Why aren't we supporting the students? Maybe we've been psychically kettled

We live in a society in which we are told there is no money and yet see it washing around the upper echelons


o Suzanne Moore
o The Guardian, Saturday 4 December 2010

Sometimes you move between worlds too quickly for comfort. I certainly did this week. I went from talking to students staging an occupation at University College London to a pre-Christmas do full of movers and shakers. One group of people were complacent, self-indulgent and had a huge sense of entitlement. And guess what, it wasn't the students! I wondered just when my generation had got just so bloody complacent.

The unwritten law says protest is something you grow out of. We drift rightwards. Activism is simply a rite of passage that gives way to a life full of passive grumbling. This is the only way I can comprehend how a generation that had free education, access to jobs and housing feels at ease denying these things to the young. This is truly mystifying. Is the word "deficit" enough to make us lose all our political marbles?

No one should be surprised that after six months in limbo the students should be at the forefront of resistance to this government. The Labour party does not yet resemble an opposition, rather Ed et al seem to be on a collective gap year.

Some of the students involved in the occupations have worked for the Labour party; some for the Lib Dems. They are not naive about party politics but clearly feel let down by it. Demos, flashmobs, occupations and the spectacles of direct action are the only ways they can register their disgust. They really aren't going to wait for the next election for the head of Nick Clegg. Caught up in the immediacy of protest, everything is happening in the present. This is the excitement of such a movement.

I felt this energy walking past the homemade shrine "RIP education" into the Jeremy Bentham room at UCL. I also felt the fatigue. It is knackering sleeping on the floor of a cold building, whatever the cause is. This was a room filled with people living on bad sandwiches and snatched sausage rolls, downed with Red Bull and a rush of hope.

Yes, it was exactly like every protest I have been on, and, yes, it was completely different. Some of what was happening was immediately recognisable to me and some new. What is most impressive is how far these students have come in a couple of weeks. They are the opposite of just about every stereotype that is used about them. Call me old-fashioned but I hardly see them as hardcore anarchists, as their main contention is wanting access to state institutions. They do not want to drop out of the system but rather to drop in. They are also way too efficient to be proper anarchists.

It is fantastic that these young people, who we have been told have been blinded by celebrity culture and are mainly Facebook narcissists, soon made contact with other causes. Students at UCL also campaigned for a living wage for their cleaning staff. When I was there union leaders were talking solidarity with them. These kids, unlike their elders, are not scared of the word "class". Into this hub of activity come other, younger students wanting to see how its done: polite, well-spoken boys who want to stage occupations in their sixth forms about the removal of the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA).

The media of course has banged on about tuition fees as the children of media people go to university. Little has been said about EMA, a means-tested benefit, possibly because those who live on less than £20,000 a year are not in the middle-class bubble. To remove this in effect prohibits a whole sector of society even getting the qualifications they need to get university.

The students at least know their figures – and how to widen out their protest. One girl told me her vice-chancellor was earning £280,000 a year and would be presiding over an 80% cut in an arts and humanities course. That same night people drinking good wine bandied about other figures that justify tuition fees. "£7 a week is easy to pay back." "It doesn't really make any difference whether fees are £3,000 or £6,000 or £9,000." To accept the inevitability of this is one thing, but are we to embrace the complete marketisation of all we hold dear? Are we happy to live with the decimation of arts and social sciences? Do we not see this as straightforward ideological attack? Do we think it is acceptable to make one generation pay for the sins of another?

Some don't like the word mandate. I don't particularly, but it is clear we did not vote for this exactly. Even those who demonised the first wave of protest are having a hard time staying outraged. The sons and daughters of Middle England are indeed revolting. What is more, everything is documented and recorded. We have seen the police who hit people in the face, the "pre-emptive" kettling, the Benny Hill-style chases. The police are puzzled by these "leaderless" protests. These kids are able to quickly organise new kinds of creative chaos. They are wired. Always only one tweet away from the next happening.

Yet old-style meetings about meetings were going on while I was there, reminding me of that old quip about socialism taking up too many evenings. These people have discovered the politics of self-organisation quickly. Some of what was going on was the painfully slow but necessary business of process. How does such a diverse group make rules for itself? While people show their agreement with speakers by raising hands and wiggling fingers, jazz hands-style, all around are people tapping away on laptops. Some are more seasoned than others. Some are PhD students who mournfully say they would just a like a job. Others want to bring down capitalism. As any thinking 17-year-old does. Somehow this iPhone coalition is working.

It is providing a brilliant political education. It is a great thing to work with others for the public good, to feel your own power and know its limitations. Collective action is shot through with adrenalin. It is the province of the young. For what pray, is the province of the old? Limp lobbying and the absolute resignation that nothing can be done? That the public can go hang because privately we can all scrape through?

A young physicist asked me how to get through to his flatmates who didn't care as they were not affected by the cuts. We agreed you to have ask the big questions about what kind of society you want to live in. And we live in one in which we are told there is no more money while we see it washing around the upper echelons.

A line is being drawn. Romantically, it may be a coalition of resistance. Even if it's not, I do not understand why we don't support young people. Have we all been psychically kettled? Something has gone very wrong when pragmatic realism produces the Cable compromise: not voting for a policy you are in charge of. If this is grown-up politics, then we all need to get down with the youth.

Why aren't we supporting the students? Maybe we've been psychically kettled | Suzanne Moore | Comment is free | The Guardian

In a number of jurisdictions, university education was inexpensive or free (mine was free). What has received little comment is that this practice subsidised the elite 10, 20, perhaps 25 per cent of young people who sought a university education. They received a substantial gift from the taxpayer that boosted their earning power for the rest of their lives. They have no intention whatever of paying it back, although it may be argued that the higher taxes that they pay from their higher incomes is a contribution to this effect.

As the need for a more educated workforce has increased, the cost of providing tertiary education to the majority of young people (and indeed to a proportion of older people looking to be retrained) has got out of hand. Fees have been going up in the United States, the UK, Australia and no doubt in other countries.

An Australian scheme allows students to borrow fees from the government, provided they complete their courses in reasonable time, but applies a cash interest rate and obliges repayment from income deductions once a graduate (or other former student) starts to earn above the average working wage. The intent is to stop the fear that a student (especially one from an impoverished background) who was unable to parlay studies into a job that earned a middle class income, would be stuck with a liability that was impossible to discharge.

In other words the government is making loans stapled to call options on borrowers' incomes once they exceed the Australian average.

Anecdotes suggest that it is working but I have not seen recent evidence that students from low socio-economic backgrounds are trumpeting their approval.

Originally Posted by roadkill

In a number of jurisdictions, university education was inexpensive or free (mine was free). What has received little comment is that this practice subsidised the elite 10, 20, perhaps 25 per cent of young people who sought a university education.

a) no it has not been ignored, it has been widely discussed, and b) it did not subsidise an elite as such, because itg pwermitted talented kids who otherwise would not have been able to study an opportunity to do so. And that is precisely the beneficial effect it was intended to have.

Quote:

As the need for a more educated workforce has increased, the cost of providing tertiary education to the majority of young people (and indeed to a proportion of older people looking to be retrained) has got out of hand. Fees have been going up in the United States, the UK, Australia and no doubt in other countries.

This argument makes no sense whatsoever. An increase in the size of tertiary education should allows economies of scale, and certainly would not in itself lead to per capita fees increases.

Quote:

Anecdotes suggest that it is working but I have not seen recent evidence that students from low socio-economic backgrounds are trumpeting their approval.

That sounds pretty much exactly like the system introducedby new labour, and it has already been shown here to have reduced take up among poorer students, who fear the debt. This is just another example of thwe great and good forcing us to borrow, the futility of which was demonstyrated by the recent crisis.

Originally Posted by contracycle

a) no it has not been ignored, it has been widely discussed, and b) it did not subsidise an elite as such, because itg pwermitted talented kids who otherwise would not have been able to study an opportunity to do so. And that is precisely the beneficial effect it was intended to have.

If that was the case, it would have been mean-tested rather than free. Especially given that people from favoured backgrounds are disproportionally represented in higher education. No, as RK points out, the argument was that it was an investment and a good one, as a more educated workforce would bring in more tax revenues as they were going to get good jobs...

Quote:

This argument makes no sense whatsoever. An increase in the size of tertiary education should allows economies of scale, and certainly would not in itself lead to per capita fees increases.

That would be true if tertiary education was easily scalable - But it isn't. More students mean more space being sought by university and more professors. Class size can be increased but not endlessly.

Quote:

That sounds pretty much exactly like the system introducedby new labour, and it has already been shown here to have reduced take up among poorer students, who fear the debt.

You got to speculate to accumulate. How do you think those Viking warriors turned into Norman barons who then turned into English lords? Skipping the "personal attributes" stuff that so irks you, I'd have to say this is a wonderfully clear example of the benefits of mutualisation - But there is astrong case to be made for the mutualisation to happen at the university/institution level rather than at the state/national level through taxation...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

If that was the case, it would have been mean-tested rather than free. Especially given that people from favoured backgrounds are disproportionally represented in higher education. No, as RK points out, the argument was that it was an investment and a good one, as a more educated workforce would bring in more tax revenues as they were going to get good jobs...

These points contradict each other. If it is an investment, then it doesn't matter if well off kids get it. As for the means testing argument, I'm against it, as it allows a slippery slope by which the deserving are steadily defined lower and lower down. We already have far too much of this. Plus, as with universal child benefit, it creates a common experience; if study is free to all it is a public service, like the police; if it is only to the needy, it is wealth distribution.

Quote:

That would be true if tertiary education was easily scalable - But it isn't. More students mean more space being sought by university and more professors. Class size can be increased but not endlessly.

Granted but for exa mnple a given university can add a new building more easily than a whole new university can be created. Either way, it fails as an explanation for why fees should have increased, which was my point.

Quote:

You got to speculate to accumulate. How do you think those Viking warriors turned into Norman barons who then turned into English lords? Skipping the "personal attributes" stuff that so irks you, I'd have to say this is a wonderfully clear example of the benefits of mutualisation - But there is astrong case to be made for the mutualisation to happen at the university/institution level rather than at the state/national level through taxation...

I have no idea how this relates to the bit you quoted. Plus, forcible seizure by vikings isn't exactly similar to coming out of university with a whacking great debt.

Originally Posted by contracycle

These points contradict each other. If it is an investment, then it doesn't matter if well off kids get it.

It does increase the costs pointlessly...

Quote:

As for the means testing argument, I'm against it, as it allows a slippery slope by which the deserving are steadily defined lower and lower down. We already have far too much of this.

Yep, I can definitely see that one coming too...

Quote:

Plus, as with universal child benefit, it creates a common experience; if study is free to all it is a public service, like the police; if it is only to the needy, it is wealth distribution.

Nice, warm, communal feelings are nice and warm and communal but they need to be financed...

Quote:

Granted but for example a given university can add a new building more easily than a whole new university can be created.

Not quite my experience. The London Business School (LBS) has been trying to expand for the last few years. They inhabit gorgeous buildings rented very cheap from the Queen near Regent's Park. They cannot really afford to buy and/or have problems renting any of the buildings nearby. In general, green fields developments are cheaper than brown ones...

Quote:

Either way, it fails as an explanation for why fees should have increased, which was my point.

I thought that was obvious: More people means more costs means ballooning education budget means trying to recoup that by making students pay part of the way...

Quote:

I have no idea how this relates to the bit you quoted.

Goes to risk taking, the motor of entrepreneurship and the reason right wing people say the difference between losers and winners is personal rather systematic. Vikings had to risk their lives and limbs. Modern poor have to risk ending up in debt - unless they can sell equity or call options, as RK pointed out. Which isn't a stupid way to go about things.

But, as I said, I think it makes even more sense to mutualise the university and make all students "equity owners" - Thus, they, as a whole rather than as an individual person, got to pay the debt the university incurred to train them and, if there is enough winners, they can compensate for the inevitable losers - who won't have to face crushing debt personally. It also will mean that a good university will be able to attract and retain the best students as all students will try to get into the best student pool they can, to mitigate the amount of losers they may have to carry. That can be a good thing I guess (good universities get even better) or a bad one (2 tier higher education get even more entranched), depending on your point of view...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

It does increase the costs pointlessly...

Only if you consider the benefit to be unnecessary.

Quote:

Nice, warm, communal feelings are nice and warm and communal but they need to be financed...

Obviously. However, it's not "warm and communal", it is "social contract".

Quote:

In general, green fields developments are cheaper than brown ones...

Green field construction is itself restricted, though, so it's an al;ternative that doesn;t necessarily exist in practice.

Quote:

I thought that was obvious: More people means more costs means ballooning education budget means trying to recoup that by making students pay part of the way...

More people = more fees which balances more costs, except inasmuch as there may be economies of scale. As I have already pointed out, twice, the increase in numbers does not account for the increase in per head cost.

Look, if I was producing a million cans of coke or whatever for 10c each, and I upped that production run to 2 million I would not expect to find myself paying 12c each. Indeed I would expect to be paying something more like 8c, which is good because I'm probably going to have to reduce the sale price as well to ensure they all get sold.

The default sceanrio should be increased volume reducing costs. If this is not the case for universities, there needs to be an explanation as to why not.

Quote:

Goes to risk taking, the motor of entrepreneurship and the reason right wing people say the difference between losers and winners is personal rather systematic. Vikings had to risk their lives and limbs.

Yes, and? That doesn't alter the fact that takeup declined. You may think that's a good thing or a bad thing, but the observation that increased fees reduce numbers applying stands.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Only if you consider the benefit to be unnecessary.

Well-off students would have been educated anyhow so no loss there. If you mean "social contract" type of lost benefit, well, 'social contract' is pretty illusiory anyhow. Like legions of young french, I moved to London because it seems like a good bet at the time. I may be culturally French but I feel no particular loyalty to any given country. And the vast immigration patterns from Eastern Europe to Western Europe do show that, as soon as economic advantages are to be had, quite a few people do move. And that's against the uprooting cost and language barrier! Social contract be damned...

Quote:

Look, if I was producing a million cans of coke or whatever for 10c each, and I upped that production run to 2 million I would not expect to find myself paying 12c each. Indeed I would expect to be paying something more like 8c, which is good because I'm probably going to have to reduce the sale price as well to ensure they all get sold.

Yes but that's not how the university scenario works, given that the buyers (students) are not financing the whole buy.

It goes more like this: I am producing cans of coke for 10c each and the buyer only pays 2c while I pick the rest of the tab. Cost for 1 million cans: 80k. Now, I am forced to produce 2 millions cans and the buyers are still only paying 2c. Suddenly, my loses/cost is 160k... Hence, I want those guys to start paying 4c instead of 2...

Quote:

Yes, and? That doesn't alter the fact that takeup declined. You may think that's a good thing or a bad thing, but the observation that increased fees reduce numbers applying stands.

Yeah I agree but you can reply that's just coz poor people are lilly livered cowards who don't want to take risks...

NB: I note you avoided replying to the mutualising angle. I think that comparing higher education to health insurance coverage makes decent sense...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Well-off students would have been educated anyhow so no loss there. If you mean "social contract" type of lost benefit, well, 'social contract' is pretty illusiory anyhow. Like legions of young french, I moved to London because it seems like a good bet at the time. I may be culturally French but I feel no particular loyalty to any given country. And the vast immigration patterns from Eastern Europe to Western Europe do show that, as soon as economic advantages are to be had, quite a few people do move. And that's against the uprooting cost and language barrier! Social contract be damned...

Social contract can be applied to the EU as a whole. Many of the basic elements are there. It's not at all illusory, it is the foundational principle which keeps any group together, to any degree. I'm not talking about naitonalism or parochoialism or anything, just the rules we agree to live by.

Quote:

Yes but that's not how the university scenario works, given that the buyers (students) are not financing the whole buy. It goes more like this: I am producing cans of coke for 10c each and the buyer only pays 2c while I pick the rest of the tab. Cost for 1 million cans: 80k. Now, I am forced to produce 2 millions cans and the buyers are still only paying 2c. Suddenly, my loses/cost is 160k... Hence, I want those guys to start paying 4c instead of 2...

But of course that's even less true, becuase "you" are "them", paying taxes for the current generation to be educated just as you were. See know you're having to distort the basic model to try to make your point; that just demonstrates how bogus the initial claim is. And it doesn't even work. Even with your model, with buyers only paying 2c, the production cost per unit is still 10c. Instead of 1 million payments of 2c you get 2 million of them. So the COST PER UNIT has not been affected; you're only making an argument about turnover, not the unit price issue that RK claimed and to which I objected.

Quote:

Yeah I agree but you can reply that's just coz poor people are lilly livered cowards who don't want to take risks...

You might do that, and it still won't alter the observation. It is obviously the case that the decline in takeup is only a problem if you think takeup should be high.

Quote:

NB: I note you avoided replying to the mutualising angle. I think that comparing higher education to health insurance coverage makes decent sense...

I have nothing to say on that topic. As I've said before, if you do that to the whole of society you get communism by default, and doing it to only parts of society is of very limited use. If you make students owners, then by virtue of the fact that so many pass through the system, eventually you end up with what amounts to a nationalised public service. Which would be fine by me.

Originally Posted by contracycle

I'm not talking about naitonalism or parochoialism or anything, just the rules we agree to live by.

Except those are still decided on a national basis, by and large. France is not experiencing nearly the same level of problem when it comes to tertiary education financing.

Quote:

But of course that's even less true, becuase "you" are "them", paying taxes for the current generation to be educated just as you were.

That's not how the gvt or the voters really see the issue, now, is it?

Quote:

So the COST PER UNIT has not been affected; you're only making an argument about turnover, not the unit price issue that RK claimed and to which I objected.

RK said "As the need for a more educated workforce has increased, the cost of providing tertiary education to the majority of young people (and indeed to a proportion of older people looking to be retrained) has got out of hand". That's an argument (a constatation, actually) about turnover, not cost per unit per se.

You may think that all fiscal punction should be merged and services provided free on a blended basis but that's not how it works. My subsidized example is basically correct, no matter what happens at the aggregated gvt level.

Quote:

You might do that, and it still won't alter the observation.

Of course not but it provides a moral explanation to the phenomenom... One which is damaging to the purpose of financing higher education and an objection that thus need to be addressed.

Quote:

If you make students owners, then by virtue of the fact that so many pass through the system, eventually you end up with what amounts to a nationalised public service. Which would be fine by me.

I wouldn't call 25-30% of the pop. "so many it is as good as nationalised"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ed...attainment.jpg

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.