What has sparked the current concern about university debt at cchq?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43106736

Genuinely feels like a big moment but I can't figure out what has sparked it. When Labour took on board the concerns of students and young people it was seen by many on here and across the media as a cynical attempt to purchase votes. Is this sudden change in direction a realisation that the system is broke or just lip service being paid to a subset of society whose political awareness and activity is experiencing a slow steady growth?

The current system is awful, taxpayer nor student has any idea what the degree course will cost them. They are paying interest before they even open a book on day one and a lot of courses do not appear to offer value for money.

It is laughable that the party of 'economic credibility' are insisting they didn't realise that universities would all charge top whack. This ham-fisted quasi-privatisation isn't a good fit for further education. It was ideology over logic and they may potentially realise that with the review.

I think someone needs to ask May the question that tripped Corbyn up. If the fee system changes as a result of this review then what happens to those between the ages of 18 and 30ish who got the raw end of the deal. Corbyn said he would 'deal with it' in his usual 'no flesh on the bones' style and got hammered. I don't know what May would say but would it really be fair for a generation to be paying more than those before them and more than those after just because they happened to be heading into further education at the wrong time.

Fwiw I am not completely sold on a free system but when senior civil servants, private industry leaders and politicians all went to university for free and benefitted greatly, the current system (implemented by that very generation) seems sick and twisted. Maybe they should pay a bit more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43106736

Genuinely feels like a big moment but I can't figure out what has sparked it. When Labour took on board the concerns of students and young people it was seen by many on here and across the media as a cynical attempt to purchase votes. Is this sudden change in direction a realisation that the system is broke or just lip service being paid to a subset of society whose political awareness and activity is experiencing a slow steady growth?

The current system is awful, taxpayer nor student has any idea what the degree course will cost them. They are paying interest before they even open a book on day one and a lot of courses do not appear to offer value for money.

It is laughable that the party of 'economic credibility' are insisting they didn't realise that universities would all charge top whack. This ham-fisted quasi-privatisation isn't a good fit for further education. It was ideology over logic and they may potentially realise that with the review.

I think someone needs to ask May the question that tripped Corbyn up. If the fee system changes as a result of this review then what happens to those between the ages of 18 and 30ish who got the raw end of the deal. Corbyn said he would 'deal with it' in his usual 'no flesh on the bones' style and got hammered. I don't know what May would say but would it really be fair for a generation to be paying more than those before them and more than those after just because they happened to be heading into further education at the wrong time.

Fwiw I am not completely sold on a free system but when senior civil servants, private industry leaders and politicians all went to university for free and benefitted greatly, the current system (implemented by that very generation) seems sick and twisted. Maybe they should pay a bit more...

---

What has been proposed is a review, not a change. To give the question serious context, the BBC summed it up last night in one line: "It is highly likely that striking a balance between not wishing seen to be financially reckless and not wishing to penalise a voter base that is increasingly influential, the most likely outcome is a fudge in between". I think that is likely, and a reasonable prediction. A fudge, trying to keep everyone happy, rather than taking a hard stand on a point of principle, is about the maximum capability of most civil servants. Now onto the point-by-point jousting.

One claim you are making is that civil servants and a various assortment of high flyers are clearly benefitting at the expense of those who do not by having education funded. Perhaps that is true. But it seems to assume that middle class people only are getting middle class jobs. What it ignores is that the system, until recent years has been fairly fluid. Fluid in the sense that those getting into these better paid jobs are from all backgrounds. That can only be a good thing. Now it doesn't apply to all of course. Roles in diplomatic quarters of the civil service, government cabinet, law, investment banking and jobs at the big four are still clearly dominated by private school, boarding school types. But well-paid work in middle ranking government, IT and accounting have far more people from humble quarters of life than pre 1980s. So higher education is helping the system be more fluid, if that is what you want. But it sounds as though you prefer working class people to be penalised for bettering themselves, rather than congratulated for doing well and moving on. It brings back memories of council estate chatter when I was a lad, along the lines of "Who does she thinks she is, driving that new car and moving into that new house?"

It begs the question as to what type of society do you want. Those who come from humble families, by having a free education system (or perhaps a lower cost one), are able to move from the lower strata and up the food chain should they progress to tertiary education. That is of course predicated on the fact that they do a decent degree, get a decent grade, and are then willing to go to where the better paid work is if required, and put a decent shift in for a few years. So that is the key word here - opportunities. To me, I am a meritocrat. If don't like a structured class system. Nor do I like "everyone is a winner" falsehoods brought on by some archaic left wingery that belongs to 1947. A meritocrat believes in a system where opportunities are increased for those willing to take them, if they have the desire to do so. So to me, an education system which is accessible (cost is bearable) creates that world of opportunity regardless of background.

If that is the starting principle, then we can accept that and move onto what university should be about. This is where I am less assured on what it should be. Initially the system was about getting more into education. When I studied, I graduated with a mere 4,000 of student debt. Half of that was loans spent on boys holidays, clothes and my car. The other half was tuition fees. Half necessary, half my own fault. But £4,000 pounds was a reasonable stinger and I paid it off within two years. It didn’t cripple me financially. I am at a point now where I think the system is now a money maker from loan fees, and a government statistic, rather than about quality education marking out the brightest in the country. Our economy does not need so many graduates, and I don’t feel great saying this, but I see a huge difference between a graduate from Cambridge who has studied Physics, Philosophy or Applied Maths, compared to a Green Studies degree person from Newport Institute of Higher Education. I am sorry, but there just is. One is well connected, influential, persuasive and resourceful individual, whilst the other fills in a “report” for his assignment the night before to get his grades. Their usefulness to the economy and personalities are very different. University should be an option, but it isn’t an egalitarian or a money-making opportunity – it should be a badge of honour for the brightest in the country. There was dross coming our of the system when I graduated, but there is a lot more dross now.

What John Major introduced was proportionate. What Blair, Brown and Cameron have done, is to milk the system to keep liabilities off the government’s balance sheet. The effect now is to lengthen the time it takes for the average young family to buy their own home and raise a family. When I was 21 the average 30 year old owned their house, had kids, a decent car and worked. The man was a man. Now many 30 year olds have not progressed from the age of 21. They live with parents and are still wiggling their control pads at their Sony Playstation whilst posting a selfie of it on Facebook, while their mum cooks their tea. Or alternatively, they operate month-to-month at the behest of a esteem-sapping private landlord, charging 700 a month to cuddle up to their Mrs between a few damp walls whilst the youngsters are forced to digitally scrutinise whether they should shop at Lidl or Aldi for next week's shopping list. It isn't a healthy situation, but that is the ounch in the face they get for their efforts in trying to go the extra mile. That isn't a healthy nor sustainable system.

I think the current system is not only seen its day, it has also outlived its original purpose. Whatever the solution is, it ought to be a tough education that breeds character as well as ability, fit for purpose and provides some reasonable funding for universities. It also ought to be a fee that represents a gesture of thanks for the opportunity, but does not act as a throttling financial noose around their for the next decade. I think a fee of 5-10K is a good starting point of debate.

Agree with almost every part of that apart from the middle paragraph which reads like a character assassination of myself based on a number of incorrect assumptions. My point about politicians and senior civil servants is simply to highlight the hypocrisy of a bunch of people sitting in a room voting for high tuition fees with high interest rates when they received their education for free. It is actually made more powerful when you consider that a number of those people will have come from modest backgrounds, obtained the benefits of a free further education and are now quite merrily penalising youngsters for having similar ambition.

Current system is the worst of both worlds and if they spend a year reviewing it and still make no changes I will be shocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Agree with almost every part of that apart from the middle paragraph which reads like a character assassination of myself based on a number of incorrect assumptions. My point about politicians and senior civil servants is simply to highlight the hypocrisy of a bunch of people sitting in a room voting for high tuition fees with high interest rates when they received their education for free. It is actually made more powerful when you consider that a number of those people will have come from modest backgrounds, obtained the benefits of a free further education and are now quite merrily penalising youngsters for having similar ambition.

Current system is the worst of both worlds and if they spend a year reviewing it and still make no changes I will be shocked.

---

I agree Eric. I apologise if it caused offence. Certainly not a personal cheap shot, just how I generally see the system. I agree it's the worst of both worlds. Political pressure and political caution dictates that May will have to make a change of some sort.

I'd bring back national service , train youngsters to drive, become mechanics , cooks , road builders, nursing , all those support attributes applied within the armed forces .

Relax it's all because William Rees - Mogg has 6 kids
queuing up for uni and he isn't as rich or posh as he makes
out.