Student Fees at £20,000? Incredible!
Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2008 at 7:49pm
4 responses
I don’t usually buy the Sunday Times, but today I was tipped off that there was a story in the paper about top-up fees, so naturally I took an instant interest in the need to get a copy. Yes, I could have just read it online I hear you shout, but when I have some time to myself I like to sit down with a paper and a cup of tea while reading the Sunday papers. I eventually got my copy of The Times, even if it meant visiting 3 shops in Merthyr, all of which had either no newspapers at the start of the day, or had sold out their entire stock.
Reading the article was more depressing than having a whistle stop tour of Merthyr corner shops on a cold winter’s day;-) A report commissioned by the Westminster government, led by Sir John Chisholm recommends that ‘the current cap of £3,145 a year must be lifted if British institutions are to offer teaching standards to match their American counterparts’. The report indicates that some subjects such as medicine could cost up to £20,000, while courses such as English and History could rise to £6,000 a year. The report seems to suggest that monies from the government could be diverted from research to developing teaching at Universities, and that new finances from increased fees could be redirected towards grants or fees for those from lower income families, and to increase interest in certain subjects such as science.
This is all in preparation for a review of student finance by the UK government which is set to start in 2009, of course. There was no government reaction to the ideas in the report in this particular article, but a quote from the Sunday Telegraph shows that there is no commitment from the government to implement the report’s recommendations as yet, stating “This is a contribution to the debate. The report is the view of the author.” They are probably sitting on the fence until they can quieten the rebel backbenchers.
It all makes for quite worrying reading. At a time when there are growing economic uncertainties and spiralling personal debt, how can it be acceptable for government’s to be saddling young people with more and more debt? Jane Hutt, the Education Minister at the National Assembly insists that her decision to change the system in Wales is not influenced by what will happen in light of Westminster’s review, but if Wales introduces top-up fees for Welsh domiciled students, and the UK government lifts the cap, then I believe that it will be inevitable that the WAG will be forced to raise fees down the line so as to seek to keep up with the funding differentials between Welsh and English HEI’s. Should we really be bending over backwards to conform to the Westminster driven education market in Higher education?
The consultation on student finance in Wales comes to an end mid February. Announcing the consultation in December was not what I would have done in Jane Hutt’s position. She knows full well that most students will not be back at University until the end of January, which will leave little time for a full, robust response from those whose opinions matter the most. In the meantime, I shall keep a keen eye on developments on a Westminster level, and its inevitable affect on Wales.
Isn’t this what the Bishops were saying over the Christmas period. That the Government were telling people who are already in tremendous debt, which all Governments since Thatcher have encouraged, to put themselves in even greater debt by spending more, to as they say ‘help’ the country out of it’s difficulties.
What a shamless immoral shower they are.
“Jane Hutt, the Education Minister at the National Assembly insists that her decision to change the system in Wales…”
I find it rather intriguing that when the Welsh Assembly Government takes a decision Plaid likes, it’s one taken by the “plaid- driven, One Wales government.”
When its a decision you lot in Plaid disagree with or dont like, it suddenly becomes the decision of the minister who holds the portfolio, or that nasty “London Labour Government”.
In a coalition, there is collective responsibility. Jane Hutt’s decision on student finance, as far as i know, received the full backing of the Cabinet as a whole, which means Plaid are signed up to it. You cant disassociate yourself from that.
This example just goes to shows how immature Plaid are as a party.
Yes I know plaid ministers agreed to it but I am a BACKBENCHER. I do not have to agree with everything the government does. It just happens to be a Labour Minister in that position. I don’t think its immature to disagree with saddling students with more debt, but the New Labour have already ditched such principles years ago.
Student debt is a wider problem that is only now becoming apparent in the wider economy, namely the acceptance of debt (via banks, credit cards, mortgages etc) and easy credit. In the past 20 years students have become a far bigger proportion of society and have also had to become indebted to complete their courses (unless helped by rich parents or subsidised by work).
It’s become a “natural” state of affairs to be in debt to the tune of thousands of pounds by the time a student leaves college…. something that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.
How much of an affect has that general attitude to debt/easy credit had in shaping the current mess we’re in?