Receiving mixed messages
This week has seen yet another resurgence of debate over the controversial direction of Higher Education in the UK. But students, and potential students, have been left with a distinctly mixed message, some points of which leave a sour taste in the mouth.
A series of government policy statements and ministerial comments followed the predictably regular story about Oxbridge: this time centred on the publishing of statistics showing that one third of Oxbridge’s student intake comes from only 100 schools, the vast majority of which are private. These announcements were intended to re-iterate the government’s policy of university education for those who are able, regardless of their background.
This culminated in Wednesday’s launch of a blueprint for Universities to forge “partnerships” with a local academy, with Cabinet MP John Denham urging universities to adopt one of the government’s new, partially privately funded, secondary schools. Several universities, including Imperial College and UCL, have expressed interest in the scheme, which is designed to form “deep-rooted” links between top universities and local schools. Several other Universities have been unmoved by Denham’s encouragement, preferring their own methods for attracting state-sector students.
Meanwhile, in this week’s Sunday Telegraph, the Rector, Sir Richard Sykes, criticised “Mickey Mouse” degrees, whilst advocating not only an increase in top-up fees, but an increase in the interest rates that students pay on their loans.
“The system has to change,” said the Rector, who, pulling in £305k a year, has the second highest salary of all UK University heads. “It will then make people think twice before they go off and do damn silly courses that are no good to them and won’t get them a good job at the end of the day. It would mean university is not just a nice four years off.”
Sir Richard has a history of being outspoken in his support of increasing the cost of higher education to the student. On Sunday he advocated an increase of the top-up fees from £3000 to £5000 after the review in 2009.
An increase in the interest paid on student loans (effective immediately after graduation) would see a dramatic increase in the cost, to the student, of a University education. Debt is already a major concern for students in general, with loan repayments continuing many years after graduation, even for a degree alone. For Masters and PhD students, calculation of exactly how much debt they can afford often dictates the path of their career. With such an increase in the student loan rate, suggested at a level just under bank rates, we could see students paying off their debt well into middle age.
These two conflicting points of view, coming respectively from the Cabinet Minister for higher education, and one of the most influential university heads in the country, show the incongruity between the attitudes of educational chiefs and government policy. A conflict which appears to be leading neither in the right direction.
Prevalent student opinion shows a general detachment from both sides. The government obsession with the magically arbitrary figure of 50% of pupils going on to University seems to care little about the quality and value of the courses involved, and students feel their degrees become devalued in general.
Whereas the Rector’s abrasive comments exhibit the kind of arrogance which the top universities in the country are attempting to purge from their reputations. Whilst many sympathise with his dislike of gratuitous degree courses (such as David Beckham studies), there is a distinctly sour taste left in their mouths over his apparent view of degree courses as nothing but a business plan for maximum profit. Many are concerned by his lack of obvious academic sentiment: the concept that the advancement of humanity is a valuable and noble pursuit in itself, without the endless pursuit of economic profit. Thus he cements the image of Imperial College Plc., a place of business, not of learning.
The effect of these views on education in general is as yet unknown, but some fear that the future holds a worryingly Americanised system. A system where it is impossible to progress in any career without a degree, but attending university is massively expensive. This kind of system penalises the poorer students more than any other, exactly the effect that the aforementioned measures are designed to avoid.
Whilst such debate rages on about the future of higher education in the UK, the student body is undecided about what it wants: we at Imperial like being the elite, but dislike being treated as a business case and milked dry of our income for years to come.
The Union voted on Monday to revoke our current policy on tuition fees (current policy being that the Union is opposed to any increase in the amount that students are charged for education), pending an investigation into our true opinion on the matter. Until the students body decides what it really wants from its education, it remains helpless over how much it is prepared to pay for it.
One obvious question is posed, however: is anyone sure of what they want education to actually achieve. Even the government seems to have difficulty in making up its mind.
