A progressive system is our only way out of chaos
We all know those people at university. In fact, some days, we might be those people. The ones who came to university because it was something to do, because their gap year was over and Politics seemed reasonably interesting and a bit of a doss. They mince around, occasionally turn up to lectures and are rarely seen before cocktail hour.
Labour’s mandate to encourage 50% of 18 year olds in higher education is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The Income Data Service reports that, this year, half of employees are freezing their graduate-level salaries and many are reducing the number they intend to employ. This, combined with the fact that the majority of university degrees lend themselves to management positions that are no longer available means that the first generation of students leaving university with £20,000-25,000 worth of debt won’t get jobs. And, thanks to Labour, now there are even more of them, weeping into their cocktails.
Even worse, Universities are in danger of going bankrupt. Chris Patten, the Oxford University Chancellor, wants to remove the cap on tuition fees because they fail to cover the cost of higher education. He proposes allowing universities to raise their fees and then channel the money into providing more bursaries for poorer students. While this is currently possible for Russell Group institutions, universities like York don’t have the funds from alumni to provide substantial bursaries.
International students have been a profitable source of income for a long time. They usually make up around 15% of the overall population and pay substantially more then EU or British citizens. However, the 50% increase in the cost of visas for international students combined with the weakening pound has caused concern about numbers declining. Patten makes the point that middle class parents will happily fork out £10-25,000 for their children’s secondary education but are outraged when the subject of tuition fees is broached. In a so-called free market, one would think that two parties, one with a need for money and a service to offer and the other with the funds would come to an agreement. Typically, the government’s meddling has not only prevented this but also created an arrangement where even those in need of financial aid find it difficult to secure.
The NUS is in the process of coming up with a comprehensive strategy for a new solution. This, essentially, seems to involve students paying no money upfront and imposing a lifelong tax on the future earnings of students. Aaron Porter, NUS Vice President says students will earn at least £160,000 more than their A-level only peers and should pay for the privilege. Although Porter insists this won’t discourage people from going to university, I question whether the financial benefits of my degree will outweigh the costs of a life-long tax, especially as I want to work in the traditionally low-paid sector of government. The plan does not sound viable and places far too much control in the hands of a government who botched tuition funding in the first place.
Essentially, tuition fees need to be decided on a sliding scale. You pay the full cost of your education if you or your parents have the ability to do so and less if you or your parents do not. There is no reason why someone who has plenty of money for private education should enjoy government subsidies for university. The funds generated from this should then be channelled towards providing full bursaries for those with potential but an inability to pay. This would reduce debt levels among those leaving university as well as teaching students that university is privilege and something that must be valued.
At the moment, we don’t need 50% of 18 year olds kicking around dusty lecture halls. We need them contributing to the economy and buying British-made goods. Some sense in spending would increase social mobility far more than cramming as many kids into red-brick building as possible.
Loading ...
“International students have been a profitable source of income for a long time. They usually make up around 15% of the overall population and pay substantially more then EU or British citizens. However, the 50% increase in the cost of visas for international students combined with the weakening pound has caused concern about numbers declining.”
You seem to have been confused with the terminology here. This is how the university defines international and overseas students.
international students: every student who’s country of origin is not the UK (i.e. including all EU students).
overseas students: every student who comes from a nation outside of the EU.
To be fair, the official terminology is completely bizarre.
To be fair, I’ve heard the university call non-EU students “international students” anyway, so the official terminology is poor regardless. They should leave it as “non-UK” and “non-EU”.
Overseas makes sense for non-UK, because we’re an island! (well, excluding Northern Island, but that’s more sensible than including France and Germany – separated by the North Sea in overseas!)
Either you’ve got to exclude Northern Ireland or you’ve got to include the Republic of Ireland. Overseas is an inaccurate phrase and I think that the Channel isn’t technically a sea anyway.
International or non-EU… International means “not British” anyway so it’s perfectly fine. Anyway, it’s stupid
Isn’t the weakening pound helping increase foreign students numbers?? I’d have thought now would be a great time to study in the UK when the pound is cheap.
“To be fair, I’ve heard the university call non-EU students ‘international students’ anyway, so the official terminology is poor regardless.”
I think it is clear that you haven’t really understood the terminology, that’s why you think it is poor.
international: everyone who’s not from Britain.
overseas: non-EU students (i.e. a subset of international students).
It’s really not that difficult is it?