Student Fees

From Bottleneck.org

Student Fees

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. - Joseph Goebbels

Here are the lies we seem to have been assumed to believe:

1. "Progressive" in all cases means the same as "good"
2. That the Liberal Democrats retain power is more important than that they stick to the principles on which they won their seats
3. We have to maintain current students numbers and we cannot afford to without charging individual students for their education; the only question is how we do that?

To take the second of these, I'm tired of hearing Liberal Democrats explain how, while they would have liked to have not increased fees, they're forced by the coalition agreement to compromise on this. Why exactly do these Liberal Democrats feel that it is more important that they are in government than to stand up for the principles on which they won their seats? Why do they seek to convince us that dropping out of the coalition would be a bad thing? I would have rather seen them in opposition, I believe that between the Labour and Liberal Democrat opposition, acting independently and upon the basis of their own beliefs, the Conservatives might have been forced into a more moderate way of dealing with the country's financial situation.

As to the third point, while I believe that general taxation could pay for the current number of student places, I accept that the nation might have no stomach for that. The concept that 50% of people should attend university is arbitrary, and unnecessary, so perhaps we should abolish that as a target, and fund only the courses, places, and individuals that will bring benefit to the country. Here's my model:

1. The government decides what skills are needed and to what extent in the UK over the next X years (25?), accepting that "soft" subjects do have some value to the economy. This balance is reviewed every Y years (5?)

2. The government fully funds the courses and reasonable maintenance of students on those courses to the number of graduates required, allowing for a typical drop out rate.

3. A framework is put in place that ensures that only the most able students are given these government-sponsored places, regardless of background (easiest way to measure is by grades or by examinations perhaps?) I have heard and reject the argument that this unfairly disadvantages those from backgrounds where they might have had a poorer pre-university education; I do not think you solve a problem in one area of society by unnaturally skewing another.

4. Universities are then free to try to sell extra places on these or additional courses at whatever rate they can get from the market

5. Government funded places are performance measured, and if student performance drops below a certain level, funding is removed and students then have the option of dropping out of university or funding the rest of their education themselves. This is important to ensure the commitment of those being funded by the government.

6. Government funded places are paid for out of a fair income and corporation tax system across the entire populace, one which does not tax people until they have exceeded a liveable wage, and which is stepped according to the quality of life your income could afford you.

How about we explore that as a model, instead of just believing the lie that we have to find some way of charging people for their education, or the lie that anything that is "progressive" is good, or the lie that it's more important to retain power than to stick to your principles?