By Ed Francis
I’d like to begin by clarifying a very important point: I do not, in the main, see the new legislation permitting rises in tuition fees as anything more than an unmitigated travesty, generated by a Parliament encompassing a notable high number of millionaires who can afford to see their children through the university system privately, which will inevitably disincentivise many young people aspiring out of passion towards degrees leading towards lower-paid jobs. Is that to say, however, that there is absolutely no room for optimism about possible (if unintended) results of the changes?
One key criticism I’ve heard thrown about in debates over tuition fee rises is that the reforms could lead to rising unemployment and higher benefits costs in the future for the British government to deal with. This argument, to me, rather cynically implies that young people who can’t afford to go to university will simply consign themselves to a life on the dole, as if cheating people out of university places is the same as cheating them out of any chance of any kind of well paid and satisfying job, a fundamental death sentence on their future prospects.
This point of view, as far as I can see has little supporting evidence. To begin with, one could point to the number of famous millionaires and billionaires from history who never finished high school including Steven Speilberg, John Rockafella and the head of Dell Inc. Michael Dell; all of whom relied on their personal ingenuity to get ahead in life. However, this argument on its own is clichéd and tired, highlighting exceptional cases to prove a point. Even more important in my opinion is the fact that, quite simply, a vast number of jobs that do not require university qualifications but instead are founded on other skills pay far more than most academic careers ever could, and what is more, can be more satisfying to many people than any vocation a BA could lead them into.
One social problem often brought up in the media is the apparent death of the apprenticeship in recent decades as more and more people have chosen to take the university route under the often incorrect impression that getting a degree is always the most sound life choice for the future, regardless of the course. In my opinion, this second option is no more respectable, in many cases less so, than the first. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, though I in no way condone the fee rises, perhaps at least the breaking of the culture of seeing university as the be all and end all when it comes to future prospects could be welcomed as people instead start to see vocational training that sets them up with practical, profitable life skills as a viable alternative.
“To begin with, one could point to the number of famous millionaires and billionaires from history who never finished high school, including Steven Speilberg, John Rockafella and the head of Dell Inc. Michael Dell…”
Rockafella? Don’t you mean Rockefeller?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller
I think you’re right that the trebling of fees will dissuade a lot of people from going to university, and that therefore an unintended consequence of the reform could be a “cultural shift” as you put it away from university being seen as a near necessity by many people. While this may be positive in desacralising ‘the degree’ as a qualification (remembering the substantial negative of people losing out on a valuable uni education), the Government shouldn’t be allowed to claim any praise for this, because it will come about through the Government’s restricting access to education and damaging social opportunity, rather than creating jobs that are more numerous and more attainable.