NCH: An Unconvincing Idea

Try as I might, I just can’t get worked up over this private university thing – certainly not the extent of this rather embittered commentator or this jaundiced old Marxist rent-a-quote. I can’t help but think that if Grayling et al want to do this, they should feel free. And the whole project can fall into the category of stuff I don’t really care about.

So my point isn’t about defending or lambasting this institution – I’ll leave that to others who care more. What I would say, though, is that £18k a year (or a magnificent £54k for a degree) does sound like an awful lot, particularly when you can get a degree from Oxbridge for literally half the price. The counter claim is that with fewer students there will be a greater chance to have face to face interaction with your tutors. But that is only of benefit if those tutors are great teachers. Which, along with the cost, is one of the things that really doesn’t work for me with regard to this project.

The names mentioned are certainly big names – and with the likes of A. C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins, this college is probably attracting the closest the UK has to public intellectuals. But fame does not mean quality – after all, Ben Affleck and Tom Cruise are internationally famous actors, but that doesn’t actually make them any good. Grayling is a remarkably bland philosopher, Dawkins is a relentless dogmatist who shows the same zeal with regard to his atheism as many religious fundamentalists. Elsewhere, the other intellectuals involved that I’ve actually heard of are Ronald Dworkin (a kind of sub-John Rawls obsessed with a sort of intangible egalitarianism) and Niall Fergusson – a controversial historian at best with an unhealthy respect for imperialism. Sure, these people are visible, but that doesn’t make them (a) any good or (b) able to teach.

The whole thing comes across as a bit of a stunt – an injection of celebrity culture into the academic world. I dare say there will be some who will be willing to pay these exorbitant fees to end up with a degree from the University of London and the right to say that they studied under Grayling and/or Dawkins, but I suspect they will be few and far between. Furthermore, even if the college does take off then there are no guarantees that the institution will win respect even if it does gain students (a point that much of the criticism of this scheme seems to miss). So while I wouldn’t deny the right of Grayling and the others to found this institution, I would recommend that serious students look elsewhere. You can get a decent degree from a respected institution without the cost and the risk inherent in the NCH project.

Elsewhere...

Over at the Orphans, I've got a post up about the idea of the rich being able to pay for extra places and how spectacularly our politicians failed to have a meaningful debate about the idea. Do go take a look.

Universities Charge What The Government Allows Them To Charge Shock!

So, it appears that some universities will be charging the maximum possible in tuition fees that the government allows. Fair enough, I reckon. A degree from a decent university is worth much more than £9k. What does bother me, though, is the government then whining about universities charging the maximum.

I’m sorry, but what precisely did they think was going to happen here? That most universities – entities that need to make money – would charge as much as possible in many cases was 100% inevitable. To think otherwise is completely naïve. Yet the government seems to have been precisely that. There seems to be a certain incredulity that money-making organisations would choose to, well, make money. This talk of only charging the maximum in “exceptional circumstances” is nonsense on stilts – after all, what could be more of an exceptional circumstance for a university that having large amounts of its government funding removed?

Just to be clear – I’m not concerned about tuition fees, or the substantial rise in them. In many ways the new system is fairer since it is being financially able to pay back the cost of a university education is now categorically the criterion for being expected to do so. What does bother me, though, is the terminal stupidity of a government that allows organisations to make money, and then gets the hump when they do. The coalition need to get a grip. They need to be far more astute and political than this. Fundamentally, they need to remember the basic point that their policies have consequences, and if they don’t like those consequences, then they shouldn’t pursue the related policies in the first place.

Longrider has an excellent post up about the idea that lecturers should be effectively spying on their pupils. I have nothing to add to his common sense dismissal of this atrocious idea other than my own personal take on this.

In the long term, I want to be a university lecturer. In fact, all being well, I should be teaching at a UK university from later this year. And I have to say that the only occasion in which I would even consider highlighting a student's opinions is if they made some sort of direct threat about another person. Y'know, something like "I want to stab XYZ". Otherwise, any opinion - no matter how extreme it might be - would not warrant escalating. See, the whole point of university is to open the minds of students - to challenge them, and to make them think. By all means let students express controversial opinions in essays and tutorials (Lord knows, they express any number of stupid and poorly thought through ones already) and then let's talk about them. Not to pursue a particular agenda, nor to push Western values. But rather to expose those opinions that are, with the best will in the world, illogical, more than a little repugnant and unable to stand up to close scrutiny. And yeah, fundamentalism in all its forms would be one of those opinions.

University should be about challenging and and shaping opinions. It shouldn't be about restricting those opinions, no matter how controversial. And if the teaching staff at universities simply become a further arm of government control and restriction in this country, then I really wonder what the point of them will be.

How not to get the best from a University Education

This was all observed at York Uni last week: a female student came into one of the study areas. She found a desk, sat down, and got a bag of crisps out of her bag. She proceeded to crunch her way through them while unpacking her books. Having finished her (rather loud, for a silent area) meal she then rested her desk, and went to sleep. For a good hour. Then she woke up, packed up her books, and left the room. It was then that I saw that she was clutching one of those "No to 9K" posters.

Now, I can see why she wouldn't want to spend 9k a year on having a room to sleep in on a campus when the need takes her. That's not good value for money. But honest to God, having a kip in a study area not what a university education is actually about. Truth be told, in an institution like York, 9k is actually good value for money, given the good facilities and (generally speaking) the excellent level of teaching on offer. The point is that this girl - and any other student paying for the opportunity to go to a good university - is that you get value for money by making the most of your time at that institution. Or to put it another way, getting a degree is actually about more than eating and sleeping.

I'm away for the next 24 hours or so graduating (for the second time - once just wasn't enough!) Therefore, posting on this blog is even less likely that normal. In fact, if I was a betting man (which I'm not on the grounds I'm shit at it) I'd say there is no chance at all of anything new appearing on this blog before Friday morning. In the meantime, I'd like to leave you with this thought - Gordon Brown's book, according to my deeply unscientific research in my local Waterstone's, has been massively outsold by the latest turgid doorstop of a novel from Tom Clancy. But that doesn't tell the whole story. On the first day of release, Clancy sold a massive 6 copies. Brown sold just two.

Make your own judgments on those stats. I know I certainly will...

From a report on the student protests:

Few seem to be older than 18, and several I have spoken to were under 16, having sneaked away from lessons without the knowledge of their schools

Wouldn't it make more sense to stay at school and get the qualifications necessary to get into university? Because I'm pretty sure that playing truant doesn't look great on a UCAS form...

The Student Protest(s)

So... the student protests. How did they work out for you, my student brethren? Well? Do you think you achieved something positive? Because if you do, then you're an idiot.

Before we start out on just why the protest/demonstration/second-rate riot was a shit idea, let me first declare categorically that it is the right of everyone in this country to protest on any issue they so wish. It is one of the few remaining privileges our increasingly misanthropic and patronisingly paternalistic leaders allow us. We should protest; it gives volume to our often muted and forgotten voices.

However, before anyone does protest they need to work out (a) what they are protesting about and (b) what they hope to achieve from the protests. And on both of these counts, the student protest(s) on Wednesday failed.

First up, let's look at what the protest was about (and in the process, what it wanted to achieve). It wanted to make a near bankrupt government (consisting mainly of Tories, with some Liberal Democrats thrown in for good measure) reverse its decision on tuition fees. Fair enough - self-interest has always been a big part of politics, and it always will be. The problem, though, lies in some of the messages being broadcast by the protestors. To claim that Nick Clegg was nicking the money of students, or carrying signs and shouting chants along the lines of "Tory scum" is hardly likely to get the incumbent government onside. But the fundamental question (and challenge) remains - what are you protesting about? The fact that tuition fees will go up in the future? Or that the incumbent government happens to be Tory and is propped up by an increasingly compromised Liberal Democrat party?

But there is another problem inherent in the protest(s) - the idea that students are in some way owed this money. If the money is coming from the government, then it isn't their money. It isn't even the government's. It is taken by the government from the taxpayer using inherently coercive measures. If you want the money supplied by the government, then you need to convince the person who ultimately parts with the case - the British taxpayer - that you deserve the money. And a lacklustre protest that occasionally flared into vandalism and violence is not the best way to do that.

The reality is that universities will get less money moving forward, and that fees will rise. Therefore, what students needs to do is convince the government (and, I'd humbly suggest, the taxpayer) that their courses, and their institutions, contribute something to society that warrants the cost incurred by that society - if, that is, they want to keep the fees down and the funds up. So guess what? You have to sell your course and your university. And yes, that will be easier if you are talking about PPE at Oxford than if you are talking about Media Studies as De Montfort. But it can still be done, even if you are studying the latter.

The point is this, though - you have a democratic right to protest. But if you want to get the government and the people of this country on your side then you need to do something a little more convincing that heading out on a midweek protest that descends into political point-scoring, anti-Tory chanting and pathetic vandalism. This protest will have set you back, Mr and Ms Student. It will have set you back one hell of a lot. You have come across as feckless, unthinking morons. And I say this both as a postgraduate student, and as someone who hopes before to long to teach at university level.

Student Radicalism

Or rather, the lack thereof.

Once upon a time, and for a fleeting moment, students were genuinely radical and – in the case of France – actually looked, for one fleeting moment, like they could have a real impact on political history. Indeed, some Marxists – such as Herbert Marcuse – began to see students as the impetus for revolution rather than the proletariat. But that faded… until now, in this day and age, we have the spectre of student protests again. Not over war or discrimination in society, however, but rather over the amount that they have to pay in order to get their university education.

I’d imagine that some of the potential protestors – such as the socialists shouting “Stop the Tory Axemen!” on campus last week – see themselves as radicals, taking direct action and “fightin’ the power”!

In a sense, of course, they are right. They are fighting the government, and the right to protest is something I absolutely support. But I do think that those involved in the protests should be under no illusion what they are doing. They are not being radical, they are being fundamentally conservative. By definition, conservatives resist change – and what are these protests about? Conserving the status quo. Resisting change. Nothing radical about that.

And what motivates these conservative protests? Self-interest. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with self-interest – it motivates vast swathes of politics, and always has done. But this is a world away of protesting to end the Vietnam War, or for civil rights.

Following on from this, you can see just how student radicalism is at least wasting away, if not a terminal case. Look at what has happened over the past few years – the police killing people, the attempts to bring in extended periods of detention, the bailing out of failed banks with public money (that could have been spent, among other things, further education) and so on – all met with nary a mutter from the majority of students in this country. Yet come a potential increase in the costs of education or a reduction in the amount of money some institutions have to spend, and the sleeping student behemoth awakens.

So by all means, have your protests, make your voices heard – that is your right as participants in a democracy. But please don’t pretend that you’re being anything other than self-interested conservatives.

Tuition Fees, Hard Choices and Richard Murphy

I'm guessing that the whole tuition fee thing is going to flare up into a row. Ho-hum - that's life, I guess. And I don't have a whole lot more to add. Except when I see this from Richard Murphy:

I guess I should declare lots of interests: I have a degree, largely paid for by the state; I have young sons who may one day go to university (but who knows?). I want to live in a civilised society, where learning is valued for learning’s sake. And where all have equal access to it.

Well, let me in turn declare my interests: I have a degree, paid for in part by the state. I have a postgraduate degree (MA) - paid for by me. And I am embarking on a PhD - again, without state help (at least to begin with). The point here is that I want to do something, so I'm doing my level best to make it happen. And, as it stands, that involves a fuck load of hardwork. I'm not going to bellyache too much, but equally I'm not going to rely on (and wait for) a state to enable me to do what I want (particularly not a state saddled with massive debt)*.

As for the idea that there is going to be a society where "learning is valued for learning's sake" - owing to human plurality, this is an impossibility. Simply ain't going to happen. You are always going to find some who value learning for learning's sake, and some at the other extreme who believe that life experience is more important than the learning that can be gained through education. As a result, you will find some people who may be apathetic about others going to university (and even staying in education for their whole lives) but will be damned if their taxes are going to fund that desire.

Murphy, once again, seems to be missing the point. We need to start asking ourselves harsh questions about further and higher education in this country. What subjects should the state contribute towards, and which should be self-funded? Which courses are essential for our society, and which might be fun but ultimately are non-essential? Of course, this is an area where people will have very different personal opinions and some sort of consensus around this highly contentious issue. But that consensus needs to be reached. Because - ever since Nu Labour decided that as many people as possible should go to university - there has been a massive rise in degrees that achieve little more than debt both for the state and for the individual taking that degree. University is not right for everyone, and not everything needs to or indeed should be taught at university level.

In a sense, I agree with Murphy - I value learning for learning's sake. I'm just not sure that the taxpayer should have to pay for that learning.

*Anyone who does want to help, though, should feel free to use the donate button in the side-bar. Yeah, I know, I'm a shameless whore - but I reckon it is better to ask others for money than demand that the state demand it from others through tax.

A-level Results: Clearing Chaos

And so it rumbles on - they're aren't enough places for all those who want to go to university. From The Guardian:

Six students are fighting for each spare university place, figures revealed today.

Which means that there are clearly going to be a lot of disappointed students out there. The question, though, is why should they be disappointed? The answer is twofold. Firstly, there has been an expectation created by the Nu Labour government that everyone who wants to can go to university. Their arbitrary, stick-a-finger-in-the-air-and-come-up-with-a-number, figure of 50% of people attending uni had no meaningful connection with the real world, and now that realisation is sinking in for thousands of students across the country. Fundamentally, and unlike the school system, it isn't open to everyone. It is selective. And as the numbers wanting to go to university continues to go up while funding for universities is going down there is only one way this was ever going to end. Disappointment for some.

But there is another reason for the disappointment; no-one really challenges the idea that going to university is a good thing. There seems to be an ongoing mental block around the question "should I really bother with university in the first place?" This question has become even more pertinent now there is a massive cost associated with attending university coupled with the fact that there is no guarantee of employment on the completion of a degree.

This isn't about elitism - rather, it is about challenging the idea that university attendance is a "good" in all situations and for everyone. In fact, it can be argued that it might be better and more profitable for some to go straight to work after leaving school. I mean, I know board members of FTSE 250 company who never bothered with university, and it hasn't held them back. In fact, quite the opposite.

As far as I can see from my university experiences* there are two reasons, and two reasons alone, for going to university. The first is if you need a university degree to go on to do your chosen profession - lawyer, doctor, teacher all spring to mind here. The second is if you absolutely love your subject, and are willing to run up substantial debt in pursuing your love of that subject. Otherwise, what are you missing out on if you don't go to uni? You can still have a social life, you can still make friends - but you can do it while you earn rather than just spend. And you can also help to fight the spurious and unfounded idea propagated by a target-obsessed Nu Labour government that success can only really come on the back of a university degree.

*Postgraduate about to start a PhD, fact fans.

A-level Results: When A Grades Aren't Enough

This seems to be an addition to the sob stories that always emerge around the time of A-level results - the clever kid who didn't get in:

A pupil who gained three A* and three A grades at A-level has been left without an offer from a single UK university.

Ben Scheffer, 18, had his dreams of studying economics dashed by Oxford, London School of Economics, University College London, Bristol and Warwick.

Well, those do appear to be pretty good universities - in fact, very good, so they probably can take their pick of people with good results. Nonetheless, three A* and three A grades does seem to be above the norm, even in this day and age.

So why didn't he get in? The article suggests various reasons, like the fact that he took the German equivalent of GCSEs rather than GCSEs. I suspect the real reason is this one though:

He also said: "I didn't write the best personal statement, to be fair, it just wasn't special. And it's a really hard course to get into."

Yup, it was probably the personal statement wot lost it for this chap. When everyone is getting excellent grades, you need to be able to differentiate yourself from the others. The personal statement seems to be an ideal way in which to do that. If you don't do that right... well... this sort of thing happens.

Which may be the way good universities work moving forward - if A-levels cease to be a useful measure with which to differentiate applicants, they will look at other methods - like personal statements, extra-curricular activities, sporting achievements and so on. Hell, Oxford and Cambridge - who have always had their pick of the people with the best results - have been doing this for decades. With fewer university places available and seemingly more and more people wanting to apply, other universities will start doing this, and those applying to the best universities in the country should consider what else they have to offer on top of excellent grades.

The Graduate Tax

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, is proposing a Graduate Tax to replace student loans:

He said he had asked Lord Browne to look at the idea of a graduate tax "as a priority" in his current review in to higher education funding in England.

This would mean students paying for their studies through the tax system, rather than through subsidised loans.

He said high-earning graduates would pay more than those on low incomes.

Right, let's look at why this is wrong. Why it is more than just wrong - why it is both dumb and appalling. And let's do that through an analogy.

Two students walk into the students union shop to claim a free pen when they first start their degrees. One student uses his pen to take lots of notes on lectures and seminars during his time at university. The other uses his pen to draw genitals in various library books. The former gets a first, the latter a third. Is then right to slap the former with a hefty charge for his pen (in part to fund the pen of the latter) because he managed to put it to much better use than the latter? Because that is what this tax is effectively trying to do.

If you do well at university, and consequently get a high paying job, you will end up earning more than someone who spunked away their time at university in various bars. However, you will have used the benefit of a university education far better than the person who just used it as a chance to party for three years. However, under a graduate tax, you would pay more than someone who did bugger all at university. You would pay more for having done well at your studies. You would end up paying for someone who has done less well than you, on account of nothing other than their relative failure.

On what planet is that fair? On what planet is that not penalising those who work harder at university? And is that the sort of society we want to be? Where we charge those who work harder more than those who waste their opportunities? Do we really want to disincentivise people from getting good degrees from good universities, and then going on to do good jobs?

Cable justifies it in this way:

"It surely can't be right that a teacher or care worker is expected to pay the same graduate contribution as a top commercial lawyer or surgeon," he said.

Well, yes, it can be right if they have all got degrees. It is like saying that it can't be right that a care worker has to pay the same as a commercial lawyer for a bottle of coke. It is right, given they are buying a commodity - through their own choice - of the same, or at least comparable, value. Sure, by all make your case that commercial lawyers earn too much relative to care workers, but the way to combat that is not something as regressive as a tax on the wealthy. It is to start getting people to question why there is such a wide disparity in salary between more vocational work and more commercial work. The way to change this - if you actually believe that this needs to be changed - is through changing attitudes. Not to further penalise the successful through regressive taxation.

And while we're on the subject, let's lay to rest the myth that those who earn more should pay more tax. Because the reality is they already do. Someone who earns £20,000 and gives up 25% of their earnings to the tax man will give £5,000 to the state. Someone who earns £40,000 and gives up 25% to the state would be losing £10,000. And that is assuming a flat tax rate across all earnings which, of course, does not exist.

All this achieves is creating a culture where those who have done well are made to pay more for their success than those who have done less well. The graduate tax is effectively saying "don't worry if you've got a third and are heading for the dole queue - the person who has just got a first and is heading for a decent job will fund your further education". It is nothing more than an example of the ever unworkable Marxist slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

And this is supposed to be "radical" thinking on funding further education. Bollocks. Bollocks on stilts. This is absolutely typical of the mindset of modern political parties. Got a problem? Tax it. People drinking more than you would like? Increase the tax on booze. Do the same thing if you have an issue with smoking. Too much congestion? Try a tax. Further education a problem? Here's a thought - try tax. If it moves, tax it.

In short, there is nothing radical about tax, and in particular about tax increases. They are the norm, not the exception. You want to be genuinely radical about universities? Why not start thinking about reducing the number of people who go to universities? If you want to think the unthinkable, why not consider having fewer universities? Why not consider abandoning the arbitrary target set by Blair for university placements? Why not entertain the idea that some people might be better served by not going to university?

A graduate tax would be a further corruption and devaluation of the university system in this country. It would further extend the idea of entitlement at the expense of others in this country. If the Tories have an ounce of backbone or dignity, they will kill this idea from the socialist-in-denial Cable right now. It is wrong, it is unfair, and it needs to be stopped.