Walking around Cambridge, I see a lot more tramps than I ever see in London and, to my surprise; the Cambridge ones are English and white. So partly out of social conscience and partly out of being stunned by this novelty, I bought a few Big Issues. But the novelty quickly shattered like an empty whisky bottle when I saw the tanned guy with the white trainers buying large amounts of alcohol in Sainsbury’s – with my money. The only response could be 'What a cheeky bastard (or BASSSTAD, in Northern-speak).'
I imagine that many people felt like how that tramp made me feel when Oxbridge colleges recently announced again that they want to abolish the cap on student fees. “Tight, cheeky bastards: taking my money just so that they can buy themselves White Lightning / port and Quavers / brie”. We, as the students, look around the beautiful buildings and facilities that belong to colleges and think, 'they don’t really need it.'
But, in my (bound-to-be-very-unpopular) view, fees should not be abolished and the cap should be raised. Before you start shouting words like 'access' and 'inclusivity' at me (which, quite frankly, very few people have a clue about), let me explain my rationale.
At the moment, people studying Super Mario (for instance) at Wolverhampton Polytechnic are paying £3,225. Just like us. The difference is that we have well-funded libraries, one-to-one supervisions and some of the best lecturers in the world. These things don’t come cheap and the massive gap in quality is not reflected in the prices. The problem of the cap is not that it exists but that it hasn’t been staggered nationally. It was simply introduced as the maximum universities could charge and every university now charges that.
A friend of mine was also quite honest about the whole thing. 'My parents paid over £20,000 a year in fees for the last 7 years,' he said, 'three years wouldn’t make much more of a difference.' Although this might make him sound like a bell end, these circumstances have to be considered: there are plenty of people at Cambridge who could afford more than £3,225 a year on fees.
The only draw-back to increasing a cap is what happens at the other end of the spectrum. If Cambridge charges higher fees, then bursaries would also have to increase and cater more for people from low-income households. Unfortunately, those in control of 'access' and the University’s bursary scheme don’t seem to have a clue.
'Yah, yah, we have bursaries and stuff,' is what Access people often spout to school children who might not be able to afford Cambridge fees. But the access teams often don’t know how the 'bursaries and stuff' work. The payments are made in two instalments to cover three terms (genius); the first comes in January, four months after a student has started their degree (makes sense); and the bursary is reduced if any other charity wants to buy books or food for the student (brilliant).
So the debate of 'increase the cap vs. abolish the cap' isn’t really helpful for sorting out any problems with the current system. A Cambridge degree is worth its weight in Student Loan and will benefit each of us significantly. Unlike the Big Issue, we actually get something worthwhile when we give our money to our colleges. So, if you have it: 'SHOW THEM THE MONEY' and, if you don’t, hopefully the 'access' crew will get their act together. Otherwise there might be more people begging for money in Cambridge a few years from now: half of them tramps; the other half, college bursars.
The whole idea of the Big Issue is that it’s a way for homeless people to earn money – then once they’ve earned it, they can spend it on whatever the hell they like. If you just wanted to give them money, just give them a couple of quid and don’t bother taking a big issue off them. And as for a greater feeling of social injustice just because they’re white….
"people studying Super Mario (for instance)"
How many degree courses around the country are really like "super mario"? If you actually looked at university prospectuses you'd find that most subjects are the same as the ones studied here. Where's the evidence of the "massive gap in quality"?
This articles reeks of snobbery and as for "there are plenty of people at Cambridge who could afford more than £3,225 a year on fees", the majority of students leaving university are already thousands of pouunds in debt.
the evidence of the "massive gap in quality" is the difference in starting salaries for graduates. there isn't a wage premium on a Cambridge education for no reason you know…
good point, well made. congratulations for being one of the very few who actually talk sense. keep up the good work.
anon – yeah, so thousands of pounds in debt. But it's not exactly like debt from a credit card, or a mortgage, you just pay 9% on what you earn above £15,000. And if you don't finish paying it 25 years after you graduate, then it's all written off. So if doesn't really matter how in debt you are, you'll only pay what you can afford. It's just like having a tax for graduates – which when you think about how we've all spent 3 years not contributing towards tax so that we could further our education (which is still massively subsidised), we haven't got such a bad deal.
As for what the article is saying – the "access" crew is perfectly fine as it is. Yes the two payment thing is annoying, but it's such a generous scheme I don't care too much – and anyway, that's what free overdrafts are for!!
Fee's should be used as a mechanism to discourage courses which add little value to society, the metaphorical "Super Mario" being taken as an example. As a rule of thumb, courses of true value (engineering being a prime example, medicine another) should be on the low end of the fee scale. Those which add little to society and/or the economy, optimized by "American Studies" at UEA, should be offered, but offered at their true cost… in other words not subsidized in any way by the Government. That way, those that choose to study these subjects can do so at true social cost; I don't see anything morally wrong with excluding those from poor backgrounds from pursuing such degrees – after all, if they truly are from an impoverished background they won't want to study and pay for a degree that will get them nowhere in life.
I agree that amongst those economically/socially desirable subjects there should be some divergence in cost; if you want to study at Cambridge, you should pay more than if you were studying at Anglia Ruskin; after all, you are receiving the best in terms of tuition and that doesn't come for free. By stopping the subsidy for Super Mario courses, it would free up sufficient revenue to give full grants to those from poorer backgrounds who have the ability and desire to study a worthwhile course at the best university.
The student loans company will cover tuition fees entirely, and pay when they need to be paid. This doesn't have to be paid back until you're earning a certain amount, so everyone can afford tuition, and I assume if tuition fees were to rise, the slc would still pay. It's living expenses that are (or at least, should logically be) access problems, and the living expenses in Cambridge can be kept quite low.
I know that leaving with upwards of thirty grand of debt would not be optimal, but the actual cost of tuition is greater than £3225 a year, at least in most subjects, and raising tuition fees is a better way forward than cutting entire faculties.
The thing is, as good an idea as removing/reducing subsidies on degrees which add little value to society/the economy is that it requires a value judgment, which is something the govt will NEVER do. How do you mathematically define what benefit certain degrees have. I'm not sure what 'American Studies' is, but it may actually be part American History, part American Politics, part American sociology etc. All things which actually seem like proper degrees, perhaps chopped up and re-hashed, but it's a great example of a subject that sits spectacularly on the proverbial fence.
Unlike my own Cambridge University Engineering degree which is clearly valuable or Super Mario which is clearly a waste of everyone's time (isn't that why Super Mario the game was invented in the first place, to waste time), American Studies can be argued either way and the government would not want to get into years of debate as to whether this is subsidisable degree. The only thing the govt can do is go for a flat increase to quell the nationwide belief that all students are lazy morons doing pointless degrees. (That's what the Daily Mail, Sun, Mirror and other publications say, that's what everyone believes – by everyone I of course mean a significant proportion of the voting demographic).