Your name’s not down, you’re not coming in…

The title of this piece is similar to what a lot of potential students will be hearing shortly, as universities get set to reject the highest number of applicants ever.

This unfortunate circumstance is certainly a product of the highly inclusive and open system the United Kingdom currently has – but with limited resources, can we really keep blaming ourselves for the inability to offer universal higher education?

There were about 660,000 applications this year for university courses, nearly 200,000 more than just four years ago.  At this rate of expansion, it’s clear to see how universities struggle to keep up in terms of providing quality education within the current fees limitations, all the while providing residences, bars, extra-curricular activities and investing in capital projects to keep up with the times.

Lecturers union, the UCU, fears up to 170,000 people could be disappointed, as a cap on places is enforced.

It’s often remarked upon that a university degree is an absolutely ‘must’ when entering the job market, and even that won’t guarantee you a position – but that being said, what price are we now paying in our attempts to have a more educated workforce – and isn’t competition for places a good thing to force up standards?

No doubt our sincerest condolences go out to those who have been unable to make it through this year – perseverance is no doubt crucial in an ever more competitive environment.  The question we ask of our readers on this, is how would you change the system, if you would at all?  Think about it – comments are welcome.

A tax on graduates – new plans to scrap tuition fees

Today, Business Secretary Vince Cable announced a rethink on university funding, seemingly favouring a ‘graduate tax’ – an idea long championed by the National Union of Students.

But it’s not popular with everyone and could lead to students ‘paying back’ far more over their careers.  The University and College Union called the scheme ‘unfair’ with repayments tied to earnings.

The UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “If the government thinks it can get the public to swallow higher fees as some sort of graduate tax it is living in a dream world. We need a proper debate on how to fund our universities, not an exercise in rebranding.”

A crucial stumbling block of such a policy is of course the time lags associated.  There would be a transition period between how universities currently receive funding and the income generated from a graduate tax.

Further to this, Mr. Cable has spoken of two-year degrees, which would involve classes during the traditional long summer vacation, and would also see extra hours of tuition in term time.  Dr Terence Kealey, vice-chancellor of the private Buckingham University, which offers a standard two-year academic degree, said: “Many more people are suited to two-year courses than realise it.

However again, Sally Hunt at the UCU has commented, “Two-year degrees may sound great on paper but are in effect education on the cheap. They would be incredibly teacher-intensive and would stop staff from carrying out vital research and pastoral duties. Our universities are places of learning, not academic sweatshops, and we need to get away from the idea that more can be delivered for less.”

Whichever side of the fence you sit on, it’s certain that the new government is determined to implement a radical shake up in the education sector – whether or not these measures will be as unpopular as Tony Blair’s top-up fees remains to be seen.

Debunking the stimulus argument for higher education

In the past few months, we’ve witnessed a dramatic change in global rhetoric vis a vis public spending.  Even the stalwart socialist types across the globe are lately arguing for deficit reduction in lieu of the out of favour ’stimulus’ packages that seem consigned to Brown-era government.  It’s interesting to note that meanwhile, there are still those calling for huge and untenable public investment in universities.

Certainly, investment in higher education can yield economic results for years to come- but this is not an absolute principle and we must not allow for this idea to force our hands in distressing economic conditions.

There are plenty of factors to consider.  What kind of degrees are students obtaining?  How will they benefit the UK economy in decades to come?  What is the current public outlay per student, per degree, per lecturer, per module?  It’s not purely as simple as offering a one-liner about ‘the right to higher education’.

While lowering barriers to entry is a desirable and achievable goal – it’s no use if we’re producing 50,000+ more photography graduates per year.  There simply aren’t the jobs for them post-graduation.  More so, there are diminishing returns involved in terms of how much public money can be employed juxtaposed with potential future gains.

Pam Tatlow, of ‘Universities Think Tank – Million+’ has recently stated why she believes the coalition government should be promoting universities as ‘a source of long-term returns to the national exchequer’.  This is a false dichotomy founded on the ’stimulus’ principle which even the most socially driven politicans are steering away from.

Trying to explain to repossesed families or struggling businesses that they should be taxed more, or that they should benefit less from any tax cuts due to an investment in higher education is surely a kick in the teeth for those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives.  The argument falls short when you consider the opportunity cost of creating greater public debt for speculative future gains.

And that’s not all.  Recently, the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) has shown research that displays how 78 per cent of top employers are now filtering out any job applicants with less than a first or a 2:1 – thereby cementing the idea that a degree should not be viewed as a prerequiste to a right of employment.  In fact, they go as far to offer employment advice along the lines of ’shelf-stacking’ and ‘burger-flipping’ for those on 2:2s.

The point in this article, therefore?

Prospective students, current students and indeed graduates must not allow themselves to fall into the trap of assuming the right to higher education at a cost to the general public, nor assume the right to employment post-degree.  Education is an endeavour for knowledge, understanding and crucially in these times – a salary.  But let’s not fool ourselves into believing it is owed to us.  Your ‘rights’ stop where your ingenuity and tenacity does.

For all those on this path – best of luck, and keep on at it.