Control

In amongst the events of the past few weeks relating to the future of higher education, I feel I should write something, I know it's not the most exciting, but I'll begin with my take on the policy.

In Vince Cables speech on Thursday all the while we were standing outside, he stated that they various options for addressing the shortfall in funding, those being;

reduce the number of student places - This sounds like an amazing plan. It is likely that this will happen due to the current plans but there are too many people going to University that don't really need or want to. Nobody mentions the drop-out rates. All governments speak that the more people going to university the better, yet no-one speaks why? Is the aim to have the majority of school leavers to go? Surely the task of university is to be a place where the individual and institution are engaging in a certain level of thinking and develop knowledge. I severely doubt that the majority have the capability or inclination to do so. Heavily implying the university route as one of statute for all is a New Labour misconception based on benign equality that ignores the specifics of this situation.

reduce maintenance funds for living costs - Funds that are dispersed via means testing and geared towards support for low income families and that i would dispute.

The situation in Scotland where I studied my first degree greatly differs in the amount of maintenance loan offered, and the figures have altered since I studied, but here are the latest;

Money available from SAAS;
Non-income assessed maximum loan (parents earn over £58,000) -
£915
Income assessed maximum loan (parents don't earn over £58,000) -
£5,067 (tiered up to)
Non-returned grants are paid but reduce the amount of loan you need to take out. Eligible for parents earning under £19,310 up to £34,195)

£2,640 (tiered up to)

Money available from finance England for studying in London;
Non-income assessed maximum loan
£4,988
Income assessed maximum loan - tiered up to
£6,928 (tiered up to)
Non-returned grants are paid and reduce the amount of loan offered by 50p for every £1 of grant. Eligible for parents earning under £25,000 up to £50,000.
£2,906 (tiered up to)

From these you can ascertain that the maximum for low income families is fairly comparable, especially when you take into account the cost of living being cheaper in Scotland, but above the border the money drops pretty steeply for families earning more or not so steep below the border depending on what way you see it.

Based on my circumstances, I received £2,500 loan and I had a part time job earning roughly £5,000 a year. From my experience I had more than some, but we all found ways of living in those means, and it resulted in ingenious solutions of living, studying and enjoying ourselves. From what i've witnessed studying in London, where things are a lot more expensive, I have yet to experience the same level of thrift, concluding that we are being given enough money to accomodate a comfortable lifestyle that we have become acclimatised to whilst earning in our year out.

Introduce a Scottish style graduate fee (now abandoned by the Scottish government)) - This strangely appoints the fee with the issuing of a degree, the condition of not having to invest into the system at the outset omits any rigour from the consideration of studying at university in the first place. One wonders if passing is not statutory for certain professions, then massive factions of students could avoid fees by not finishing, and after the parents have got over missing their child's graduation, people will realise how little the piece of paper matters after all.

the chosen one, charge more tuition fees - The 'progressive' plans are bereft in any sense of direction in which to progress to? The benefactors of university education are the graduate, the state and the private sector through 'increased earning potential', taxes paid by higher earners and skilled and productive workforce respectively. Yet the current proposals assert more cost and therefore imply the benefits on the student. The party line is to state that the taxpayer is footing the bill, repaid over time by graduates*, which is such an idiotic premise that somehow tries to overt that what is being charged to the graduates. At a time not that long ago, the Conservatives issued the dictum that to solve the debts we must act early with strict fiscal programmes. It is a simple fact that the earlier you chip into a savings account the more you benefit through interest accumulation over time. So along with a vast amount of accumulated debt from fees and maintenance, why are we fed the contrary message - one easy to swallow in the short term - that it's all ok, we'll make you pay later*.

*with interest



Overall, my attitude is that a combination of all the above should be adopted, mitigating excessive disadvantages of each of the options, yet turning all the switches and dials of the machine make it more difficult to predict results and a harder sell to a wider incredulous public through it's incompatibility to simple explanation.


This video below was passed to me lately by Holly Wales that is pretty exemplary point about the status of universities position as providers of earnings and waining in their duty to enrich the pool of knowledge in our culture and history. If the changes do anything to the future of higher education it will be to exclude many people from studying but moreover it will extremely diminish avenues of study that offer research in our heritage and limit that study to those who can relinquish £40,000 with little promise of a commercial future. I am aware that attaining a degree is worthwhile for but I'm not sure the state has faith in the .



Regards the marching and the riots, I attended, marched, sang a few songs, did no damage and no harm. Oh and I got stuck in a kettle from til11:15pm. There was relatively little violence until the sun went down, when it escalated and was being taken out on the Treasury building and the swathes of riot police. I can't imagine that the damage was carried out solely by angry students, the police and press surely acknowledge the infiltration of people that seek violence above any cause, the images of the accused released days later do little to alter that assumption.

There are people in the police force on a lot of money that are paid so to deal with the position of high responsibility and I regard their exit strategy as slow and amateurish. I really lambast the process of having continuous failed attempts at aggressively controlling situations and the obligatory investigations that follow, and after the clandestine admissions of wrongdoing there lies no progress on policy, future events or regard for the police. There have been tests in Northern Ireland where police have coordinated supervision of Orange Marches with police dispersed along the crowds in simple uniforms providing successful results, encountering less incidents and of minor harm. Paradoxical solutions are difficult to sell but what happens when you take off the riot gear?

The BBC's stance has been very defensive on the side of the police and the royal family with stories of Alfie Meadows and Jody McIntyre largely interrupted for the violence taken by the police and the 'contact' encountered by Camilla through an (open!) window. I am not asking for a reversal of the stance of the press, just a little closer to impartiality that they advertise.

Photography from the day will soon be added to this post.

I will get back to posting about cool chairs and amateur photographs