Just about everything these days is dominated by "markets" and it seems that Universities and their degrees are not to be left out. Markets mostly work on pricing and value. So, if the "price" of a degree (calculated on the basis of the fees to be paid) is seen to have a "value" to the buyer (calculated on employment and associated income advantages), then a judgement can be made as to whether or not to purchase, just as with any other professional service.
To bestow even greater legitimacy upon this relatively new market in higher education, the consumer magazine Which? has decided to examine the services on offer from our Universities, thus lumping them in with utilities, dodgy car dealerships and double glazing sales...arguably where they belong? Which? intends to rank universities and their degree courses based on values attached to them by consumers, from the ephemeral things like "quality"and "experience" through to more hard-nosed, results-based outcomes like, "did I get the job of my dreams at the end of my courses or do I still work at a call centre taking abuse from the public in return for the minimum wage?".
It's reported in some media and, more significantly, through UCAS, that applications for degree courses in England's universities have "slumped" by as much as twelve per cent as "...a direct result of..." increases in tuition fees "allowed" by the Coalition Government. This government includes some Liberal Democrats, by all accounts; those who were to allow fees to rise over their dead bodies or, as has happened in reality, their bruised and mortally injured party and manifesto.
While the Dailys Mail and Telegraph bemoan this development (based, probably, on the potential reduction of pretty girls to photograph on A-Level results day), I am delighted. My delight is tinged with some concern however, given that those potential consumers who are more likely to have second thoughts about the value attached to a degree in terms of a personal investment are unlikely to be the massed ranks of Tarquins and Jocastas, to whose parents, twenty-seven thousand pounds is so much loose change, The poor, the disadvantaged and the "squeezed middle" are more likely to be the ones having second thoughts as they might legitimately worry that the weight of debt from student loans would cancel out any advantage a degree might provide.
The natural world has been known for balancing itself over the billions of years of its existence. Arguably we remain part of the natural world and this "slump" in university applications can be seen as another self-balancing act, albeit not on the scale of the demise of the dinosaurs. Universities were, at least until the seventies, pretty elitist. In the last thirty-odd years, accessibility became easier under successive governments of both left and right stripes. The balance, through greed and some hypocrisy, is returning to elitism and because it is market-driven, there is bugger all we can do about it except watch that market implode as it prices itself out of existence or simply populates its once-hallowed halls with half-witted toffs and overseas student fodder. So far, so bad, one might argue.
Perhaps not. Those that choose not to seek a degree might get an advantage (apart from not being saddled with ridiculous debt). They'll have three or four years start on the others. As most graduates end up in shitty jobs anyway these days, those that eschew university can start earning earlier. Of course, they'll miss out on the "experience" of university. Not necessarily...
As most of the population is urban and most urban areas have some kind of university in them, then the non-students can still do some or all of the following:
a) Rent a room in a crappy building that they can share several other people and spend their time studiously ignoring things like cleaning stuff
b) Get up at midday (provided their job starts in the afternoon)
c) Get shit-faced every night. This will be even easier than it is for under-graduates, seeing as the non-students will have some money
d) Pretend to study. Even better still, this task can be achieved without the stress and worry that they should actually be doing some studying.
There are some things that the non-students won't be able to do, such as go on University Challenge and be patronised and/or ignored by lecturers. No big deal, then...
It's reported in some media and, more significantly, through UCAS, that applications for degree courses in England's universities have "slumped" by as much as twelve per cent as "...a direct result of..." increases in tuition fees "allowed" by the Coalition Government. This government includes some Liberal Democrats, by all accounts; those who were to allow fees to rise over their dead bodies or, as has happened in reality, their bruised and mortally injured party and manifesto.
While the Dailys Mail and Telegraph bemoan this development (based, probably, on the potential reduction of pretty girls to photograph on A-Level results day), I am delighted. My delight is tinged with some concern however, given that those potential consumers who are more likely to have second thoughts about the value attached to a degree in terms of a personal investment are unlikely to be the massed ranks of Tarquins and Jocastas, to whose parents, twenty-seven thousand pounds is so much loose change, The poor, the disadvantaged and the "squeezed middle" are more likely to be the ones having second thoughts as they might legitimately worry that the weight of debt from student loans would cancel out any advantage a degree might provide.
The natural world has been known for balancing itself over the billions of years of its existence. Arguably we remain part of the natural world and this "slump" in university applications can be seen as another self-balancing act, albeit not on the scale of the demise of the dinosaurs. Universities were, at least until the seventies, pretty elitist. In the last thirty-odd years, accessibility became easier under successive governments of both left and right stripes. The balance, through greed and some hypocrisy, is returning to elitism and because it is market-driven, there is bugger all we can do about it except watch that market implode as it prices itself out of existence or simply populates its once-hallowed halls with half-witted toffs and overseas student fodder. So far, so bad, one might argue.
Perhaps not. Those that choose not to seek a degree might get an advantage (apart from not being saddled with ridiculous debt). They'll have three or four years start on the others. As most graduates end up in shitty jobs anyway these days, those that eschew university can start earning earlier. Of course, they'll miss out on the "experience" of university. Not necessarily...
As most of the population is urban and most urban areas have some kind of university in them, then the non-students can still do some or all of the following:
a) Rent a room in a crappy building that they can share several other people and spend their time studiously ignoring things like cleaning stuff
b) Get up at midday (provided their job starts in the afternoon)
c) Get shit-faced every night. This will be even easier than it is for under-graduates, seeing as the non-students will have some money
d) Pretend to study. Even better still, this task can be achieved without the stress and worry that they should actually be doing some studying.
There are some things that the non-students won't be able to do, such as go on University Challenge and be patronised and/or ignored by lecturers. No big deal, then...
No comments:
Post a Comment