Why "Tory" Blair doesn't care about your children

[anarres]

Here is the target of this tory, er, I mean labour governemnt, and also some other items of interest in the university sector.

Target:

* 50% of students to go to university


Other "unrelated" items:

* Funding per student cut consistently
* Top up fees now in place
* No student grant for even the poorest
* Class sizes increasing
* Huge increase in almost useless qualifications (golf course management, media studies, etc)
* Removal of many many "unviable" courses (unviable because you need so many students to make it economical, because the money-per-student has fallen so far)
* Research being done to fund teaching courses (can you even believe it!) forcing many non-"red brick" uni's to specialise in "dummed down" degrees as they simply have less funding.


As you can see, we are looking to have an (unrealistic) number of people at university and at the same time are slashing the amount of money per student we put in.

There is only 1 possible outcome: a generation of badly educated students with degrees that no employer wants....

Where are the degree-level vocational qualifications?

Where are the apprentice cources (funded by the government)?

Why has the amount per student been consistently slashed if not to accomodate 50% of the young population?

Why has this government not sticked to it's 1997 election pledge to scrap tuition fees?

How on earth do we find jobs for 6,000 people with "media studies" every year? Are there really that many media jobs??

source:

The Office of National Statistics’ Labour Force Survey recorded a fall in the number of journalists from 60,000 in 2001 to 54,000 in 2004; broadcasting professionals from 39,000 to 38,000, and public relations officers from 28,000 to 26,000.

Meanwhile, the number of graduates with media degrees has grown fast. According to statistics from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), the number graduating with undergraduate and postgraduate media studies degrees almost trebled from 2,170 in 1998-99 to 6,230 in 2002-03.

Note that I can hardly blame Tory Blair for the increase in media studies courses, but it is symptomatic of a much larger problem in the UK education system: namely that good academic cources are being shut down the length and bredth of this country in favour of huge shared courses in things like media studies. In other subjects courses are being forced to combine 1st years of similar degrees, so you have to specialise later on rather than earlier on.

The long and the short of it is that this Labour government has betrayed it's people, not just on this issue but on many (privatisaiton of almost everything - Thatcher would have been proud!, going to war against the will of the people, etc).

This is one ex-labour voter, at least until that authoritarian Tory bigot Blair is toppled. The only question now is do I vote LibDem or Socialist Alliance?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I am probably rightly assuming that this is in the U.K. However, this does not effect me in the least, I'm in the midwestern United States. However, I am concerned about the goings on in the lands of our ally, England.

 

[CurtSibling]

The thing that becomes obvious is that whatever flavour of government
that is in power, they all milk the situation in the same manner.

Exploitation of the many perks, the old boy's club back-slapping and arrogance all come into the picture.

Tory/Labour, Rebuplican/Democrat?

All wings of the same oily bird.

Anyone who thinks that their is such a thing as an honest government is living in fantasy island...

......

......

 

[Timko]

As you can see, we are looking to have an (unrealistic) number of people at university and at the same time are slashing the amount of money per student we put in.

There is only 1 possible outcome: a generation of badly educated students with degrees that no employer wants....

Even just a bunch of badly educated students wouldn't be so bad - were it not for the fact that they have spent 3-4 years doing it only to find it was a waste of time, and accumulated £14k of debt.

 

[anarres]

I understand you Curt, but Blair is more Authoritarian than Thatcher was!

Add on to it he is also economically conservative and the only distinguishing factor between him and Thatcher is that he has a semblance of humanity in him (a semblance, nothing more...), as shown in his only-a-little-right-of-center attitude to social issues.

Of course with identity cards, illegal detention of non-UK subjects, passport control (incl. fingerprinting), capping of council tax, removal of human rights, etc Blair is quickly losing the ONLY non-evil part of his soul.

Soon you will be able to hold pictures of Tony "Tory" Blair and Michael Howard side by side and not be able to tell the difference...

 

[Scuffer]

Leaving funding aside, it is not government's decision what courses can and can't run. If the university can attract students (and the money that comes with them) into a golf course management degree, it entitled to and will.

Why students are keen to drag themselves into a mountain of debt for a stupid qualification is a good question. Perhaps they see a degree as a degree, whether in chemistry or surfing. Either way, it isn't, and shouldn't be, for the government to tell people what they can and can't study.

Coming back to funding, wanting 50% to go to university is a noble aim, but it'll cost a fortune to do so. I also don't see a problem in university using their incredible knowledge and technical resources as a way of generating cash, as long as it is not to the detriment of academia.

 

[col]

Hold them up to a mirror.

There is no doubt that the Labour government has increased the Education budget overall. However they have increased the allocation to primary education at the expense of higher education. Is this reasonable?

Well yes, it probably is. Everyone benefits from better primary eduation and a good start generally is the basis of all that follows.

Universities are expensive. Who should pay? Is it unreasonable that students should be asked to pay a small percentage of the cost of educating them when they will benefit enormously in their income for the rest of their lives.? Bursaries are available for poorer students and the cheapest loan you will ever get is available for the rest.

Sadly universities have become market led. They put on courses that students want to do and close departments which are unpopular. I dont know why anyone would pick a media studies degree over physics when physics is so obviously more interesting and more to the point offers 100% employment prospects. Should the governemtn social engineer and force students towards courses which will benefit society and scrap mickey mouse courses? Yout tell me.

This country has always suffered in comparison with Germany and France with its attitude to vocational education. We suffer from a shortage of skilled technical workers. Academic courses are the aim of all middle class parents for their children. They resist any attempt to meddle with the gold standard of A levels. While universities are only interested in A levels, no other qualification is valued. Employers too give lip service to training. They want a trained workforce but wont release their staff or pay to have them trained. Vocational training in the UK has been a disaster forever.

 

[anarres]

col, a reply will have to wait until tonight (after SGOTM6) as work is getting hectic, but I want to and will come back about your points.

In the meantime prepare an essay: "How to avoid slashing price-per-pupil without having to sacrifice the extra money put in to primary education by not having unobtainable and meaningless targets".

Ha, a long title but I bet you professors love that.

 

[nonconformist]

I understand you Curt, but Blair is more Authoritarian than Thatcher was!

No. bloody. Way.

 

[anarres]

Thatcher just wanted to steal your rights, Blair pretends he cherishes them while taking them, then he sends you a bill for the service.

Anyway, it was partly tongue in cheek, because he's almost as bad as Thatcher. The common joke is that Thatcher would have been proud of what Blair has done...

Edit: I am somewhat to the left and down from the Greens.

 

[nonconformist]

True, but as bad as Thatcher? I don't see the riot squads.....

 

[zulu9812]

I have, and you will this summer

 

[betazed]

Sadly universities have become market led. They put on courses that students want to do and close departments which are unpopular. I dont know why anyone would pick a media studies degree over physics when physics is so obviously more interesting and more to the point offers 100% employment prospects. Should the governemtn social engineer and force students towards courses which will benefit society and scrap mickey mouse courses? Yout tell me.

My first reaction to this is (as usual ) yes & no.

yes - because IMHO, govt. should actively encourage students in taking physics instead of political science (as an example). I can see a lot of use for a physicist in many parts of the economy where he can be gainfully employed and use what he has learnt. can't say the same thing about political science.

No - because i do not think someone who is intent on taking political science will be any good in physics. so it is a waste anyway.

But it is a very interesting question that requires more thought.

 

[ainwood]

My view is that far too many students treat tertiary education as an expense. If its an expense, then what are they doing there? Tertiary education is an investment in your own future. I do agree about scrapping apprenticeships though - there is a shortage of skilled tradepeople, and reinstating the apprenticeship schemes would go a long way to sorting that out (and probably reduce the overall student debt, because those that don't really need to go to university would have other options).

 

[amadeus]

I don't think I've ever seen a government budget be cut before. They slow the rate of increase, but there's never cuts.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Sadly universities have become market led. They put on courses that students want to do and close departments which are unpopular. I dont know why anyone would pick a media studies degree over physics when physics is so obviously more interesting and more to the point offers 100% employment prospects. Should the governemtn social engineer and force students towards courses which will benefit society and scrap mickey mouse courses? Yout tell me.

Since the state pays, and the state is supposed to look after the interests of society as a whole, I think it's easy; it should determine the number of places at different courses by estimated future demand. Educating more, say, lawyers than there will ever be a demand for is a waste of taxpayers money.

 

[EdwardTking]

Since the state pays, and the state is supposed to look after the interests of society as a whole, I think it's easy; it should determine the number of places at different courses by estimated future demand. Educating more, say, lawyers than there will ever be a demand for is a waste of taxpayers money.

Problem is the UK state doesn't pay in the short term.

The UK government merely (a) interferes in university's freedom (b) targets an over supply of graduates (c) encourages students to go into debt and (d) underwrites loans that no prudent banker would make.

Partly this is all to do with creating an illusion of education, but it is also motivated by the desire to reduce the official unemployment statistics.

This will, as others have indicated, result in many low income and unemployed graduates, and in my opinion an eventual massive write off by government of unrecovered student loan debt; but that is in the future and conveniently off the published balance sheets.

There are a number of adverse consequences:

(a) devaluation of the ordinary three year degree

(b) as a simplification I reckon that students have to get an MA today to be
educated to the equivalent of a BSC 30 years ago.

(c) a rapidly growing shortage of skilled electricians, engineers, mechanics, plumbers etc as students misdirected into oversubscribed media studies.

(d) loss of academic and world class leadership from factory approach

(e) people starting work with substantial debt and therefore deferring having families, previously this only occurred with 7 year medical degrees with sure job at end, and thus contributing to the shrinkage of the indigenous population.

(f) people starting work at 25 rather than 18 screws up pension priviion

(g) substantive loss when bad debt has to be written off.

 

[Mise]

Incidentally, I read today (and I hope I read wrong) that all but one university will be charging the full £3,000 per year tuition fees. So much for creating a market

Universities are expensive. Who should pay? Is it unreasonable that students should be asked to pay a small percentage of the cost of educating them when they will benefit enormously in their income for the rest of their lives.?

And with enormous income comes enormous taxes. If graduates earn more money, they will pay that back 1000 times over in taxes over their lifetime. It's a well known fact that well educated higher salaried employees pay far more back in taxes than they get in return. And rightly so.

 

[ainwood]

And with enormous income comes enormous taxes. If graduates earn more money, they will pay that back 1000 times over in taxes over their lifetime. It's a well known fact that well educated higher salaried employees pay far more back in taxes than they get in return. And rightly so.

So: Are you suggesting that rich graduates are paying for their education twice? Once through direct fees, and again through taxes?

Sounds like a good argument for reducing taxes, or even a regressive / flat tax system to me.

 

[punkbass2000]

No, only graduates that choose to get high-paying jobs are paying high taxes and they are not paying for their education twice.