David Cameron, in today's Evening Standard:
Unlike our predecessors we won't patronise the public by pretending there's a bottomless pit of money we can dig into. There isn't, and that means difficult choices need to be made. The public subsidy for higher education is massive — this year the Government will spend around £5 billion on teaching costs in English higher education alone — and in the context of spending restraint it cannot be exempted from cuts.
A lot has been said in recent weeks about what is in the interests of students, but this government is also responsible for the interests of taxpayers — and at a time of real financial hardship, a time when we have no choice but to make cuts across public spending, I don't believe it is right that we ask those on low incomes to pay taxes to prop up an unaffordable university funding system that they are not benefiting from directly.
Seems fair enough to me, sure, soften the blow by paying students a grant or a Citizen's Income, give them low interest loans so that people from poor families etc can go (which is sort of what the Lib-Cons are doing).
But that '£5 billion' figure reminds me of something else I read today, what was it.... ah... here we go:
Schools, employers, the food and drink industry and communities themselves are being urged to do their bit to make the nation healthier. Ministers said they wanted to tap into the potential of all of society in setting out their public health plans. Projects being promoted include everything from bike training in schools to voluntary cuts in salt and fat content by food manufacturers.
Councils will get a ring fenced budget to coordinate the push in England. This pot, which will be handed over from the NHS, will total at least £4bn a year from 2013, the government's public health white paper, Healthy Lives, Healthy People, said. It will be accompanied by the transfer of local public health directors from the NHS to local government.
It's funny how the money has run out for something half-way sensible, like universities, but there's plenty left over for these entirely made up schemes. As a taxpayer, I'm not keen on over-subsidising other people's university courses, but I'd rather pay for that (which does have some overall benefit to society, and maybe my kids will benefit from it) than this quango shite which is clearly of no benefit at all to anybody apart from the quangocrats running the scheme.
Christmas Day: readings for Year C
5 hours ago
16 comments:
Odd to that they can find £7bn to bail out Ireland and will have to find £bns more for Portugal and Spain.
Odd to that they can find this NHS money for what is no more than a form of social engineering - ie instructing people how to behave.
As for Cameron and "we won't patronise the public" and "this government is also responsible for the interests of taxpayers" - pass the sick-bag, please!
O - damn forgot two of them, apologies.
What proportion of those with degrees actually use the knowledge so gained in their subsequent employment? I seem to remember reading somewhere it was less than 50%.
WFW, if you take the first excerpt at face value, it seems quite sensible (he is of course a lying shit as you illustrate).
Mus, I'd be surprised if it's as much as that. I'd guess maybe 90% for doctors, but for everybody else about 20% or less. Of the knowledge you gain and actually apply at work, you could do the relevant stuff on a uni degree in maybe two months, but there is more to it than that.
For example, it's good to know more than you need to know, to be forced to spend a bit of time looking up stuff in the library, writing essays, meeting deadlines, taking subjects that you don't like, sucking up to teachers you don't like, taking exams, learning a bit more about the bigger picture of your subject, and so on.
MW having met him, he is extremely personable, pleasant etc etc, but at the same time he is extremely patronising - hence my request for the sick-bag.
That's a good spot, and a great comparison. I have little sympathy for the 'plight' of students, but I agree with you, if I had to spend that kind of money I'd much rather it went on University education than yet more 'nudging' by the government.
Roll on the election so we can get rid of this Labour 'control freak' government.
Oh. Shit.
"We haven't the money" always has been and always will be govt-speak for "we don't really want to do this".
TCO, exactly! Oh...
B, so they really want to do a bit of nudging? As TCO says, roll on the next election!
Bossing other people around is what politicians go into politics for.
B, if I ever went into politics, it would be with the sole aim of leaving people alone as far as is possibly consistent with a civilised capitalist economy.
Mark - and that's exactly why you haven't...
So now we see that the Welsh Govt(according to the Mail)as well as the Scots are going to top up the fees for Welsh students to make up the increase. So makes a mockery of the increase unless you are English.
It will be interesting to see when the the list comes out which Scots and Welsh MP's voted for the fees increase, knowing all along it would be overridden by the devolved parliaments.
Never mind getting out of the EU , let's get out of the UK.
wv. whanki
So apt sometimes that wv.
JB, to be fair, I am involved in politics a bit.
PC, that's another one of my pet causes, but I'm in UKIP, and the party line is to keep the UK together (while batting the higher spending local governments back into line).
A degree can have a downside too - see: http://underdogsbiteupwards.blogspot.com/
Too many graduates chasing too few jobs, being over-qualified for the available jobs, etc.
That's apart from Mickey Mouse degrees of dubious economic benefit to either the counrty or the recipient.
Ed P, yes of course there are downsides (where did I say that there weren't?), LI is spot on, as per usual.
Which is why tuition fees serves as an important reminder to potential students that doing a degree is not a one-way bet. However, I collect degrees and qualifications like other people collect stamps, and it hasn't done me any harm.
Musgrave,
What proportion of those with degrees actually use the knowledge so gained in their subsequent employment? I seem to remember reading somewhere it was less than 50%.
I'd go down as far as 20-30%.
I don't mind people not directly using their degrees, if it's just because they have a burning desire to study a subject. Quite a lot of innovation comes from people applying things learnt in one area to another.
The real waste is in people "doing Uni" just to get a degree, where the subject is secondary to having some letters. All that does is lead to job grade inflation where candidates that were once filtered on good A levels are now filtered on being graduates.
Many people are now realising that they've been scammed. That they assumed that they could go a degree and the riches would roll in. All they've done is simply raise supply without an increase in demand.
Post a Comment