money, from rich City bosses on where to find the money for studying (what with the City bankers having mislaid it, somehow)?
So the big City bosses came back and said: "Well now, you and I, Eddy, we can fork out for out little darlings to go to Oxbridge, can't we? Just make sure all that riffraff doesn't get their places first. Tell you what, make the rest of them pay 5K, let's see how quickly they drop the idea. Now, about my consultancy fee..."
You are right, it's not a very funny joke, is it?
You and I, who did go to Oxbridge for free, some of us starting out with nothing at all except our brains - wouldn't we be ready to pay just a bit extra tax to help our children's generation do the same? Why can't we just do that - a graduate tax to fund new graduates?
As I remember, the brightest students were never the ones who got in because daddy paid for the new college building, and who excelled at rugby at Eton. Yet if they are the only ones who can afford to study, we'll have even more incompetent politicians, bankers and bosses that we already have.
The brightest students are the ones who know what the real world is like - and not many of those have the money to pay £5,000 tuition fees.
Those of us who did a degree on our brains alone, may have earned just enough afterwards to have repaid our own education in taxes, but still not enough to afford to put our children through university. That is because we don't have mounds of inherited wealth to start with. And we have mortgages.
So we'll have a generation so laden with debt that their children won't even have a roof over their heads, never mind a degree, or we'll be a nation of uneducated low paid workers sliding back into third-world status. Meanwhile India, China and Europe's more competent governments will have the nouse to give their young people a decent education and decent jobs - the British school leavers will just be sitting here counting holes in their pockets or fighting tooth and claw for every McJob.
Seriously, our taxes must be used to give our children a chance, not to keep patching up the burst property bubble and paying for bankers' bonuses the size of UK's budget deficit.
Shame on the CBI bosses and Ed Balls & Co for spitting in the well they'd been lucky to drink from.
Complain about this comment
@106 writingsonthewall
"If you look at your argument the reason that 'you have no faith in the state system' is purely because others opt out of it - indicating to you that
a) There's something wrong with it
b) The 'most intelligent' are being removed from the state system."
Where did you get that from? I have no faith in the state system because it fails people, not anything to do with the actions of other people. This is purely because the state system uses trendy new teaching methods that result in nothing being done.
"There are a lot of parents out there who think they can 'buy their childs future success' by paying for private education. Sadly by the time most kids reach school it's too late to change their learning abilities."
But it's not too late to get them a better standard of teaching.
"I on the other hand want my child(ren) to have exactly the same opportunities (or lack of them) as I did - otherwise they will not grow up with the same abilities I have (which I am proud of)"
Or they might grow up with better abilities and shame you.
"Only parents can improve that by spending time with and stimulating their children"
Blatantly not true, or why would we bother to try keeping class sizes low? Or give children individual attention?
"Simply working harder to earn more money to pay for someone else to do the job you would have done better would not be accepted if it were plumbing, or carpentry etc."
I take it you've never heard of anyone running a plumbing business or carpentry shop with more than one employee then?
Or subcontracting?
"....just think about it for a minute...anyone can be rich and afford to send their kids to a private school (lottery winners for example) - but how many can say they made it through an inner London comprehensive and managed to attend Oxford?
Which version would you be more proud of?"
What has pride got to do with anything?
I started my education in the state system. I was allowed to sit back and achieve nothing. I learned nothing. My parents, at great cost to themselves as they are not by any means rich, pulled me out of the useless state school I was in and sent me to a minor public school. At said school it was made clear to me by dedicated teachers and more traditional teaching techniques that sitting on my bum all day and not getting anywhere was not acceptable. On top of that I had better learning materials and resources available to me.
If I had stayed in state school I would not have got the education I did. I would not have been prepared to go to university as I did. I would not have this well paid job and I would not be contributing masses of taxes back to the public purse.
But according to you it's all about pride and it would somehow have been better all around if I'd failed miserably in an environment that didn't push me to succeed, because that would have been more fair.
Do you not see how poisonous and damaging that view is?
That we should all have to put up with mediocrity because it's "fair"?
Someone that went to public school, as I did, did not cost the taxpayer a penny in school costs. Why should they and their parents, who have been paying into the British tax system like everyone else then be denied access to taxpayer funded further education?
It's people like you and your ilk that are responsible for the UK being the way it is. To younger professional people like me this country seems to do nothing but take, take take and never give anything back.
Well I've had enough and I'm leaving, I know a large number of others planning to do the same for the reasons mentioned in this blog post - houses are ridiculous, taxes are high, pensions are rubbish - and because of people like you who consider working hard and making money to be some sort of sin rather than being good for the economy and good for the country.
Complain about this comment
I'd also like to ask writingsonthewall whether he/she is of the opinion that he and the UK government ought to be able to decide how children are educated instead of their parents?
Because that's something else he/she is advocating - centralised government control of your children with no option to opt out.
Complain about this comment
Think the rates for tuition should remain static, but the number of places needs a reduction and some Universities either need to seek private funding or close.
The rationale behind this thought is that too many Universities are offering courses that pertain zero value to the economy at large, but drain resources from those areas that do.
For example; arts and media are not valid subjects for state funding, but rather should be funded by those industries themselves. We must preserve the sciences and foster a culture where University is for those that merit a place, not just a target from the Government.
Complain about this comment
"Shouldn't the older generation bequeath them something other than debt?"
It would be wrong to penalise the current generation for the follies of a stupid government, way out of its depth in these matters. Many of us (thorugh blogs and forums and direct to our MPs) complained about the unbridled borrowing of the generation following us. Thanks to Thatcher, any worthwhile regulation of banks was scrapped and no attempt was made to encourage prudence - which the banks had, previously - mainly by telling us that if our loan repayments are already 1/3 of our available spending money, you can't have it.
It was obvious that the property bubble would burst - prices rising at 10% per year over what? 10 years, when wages raised but a fraction of that. And prices will still fall - you watch. In spite of the government trying to boost sales turnover still at bubble prices. Some of us tried to warn people but no one was interested. The banks were profiting hugely; so was NuLab with their substantial tax take.
So I think we should consider how those who allowed us to get into this state ought to be held to account first if they're still alive.
Certainly I don't want to be punished for my prudence, for my efforts to urge restraint on the spending/borrowing boom.
I think poster #1 had the best idea when coupled to the CBI's recommendation about business sponsorship: if you just want a degree because it'll make you feel better - then do it part time; use the Open University model. At least the takers will focus on their education and less on the much vaunted social side (though even the Open University caters to this in its way).
I certainly don't want the young to pay my bills unless this government wrecks things enough that in spite of my savings and pension provisions, I find myself destitute. It might happen. But will there be enough young people in a position to pay our bills?
Complain about this comment
'Thank you for your honesty - it will make it all the easier when we're in charge of a battered, bloodied planet, and we're all still up to our eyeballs in your debt, to vote 'yes' to the referendum on an involuntary euthanasia bill for all over 65s...'
'Across society, those whose agreement was needed to create a high house price economy, all voted and influenced for their own enrichment while watching their grandchildren and those of their secretaries, being put in to creches at a few months old. Be they newsnight editors, senior bankers or our friend's parents, greed consumed them and still does. We owe them nothing.
'In the coming years, whatever the mechanism, wages will grow relative to house prices and savings. The generation who exploited their own children, dependant on savings and house prices, will be on the recieving end of the values their own actions created in their children.'
Except all those who caused the problems will have left the country to live lifes of luxury in tax havens and the ones up against the walls will be those of us who are being screwed just as much as the kids of today...
Complain about this comment
Gothnet
I dont care about the rest of your post at 115 on what Writingonthewall may or may not have said with which you took exception.
In the last two paragraphs you say:
To younger professional people like me this country seems to do nothing but take, take take and never give anything back".
It is high handed in the extreme for you to assume you speak for all younger professional people as you have done. I assure you you dont, from my experinece of my own children who are in that category, and friends and their children. In my opinion your view of the country as "never giving anything back" shows me that we could well be better off without you were you to leave as you suggest you are going to do in your final paragraph.
This is a great country, made great by the people in it. From time to time we have disagreements with our politicians, with how we are run, and how things turn out. We dont like taxes and we all think we should be better off. Yet all over the world there are people who want to come here, some for the wrong reasons but a lot to better themselves, and in the process keep us great. That is how it has always worked. So if you are going be sure that there will be many wanting to take your place. I wish you well.
Incidentally, had you posted about the scandal of us having one million children living in poverty rather than about private education I might of understood where you were coming from. That is the real debate for our great country - equal opportunity for kids in poverty.
Complain about this comment
"And it believes the realistic alternatives are cutting research funding, slashing teaching budgets, reducing student numbers or whacking up the financial contribution made by undergraduates.
Presented with that unappetising menu,"
Hold on a minute, what's so unappetising about reducing student numbers? Anyone who thinks it's appropriate for 50% of the population to go to university is deluded. Reducing student numbers seems like an excellent idea to me.
Let's get rid of all the various McDegrees in media studies and the like, and get back to the situation when having a degree is actually worth something.
Complain about this comment
24. At 6:55pm on 21 Sep 2009, belovedjudge-mental wrote:
'Or, put another way - "go to University because it will increase your earning power - an even bigger chunk of which we're going to take off you".
How is this supposed to inspire people?
The point of Universities teaching the top few percent is that we, as a society, benefit from their knowledge. Punitive taxation based on implicit jealousy is insane.'
The problem is it is not just a few percent anymore and the money has to come from somewhere. You don't have to be jealous, implicitly or explicitly, to see that we simply cannot afford as a country to fund the level of university education that is now demanded.
I don't think it is outrageous to ask people that get financial benefit from their university education to contribute. Though, as per my earlier post, I think we need to be sure we don't charge them until they really start to see the financial benefit.
Complain about this comment
Robert, I take it from Mr Lambert's physical appearance that he was at Balliol a considerable number of years before you.
Complain about this comment
The question of generational fairness in paying tuition fees is a relative one. First of all, most of the "lucky" generation would be involved in helping their off-springs financially thus paying back their own debt to the society, in a way. For the second, consider the proportion of population attending higher education then to what is proposed to be now (50%). Are we really saying we, as a nation, should be be supporting such a high proportion of undergraduates?
There is also an issue of quality of education, something that CBI proposes to enhance. A number of university courses could be regarded as almost frivolous or often not taught to the standard expected. As a result we end up with a number of poor quality graduates often completely unprepared for demands of highly skilled jobs, that they aspire to, in the post-industrial economy.
Why can't we expand the vocational training? In any advanced economy there will always be a need for plumbers, builders, gardeners, chefs, electricians etc. We seem to be missing that vital bit in the middle. The much lauded NVQs are too concentrated on theory and do not seem to provide enough real skills - just look at the quality of food in most of pubs.
Finally, why not identify a list of "key professions" (one has to mention here doctors, engineers, teachers etc.) and make those courses completely free, perhaps with the help from businesses. So, if you have means and inclination/talent to study clubbing or juggling or any other interesting course you are free to do so - at no cost to anybody else.
Complain about this comment
gothnet @ 115
my parents, at great cost to themselves as they are not by any means rich, pulled me out of the useless state school I was in and sent me to a minor public school. At said school it was made clear to me by dedicated teachers and more traditional teaching techniques that sitting on my bum all day and not getting anywhere was not acceptable
that's great, babe, but we shouldn't let your particular personal experience dictate our National Education Policy, should we? - it's like, for example, somebody who's child is knocked over and badly injured by a drink driver will often judge that offence (drink driving) to be worse than, say, rape ... understandable, but best put to one side when it comes to laying down sentencing guidelines
Complain about this comment
majorroadaheadagain
I apologise for sounding like I was making the assumption for an entire group of people. Perhaps I should have said "To *many* younger professional people like me" because I assure you I'm really not alone in finding tax too high and perceived value back from paying it to be all too low.
This was once a great country it's true. But I find that now I don't just disagree with the government but with the masses of people who consent to be governed by it. Social engineering and government control freakery through surveillance and other methods are not my idea of a great country.
I'm sure there will be lots queuing to take my place when I leave, they're welcome to it.
Complain about this comment
@sagamix 125
"that's great, babe, but we shouldn't let your particular personal experience dictate our National Education Policy, should we? - it's like, for example, somebody who's child is knocked over and badly injured by a drink driver will often judge that offence (drink driving) to be worse than, say, rape ... understandable, but best put to one side when it comes to laying down sentencing guidelines"
So you agree that it would be better for the country if people like me were allowed to rot in a bad state school than give my parents the choice to take me out and turn me into a more productive member of society?
And you still think that because they did that I should be denied state funding for university?
Lovely, lovely. There's your equality, the removal of parental rights and the penalising of people that want and work for the best for their kids. Old-school socialism at it's backward-thinking finest.
Complain about this comment
Would you like to pay £36000 up front and then find - so sorry no jobs when you graduate? Only the filthy rich could afford such a thing - so the next solution is... student debt. Brilliant! Borrow £36000 up front and then have the privilege of paying interest too. All for the benefit of possibly but not necessarily getting a reasonably paid job.
A well educated society is for the benefit of all. We should all pay - that's what taxes are for. I agree it is difficult to ensure a fair tax on wealth but the idea of a nurse paying student loans treating the rich who inherited wealth with their account in the Caymans doesn't sound like a society I want to be part of.
Complain about this comment
Post 39 - You have some funny ideas about friendly nations. Are they a friend if we illegally invade another country together e.g. Suez or Iraq?
Complain about this comment
goth @ 127
hey, I'm sure your parents did the right (and a good!) thing ... although please bear in mind the "choice" required money ... but we don't want the fact that YOUR parents opted out of state education for YOU to form the blueprint of our education policy, do we? - oh and btw, it's the weather isn't it? ... you know, this Emigration business ... all the rest is Horse Radish, am I right?
Complain about this comment
#110 Well said.
"Obscene hypocrisy" says it all.
One might think there was a limit, but it continues to get worse.
We can finance MPs subsidised eating and drinking; 2nd mortgages; endless, badly, thought-out legislation and their childish immature name-calling. They take no responsibility. Perhaps that is their message: we had it all and look at us - a lot of cowardly, money-grabbing, posterior-licking, irresolute lot.
sagamix, perhaps you might want to penalise the offspring of those parents who fed their children well, taught them about responsibility and generally took their parental roles seriously. All in the name of "equality", of course.
Complain about this comment
Blogs from different BBC reporters are as disjointed as government departments. What we need is an industrial policy aimed at re-balancing the UK economy and a higher-education policy aligned to that. Businesses should indicate what degree subjects and outcomes they require and, perhaps, the state offer grants for the harder subjects. As for the rest - charge market prices or use the part-time study, distance learning model.
Complain about this comment
I don't agree with the amount of people claiming many degrees are worthless. In the UK that statement very much dependends on who you are and where you studied and by that I'm referring to social class. In many countries education is about education but sadly in class ridden pathetic little Britain education is not about education its about social stratification. We now have approximately 120 universities. For what is worth I've studied at a new university, a red brick and an ancient university. In terms of the standards there was nothing to choose between them and in the age of information all students can access the same sources anyway. The hogwash about top universities having the best academics is irrelevent if you are on a taught course because the best tutors are too busy with research to give you their time. A commitment to study at any UK university is life enhancing, i.e. the opportunity to meet people from all over the world, mix with different cultures, enhance your knowledge, appreciate different viewpoints and perspectives and broaden your horizons. This opportunity tends to produce law abiding individuals hoping for a stake in society. Sadly in Britain the evidence is ambiguous. I came from a working class background and originally benefited from studying at a new university. However, given the emphasis on league tables and their elitist connotations I was saddenned to recently hear academics suggesting that middle class students would be better off avoiding univerity unless it was a top tier establishment. Apparently they are better advised to use their cultural capital i.e. connections, resources etc to further enhance their position than demean themselves and lessen their stock by studying at a new university. It is this elitist stance that lies behind all the efforts to raise fees and further stratify our education system. The reality is we are miles away from operating in a meritocracy. Our elites do not want and never have competed on a level playing field. There are bright and capable people at all our universities new and old in the UK studying all kinds of subjects but look at who holds the top jobs. 7% of the UK population go to private schools but this small pool occupy 80% of our top jobs. With this kind of group think no wonder we are in such a mess. I recently read an article in the FT stating that in the current recession our investment banks have reduced their intake of graduates to a smaller pool encompassing the top six universities. This discriminatory and blinkered practice tells you all you need to know about our class ridden educational and business elite. They even have the cheek to refer to a 'war for talent' among our top businesses. Who gets identified as talent? You've got it, its our same old cronies from a select few top tier establishments. And guess what! once you've been identified as talent you are free to move around the old boys network wrecking havoc on society via mergers and acquisitions laying off lots of talented workers while enriching themselves beyond their wildest dreams. It will only be those who are not identified as 'talent' that will be subject to the indignity of performance appraisal. If you don't perform your out a job. If our talent pool don't perform so what, let's all swap seats at the head of UK plc and mess it up again. Unlike joe six pack the renumeration of the so called talent pool has become detached from performance. That is why we keep hearing this nonsense about removing the ceilling on fees. They don't want to compete equally because we all know they'd be found sadly wanting. The reality is social mobility is dead in the UK due to this rotten system. We must oppose moves to stratify our system further. Raising fees is simply intended to bolt shut for ever an already closed door.
Complain about this comment
#120 "Incidentally, had you posted about the scandal of us having one million children living in poverty rather than about private education I might of understood where you were coming from. That is the real debate for our great country - equal opportunity for kids in poverty."
What is your definition of poverty? Lack of housing, clothes, shoes, heating, food, health care, education, water, refuse collection, highway and street lighting and maintenance, policing, fire and ambulance services?
Complain about this comment
Experience in industry leads me to suspect that many employers are already unconvinced that graduates are worth any extra pay over non-graduates. If the suggested changes occur I'm sure many will prefer to train an intelligent A-level student themselves rather than pay the inflated expectations of graduates with huge tuition bills and few practical skills.
Complain about this comment
109. At 11:20am on 22 Sep 2009, armagediontimes
You disappoint me with your lack of faith in mankind. However you have shown in your post that once people are facing 'fight or crushing' then they will find their metal.
We all think our students are lazy bums no doing much - but that's the preception which is given to us from the media.
The reality is they are already getting militant about the increased fees with reduced facilites and student support. If they are not bothered then their fee paying parents will be!
Remember, students are from a set of people who have least to loose in society - as recession produces more and more of these the attitude of the country slowly changes.
When I am unemployed - I too shall have nothing to loose as will 3 million others.
Complain about this comment
115 Gothnet
"Where did you get that from? I have no faith in the state system because it fails people, not anything to do with the actions of other people. This is purely because the state system uses trendy new teaching methods that result in nothing being done."
...and you believe it fails people because.......maybe your own experience?
If you are like Government and 'rate' schools based on league tables then you might be foolish enough to believe this. However I have never met anyone who has been failed by the education system, rather failed by the support around them of that system - i.e. parenting.
Teachers have knowledge, they pass it on to those who are willing to learn. They cannot teach those who are not willing to learn - which comes down to parental upbringing in the early years.
For this system to fail then teachers would have to 'forget' what they should be teaching. The 'new trendy teaching methods' are often developed to try and make up for the children who have difficulty learning - making up for their parents failure - which are brought on as I mentioned previously, by lack of parent - child time.
Reading the daily mail and other tabloids also helps in the belief that the whole system is failing as those media types love to gossip about partial truths.
"But it's not too late to get them a better standard of teaching."
This sums it up nicely - you cannot 'teach better' - merely teach what you know (although I agree presentation is important).
Again, what parents today are expecting is for schools to develop 'new trendy' teaching methods to make up for their childrens 10 second attention span - brought on by a constant dribble of TV from an early age.
Sending my children to a private school will not automatically give my children more abilities than me. It might give them different bits of knowledge - but whether these are useful is debatable.
Sure the average private school child leaves knowing the words to 'Land of hope and glory' - but they will loose out on their ability to speak to people on the bus without sounding condescending.
"Blatantly not true, or why would we bother to try keeping class sizes low? Or give children individual attention?"
...as I explained before, it's too late by then.You can have a class size of 1 in schools but if you (as a parent) haven't instilled the fundamental joy and desire to learn already then it won't make a jot of difference.
"I take it you've never heard of anyone running a plumbing business or carpentry shop with more than one employee then?"
You mis-understand my point, why are you paying for someone to do the job a parent can and will do best - teach their child. It's only recently that parents absolve themselves of responsibility for their childs education - before that the son would learn from the father and the daughter from the mother - even when school supplemented this i.e. in Victorian times
Complain about this comment
A couple of people have referenced my earlier post, in particular the comment:
'Thank you for your honesty - it will make it all the easier when we're in charge of a battered, bloodied planet, and we're all still up to our eyeballs in your debt, to vote 'yes' to the referendum on an involuntary euthanasia bill for all over 65s...'
Just in case anyone was worried, I can reassure you it was delivered in nothing but jest; I have no desire to see my elders up against the wall anymore than I do to see my peers in debt and poverty!
I can’t help thinking though that the lack of coherent noise or protest so far on this topic (as pointed out by other posters here, and indeed on other forums I’ve seen today) is what should worry us all the most. As a subject this is heady stuff for protesters, commentators and observers on both sides of the debate, yet the reaction and arguments seem diluted almost. The discussions have hit some of the usual points one would expect (class, lazy students, greedy capitalists, unrealistic liberals etc) but it’s all seemed rather tame…
Have we as a society killed off large scale, public, vigorous and (most of all) unfettered debate? Have overreaching police powers, an unaccountable two party system, year after year (after year) of boom and bust economics, rampant consumerism, unchecked individualism, an unelected leadership and a lack of basic humanity left us all sat at home, happy to accept that ‘other’ people are making our decisions for us (rather than on behalf of us). Are a few blog posts, forum comments and pub debates all we can stir ourselves to in the face of the myriad of problems we face as a society at large?
So, yes, I was joking about lining people up against the wall. And no, I don’t really see this as an ‘us and them’ situation. But I do worry that we all, (Boomer, Gen-X and Gen-Y alike) have given up somewhat. Thoughtful and intelligent comments on this blog aside, I’m feeling a distinct lack of drive and determination from people to get out there and fix the problems in education, and beyond. Have we still got it in us?
Complain about this comment
#3
"Maybe the 50% of all kids should go to university is an unattainable, unaffordable objective - leaving aside whether it would actually do any good. If the numbers were reduced to say 1/3rd of school leavers would UK economy suffer?"
But at least that 50% helps prune the unemployment figures.
Complain about this comment
Gothnet
I had to start a whole new chapter for this lot:
"I started my education in the state system. I was allowed to sit back and achieve nothing. I learned nothing. My parents, at great cost to themselves as they are not by any means rich, pulled me out of the useless state school I was in and sent me to a minor public school. At said school it was made clear to me by dedicated teachers and more traditional teaching techniques that sitting on my bum all day and not getting anywhere was not acceptable. On top of that I had better learning materials and resources available to me."
You are supporting my argument here - you say you were 'allowed to sit back and achieve nothing' - well this seems clearly to be a problem with your upbringing and laziness being instialled as acceptable (I know very well as I had the same 'disease')
Our paths differed at that point as my parents did not seek the solution in another school - they recognised the problem was with ME and not the school. Unfortunately your parents decided differently (at much cost to themselves)
There were 4 kids from my year in the comprehensive who went to Oxbridge - why did they achieve and not me? Surely we were taught by the same teaching methods and in the same class sizes.
This bit makes me laugh out loud.
"If I had stayed in state school I would not have got the education I did. I would not have been prepared to go to university as I did. I would not have this well paid job and I would not be contributing masses of taxes back to the public purse."
I did stay in state school, I didn't go to university (from school anyway) and yet I find myself in an extremely well paid job in the city working for a FTSE 100 company.
What changed? - my desire to learn changed, I had none at school, but it came after I left (partly because I didn't want to learn what schools offer - regurgitated partial facts).
"But according to you it's all about pride and it would somehow have been better all around if I'd failed miserably in an environment that didn't push me to succeed, because that would have been more fair.
"
You assume here that you would have been a failure if you stayed at a comp. - however it was YOU that changed, which I say was inevitable regardless of where you educated yourself.
Your last three paragraphs seem to indicate your dissatisfaction with your position, you feel aggrieved that you had to pay twice for something which has left you struggling to afford a house, pay your taxes and have a decent pension and as a result you're leaving the country. Doesn't sound like the 'private education success story' it started out as.
I also object to your assumption that 'equality means mediocrity'. If all resources were poured into one system - and not spread out over several factions (Primary, Secondary, Further, Higher and Private education) then wouldn't we achieve excellence?
If you have a class mixed of mixed intelligence then the 'weak will benefit from the strong' - and vice versa (because not everything is purely down to IQ). However the private system seperates children which serves as a detriment to both sate.
We've all been brought up throughout our lives that 'money can fix everything' - well it simply isn't true and the private education system is proof of that.
You cannot expect schools to fill the gaps that working parents leave behind. Surely you learnt more from your Dad than you did from your teacher - I know I did...
Complain about this comment
116. At 11:55am on 22 Sep 2009, Gothnet wrote:
"I'd also like to ask writingsonthewall whether he/she is of the opinion that he and the UK government ought to be able to decide how children are educated instead of their parents?"
Should parents have to make the choice to begin with? It's clear they are making ill-informed ones as they are selecting schools the other side of town based on a 'league table' which is not reflective of improvement but rather an absolute measure of memory.
The impact of this is for all to see (for those of us who work in cities, you know when the school holidays are on)
The Government treats education like every other public body.
1) Run it down by under investment
2) Claim it's inefficient and the private sector could run it better
3) Sell it off cheap
4) Deregulate it until it implodes in a self inflicted clamber for profit.
5) Nationalise it - and get back to 1)
Opting out is not the solution - forcing Government to stop handing over taxpayer money to contractors, agencies, building companies (see today's fines) and other private sector areas (see PPI and other grandeos schemes) is the real solution.
Complain about this comment
#127 Gothnet
"Lovely, lovely. There's your equality, the removal of parental rights and the penalising of people that want and work for the best for their kids. Old-school socialism at it's backward-thinking finest."
...but surely what is best for the kids is for parents to spend as much time as possible with them and not simply go to work, never see the kids but pay for someone else to educate them?
You still work off the premise that working in an equal framework is somehow 'penalising people' - how can that be? Surely we all work together in equal measure to achieve - it's not about individualism - or maybe that's what they taught you at private school mmmmm...interesting....
It seems that what you did leanr at private school (which I missed out on) is the sense of the individuals liberty over the equality of others. Nice thought, except your world will always flounder in inequality and be subject to upheaval and rebellion.
That's a lesson I didn't need.
Complain about this comment
@120 majorroadaheadagain and @115 Gothnet:
Gothnet's attitude isn't uncommon amongst my peer group. It's likely to increase in the future as more and more of "Generation Y" start to realise just how much the economy is stacked against us.
We're paying 40% marginal tax (20% PAYE + 11% NI + 9% SLC), 50% (40% + 1% + 9%) if we're successful, for... what? We'll never get a state pension as it'll be abolished decades before we qualify - but not before we've paid for yours and the index-linked ones for a veritable army of civil servants. We get (and need) very little from the NHS, but are still paying for it. We still can't get on the property ladder because of the reinflating bubble, so we get abused by unscrupulous buy-to-let landlords and corrupt agencies.
It's true, nobody ever said life was fair... which is something for the rest of society to bear in mind when we decide to do what's best for ourselves and our families.
Complain about this comment
#127
"To all the older posters therefore (and indeed the doubtless many more reading and nodding in agreement) who say that the younger generation are self-indulgent, overly pandered to, nannyed and disrespectful; to those who claim that the value of grades are lower than in previous years, or that the youth of today are lazy, arrogant and looking for success without any of the requisite hardwork attached, I say:
Thank you for your honesty - it will make it all the easier when we're in charge of a battered, bloodied planet, and we're all still up to our eyeballs in your debt, to vote 'yes' to the referendum on an involuntary euthanasia bill for all over 65s..."
Huh, two points: 1) the way the world's going it might be the best choice;
2) the way the world's going, who says it'll still support humanity by the time you're 65?
About 1), unfortunately I'm one of the generation who helped create the mess by not protesting enough, not getting myself into politics to dissent... Many of our generation tried but they were given no ear at all, I can tell you. Many were arrested for insisting their voice was heard...but in the final analysis, the Milton Friedmanites had their way; control was surrendered to corporations and globalisations which has given us less well off a somewhat uncomfortable existence. Most of us now are merely vehicles through which money flows to fill the coffers of the already well off. We all (including you) are given a little pocket money to give the illusion that it's all worthwhile but basically our salaries are already committed before we get them. We did pay our way (tax, NI) but alas the money was frittered.
NI payments were poorly invested if at all; tax was frittered; our private pension funds were raided by Brown.
So, only those who lie behind the actions leading to this mess should be involuntarily euthenased at 65, better still, 60, and their assets seized to help pay for the clear up.
Complain about this comment
On these pages when the sub-prime topic was dominating the headlines, the general feeling was that perhaps lending ever increasing amounts of money
to NINJAs wasn't the smartest of ideas.
(NINJA = person with No Income, No Job or Assets)
The majority of students seem to fall squarely into the No Income, No Jobs or Assets category, so why now are the CBI and other influential bodies now
arguing in favour of a strategy that was so wrong not that many months ago.
Perhaps one of the biggest barriers to education is not the quality of the teaching, but an extremely short memory span.
Complain about this comment
The advice I give my children:
Emigrate, or
Form a political pressure group, dedicated to getting the young voters to renege on all government debt accrued since 1997 (it only pays for useless public sector pensions);
Borrow as much as you can on student loans, then emigrate without repaying (like many EU students do).
Why should they be lumbered with the debts run up to support welfare-state scroungers and public-sector wasters ? In my house we respect knowledge, education and frugality, but those values are for mugs, and I am sorry I didn't train them to be thieves, like so many in this society (they call themselves 'Labour supporters').
Complain about this comment
Sagamix i'm afraid you've rather lost the plot on this one, i'm with gothnet.
Raiding private school/public school parents and/or blaming them for social inequality is grossly misleading and actually quite wrong. A private vs state education has far lesser impact on social mobility than was once the case. This is not because private schools have been banned, or have become more expensive on a pro-rata basis. Actually it is because the quality of education has generally increased across the board.
Re Gothnet you seem to imply that it is so important that everyone is treated equally to the extent that being in a worse position as an individual should be acceptable. Her/His parents should have accepted that the school would toughen her up and should have taken it on the chin. The comment and premise is fundamentally flawed. We want what is best for our children.
It is wrong that private education is 'better' than state education and that is the rub, it really shouldn't be. State education needs to improve, but it is essential that there remains a reference point for success, success in the investment and achievement of government and the public education sector. It should not become a black hole for investment. The tax payer (including gothnet's parents) are entitled to more bang for their buck.
The quality of state education is simply not, across the whole (and a gross generalisation), as good as the private sector. The private sector's only real sales pitch is that it offers a better quality education. Scrapping private education is not the key. Strategic investment and incentives for retaining quality staff is absolutely the key. If society values teachers then pay them more.
If parents (whose income is taxed anyway) decide to save their pennies and invest in their children, what right does society have to dictate or legislate against that? The point is that the quality of state education should be such that the private sector dies its own death due to lack of demand. Perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps not. In some areas of the country Grammar schools have been so successful and are so well respected that there is no private sector to speak of. Yet perhaps you would disregard the grammar school system as selection of the pupils with the most academic ability is not socially inclusive?
Unfortunately we are not all the same, academic or otherwise. To suggest, or even remotely contemplate, a one size fits all education policy is flawed.
I fear that actually you are talking about the old-boy network- and your problems are concerned with that. The vast majority of the private education sector simply don't belong to that club and they reap no benefit from it.
As an aside referring to someone as 'babe' undermines the persuasive elements of what you say.
Complain about this comment
144 At 72 and recovering from total paralysis I guess I tick all the boxes for your scheme. You cad
Complain about this comment
RussWilliams143
I understand where you are coming from - I have nine grandchildren who will face the same thing as you and however much money I might save for them it would never be enough for them to buy their own home.
When I was small in the 1930s nobody that I knew owned their own home and I could play ball in the street without ever encountering a car. I was in the very first tranche of children to sit the 11plus in 1948 and go to Grammar School. It was a struggle for my parents to be able afford the uniform, which I kicked out in about six months.
When I started work in the early 50s I was paid one pound per week. There was a huge divide between the haves and the have nots which seemed at the time virtually insurmountable.
I hope things get better - as I say they have been bad before and recovered. The biggest danger is that the best people (of which you and
Gothnet may be members) get so browned off that they leave. Incidentally, if you do go, can you be sure that you will not find the same set of problems and lousy managers that would be forcing you to leave here?
Complain about this comment
134 Mrsbloggs13c2
It read rather like a sort of test that a teacher might set?
I would pray the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report of 2008 as good enough for my understanding.
Complain about this comment
146 An odd post to be sure. How do you reconcile "in my house we respect knowledge" and then use a blanket term like "public sector wasters". Do you mean teachers and nurses? or soldiers, firemen etc etc? It is the same when people use a blanket term to describe anyone who works in a bank as bankers. 1% crooks 99% honest citizens providing a service for you and me. And getting slagged off in absentia. Like public sector wasters.
Complain about this comment
SagaMix @ 98
'no, it's not driven by envy, it's about equality of opportunity and raising standards - our obsession with private schooling is very peculiar (to us) and, what's more, it's very peculiar'
No, no, no! - You improve standards/opportunities for all by dragging/pushing/coercing/supporting/educating people *upwards*, not by dragging the top downwards.
Your Spiteful Poisonous Jealousy staggers me.....why should we owe you anything. As Norman Tebbitt once said, mainly attributed to getting a job, but in realiy meaning most things..
"I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking 'til he found it."
This applies to employment, education, career progression, neighbourhood activities, charities, home and family development etc....
I voted with my feet and sent my daughter to a decent primary school, where prents participate and help their kids, not the locl 'sink school', where half the kids are barely able to count/speak/read becuse their 'Shameless' council/chav parents don't give a crap.
Teach them self sufficiency, not dependancy, and they and we will all be better off........
Complain about this comment
The forum comments seem somewhat self-indulgent. The luxury years are behind us - the intensely competitive global economy of the [near] future will impoverish us all. The planet cannot sustain 6/7 billion middle-class living standards and aspirations. Currently, the UK does not have the right balance of industry and services to earn its national living. Even if 50% of young adults obtain degrees - will they be relevant to UK wealth creation? People running government departments are no more qualified to run them than are most banking directors. Why expect them to have all the answers? As we are in 'party' conference season listen out for the policies that generate wealth - all you will hear is how to tax and spend it.
Like other forum contributors I did not go to university after school. I did part-time via the Open University and worked hard at a varied number of jobs. I have continued with post-graduate courses to keep current. There is nothing special or privileged about my working class background. Don't wait for some social balancing mechanism to beat a path to your door - make your own luck!
Complain about this comment
pawns @ 147
well I may have lost the plot, wouldn't be the first time, but I have some points back for you - pls see below:
(1) you say make state schools so good that the private sector withers on the vine - great, but what if the very existence of the private sector prevents that outcome? - in my view, it does
(2) far from discouraging private schools, we give them tax breaks - treat them as charities! - crazy or what?
(3) you say private schools no longer give a significant advantage, and yet you also admit that standards are generally higher there - doesn't seem to hang together - I do take your point about the Old Boy Network, but one surefire way to break that up would be doing what I suggest - I think something like 50 pc of Top Uni intake is drawn from the 7 pc of children who go to private schools - that says a lot, does it not?
and my killer point ...
(4) if the most affluent and influential members of our society ... the movers and the shakers ... our leaders ... don't use a service (state education in this case) then they will have far less interest in improving it than if they DID use it ... don't you see?
btw, I very much agree with you that we need to raise the bar for the teaching profession - it should be a highly paid, prestige job which the best graduates are scrambling to get into - if we engineer that, and then get out of their hair, I'm sure we'd see big improvements - if we do that AND go 100 pc state sector, we'll have cracked it!
Complain about this comment
@writingsonthewall 137
"This sums it up nicely - you cannot 'teach better' - merely teach what you know (although I agree presentation is important)."
That is a completely riculous claim, and the sort of thing I'd only expect to hear from the most rabid NUT apologist. It defies logic, research and - most importantly - the personal experience of (I'm willing to bet) substantially every person in the country.
Yes, "presentation is important". We've all had good teachers and bad. People who make alkali metals seem slightly less interesting than the class register, versus people who can make times tables vibrant and fun. And which classes do you remember? I'll bet it's not the ones where you spent the time watching the achingly slow progress of the minute hand on the wall!
If it weren't possible to "teach better", there'd be no justification for teachers being paid different amounts. After all, experience can't count for anything under our assumption!
For my own part, "teaching" adults in highly specific domains, I know that there's a great deal of difference in effectiveness. I've been trained in presentation skills, and in the design and implementation of teaching materials. None of this affects how much I know about the subject matter, but it makes a huge difference to how much someone else knows about it after I've spent an hour with them!
Back to the original argument: I'm not saying public schools have better teachers - I wouldn't know - but logic would suggest that, in a relatively free job market, the most capable teachers would bubble up to whoever can pay them the most.
Complain about this comment
neil @ 152
all of that is great stuff, and absolutely nothing about what I'm saying is in conflict with any of it! - whatever system you have, those qualities you mention are good ones which deserve to be rewarded in life - so we BOTH want to improve standards then, don't we? - only difference is you think the status quo works quite well, whereas I don't - well one more difference, I guess ... I happen to think you're well meaning and wrong, but you've deduced that I'm driven by "spiteful poisonous jealousy" - how you can say that when you don't know me from Adam, I fail to see, but it is the usual retort so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised
Complain about this comment
@majorroadaheadagain, 149:
I hope things do get better, and I understand the "grass-is-greener" risks of emigrating. There's still time to weigh up the pros and cons.
I agree about the danger, too. Any significant brain drain would cause an increase in the tax burden of those who remain. That positive feedback would, absent caps on the flow of people across borders, tend to lead to a winner-takes-all natural monopoly for whichever country offered the best deal. It probably wouldn't get quite that far, as people are driven by vastly different motivations, but it would certainly compound the difficulties future governments will face.
But, in the end, I have to do what's best for me and mine.
Complain about this comment
144. atrisse
I dare say your ill conceived post was tongue in cheek, however it is worth pointing out that our taxes have already paid towards the upkeep of many of the hard done youth. We will also get precious little out of the system because our hard earned savings will preclude us from access to any of the benefits that may be available.
Many of the elderly still pay tax on their meagre pensions and are by no means the parasitic drain you infer and are still net contributors to the economy. Through their thrift and savings they are helping their children and grandchildren through further education to give them the opportunities which were not available to them.
Whilst I still have another decade of work ahead of me, I will continue to pay far more into the system than I will ever get out.
I trust you did not intend to be deliberately offensive but your idea of humour is very different to mine
Complain about this comment
Sagamix@ #154
'(1) you say make state schools so good that the private sector withers on the vine - great, but what if the very existence of the private sector prevents that outcome? - in my view, it does
(2) far from discouraging private schools, we give them tax breaks - treat them as charities! - crazy or what?
(3) you say private schools no longer give a significant advantage, and yet you also admit that standards are generally higher there - doesn't seem to hang together - I do take your point about the Old Boy Network, but one surefire way to break that up would be doing what I suggest - I think something like 50 pc of Top Uni intake is drawn from the 7 pc of children who go to private schools - that says a lot, does it not?
and my killer point ...
(4) if the most affluent and influential members of our society ... the movers and the shakers ... our leaders ... don't use a service (state education in this case) then they will have far less interest in improving it than if they DID use it ... don't you see?'
I'm afraid I don't broadly agree.
(1) To suggest that a lack of competition will improve service quality is not something I can agree with. Competition is vital to improve standards. It is right that politicians are hard pressed to improve the quality of education and are embarassed into explaining where all the money has gone and why another local school, but a private one, is achieving better results (N.B if it is, note earlier comments as to successful grammar schools).
(2) Tax breaks for private schools really touches on the essence of the issue, arguably I agree that they should be removed. There are two points which need to be considered however. First, as with gothnet- the decision in that case (and in many other similar families) to send children to private education is arrived at as a result of a failure in the existing system. One of the effects of ending tax breaks would be to significantly increase the cost of the private education system. Is it right that gothnet's parents should have to pay yet more money, increase their debt yet further as a result of the state failure to provide an effective education? Bearing in mind they (presumably) pay taxes just like anyone else anyway? The purpose of the tax breaks is partly to ensure that gothnet's parents are not taxed yet again.
The state system benefits from the system as gothnets parents pay for state education anyway, though they do not use it. Or at least this would be the case were it not for the fact that central government retain the money and only pay LEA's per child. Vent at government in that regard.
Finally (on this point) children are not taxable commodities and it is slightly vulgar to consider in effect taxing them for going to school. Why are childrens clothes cheaper? Why not tax them too?
(3) As to the advantage that private education brings. If there is a benefit, and I think there is- then I accept that there shouldn't be, state education should be such that there is no demand for private education. For example due to the survival of more grammar schools in the South there are far fewer private schools than, for example in the Midlands. There is a distinction between an improved education and a social advantage. Where they exist I think broadly private education is of a better quality. That does not mean that there is a social advantage to going to such a private school- i.e. old boy network. To the vast majority there is no social benefit in this way- no invitations, no connections, no events. That's the stuff of Hollywood.
There is a minority, and I firmly believe it is an infinetisimally small minority, that benefit socially from their education- and we are talking about 'public' schools here rather than private. There i'm sure you'll find the old boy network of which you speak and perhaps rightly do not agree with. But then, hang on a minute- you can't suggest that gothnet's parents should feel an impact as a result of legislating against that, surely not? And that really is the rub of the problem, how to differentiate between the two.
Top university intake is tricky to define. They change regularly and it is subjective as one person values their degree subject over another. The red brick universities are one way to look at it and there is a further problem here. Government, in its wisdom, has legislated that a percentage of places must go to state pupils. Public schools are known to sponsor places for their pupils guaranteeing places (wrong). Guess what? Private school kids are left in no-mans land.
I know parents who have educated their children privately to 6th form then put them into a state 6th form so as to ensure that they can get into a decent university. Such actions smash the old-boy network theory to pieces.
University places should be based on merit. It is really very simple. Certainly not based on a gross assumption of your social background bourne out of where you went to school, or what your parents had to pay to give you an education, its crazy. The caveat here is that if the education is better in private schools then you would expect more privately educated children to go to the top universities. Again, the aim of the state system must be to educate their pupils, to create such an environment within that education system that they achieve the best results. The only point at which positive discrimination should be arguably applied is when two children with identical grades apply for the same place, but even then lets have a nice objective test (yes another test) to cut the wheat from the chaff, not to assume that the state pupil needs a hand.
(4) We elect our politicians. We elect them to represent our interests, to develop, design and implement policy in such a way that we agree with. If our politicians do not represent us, then why do we elect them? Don't vote for people who don't represent you.
N.B You can't force everyone to experience something (everything) so that they understand how it works!
Following your argument we should ensure that all politicians have used the NHS (to make sure that they understand and fully appreciate how it works), so lets put them all in hospital? They need to understand the police too- so lets lock them up? And they've never been involved in a fire so lets burn their houses down? Not quite right is it.
We've come to accept less but politicians should have, as a pre-requisite, the empathy and understanding to represent the views of an electorate which in part has experienced an entirely different life to their own.
Complain about this comment
Please can we stop perpetuating this myth that the student body comprises 18 to 22 year olds, pre-employment? In fact, only a third of the students studying at UK universities are in that category, ie, a minority.
And that minority will decline further with demograhic changes as the number of 18 year olds in our society is peaking right about now. That being the case, 50% participation in HE amongst that group doesn't look too excessive, does it, especially since, in the current and future economy, there will be very few jobs around for people without higher level skills.
Complain about this comment
pawns_or_players wrote:
"(2) Tax breaks for private schools really touches on the essence of the issue, arguably I agree that they should be removed. There are two points which need to be considered however. First, as with gothnet- the decision in that case (and in many other similar families) to send children to private education is arrived at as a result of a failure in the existing system. One of the effects of ending tax breaks would be to significantly increase the cost of the private education system. Is it right that gothnet's parents should have to pay yet more money?"
You mean is it right that Gothnet should pay the cost of sending his children to a private school rather than being subsidised by everyone else?
Yes.
A lot of the subsidies come from people who either cannot afford to do the same (it is not possible for everyone to) or, like me, who have no children.
If Gothnet wants his kids to have the benefits that come from going to private school he should pay for them.
At the moment people who send their kids to private school are just sponging off the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
@ writingsonthewall
I'm afraid I'm only going to pick at bits of your arguments because I neither have the time, nor the space to address them all. However I'll start with a general point -
You're funny.
I mean, you're very eloquent but you're still trying to advance two mutually contradictory points. I'm wondering how you live with the cognitive dissonance. You're trying to say that
1) Public/private school does not and cannot give a better education than state school
2) That the advantage conferred by private education gives rise to inequality
These two things cannot both be true.
Think man!
I also take issue with this -
"Your last three paragraphs seem to indicate your dissatisfaction with your position, you feel aggrieved that you had to pay twice for something which has left you struggling to afford a house, pay your taxes and have a decent pension and as a result you're leaving the country."
Erm, my parents paying for my school hasn';t left me or them in debt, I'm not aggrieved at them having to pay twice for my schooling but I do think that then trying to deny me access to university would be nothing short of spiteful and as for the rest... Lol.
I'm not struggling to afford a house, I don't want to pay the money for a house here, it's not worth it. Correction or no the prices are ridiculous and I can have a far better standard of living in a far lower tax country with far better weather. It's a no-brainer, as they say.
"If you have a class mixed of mixed intelligence then the 'weak will benefit from the strong' - and vice versa (because not everything is purely down to IQ). However the private system seperates children which serves as a detriment to both sate."
This is demonstrably false.
"Opting out is not the solution - forcing Government to stop handing over taxpayer money to contractors, agencies, building companies (see today's fines) and other private sector areas (see PPI and other grandeos schemes) is the real solution."
No problem, but until the real solution comes along I'll stick to opting out because I only have one life.
"..but surely what is best for the kids is for parents to spend as much time as possible with them and not simply go to work, never see the kids but pay for someone else to educate them?"
So you shouldn't send them to school at all? You don't believe in any sort of educational system? Gotcha.
"You still work off the premise that working in an equal framework is somehow 'penalising people' - how can that be?"
Taking away someone's ability to choose what's best for their child and give them the best start they can with resources they have earned, or (the topic on which we started) denying them tax funded university places due to a schooling choice, that is penalising them.
"It seems that what you did leanr at private school (which I missed out on) is the sense of the individuals liberty over the equality of others."
Yes. Yes I did. Sorry, but that's the way it works in the real world. YOU don't have the right to tell people they must educate their children at a state school. YOU don't have the right to tell people how to live.
I care about the state of society, sure, but I'm afraid that my family are more important to me than any wider sense of equality.
I wouldn't even be human if this wasn't so.
Complain about this comment
Born in the 60's, my brother and I both went to university-him straight from school, me 14 years later as a mature student married with 2 kids. He had no fees to pay, no student loan, walked into a blinding city job (computing), where he has been ever since. He travels the world and his 2 kids go to private school. Both him and his wife went to Cambridge, gained automatic Masters degrees, and sadly over the years, he has come to treat the rest of us in his family as 'less than worthy'.
By contrast, I did a 4 year double degree, had a minimal grant, had to take out a student loan, and worked too, just pay my bills. I got a job as a teacher, and by a quirk of fate achieved a salary of £30k a year-my brother earns £100k plus but stopped telling us when it reached this much!
He commented that my maintenance grant and student loan was a third of what he was given as a grant. Students have to work to survive if their parents cannot help. I have every admiration for them as they have to fit their studies around working. I am very concerned though, that students will find it harder to get these jobs to supplement themselves in the current climate, and will drop out because they simply cannot afford to be there. This will eventually return higher education to the priviledged few, so saddling our future generations with even more debt is not the answer.
Myself, a further twist of fate means I am physically unable to do the job I love, so I'm now hoping to do my PhD, purely as a brain thing. I am able to bypass the Masters as I got a good class for my degree. I have to pay for it, but part-time is affordable. At 47 I'm looking forward to it!
Complain about this comment
The debate should be more focused on the issue of why student numbers are so high as frankly we have far too many university students today.
We need more apprenticeship schemes, practical work experience placements and a huge incentive for young people to enter into careers that reflect the needs of our chnging society such as jobs based around care for the elderly. We should not pamper the whims of the 'X Factor' generation wanting to go to university to get a degree in Media Studies by allowing universities to promote useless academic courses that will not lead to a job of any social importance anyhow .
Complain about this comment
sagamix @ 125
"that's great, babe, but..."
pawns_or_players @ 147
"As an aside referring to someone as 'babe' undermines the persuasive elements of what you say."
Oh, that's alright, I found it sort of flattering. Of course sagamix should know that I'm a slightly overweight, 30 year-old, male engineer.
I'll never agree with his type, that the state knows best for all of us and any deviation from that is to be fought against. I don't believe we are all the same, and a society that is equal in the way that some want would be homogenous and dull. Not to mention even more sinister and dystopian than where we're already headed.
Complain about this comment
#161 allan
'You mean is it right that Gothnet should pay the cost of sending his children to a private school rather than being subsidised by everyone else?
Yes.
A lot of the subsidies come from people who either cannot afford to do the same (it is not possible for everyone to) or, like me, who have no children.
If Gothnet wants his kids to have the benefits that come from going to private school he should pay for them.
At the moment people who send their kids to private school are just sponging off the rest of us.'
You should work for the Fox network.
Gothnets parents already pay(paid). There is no subsidy and you have not contributed one single penny towards his education. You have had the benefit of his parents paying taxes on their income and then central government not having to pay the LEA to educate him. They have spent the money on other things (ask them on what).
Tax breaks in private education do not equal sponging off the state. Private schools are charities and have a wider public benefit. They should not be taxed in the same way as a business. What would happen if they were? The fees would increase creating a distorted inequality between the haves and the have not's. You would presumably state that this describes the situation now? And yet gothnet provides an excellent example where private education was the only alternative to a failing state system, not exactly a 'have' if the traditional view is taken. No money is 'taken' from the state to fund private education and never has been.
Private schools are charities and the value of the tax breaks you refer to are c£100million per year. Thats a lot of money but is paltry in comparison to our bankers bailout. The government probably claim that in expenses in any given parliament. Sledge hammer/Walnut springs to mind.
Parents who fund their children via private education are already taxed twice- through taxes on their income and the fees they pay to the school. You would ask them to pay a third time? Lunacy and morally wrong. Improve the state system- yes, absolutely, but do not penalise and close the only escape when it fails.
Your suggestion (implied) is like suggesting that you shouldn't be entitled to a state pension as you haven't had any children to pay for it. I don't agree with that either for the record.
Complain about this comment
pawns_or_players wrote:
'...a pile of drivel...'
First I misread about Gothnets fees, I thought it was referring to his children. I apologise for that mistake. I have been paying taxes for all of my working life but do not know it that overlaps with his time at school. I do not think that is relevant though.
Let us consider instead at the children currently going to private schools.
You write:
"There is no subsidy and you have not contributed one single penny towards his education."
"Private schools are charities and the value of the tax breaks you refer to are c£100million per year."
It is quite clear that, according to your own words, I am contributing to providing toards a subsidy on fees for private school children.
"Private schools are charities and have a wider public benefit. !"
Utter drivel. The vast majority are dressed up to be charities PURELY for the tax break. Most do the MINIMUM possible to get away with it. 'wider public benefit' my arse.
"Tax breaks in private education do not equal sponging off the state.!"
Rubbish, they clearly are. It is taxpayers money being provided to private organisations in order to keep down the fees they charge to the better off. You just don't like the label 'sponger' to be applied to the middle classes. You only think that label applies to the poor and do not like your hypocrisy being pointed out.
"You should work for the Fox network."
I guess you have never seen it then as they only call the poor spongers.
"Parents who fund their children via private education are already taxed twice- through taxes on their income and the fees they pay to the school. You would ask them to pay a third time?"
What rubbish are you talking about here? I am not saying they should be taxed. I am saying they should not receive tax breaks and that I should not be subsidising their children for going to a private school.
"Private schools are charities and the value of the tax breaks you refer to are c£100million per year."
So, what? The amount does not matter whether it is £100 million or £100 billion, it is the principal that matters.
As for the pension. Well I am helping to pay for education of the vast majority of children in this country and am not commenting anyuthing about that. You may think the whole of the country's wealth comes only from those at private school but I am not convinced the facts would support you on that.
In addition, since it is clear the state pension will either be got rid off or worth nothing by the time I retire so I am making my own provision.
What we see from you is the typical 'Daily Mail' approach. The poor are spongers for benefiting from benefits/tax breaks but don't you DARE say the same of me when I benefit from the same!
The bottom line is, if you want your kids to go to a private school you should pay the WHOLE cost of that and not sponge off the rest of us. If you cannot afford that then get on your bike and find a better paying job.
Complain about this comment
I would also like to say that I do not blame ANYONE for sending their children to private school or taking advantage of any tax breaks going.
We now live in a vile and selfish country whose motto is 'everyone for themselves' so why not?
Lets just stop pretending they are not being subsidised by everyone else...
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't trust Ed Balls he clearly has no idea what is being spent on education already.
What about BSF Mr Balls? I could save the government a LOT more than 2.2 billion pounds without needing to lay anyone off or even freezing pay.
Just don't bother going ahead with BSF (building schools for the future) it is a ridiculous waste of money to rebuild every school in the country.
So why are we doing it? And why doesn't Mr Balls even know of its existance?
Complain about this comment
As I have posted before I came from ordinary working class folk, who knew nothing about education. I did just fine even though I left Grammar School at 15. My parents knew nothing about private education, and had they done so in any event we wouldnt have been able to afford it. That was how it was in the 1940s.
There is one group of people I feel sorry for, and that is people like George Osborne, who is stigmatised for going to private school. It is a form of prejudice against him, in the same way that some people single out people for their sexual orientation.
As if it were his fault. I have no doubt that Osborne jnr was put down for his specific private school (Eton?) probably while he was still in the womb. He went happily because he was sent there and had absolutely no say in the matter. You can criticise his parents if that is your bag, but on the charge of going to public school Osborne and others like him are totally innocent. We will see if he turns out to be a great Chancellor or a pratt. That will be a bit about him and his latent abilities, a bit about how he was brought up, and about the education he had and what he has done with it since.
Complain about this comment
@ allan365
Please explain again how a single penny of your money has gone to help my public school education.
Because all I can see so far is a bunch of ranting about the charitable status meaning that the schools are not taxed.
let me make this clear for you -
My parents paid income and other tax that would have entitled me to state schooling.
The state did not have to pay a penny for my education because my parents did it directly.
You are BETTER off as a result.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me very sad that we have got to a position where University education is perceived only to be of value in financial terms. When and where did we lose sight of the value of learning for its own sake? The value of a well-educated, thoughtful and intelligent population? So many great innovators, writers, artists, musicians and scientists from the Renaissance onwards (even before?) have been the beneficiaries of a good education - and we are the beneficiaries now of all that they achieved - yet they were not motivated by any thought of amassing huge financial wealth and fat pensions. Just the joy of discovery and learning. What was known then as 'progress' but would doubtless now be described as 'inefficiencies'.
Complain about this comment
As I said in my response:
"First I misread about Gothnets fees, I thought it was referring to his children. I apologise for that mistake."
Complain about this comment
Nick Clegg spent most of his speech slagging off David Cameron. That is what he does best - slag off other people. In fact, it is all he can do. He had nothing to contribute to the future of this country but ultra negativity. Vince Cable did a bit of Cameron/Osborne bashing but did get a few ideas across. So they were all daft? That is what you expect from Liberals.
Before the season started you could say that the Lib Dems could get anything up to 120 seats. Probably closer to 80 but they represented a decent third party who would bite into Gordon Brown's heartlands. Yet they have just blown it, as they usually do. New Labour are in power, the Conservatives are not. They want to be, and probably expect to be, but for the moment that deal is not in the bag. Clegg and his team should have gone straight to the heart of the problem and attacked Brown and his policies and how the last twelve years have been a disaster. Then set up the Lib Dem alternative which we could all consider.Instead he went for Cameron. Bad judgement.
Brown is the target not Cameron, but Clegg doesnt see that. He should go away and prepare for Government as David Steel once said - in a taxi as once of his predecessors once did.
Complain about this comment
Simple to rectify this debt burden. You can only borrow three times the main earners salary to finance a home purchase. This instantly kills property booms and adjusts prices in line with earnings.
Students should be fully funded through education. The minimum wage should be enough to provide housing food and essentials. Pensions should be liveable and contributed towards by all.
All property speculators should pay massive taxes on any more that one home. A home is somewhere to live not an investment opportunity. One suggestion would be to triple council tax for each extra property owned. All mortgages should be for a maximum of 25 years and all on a repayment basis. Endowments that do not cover current loans should be enhanced by the companies that got rich selling them so that they do.
Every investment product should have a guaranteed return after the period has finished. We should encourage and if necessary support the manufacturing industries as they actually make things that are useful and employ thousands.
Finally all oxbridge graduates should be banned from politics.
Complain about this comment
#165-Allan
Here we are again.
ME; ' "Private schools are charities and the value of the tax breaks you refer to are c£100million per year."
YOU; It is quite clear that, according to your own words, I am contributing to providing toards a subsidy on fees for private school children.'
Sorry to be pedantic. Do you realise what a subsidy is? It is a grant or gift of money. Show me the payment from government to any private education establishment? You won't, there aren't any.
A subsidy is entirely different to a 'tax break'. A tax break is not charging tax via whatever mechanism. One does not equal the other. The point I make is that the money circulating in the private education system has already been taxed.
In effect you are advocating a discriminatory tax, assuming that this only applies to the wealthy when as has been commented many in the private system are actually simply opting out of a failing state system. The assumption that you make about who would pay such a tax is strikingly similar to that proposed with poll tax, not exactly a runaway success.
ME; '"Tax breaks in private education do not equal sponging off the state."
YOU; Rubbish, they clearly are. It is taxpayers money being provided to private organisations in order to keep down the fees they charge to the better off. You just don't like the label 'sponger' to be applied to the middle classes. You only think that label applies to the poor and do not like your hypocrisy being pointed out.'
See above. There are no payments towards private education establishments. There is no government aid or benefit. The premise of your suggestion is misconceived. For the record I don't like the label sponger being used when it doesn't apply, you're right. Please don't make unfounded assumptions, about me or my opinions. There are spongers in all walks of life, class has nothing to do with it, neither does education. Stigma and assumption will get you nowhere.
ME; '"Parents who fund their children via private education are already taxed twice- through taxes on their income and the fees they pay to the school. You would ask them to pay a third time?"
YOU; What rubbish are you talking about here? I am not saying they should be taxed. I am saying they should not receive tax breaks and that I should not be subsidising their children for going to a private school.'
Blimey. Its not the individual parents who receive any tax break- it is via the charitable status of the schools that this is achieved. The school receives the tax break, not the parent. The point is that the parents are taxed, twice. Thats the situation at the moment. You aren't subsidising anybody...well actually you are. You are subsidising the children who go to state schools as your tax helps fund them. Private schools receive no money from government so the children educated there dont benefit from your taxes, hence (irony noted) the only people you subsidise are state school kids.
ME; '"Private schools are charities and the value of the tax breaks you refer to are c£100million per year."
YOU; So, what? The amount does not matter whether it is £100 million or £100 billion, it is the principal that matters.'
Lets all argue about the price of stamps then shall we? Get Crozier down here I think its deplorable. The question is one of reasonableness and proportionality, cost;benefit ratio. You refer to me as a Daily Mail supporter (chortle!) yet I suspect you'll be kicking off about the grotesque asylum problem (even though statistically its insignificant). Great, thanks for coming.
Your principle is that you dont want to subsidise kids in private education and you want all kids to go to state school, when there isn't a subsidy for private school kids and there is for the state system. Fantastic cogent argument that.
YOU; 'You may think the whole of the country's wealth comes only from those at private school but I am not convinced the facts would support you on that.'
Sorry- where do I state that? You're wrong, I didn't. You're assuming everyone at private school plays croquet at lunch with an afternoon tea break. Its about quality of education for most parents and many only just manage the fees.
YOU; 'In addition, since it is clear the state pension will either be got rid off or worth nothing by the time I retire so I am making my own provision.'
SWEET IRONY! You have a private pension?! Hilarious, you do realise that you personally benefit massively from tax breaks from this dont you? By your argument I am subsidising your pension! Why not end that tax break too you cheeky bugger! Incidentally tax breaks on pensions make £100million look like a drop in the ocean! Please jump down from the moral high ground before you fall.
YOU; 'What we see from you is the typical 'Daily Mail' approach. The poor are spongers for benefiting from benefits/tax breaks but don't you DARE say the same of me when I benefit from the same!'
Oh dear. Lets be clear, the poor are not spongers for claiming benefits. I approve with the welfare state- actually, i'm proud of it. There are people who abuse the system and thats wrong. There are also many public school kids who never work a day and get mother and father to pay for everything. More fool their parents, they are also spongers and it is also wrong. I note that by your own admission you're looking forward to becoming a sponger, well done.
YOU; 'The bottom line is, if you want your kids to go to a private school you should pay the WHOLE cost of that and not sponge off the rest of us. If you cannot afford that then get on your bike and find a better paying job.'
So here we are again. Private school parents already pay for private education. As charities private schools do not make a profit. The income used to pay the fees is taxed. Why then, should they be taxed again? Answer- they shouldn't be. To refresh your memory a private education is not always about this silver spoon image/dream you seem hell bent on maintaining, actually its about quality education where the system is failing in certain areas.
Your assumptions, prejudice and comments about me seem more linked and associated with the Daily Mail than my own and thats the greatest irony in what you say.
Complain about this comment
gothnet - thanks for the info, won't happen again - I didn't get where I am today, saying "babe" to slightly overweight engineers ... and pawns thank you, too, for an interesting response - as ever, a couple of points shooting back your way:
(1) first, your logic on my "leaders using public services" point - flawed, I'm afraid ... it's NOT like saying they have to get sick and go to Hospital, it's more the equivalent of saying that if they're ill, they should use the public service, not scuttle off private - and now we mention the idea for Health, I quite like it!
(2) more seriously, the point you guys raise about not wanting to live in a world where everyone's the same ... well of course not, and nor do I (doh!) - people come in all sorts of packages (mental and physical) and viva la difference, say us all - but that's of absolutely ZERO relevance to this - let's have good schools catering for everyone, a mix of academic/practical, some streaming where it makes sense, rigorous standards, all secular, an elevated teaching profession, all that good stuff, yes? - just like the Grammar Schools, except more socially inclusive - we can call these schools of ours Comprehensives if you like, seems appropriate because they will be comprehensive in scope, and will have comprehensively high satisfaction levels - and all state sector of course, everybody happy - where, in all that, do I say the goal is to make people all the same as each other? - or do you think the accidental result of no private schools will be to do that? - and if you do think that, can you please tell me why?
Complain about this comment
@ 167 allan365 wrote:
Previous quote "Private schools are charities and the value of the tax breaks you refer to are c£100million per year."
It is quite clear that, according to your own words, I am contributing to providing toards a subsidy on fees for private school children.
Previous quote "Private schools are charities and have a wider public benefit. !"
Utter drivel. The vast majority are dressed up to be charities PURELY for the tax break. Most do the MINIMUM possible to get away with it. 'wider public benefit' my arse.
Previous Quote "Tax breaks in private education do not equal sponging off the state.!"
Rubbish, they clearly are. It is taxpayers money being provided to private organisations in order to keep down the fees they charge to the better off. You just don't like the label 'sponger' to be applied to the middle classes. You only think that label applies to the poor and do not like your hypocrisy being pointed out.
Well..
- If private schools were abolished, I think you would find the costs of replacing the capacity with a comprehensive education to be prohibitive - both capital and revenue. Tax breaks of £100m per year are a very good deal for the government to educated tens of thousnds of pupil for effectively nothing.
- Private schooles/charities. Some do more, some do less. To say they are 'not of benefit to society' is one of the charity comission tests. Most school PTA's are charities as well, though they could oo be argued to offer little community benefit.
- Perhaps if you are arguing for abolition of Tax break for Private schools, maybe we could counter this with the abolition of tax relief (Tax relief under section 344 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 ) on Union or 'professional organisation' subscriptions. They offer no benefit to the wider comunity, and are narrowly very self (member only) serving.......
Complain about this comment
@ 176 pawns_or_players wrote:
So here we are again. Private school parents already pay for private education. As charities private schools do not make a profit. The income used to pay the fees is taxed. Why then, should they be taxed again? Answer- they shouldn't be. To refresh your memory a private education is not always about this silver spoon image/dream you seem hell bent on maintaining, actually its about quality education where the system is failing in certain areas.
--
heard last night on Radio 4...I thought it was quite apt.
A money paid for private education is acountable to you, a tax paid for comprehenive education is not.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix @ 177 wrote...
let's have good schools catering for everyone, a mix of academic/practical, some streaming where it makes sense, rigorous standards, all secular, an elevated teaching profession, all that good stuff, yes? - just like the Grammar Schools, except more socially inclusive - we can call these schools of ours Comprehensives if you like, seems appropriate because they will be comprehensive in scope, and will have comprehensively high satisfaction levels - and all state sector of course, everybody happy - where, in all that, do I say the goal is to make people all the same as each other? - or do you think the accidental result of no private schools will be to do that? - and if you do think that, can you please tell me why?
--
..more socially inclusive..
Grammar schools, surely you are mistaking meritocracy for social exclusion. It's a fact of life that pushy middle class parents have brighter more able and higher aspirational kids because of the effort/resources spent by them, at their own cost, on bettering their off-spring. 'Low rent' parents produce (in general) 'low rent' kids.
If you take a bright, but poor/council child with low aspiration prents, and put them in a decent school with encouragment, nuturing, mentoring and most importantly a decent peer group, they will shine and acheive.
Maybe we need better state schools, or maybe a re-introduction of the 'assisted places scheme' to enable bright but disadvanted kids access to 'a level playing field' as a good private school?
Complain about this comment
I only spent four years at Grammar School in Brighton and Hove (48-52)before they rumbled that I wasnt working. When I look back it was a magnificent education and a great deal of what I learned then has stayed with me to this day. I was the loser in the short term, but luckily not in the long term. I know a lot of people still hanker after the return of Grammar Schools, but what I found with my children and grandchildren is that they still exist in practice if not in name. There was a strong emphasis on streaming in the army schools and the comprehensives my children attended, and in my experience the teachers paid a smidgen more attention to the bright children, whether to satisfy their numbers or out of pure enjoyment from being able to stimulate bright children I am not sure.
What I do think is that the debate about funding and private versus state is, in my humble view, irrelevant. We need both, if only to satisfy the wishes of those parents to spend their hard earned money on making sure their children get the best possible chance. If you live in an area where the schools are, at best, pretty ordinary then it easy to see why some are driven to the private option. Nothing wrong with that in the same way that others go on cruises or drive Mercs. The key to removing jealousy from the equation is making sure that state education is the best it can possibly be. The fact that so many feel they have to opt for the private option (not just toffs) is a condemnation of our system, despite all the funds that have been pumped in over the past twelve years.
Every child should have the best possible education we can give them, and we must find a way of achieving that by shaming and eliminating the bad schools and praising and emulating the best.
Complain about this comment
172. Penscombe
"When and where did we lose sight of the value of learning for its own sake?
Whilst theoretically agreeing with you, I would contend that learning is life long and does not have to take place within a university environment.
There is a dearth of students studying the hard academic students, science departments have been closed whilst the softer options flourish.
Does it really make sense for these students to spend three years racking up debt studying a course with limited employment prospects?
Complain about this comment
As far as I can see no one has pointed out a major flaw in the idea of business sponsoring university courses. They will only sponsor courses which will provide them with graduates, i.e. the sciences, maths, engineering while other worthwhile degrees like history will not be funded. Ideally university would be free and all students would get a living grant. But at the moment its not economically possible, without a fairly large tax raise or huge amounts of cuts elsewhere, I suppose trident missiles could go. But to everyone screaming that students shouldn't be free-loading off the state, students are the future leaders, economic powers, teachers, doctors etc of the country, do you really want to loose them?
Complain about this comment
@ sagamix, 177
Look, I don't disagree with your fundamental ideal - that we should rigorous, high quality education for all.
Let me know when we get there and if it's in time for the education of any children I have in future then I'll consider it on its merits.
Until then any forced scrapping of the public school system cuts out a lage amount of quality education and doesn't do you any favours either (taxes would have to rise a LOT to cope with the influx of previously privately educated kids).
I'll vote for utopia, just don't expect me to participate in the experiment when it comes to me and mine if I don't see it delivering and I do see a choice.
Complain about this comment
neil @ 180
yes indeed - you don't achieve the goal at a stroke, just by eliminating the private option overnight, has to be done gradually ... it is a major infringement of personal liberty, let's face it ... and it must be accompanied by other things, such as the stuff I mentioned - and also (which you raise, and it's very important) a concentration of resource on the worst areas - not neglecting good areas, I don't mean that ... just measures such as more pay to teach in a hard place (a bit like we currently have more pay to teach a hard subject ... same principle, yes?) - and the schools themselves can be like the grammars, but open to all - so the academic side and the more practical/vocational stuff in the same school - grammar plus secondary modern, rolled into one - the best bits of both - comprehensive education in the best sense of the word - be great, trust me
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr Sagamix
How do you feel about home education or private tutors or after school cramming?
Wouldya, couldya, shouldya eliminate these too?
And how do you define 'hard place'? What if it gets 'easier', do you take pay away?
And 'grammar plus secondary modern, rolled into one - the best bits of both - comprehensive education in the best sense of the word - be great, trust me' - just where have you been for the last 35 years? These schools exist - my generation went to one, my kids went to one BUT there are schools in this system that you or I would not choose for our kids
Complain about this comment
Majorroadahead-absolutely agree with you re education opportunities. My brother and I both went to Grammar schools. My son also did, my daughter didn't - she attended a local comprehensive. She didn't sit the 11 plus either as she has multiple learning difficulties and would have found even the test too much, and I didn't want her under that sort of pressure.
By the time she was 14, she was still at primary level with her Reading, writing and maths. The school never gave her the support she needed, so we got extra jobs and sent her privately. This was brilliant for her-she went from SATS level 2's to level 4's in 6 months. But when she reached her final GCSE year, her class expanded from 9 to 32, 27 of which were Cantonese boarding students who disrupted the classes, and they had no English, maths or science teacher! For this we were charged £11,500! She made her own way, went to 6th form college and is now in her 3rd year of a geography degree, wants to do a masters and PhD because she wants to make sure she is as qualified as possible in her chosen field.
My son sailed through grammar, started uni but dropped out after 2 failed attempts to finish his first year. He is now a chef in a Jamie Oliver restaurant.
University isn't for everyone-I'm just glad my children are happy in what they do. I am very concerned though, that my daughter is accumulating debt in order to earn her degree. Despite what others say, the first year at Uni is very tough-I asked my tutors why and was told it was to 'weed' out those who saw it as a soft option and keep the dedicated ones.
My biggest beef is that Oxbridge award Masters degrees after a year without further study. The arrogance of this perpetuates the belief among their graduates and employers that they are better than everyone else, as we have seen with my brother. It's this elitist attitude that needs sorting out.
I also agree that standards in primary and secondary schools need raising-but that is a debate for another day! Suffice it to say that the comprehensive that my daughter attended had an extraordinary number of students with very bad behaviour-it is now an academy but the behaviour issues remain the same. Money will not change this - again a debate for another day.
Uni education should be free, and instead of tinkering with school structures etc, the money should go towards Uni fees. It is very hard work, and only those who are determined will succeed there.
Why should our next generation who are also our future, be further burdened by financial worries? The debt we have already saddled them with is bad enough. They have to pay back the nation's debt mountain and deal with our climate legacy-it's unbelivable that we should make their personal debt even greater.
Complain about this comment
The situation that we now find ourselves in is an ineviable consequence of a capitalist ethos that has been stretched beyond it's limits by the greed of the financial sector. Unfortunately, that situation has been compounded by a government that has actively encouraged their greed to further it's own misguided political ambitions and also by an equally greedy and gullible British public, living beyond it's means and enjoying a lifestyle that it could not afford. Any intelligent person could easily have foreseen a catastrophic end to this fake lifestyle, so why was the situation allowed to continue to the point of near total fincial collapse? We are told that all modern systems should be sustainable and have built in resilience to prevent failure but clearly a fincial system that relies heavily on the vagueries and whims of trading in currencies, stocks and shares is doomed to fail. Capitalism as we have known it is finished. Even if it tries to resurrect itself, the same problems will inevitably occur in the not too distant future and possibly create more serious consequences. Governments, commerce and public need to understand that a new form of capitalism must be adopted based upon the notions that growth is finite, modest profit is acceptable and wealth should be distributed more equitably. Until such a change occurs, the future does not bear contemplation.
Complain about this comment
As a teacher I have worked in one state school and two private schools.
The best schools are neither state nor private. They are quite simply at the centre of their community, teachers are supported by the parents and therefore children benefit. Smaller schools where all children know all the teachers and vice-versa can be more beneficial than huge anonymous institutions. (Academic exam passing should never be the only measure of what constitutes educational success).
Where parents do not support education, teachers have an uphill struggle. Where politicans jump in with ill-thought out ideas helps no-one.
Why bother to teach us how to teach, then tell us how to do it.
Money is not the be all and end all of living. Nothing can make us all equal. Education simply gives us an opportunity to develop our own skills, talents and interests. We start with what we have and do what we will.
I am perfectly happy to do a job I enjoy and not be able to afford a mortgage. There is FAR more to life than spending your life accumulating either money or debt.
Complain about this comment
@Tigerjayj, 187:
"My biggest beef is that Oxbridge award Masters degrees after a year without further study. The arrogance of this perpetuates the belief among their graduates and employers that they are better than everyone else, as we have seen with my brother. It's this elitist attitude that needs sorting out."
I'm sorry to hear about your brother's attitude, but Oxbridge graduates are better.
It's not politically correct to say it, but it's kinda the point of taking people with straight As at A-level, selecting those who (the interviewers feel) can best handle the pressure, forcing them to work hard, and providing lots of small-group teaching. You end up with the best. Anything else would be an absurd outcome!
Yes, it's elitism. And I'm proud to be an elitist! Just what is wrong with being good at something?
Employers know this, despite the dogma that a First is a First - that's just a convenient lie which I don't think anyone really believes. There is a measurable difference between graduates: in their skills, in the breadth and the depth of their knowledge...
Is it unfair to generalise? Absolutely! But in the face of a blatantly-false claim that a degree from a former poly is worth just as much as a degree from a redbrick or Oxbridge, employers have to have some way to judge - and they judge based on their experiences and their prejudices. The solution would be some sort of objective test - like the GRE - but that brings its own problems.
Complain about this comment
Tigerjayj
The story of your daughter is really encouraging. It is not good enough for children to go under either through the school system or through how parents cope with something out of the ordinary as you have done. I am sure she will be a great sucess, but more importantly, you say they are happy. I have one measure of how well parents treated their children - do they come back? I know there are sometimes geographical constraints, but luckily mine are always there with us and for us. And vice versa.
Nottoonear I like what you have said, and in particular the part about getting exam passing in proportion. Without wishing to sound too sel-satisfied I left grammar school at fifteen, and was told by the head master that I would never be successful. Before I left the school I was thrown out of the Combined Cadet Force and told "you will never make a soldier as long as you have etc etc" I think my post name would indicate to him the stupidity of trying to assess what a fourteen year old stroppy boy will turn out like in the end. You can achieve as much as you want if you have the right attitude, dedication and hard work and, very importantly, a lot of luck. And if you dont, there is no reason why you still cant be happy.
Complain about this comment
mrs bloggs @ 186
private tuition outside school hours is absolutely fine, the idea isn't to overly encroach - we have to strike a balance between 2 very important things: it's equality of opportunity versus people's freedom to spend their money any which way they please ... at present, in Education, we incline too far in favour of the latter at the expense of the former
Complain about this comment
russ @ 190
indeed ... and by the same token, a grade C in Maths from a "bog standard comp" is factually the same as an "A" from a cramming, middle class factory private school, yes?
Complain about this comment
# 193 saga
and both are the same as a B from a good comprehensive?
And the B from a not-so-good teacher is the same as the A from the great teacher in the same school?
Come back down to earth, please...
Complain about this comment
(continued)
if for no other reason than children are human beings, have different parents, values, teachers, personalities and ages of maturity. (just to mention a few)
So which logarithm are we going to invent to "equalise" all the factors?
Complain about this comment
@sagamix, 193:
In terms of effort, perhaps. It's far less contentious if you turn it around and say that, given the same results from both, the grade A from the bog-standard comp represents the greater achievement - that way you're not apologising for (relative) failure and ignoring the results of an objective test. It's a bit different at A-level, though, where the same course is taught nationwide.
By comparison, it's quite instructive to, say, look through the detailed syllabus for Computer Science at Cambridge (#1), Imperial (#3), Sheffield (#18), Hull (#44) and Anglia Ruskin (#103). Even if you're not familiar with the domain, the module names and quantities required are a good indication of what's taught and to what level. The courses are broader (more modules required) and deeper (modules are taught earlier and built on later) the closer you get to the top of the league tables.
Does that tell you how well a cabdidate can solve problems? Nope. But it does tell you that Candidate A has been taught a lot more than Candidate B...
Complain about this comment
# 191 Major,
Fortunately, there are many like you.
I believe that someone once said something along the lines of "Success is measured by standing up more times than you've been knocked down."
I'd go for the state paying tuition fees for one degree, if the person had worked and paid tax for minimum 3 years. If you want to take the fast track straight to Uni - pay for it.
And I would absolutely allow no-one into politics unless they had worked for a full year at minimum wage doing a minimum wage job. Maybe we'd have a bit more realism and honesty.
Complain about this comment
Saga
I think the depiction of Lisa Simpson's attitude on grades is exactly right. People who strive for them as if education is more about pieces of paper and numbers than understanding what you are being taught miss the point, although Im sure the brilliant writers of the Simpsons knew exactly what they were portraying.
As a personal note, in 1970 I sat the first four papers of five of the ICMA (now the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants). There was a chilling paper at Part 2 on overheads and on the night before England were playing in the World Cup in Argentina (the year of the alleged theft). I stayed up to the end, and went to bed at 2.30am. It was a crazy thing to do, putting all my study and (as it transpired) my future on the line for a football match, but I have always been addicted to the game and a World Cup....
The paper was predictably scary and I spent the three hours scratching out bits of answers to each of the five questions. I didnt complete any, but thought looking at it that I might have got forty or fifty per cent if the marks were allocated across the piece rather than on completed answers. In the end I got an A, which was astounding but those exams were based on how the competition did rather than as a general tarrif.
A lot of nonsense, but we oldies still like to join in the debate about grades as if they mean anything to us. And I still stay up to watch test matches from Australia...
Complain about this comment
Nottoonear
A bit like John Major and his bus eh?
Frankly, on your last point I cant see any reason why a bright person would want to go into politics in future. If you think that we pay our PM in a year what Chelsea pay Frank Lampard for ten days then it is probably a lot to do with how we value our MPs. Pay peanuts and get monkeys rings a bell. Of course, there will always be those who, like the person who started the theme for this board, see politics as a source of power and influence. But the aggro of the past year over expenses must have whittled down the field a bit? Incientally, I liked the letter in The Times today asking if Baroness Scotland had any odd bills for £5,000 on her expenses claim?
Complain about this comment
russ (and indeed not too near!)
yes, I get you, but that's a different point - you're saying the quality of the actual course (and the stiffness of the objective challenge) is higher at, say, Imperial than at Hull, and so a First from IC is better than same from Hull (ceteris paribas bla bla) - fair enough - with Schools, it's kind of the other way around since the course (and the exams) are broadly the same - hence, a grade A from a bad school is better than a grade A from a good school - as I say, the dead opposite to how it is with Unis - what say an analogy? - a 100 metre sprint and 2 boys, one on steroids, the other not - they dead heat - who's the better athlete? ... the one on drugs (boy from a top notch private school) or the one running clean (boy from the state comp) ?? - obvious when I put it like that, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
The Major @ 198
very nice to hear from you again - Accountancy exams eh? - now PLEASE don't tell anyone on the Politics Blogs (else my street cred goes down the pan) but I'm an ACA, so I can relate to your story - what a great way to spend your early twenties (not!) - and that WC, yes, the Bobby Moore allegedly nicking a diamond necklace, with Bobby Charlton acting as his "lookout" incident, right? - crazy days - not in Argentina, though ... Mexico
Complain about this comment
Saga Nice to hear from you too
Sadly I was well into my 30s. Which is why I cant tell my Evitas from my Pancho Villas. Or was it Aston Villa?
An ACA eh? Interesting to see how my Institute went from what in army terms was Vote 8 accounting to ICWA, to ICMA to CIMA. They were cute - getting out of cost and works (nothing wrong with that) into management. It helped me to compete evenly with ACAs in the Treasury (there's any credibility I might have had snookered) and later as what is known as a PEFO in a govenment department. Happy days, but I left as Blown came in, which was probably just as well.
Complain about this comment
@sagamix, 200:
Nice analogy! I think we might be vehemently agreeing with each other on that point ;-)
The steroids part could be taken as perjorative, but there's no argument that anyone who gets to the highest levels despite a Comprehensive education is naturally talented and probably works hard as well. I can't really continue that line of argument, though, as it feels too much like bragging.
My comments to Tigerjayj were pretty much just about the anti-elitism in this country. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't strive for a meritocracy instead of the kakistocracy that the tabloids seem to prefer. Perhaps I spent a little too long in California.
Complain about this comment
# 200 saga,
very obvious....? Actually it's the wee lassie who just doesn't have the time to partake in athletics festivities, but runs to school, helps her aged neighbour, babysits her younger siblings and generally helps her widowed dad.
And no doubt will applaud the winner, because she's been taught good manners and respect (by her parents) She probably is also top of the class whatever school she's at.....
Obvious when I put it like that - no?
Complain about this comment
# 199 major,
Sorry, I left before Major was PM so missed that bus whatever it was...
As for paying peanuts and getting monkeys - they would have to show a bit of determination. Sort of like a lot of people have throughout the centuries. And at the very least they would have some real life experience. Nothing wrong with that, no?
I'm quite happy with Federer earning whatever he does... quality.
Couldn't say the same for the Baroness who should have, IMHO, been taken to the cleaners. She did NOT have the evidence to support that she unknowingly hired; she herself admitted to not photocopying it so we only have her word.... Is this bright? Naw just shove your weight around.
Service to the community on minimum wage for a year.
Complain about this comment
no too near @ 204 ... well, yes, but I'm not sure how I can incorporate all of that into my national education policy!
Complain about this comment
#206 saga,
mmm.. well... keep working on it.
Perhaps twinning the "best" private schools with the "worst" state schools... Just throwing things out into the wind here - haven't worked out any details.
Complain about this comment
#184 Gothnet
You miss the point entirely. The problem with private education has nothing to do with cost.
Personally i'd ban private education despite it costing the tax payer more money.
Do you know why i'd ban it?
Because private education destroys democrasy and equality. We are ruled by an oligarchical elite and it is specifically because of private education.
Complain about this comment
@bigsammyb, 208:
"Because private education destroys democrasy and equality."
Ah, the Politics of Envy...
No thanks, I'd rather not live in a country where everyone is dragged down so that the inferior don't feel inferior.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS