Blair puts his premiership on the line over top-up (university) fees

"Tony Blair turned a crucial Commons vote on university top-up fees into an issue of confidence in his leadership yesterday as he turned up the heat on the rebel Labour MPs threatening to defeat the proposal.

The Prime Minister insisted that there would be "absolutely no retreat" on the principles of the Government's Higher Education Bill, which would allow universities to charge tuition fees of up to £3,000 a year. With 145 Labour MPs already urging a rethink, he admitted: "Yes, it is going to be a big struggle. There are a lot of people still to persuade."

more.... http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=469558

I simply cannot understand people who still think Blair is a friend to Liberals. The man is a menace as far as I can see. Education should be a right, not based upon class or ability to pay. Perhaps there are some British folks here to set me straight?

leaders worse than the ones running America during the same time period.

Not even GHWB would laud Pinochet the way Thatcher has in the last couple years.

Blair has a lot of damage to repair, and he has a lot of resistance. Just becuase he's taking the most sensible path doesn't mean he's RW (much less, it doesn't make him a RW plant).

Right now, all university educations in the UK cost about 3500 dollars a year. Blair wants to raise that to about 5250 -- still cheaper than just about every public university in America.

In the UK it costs the same for an education at Oxford and Cambridge as it does for an education at Leeds Polytechnic. It's the price you pay if your Prince William or if you're the son of a taxi drivier.

However, HALF the education budget in the UK goes to Oxford and Cambridge. I'm not sure if the entire education budget comes from University fees (I doubt it, since it wouldn't be enough to run all the schools). Presuming it doesn't, what you have is a system where a lot of poor and working class kids are paying for an education, and then having up to half their tuition fees going to a university they don't attend. If you go to a polytechnic, your university gets half your fee and the other half goes to Oxford or Cambridge to help pay for the cost of educating someone who is very likely much wealthier than you are, and has a much brighter future. And any shortfall comes out of tax scheme that is very regressive (the VAT, flat sales tax, is a major source of tax revenue in the UK).

The consequence of this financing scheme is not only that a lot of poor people are paying way more for their education than they should, and a lot of rich people paying way less for their education, but it creates a university system that is seriously underfunded. The British universities were once the best in the world. Now they're running on the fumes of nostalgia.

If you want to give everyone a cheap mediocre education, and you don't want to allocate the burdens and benefits sensibly, then don't increase the top-up fees, and continue to underfund the universities. If you want to educate british kids so the can compete in world that demands even greater knowledge, then the UK is going to have to increase the prices (coupled with grants for kids who can't afford the fees).

Incidentally, a significatn consequence of low tuition in the UK is low starting salaries, but that's another discussion.

This is one of those issues where it looks conservative on the surface. However, trust me. Letting the British university system deteriorate because it can't fund itself, and perpetuating a system that gives corporations the huge benefit of not having to help pay for the cost of university educations for their employees (via unreasonably low salaries) is really the conservative policy position.

"Incidentally, a significatn consequence of low tuition in the UK is low starting salaries, but that's another discussion."

That's the most interesting theory I've heard for a while. I find it highly unlikely that starting salaries would jump if tuition fees increase.

In the US, your employer is expected to compensate you in proportion to the time and investment you put in your education. If they want the smartest people, they have to pay you to compensate you for going to the best schools.

It's nice if you were a poor kid who got lots of grants and financial aid, because you get paid the same salary as someone who didnt'

That's why starting lawyers and doctors in the US make five times as much as their UK counterparts. It's especially true with lawyers. But it's also the case across all professions.

By the way, three years at Oxford is cheaper than one year at the average public universtiy in the US.

"That's why starting lawyers and doctors in the US make five times as much as their UK counterparts. It's especially true with lawyers. But it's also the case across all professions. "

"By the way, three years at Oxford is cheaper than one year at the average public universtiy in the US. "

And is the U.S more inclusive than the U.K or did I miss something. How many inner city kids go to Princeton?

$130-145K, and can jump up to 180-210K pretty quickly (3-5 years).

In London, they're 30-35K pounds. And they don't really get fat holiday bonuses like they do in the US, which can add alot to your salary.

About 5-7 years ago, when NY firms were starting at about 120K, a fat London salary was 22K, and many new lawyers were making 13-17K, again, without the Christmas bonus, that could add 10-25K to the NY salary.

Now, partner salaries are big in London, so the difference isn't gross revenue so much as it is that the employers can get away with it. It's a buyers market.

Now, lots of americans go over to the london offices after they make partner, but you'll rarely see a Harvard educated lawyer slogging it out for the 45K dollars in londone when they could be making 175K in the US.

Now, what if Oxford and Cambridge started charging more for an education. Do you think the lawfirms are going to hold salaries down? No. Because they wouldn't get any new lawyers. What would happen is that the the partners would start spreading the wealth down among the new lawyers to make sure that they were getting new, smart, young lawyers to bill rates, 70% of which go into the partner's pockets.

See how that works?

And the law firm is only the most crass version of this sort of economics. Every profession which depends on educated people who get paid much less than the value they add is suffering from these economics which allow employers to get out of paying very much for the benefit they receive of well-educated young people.

The university system was something that started for rich people to learn impractical knowledge. As it has evolved, they have become important lynchpins is created an educated society which can innovated, and theorize and add and substract and write books and make movies, all of which are deeply comerical activities. You can't pretend that in the 21st century the place of the university is the same as it was in the 13th century. Blair understands this. People who are smoking the nostalgia opiate don't get it.

AP I'm finding increasingly hard not to call you on this tactic

"Blair understands this. People who are smoking the nostalgia opiate don't get it."

Your arguments stand without this kind of pseudo ad hominem tacked on.

I refrain from writing things like

"Anyone who believes a word Blair say is a dribbling moron and probably has a small penis, smells of wee and stands about as much chance of getting laid as Dennis Thatcher"

I'd appreciate the same from you.

Salaries to some extent are based on scarcity value. Britain does not require a bazillion more lawyers. Hence, their value will not increase if more Lawyers are produced. In a truly global economy it may be the case that Lawyers would move to more productive areas but as you well know movement of labour is not as easy as movement of capital.

Do you think that 80% of a generation attending University does anything other than devalue the point of University? I can see an argument to say it doesn't it goes like this. We need to educate people so they can service corporations more efficiently. I don't like that idea. Especially when corporations will not demand innovation, rather conformance and servitude.

...the more educated a person is, the more likely they vote democratic in the US?

15 years ago only about 25% of Americans went to college. Now that's up to 50%. That's responsible for a large demographic shift. For the first time more than half the people attending college consider themselves democrats. That makes sense because 15 years ago, almost all rich people sent their kids to college, plus some from the midldle class, and a few lucky working class kids.

The growth in attendance, therefore is coming from working and lower middle class kids.

This is good. Why? Because even over the last 15 years when college attendance has doubled, a college education means a huge difference in the income you will earn in your lifetime. In other words, it's an important tool in spreading wealth among people who didn't or wouldn't otherwise have wealth. And, remember, lots of these people are democrats. So, you're basically, giving economic and political power to people you want to be empowered.

If I could get 80% of American high school graduates in college, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

The problem isn't that kids who don't deserve to be in college are there. The problem is that the colleges might not have the resources to give all these kids great educations. That's where progressively pricing education, having grants and loans, and forcing some of the costs on to the parties who benefit (ie, corporation who benefit from the labor of the educated) comes into play.

Get it?

By the way, I don't have to attack you personally because I know I'm right.

Wait a minute. I will attack you personally. However, it's not about penis size. It's about your anxiety about education foe the masses. You're a snob. You're the kind of British "liberal" I really marvel over. You're a little fucked up by the society you live in -- the one that the Tories have nicely preserved way beyond its usefullness to the world -- and it's unfortunate that you can't see how self-destructive your class-anxieties are to liberalism and progress.

This IS what Blair's trying to change. It's really sad that people like you are standing in the way because you can't see how deeply ingrained conservativism is in how you think about the world. Educating 80% of a nations citizens in well-funded quality universities, with the promise of higher wages is like a liberal nirvana. But you keep fighting it. I'm sure that's going to work out really well for you if you win.

And then you wonder why those of us who actually live here consider you a tad arrogant AP. I think you might do well to be humble and listen to legitimate criticism one of these days.

You may think you are right, but I would beg to differ AP.

(And you're calling me arrogant!)

I'm listening, but I'm not hearing anything that makes sense.

And who started talking about penises? It wasn't me.

and I wasn't talking about penises, Clinton's or otherwise, I was talking about pigs. I suggest you read my posts before you reply to them.

OK.

You come out with shit like "By the way, I don't have to attack you personally because I know I'm right."

Now if that is not arrogant, then what is? I guess I'm just going to have to keep on reminding you of this sort of thing until you work it out.

in the middle of a post with a lot of other stuff, and all you can think about is that one sentence?

Jeez. I'll just go back to ignoring your (frequent) personal attacks, as I always have.

By the way, you know why I never attack you back after you attack me personally?

Because I have a LOT of confidence in my arguments.

Jeez. I'll just go back to ignoring your (frequent) personal attacks, as I always have.

Now I have to say AP, that in all the time you have been on DU you have never ignored attacks. You just get more and more flustered and make sillier and sillier attacks back. I've been in enough flame wars with you to know that your claim of moral supremacy over us British proles is bogus in the extreme.

and flaming you.

It's never happened.

You or your buddy there once said that you and your friends laughed at me, and I ridiculed you for thinking that that was an arguemtn about why I was wrong. That was funny. But look at this thread here. Who resorted to the personal attack first? It wasn't me. It's never me.

You're all over me for saying that I never feel the need to respond to the personal attacks. But that's not a flame war.

You or your buddy there once said that you and your friends laughed at me, and I ridiculed you for thinking that that was an arguement about why I was wrong.

Plus the threads where I have pointed out basic factual errors in your arguments, the last one of those being the one where you claimed that before Blair Labour had never won re-election.

It's happened on tons of occasions, it's just that you have what appears to be a selective memory which prevents you from remembering the wilder claims you make.

Plus I must re-quote this

I ridiculed you for thinking that that was an arguement about why I was wrong

And you wonder why we get the idea that you are arrogant. Hate to tell you this AP, but you are hardly Mr always right.

The example I gave started with you attacking me. I had a good time explaining to you that an attack wasn't an argument. You bailed out of that one after that, so I presume that you were conceding that I was right.

Again we also have the problem with logic. You attack me (told me that you and your friends sit around a laugh at me) and what I'm supposed to do? I usually ignore it. Twice I address it and that's supposed to a flaw in my character? Again, let me remind you, in that thread here and in the other one YOU STARTED IT. I defended myself, bot times explaining why I didnt or wasn't going to reduce matters to your level.

Incidentally, that Blair one -- I showed you the cites I quoted almost verbatim. And my point was still made, and I didn't do any flaming in that one. I stuck to the facts.

Maybe I do have a selective memory, but if you're going to make claims of my flaming, you better back them up with facts.

If you can't, I invite you to alert the modertors to have your own post deleted.

You challenged me to find one example of you getting flustered, I now cite this very thread. :evilgrin:

Funny, I don't feel flustered. Did you read my last post below?

I'm still making arguments. All I'm getting back is "MAHAHAAHAH" and allegations of fluster not supported by fact.

You did start it with the "nostalgia opiate" crack.

Don't throw stones and that.

It's not my characterization of British society, so I don't know how much of personal attack that is.

of that post.

"because I know I'm right"

I hope your hubris one day crushes you.

No, my unfair minded friend I believe it is you who has the blinkers on.

"This IS what Blair's trying to change. It's really sad that people like you are standing in the way because you can't see how deeply ingrained conservativism is in how you think about the world. Educating 80% of a nations citizens in well-funded quality universities, with the promise of higher wages is like a liberal nirvana. But you keep fighting it. I'm sure that's going to work out really well for you if you win."

This is not a pancea or a liberal paradise as you would like to believe. You have to subscribe to the never ending economic growth theory to even believe that the above is possible or desirable. What I'm saying is that you can't provide

"Educating 80% of a nations citizens in well-funded quality universities, with the promise of higher wages "

Is not acheivable. The U.K does not and will not have the economic power to absorb a workforce expecting to be paid salaries commanded by American lawyers. Not without innovation. This innovation will be crushed in order to support mediocrity and the U.K will slowly sink into the mire.

As much as you'd like it to be AP, the U.K is not the U.S. It never will be the U.S. Would you like to explain to me why increasing fees and debt burdens will encourage more students from poorer backgrounds to attend University? It's just the same "choice" argument the right trots out to justify eviscerating the NHS.

I'm all for increasing the standards of education across the board. In my opinion this means those most able to learn are provided the best quality possible. Not, everyone gets to join in and the truly talented are penalised.

You're just a neo liberal conformist. You basically believe that the right has the best ideas they should just be nicer about it. It's not social inclusion you crave but a situation where the biggest possible consumer base exists to subsidise the elite. You are their tool, I'm not.

Finally who exactly is "with the promise of higher wages " guaranteeing this? Or could you have just written "With the promise of a free blow job"

London law firms make a ton of money. The Partner salaries are very high. The associate and assistant salaries are very low. The money they are not paying those employees is going to the partners in the form of profit. And that profit is coming from paying the low level workers way less than they bill.

The money is there, but it isn't distributed fairly. It helps concentrate wealth among the wealthiest. Ie, it's the modern equivalent of how commerce has worke in Britain for 2000 years, from feudalism right up to the dark satanic mills, and through to the law firms, accountants, BT, and anywhere else you look.

And why's that? A lot of it has to do with the fact that employers are not required to foot very much if any of the investment employees make in getting up to the point where they can be good employees.

That was fine when you didn't really need to invest very much in getting a decent education, and when not many people got educated. But now, a good education is very expensive (at least the kind of education that prepares one to bring real value to society) and now we want to make sure that way more people can have the economic opportunities that educatioin affords. So now employers are going to have to start paying for education.

how education and economics works.

I see the goal as giving as many people the best education possible, and making sure there something for everyone, making sure that the costs and benefits of paying for that education are allocated rationally, and making sure the the end result is that a lot of wealth is spread among a growing middle class.

That's no different than what MLK and Gandhi wanted. It's pretty liberal (not neo liberal). And tradition has no weight with me, and I'm not self-conscious about class, and I'm not greedy. I think everyone should have the education I had.

"I see the goal as giving as many people the best education possible, and making sure there something for everyone, making sure that the costs and benefits of paying for that education are allocated rationally, and making sure the the end result is that a lot of wealth is spread among a growing middle class."

No argument. Is University fees the best and fairest way to acheive this? I don't think so. An expansion of vocational college courses would be equally valuable. I see the only vehicle for delivering specialist (elite) if you will education being destroyed to accomodate those unable to academically compete.

"I think everyone should have the education I had."

For all of your irritant factor, you're obviously pretty bright. Do you believe that this is unique to you, or do you believe that everyone is equally able?

I am class conscious. I believe that the elite are still serving themselves and will continue to do so.

A university education is expensive. That 's the nature of society today. If it has a value, someone has to pay for it. Someone has to pay the salaries of the best professors. If you don't do that, you'll have crap professors, and you might as well just go to the park and read a book. If you're in the sciences, you'll need the equipment they're using in commerce, and that's expensive. And so on and so on.

So, who pays for this? Well, I wish we had totally progressive tax code and everything was free. But I'm not sure that would work practically. Kids need something at stake to encourage them to work hard. Even if you don't think that, you have to admit that pigs will fly before the UK has a totally progressive tax code.

If you don't have a totally progressive tax code, and you're paying Oxford's bills out of the flat tax, then you're basically asking poor peopel to pay a disproportionate burden of educating a rich kid so that he can go to london, get paid a low wage, which makes some rich old guy richer.

So what's left? Well, let's look at who benefits the most from a good education. (1) your parents, becuase they won't have to support you, and you can perhaps support them whenthey're old; (2) soceity, becuase you won't grow up to be pickpocket, and the more money you make the more you contribute to society and to inland revenue; (3) you, but not you now, you in the future; and (4) your future employer.

So who's reaping the benefits and bearing the burdens today, as things tand now? Well, your employer is reaping huge beneifts, and society is subsidizing their benefits, and you're somewhere in the middle (and that doesn't even accoutn for the variation among students -- ie, Oxford vs polytecnic).

What does Blair want? Well, he wants to shift some of that burden to the people who benefit -- the future you, and your employer. And it's not the entire burdent, and it's not an exhorbitant burden.

Incidentally, in the US college loans are a guaranteed profit-maker subsidized by tax breaks for big banks. We've gotten rid of pell grants, so now everyone gets a loan, and tuitions have gone throught the roof, and you can't get rid of your college loans in bankruptcy. That's the extreme version. That's not what Blair wants. What Blair wants is a very happy medium which just might save the british university system and which will rationalize the economice of education.

current fees are £1125 per year, payable at the time - 'top-up' would allow these to be raised to £3000, to be paid off after graduating. This would be via a payroll tax of 9% of income above £15000.

Oxford and Cambridge do not receive 'half' of the education budget. It's not easy to get figures on exactly how much each university received per student, but here's an estimate on the Oxbridge advantage, from 2001:
"The methodology benefits Oxford and Cambridge Universities massively, and this is shown by the data. They receive additional subsidies for 'small institutions' and for 'old and historic buildings', equivalent to around 45-60% more than the rest of the sector."
http://education.guardian.co.uk/administration/comment/0,9976,553486,00.html

Note that Oxford and Cambridge are not "running on the fumes of nostalgia" - they regularly top league tables of universities best for teaching and research, eg http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/unitable/0,,-4668575,00.html

And now an opinion:
The proposed system might be OK, if it's implemented properly. Some Labour MPs are against it because it directly breaks a campaign promise by Labour to legislate against topup fees. Others don't like it because it will encourage elitism in universities, which of course it will. However, I think that higher education is something that can withstand a market approach - there are lots of customers and sellers, the customer can get information on what the sellers offer, and unlike school education, you're not limited to a school near you.
The crucial thing will be to design it so that no-one is put off by the short-term cost of going to a 'better' university. The current system still doesn't get enough applicants to the best universities from poorer people, and the new system could make this worth. I support the Cambridge proposal:
"Where the government might compromise: ... Pressuring universities to divert a third of their income to provide bursaries to the poorest third of students. Cambridge University has already announced such a scheme."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,1097776,00.html

Details of the scheme:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,1095147,00.html

They're going to scrap the $2000 up front fee charged to everyone attending Uni and ask them to pay up to (but not always, depending on the course and the uni) $5000 per year but repayable only after graduation and only if they earn more than $24,000.

The money the universities need has got to come from somewhere and asking graduates to help pay for their education is fair AFAIC.

It's a continuation of the idiotic policy of 80% University attendance.

The average student will now leave University in the region of 17 - 25k in debt. If 80% of the population is attending University they will no longer be able to differentiate themselves from others. Therefore, the current increased wages commanded by Graduates (due to relative scarcity) will be dimished. Therefore, we will be forcing a generation into debt.

I'm all for equality of opportunity, but I think that a one size fits all University structure only benefits the corporate sector seeking little worker bots. True innovation will be entirely lost.

How can you buy ahouse if you are 25k in debt? This measure will create a new underclass of skilled workers with debt that in a low inflation / low interest rate environment that will remain significant for many years.

on the budget they're getting from tuition fees now. And if you want all of society to pay for people's education, you're going to have to get a way more progressive tax code.

Also, you can't continue to charge all students the same price for an education when all educations are not equal.

25K in debt for an education is probably a sensible investment in your future, don't you think. I think in the US, the amount of debt people are taking on is outrageous, especially once you go to graduate school. However, it is right to make an investment in your future that pays off with higher wages, and more opportunities. That's the whole reason you go to school. If you're not going to school as an investment in your future, what are you doing there?

Furthermore, this actually might tend to increase wages since now employers will have to pay well-educated employees for teh cost of their educations. Right now, employers are not required to take on any of the burden of paying for the educations from which they richly benefit. They can pay low salaries and pad their bottom lines immensely.

The trick of paying for education is to aske everyone who benefits from it to pay. Students benefit and employers benefit. But they do so in the future, so it makes sense to take out a loan, and have your job pay for it in the future when you're making money.

In the US, incidentally, the highest paid professions are the ones that require the greatest investment in time and money. E.g., doctors and lawyers. In the UK some starting accountants make more than starting doctors and lawyers. That isn't right. And wages are generally very low.

I don't think a lot of peopel get that. Especially if you're British and the system is the only thing you know.

For liberalism to flourish you need people to get great educations, and you need to educate as many people as possible. The current system isn't doing that. You also have to allocate the costs and benefits rationally, which the current system also wasn't doing. It was conferring all the benefits on rich graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, and on employers who didn't have to pay competitive salaries to pretty well-educated graduates.

One size fits all does not improve quality, it dilutes it.

The 80% target is idiotic and will not improve Britain's competetive advantage, it'll destroy any chance of having any.

Equality of opportunity is fantastic, that's where the focus of the argument should be. The stranglehold of Oxbridge must be broken, but NOT at the expense of the qualities those institutions do have.

The quality of secondary education in the U.K has been diminished in order to appear more inclusive. We're in danger of dumbing ourselves down to appear successful. Rather like the U.S?

I hate what Blair is doing to my country. He's turning into a giant fucking business park. If there's no vested interest involved, nothing happens.

If you want to preserve their quality (or, rather, put them back where they should be) students who go there need to pay a tuition that matches the benefit they expect to receive from it, and they need to head down to London afterwards and get a job that pays them a salary commensurate with the knowledge they've acquired (which is commensurate with the value they add to that employer's business).

And EVERYBODY should get a college education if the UK is going to compete in a global economy.

What Blair is doing to your country is making sure it works. If you don't get your act together you're going to end up in the dustbin of history. Right now, the UK is getting by on long workweeks, low salaries, and big profits for big businesses. Education, better jobs, and higher salaries is going make sure that people can work smarter and better, and make life a little less brutal for people who are on the bottom now.

What Blair is doing is selling the future of our country to corporations. There is not an area of public life that Blair is not willing to sacrifice in order that the greedy can get their fingers in.

If 80% of people attend University? What intellectual value does it have? Are 80% of people equally intellectually able?

BETTER JOBS? Loads of skilled jobs are currently being lost offshore. We'll have a nation of graduates working in Burger King.

society, then I'm not sure what they're doing there.

Blair is just trying to say, look, you corporations are, in fact, benefitting from educated young people. It's time you pay for that benefit. We are carrying the obligation to pay for education forward, and you will pay for this out of higher wages to your employees.

And 25K isn't outrageous. People in the US graduate with 4 times that debt load. THAT"s too much. That's out of proportion with the benefit you receive from an education in the US. In the UK it's much less that that value should be.

Are different things in the U.K

College is the intermediate stage between school and Uni. I'd fully support an 80% attendance rate and improvement in quality at this level.

What I won't support is the dumbing down of University education for political expedience. When 80% of the population have degrees, there's virtually no point in having a degree is there?

If corporations are benefiting, shouldn't they pay?

I haven't heard that figure stated as a goal anywhere.

Now you've got me worried! I remember an interview with Chris Woodhead where he stated these figures and my brain started melting. I'll go and have a look and see if I can find them?


Anyhow, I believe that 50% at least has been mooted. That still stupidly high if academic standards are to be maintained.

However if AP is correct then you don't really have to be that clever in order to feed the corporate meat grinder. So 80% may be reasonable.

Man can not live on bread alone. But without bread, he cannot live.

I addressed this above.

I find this a very shocking sentiment.

Liberalism means that we are all absolutely equal?

I missed that bit.

get it is not liberal.

Actually, what you're sayin is that you'd rather ration education than put the resources into it to make sure everyone had a good education.

Like I said, the more education you have, the more liberal you vote. So I'm going to say that philosophically and practically, what you said comes off as being very conservative.

The superhero for the Blair generation.

"Actually, what you're sayin is that you'd rather ration education than put the resources into it to make sure everyone had a good education."

er, no I'm not. I'm saying not everybody can understand advanced calcus. If advance calculus is taught at University should it be simplified in order that more people can attend University?

"Like I said, the more education you have, the more liberal you vote. So I'm going to say that philosophically and practically, what you said comes off as being very conservative."

That's nice. I'm sure I could make people liberal by providing them with world class public services that don't generate profits that are greedily consumed by the elite.

And plenty of people who went to college and learned things and made valuable contributions to society didn't do well in advanced calculus.

Ok, I can't disguise my shock at this post. Do you really not understand how, well, classist and arrogant that statement is?

What kind of liberal do you consider yourself?

And my whole argument is that the way you have education set up today is designed to concentrate wealth among the elite rather than spread it out among young college graduates who are making valuable contributions to society.

Should everybody have equal opportunity to progress as far as they can?

Undoubtedly

Can everyone progress as far as each other?

No.

Is University there to cater to the majority and educate to a better standard than otherwise would be the case?

I don't think so.

Are there ways to improve general educational standards without diluting University quality?

Yes.

Are top up fees the way to acheive this?

No.

that significantly less than half of high school graduates should go on to uni?

Don't sell yourself short as a nation.

I think you all can do much better than that, and I thik the US should do much better than we're doing now.

I'd love to run a head to head of graduates to compare quality.

Do all these graduates in the U.S just forget (to vote D) when they leave?

More than half of college students identify themselves as D. Now is the firts time that ever happened. It's BECAUSE we've gone from 25 to 50 pc. When it goes to 55 60 65, those numbers are going to get even better. And those people who call themselves D are going to be richer for having gone to college. And that means they're going to have more political power.

Also, Bush just pushed 1 million kids out of college because he's afraid of those numbers.

Incidentally, if I know this stuff, you can be sure that labour policy makers know this stuff, and this is what's guiding their policy making.

Also, I can tell that this is the first time you've been confronted with these facts and that this is the first time you've thought about this.

I suspect you'll resist it for a few days. But by next week you'll be down at the pub with your friends pretending you came up with this stuff on your own. There wil be no mention of AP then (at least after you make sure they haven't read this thread).

Don't flatter yourself old chum. It's self evident that the educated are likely to lean left. You may be surprised to note that I attended a U.K University. It was hardly Conservative central office.

What would happen if in order to accomodate more students standards fell? Would the same hold true? If corporations are allowed to "sponsor" classes (more and more common) would the same hold true?

As for going down the pub, I will remember to tell all my friends what I think of you if it makes you feel wanted ;-)

universities, not fewer people. And that's what the higher fees are about -- more resources. And oxford students should pay more than polytechnic students so that polytechnic students aren't effectively subsidizing the educations of better off students.

and corproation should be sponsoring education, and I don't me in the ideological/content sense. I mean in the sense that they should bear more of the burdnes of education, in that they should be paying progressive taxation, they should be paying new employees higher wages so those employees can pay for their educations, and, for example, if Ford of Britain expects new hires to understand how to use some super expensive piece of engineering equipment, maybe ford of europe should be putting the money together to buy the universities the equipment. AFter all, they're benefitting the most (and a great deal) from having employees who can use the equipment.

Know what I mean?

Of course corporations shouldn't control the university. But you can't ignore the fact completely that universities are preparting people to go out in the world of commerce and that that confers huge benefits on society, the individual, and on corporations.

Top up fees are there to allow Universities to accept the number of students that Blair wishes to cram into them.

University should never be about producing people solely suited to service corporations (yes, I know you agree).

I want to ensure that true innovation is not stifled. By accomodating those less able there is a danger that gifted students will find it harder to shine.

There's a balance to be struck and I believe as usual Blair is showing all the precision of a drunk elephant.

However, every student they produce should be making a productive contribution to society when they leave, and, without a doubt, 99.9% are going to engage in the world of commerce very directly, with the vast majority as employees.

What percentage of studnts are 'gifted"? 1 in 100? Is there experience so diminished by being 1 in 120 or 1 in 150? And if the benefit to society is so much greater, than that gifted kid is just going to have to deal. Anyway, true talent will rise to the top. I'm not worried about the gifted. I think it's way more likely that you're going to find the diamond in the rough whose genius is unleashed, than it is that you'll diminished some talent that has already shined all through high school.

"every student they produce should be making a productive contribution to society "

Artists? Actors? Thinkers?

Nah, Just good little servobots for BP.

How do you define productive AP?

musicians. politicians, professors.

Any job where you're creating value for society rather than taking it out. Bascially, anything other than working for an insurance comany, pick pocketing and sitting on the couch all day.

Trade schools do those things too. You just need the full range of options for everyone. Don't send anyone to trade school who really wants to go to uni, and make sure that everyone who's going to trade school is there because they want to be, and not out of desperation.

Now where's the push to send people to trade schools?

Oh, there isn't one. Why? Because of the middle class cachet of having a child at university.

Blair is engineering rather than educating.

But the more people get degrees, the more pointless it becomes.
Case scenario: My SO recently did a degree in Computer Systems Engineering. During that time, she learned less about computer systems than a welder at the local car factory, who mucked about with them in the evening.
End result? She got a job at the car factory, as an administrator. The welder is now my IT support engineer. It was one hell of an eye opener to see how dumbed-down the universities have become - to the point where we'd rather hire someone who didn't go to university - They're got more common sense and social skills, and just as much specialised knowledge...

However, try this. In the US the numbe of college graduates has roughly doubled in the last decade and a half. Nontheless the difference in lifetime earning potential between a college graduate and a high school graduate is still something like 2 or 5 mil or something totally outrageious like that.

The more people who went to college over the last 15 years, the wealthier they got.

I can't believe I'm on a "liberal" board having to defend the arguemtn that as more people get more education, the better we all are.

I'm going ot have see if I'm dreaming.

Nope. I'm awake. This is crazy.

Trust me. Democrats and Labour know that education is a good thing for them and for society. Republicans and Tories know it's a bad thing for them. Thus Thatcher. Thus GHWB.

Firstly, there's a difference between an anecdote and personal experiance.
Secondly, the point I'm trying to make is that shovelling people through a university for purpose of generating statistics isn't going to make them more educated: They just spend 3 years learning what they should have covered in school (which they don't these days, because that's also turned into pap for sake of percentages). I'm all for education, but this isn't it - this is a sausage factory.
The top-up fees on thier own is fine with me: But doing it so you can fund every man, woman and child with a worthless piece of paper and a £25k debt sounds like the sort of ecomonics Bush would come up with.

...degree" is when they feel they have nothing at stake. Kids whose parents pay for school, or people who are so rich and so priviliged that how they perform won't really influence what they do after they graduate.

People who don't just get a degree are people who put their own money into their education. Or people who go to med schools or law school, who have leveraged a little bit of their future to get an education which they think will reap bigger rewards.

And you know who's really going to appreciate an education? Those kid who, when you get up to 50 and 60% you find your self reaching farther into the working class to find. See that picture below? Bottom left? That's what I'm talking about. That picture bottom right. That's what I'm talking about in paragraphy one.

It's funny how the same politicians who have benefitted from free education are the ones pulling the ladder up after themselves. And the thing is, all this does is increase debts still further and put people even more at the mercy of the banks.

to be the best in the world again.

:eyes:

Actually, I'll put it this way.

Academically, the US has kicke the UK's ass for the last 30 years. Here's Europe's opportunity. Bush is about to destroy education in America. He's doing it intentionally becuase he know that the more education you have the less likely you are to vote for his party.

Thatcher destroyed your universities already.

Well, are we both going to have crappy universities, or is now the time to listen to what Blair's saying and to jump all over the US on education. You already hired a few stem cell researchers away from the US. Krugman said that if things got hot for him, he could always go to the UK.

Face it, the only time an great professor at an American uni has moved permanently to the UK to teach is when he or she has had a girlfriend or boyfriend or an elederly parent back in the UK. If Blair gets his way, British unis will actually be able to hire away good professors, and make British unis the best in the world again.

It's a real possibility, and one that would be very valuable to Europe over the course of this century. However, you keep arguing that it's not good to educate a lot of people. That could work well for the economy too.

On higher education, Blair is simply finishing off what Thatcher started in her bid to end free education.

You may be convinced otherwise AP, but the "new" labour hog ain't going to be sprouting wings anytime soon.

One of the interesting things about british gov't is that there's no check and balance between an executive and the legislature. When you're PM, you control the legislature. That allows you to change things dramatically when you have power.

You would think that a society that had a government that faciltated such rapid, dramatic change wouldn't be stuck in the 19th century, wouldn't have a monarch, wouldn't have a HoL in ANY fashion. Yet, it still does. Why? Well there have certainly been previous liberal governments. So what is it?

Ah yes. It's the weight of tradition.

it's that deeply ingrained sense that you can't educate too many people. Exclusivity is value! it's the sense that, if the did it 100 years ago, than that's the right way to do it. Fear change! It' always makes things worse.

And what's with this anxiety about commerce? Everyone deserves an opportunity to have a job and to be paid fairly for their labor. That's not a bad thing.

I used to think that Blair was the best that the UK could elect in a society so mired in the past. Now I'm wondering if he isn't about 75 years ahead of schedule.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2905473.stm

Where I've written 80% I've been a big fat mistaken liar

It's an equally ludicrous 50% by 2010.

Apologies to all. Good call rjb I was talking bollocks!

You have produced factual evidence, supported by links, and you have had the good grace and humility to admit you were incorrect.

That humility alone takes a lot more courage and honesty then certain other posters could ever hope to acheve at this rate. You have nothing to be ashamed of.

I thought even by Blairs standard, 80% was a little optimistic! :-)

and even if we head towards Banana Republic-dom, I still say that number needs to go higher.

It's the best way to ensure that people have a grasp of what's going on around them. And the classroom is just about the last place in America where big corporation don't have a tight grip on how people think.

Your "better educated people vote liberal" assertion

How come the democrats are getting tanned?

Also, 2000 was great year for Democrats at all levels...excetp one.

Had Gore gotten 900 more votes, the Republicans would have looked like a party on the ropes.

Then came 9/11-- the gift that kept giving to the republicans.

The fact is, there is a huge demographic shift in the US in the Democrats favor, and it's driven by three things - more people with more education, more racial diversity, and more people living in larger cities. But education is a big one. It's why real democrats care so much about.

Did you know that Republicans hated public education through the first half of the century, and it took Yuri Gugerin for Republicans to think,shit, we are not going to build rocketships if we only let the lazy rich get the best educations in
America. They did a little study and discovered that there wasn't much correlation between being born a math genius and the wealth of your father.

The Republicans didn't like public education for exaclty the reasons Bush is considering now as he dismantles it -- it creates to much equality of opportunity, and spreads wealth too broadly.

Did you know that something like a million students have had to drop out of college since bush became president? that's no accident. Thos are people who will now learn about politics from Rush and sean hannity instead from a book published by a reputable educational press.

where the assertions never quite materialise.
you are digging deep now.

The trends that book identified are exactly the trends much of Bush's policies have been organized around countering. To me, it proves they were right.

I don't think there many people around who disagree with that book.

The predicted exactly what would have happened had Gore won. Bush won and he's doing everything he can to stop those trends.

what exactly does a democratic majority mean to you in the end?
it hardly matters what the politics of any population of folk is if they never get out to vote -- are you aware of the fact that in california in the election after 9-11 only 36% of eligible voters turned out and the numbers were worse the election after that? it was 33% and the numbers were terrible around the rest of the country -- this democratic majority that stupid book touts depends on people who show the fuck up.

...having wasted several years of thier lives to find they're still the same as everyone else and still wind up at McDonalds, (but now trying to pay off thier £25k debt), they need all the state welfare they can get.
Incidentally, is this going to have an associated tax-cut (a bit off booze and cigs would be nice), or is Blair just forking £9 Billion a year off into never-never land? Oh wait, don't tell me, it'll be going to improve our piss-poor public transport. LOL.

Edit: My bad, 9 bill, not 18.

WANTS to lose. Makes me think his main goal is to reverse the decline of Britain's version of the rethug party and it seems to be working. Get him the hell outta there now!

Boy is he an arrogant prick. A reporter asked about Labour's new "Consultation Exercise"; what was the point about talking about things if the leadership had already made up its mind? Tony basically listed a bunch of minor, trivial things that would be discussed, and said that things like top-up fees weren't open to debate.