Having neglected the lonely chronicling of my own thoughts I felt it necessary to update this after well over two weeks of avoidance. Indeed I can claim excuse in the fact that a lot of my recent time was completely consumed by preparation for the first round of the 'Northern Ireland Schools Debating Competition' in which my good friend Davin, and I, opposed the motion, "This House believes Student Debt is a fair price to pay for an education." Here is a near final draft of what my speech was(having discarded the tangible final version after the debate itself);
Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicator, members of the proposition and of the audience, not only is it inherently obvious that for the vast majority of graduating university students today and for the foreseeable future, that their prospective debt ailments dominate their lives, career options and indeed happiness, but it is also the conviction of Davin and I that the system in place is an intrinsically corrupt, class based and chasm creating one. I will begin by outlining the failings of this unfair system and then focus on the misleading tales of post-graduate prosperity. Davin will then follow by focusing on how our government have failed to improve social mobility and the economy to the extent where this can really be deemed a fair price.Suffice to say, we won the debate by an anorexic margin of one point. Though simply by not being embarrassed on a public stage such as that was a small victory in itself for me. I am now sick of the very topic of student debt, let alone prepared to face it once this school year ends.
Let us primarily take into account the student loan system in and of itself, which the proposition have so stoutly defended as a beacon for social mobility, the emancipator of class struggle, leading to the educational liberation of minds from lower middle class families, is this the case? Certainly not. Whilst the proposition would have us believe that this infallible system works as an ironing board in the quest for a productive, intelligent and broad society, I pose that whilst our government has displayed a screen of supposed commitment to this issue, that after over a decade since Labour introduced the means-tested system and with it, imposed the idea of University fees upon us, that higher education is still dominated by white, upper and upper middle class students. Why is it the case that students from the richest 2% of households dominate the top universities? Why is it the case that they are twice as likely to go to university at all? Why is it the case that the poorest 25% of households make up less than 6.3% in these universities? The answer, ladies and gentleman, lies firstly in the fundamentally flawed Student Loans Company, the red brick stumbling block on the hazy road that is a University education.
Hazy because we, the opposition, think it illogical to suppose that it is a ‘fair price’ that students be fed the propaganda of the equality interests of student loans. Let us realise that student loans are not earmarked by a fixed interest rate, indeed it is a variable one that is more often than not in line with the Retail Price Index inflation figure. The example I propose is that a student who leaves University with a general degree, which has no direct career path, for example strikes lucky and finds a job at a starting wage of £17,000 per annum, now compare this to a student who graduates what I will call a ’platinum’ degree(which falls under the banner of Law, Medicine, Actuary and so on), this student will have more job opportunities and will of course earn more money when he/she acquires this job, and will pay off their loan in bigger instalments than the other student, in proportion to what each earns. With the addition of interest rates though, we have a system which punishes those on lower wages, since the student with a general degree is paying in smaller instalments, the interest builds up and over time they end up paying off more money to the Student Loans Company than the graduate who did a higher powered degree and earns a substantially greater amount of money. This is simply prejudiced and unjust.
The proposition will no doubt enlighten us on how students have to be aware of the interest added on to their loans, but what incentive is it, to take out a loan that can be at a similar level to some of the best fixed rate mortgages currently available? The best rate that new borrowers can hope for is 3.98% in a mortgage, while students in the past couple of years have had to deal with interest rates as high as 4.8%. How can it be justified that the average student in Newcastle for example, should he/she take out a loan each year to cover simply their tuition fees starting a three year degree, will have just under £10,000 of debt once they graduate. This figure may be harrowing but it is also kind, as it does not take into account possible loans for maintenance fees, which is just as much of a reality as loans for tuition fees are, using the proposition‘s logic. This is not fair, when just a few miles north, Scottish students have the opportunity to attain third level education free of charge. Let me also clarify, that since the Labour government refuse to pay tuition fees, that any English, Welsh or Northern Irish student who goes to Scotland does have to pay fees. The proposition believe this to be fair?
It is not in the nature of our argument to suggest that all third level education should be free, or indeed that third level education is a birth right. But the government simply aren’t rewarding the academic excellence of students who show the capability and capacity to excel, they are turning University education into a yearned for right, instead of an earned one.
What then, of the argument of the job market? The housing market? Surely, you would assume, graduates, having been sold University as a route to employability, are flourishing and will be the cogs, pulleys and gears to pull us out of our current economic depression? Indeed I would claim that the antithesis is harder to falsify. ‘Out of school and on the dole’ is the latest cry from students as they face a harsh job market simply trying to economise. It is believed that after the class of 2009 graduated, under 25 unemployment hit the one million mark. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development released figures that nearly half of employers had no plans to recruit graduates in the summer just past. meaning one in ten of the class of 2009 will be unemployed as a result. Ladies and gentlemen we are faced with a lost generation, the class of 2009 were the first set of students to leave University with unprecedented levels of debt, and the job market has been slashed by roughly 25% amidst extremely optimistic and unctuous predictions at the time in which the fees were bumped to around three thousand pounds per year. They graduate to find very few jobs in the market. They could not join the First Time Buyer market during the boom because the prices were too high, and now the Student Loans Company have made it clear that there are plans to give their credit files to banks, so any missed payment on the student loan system will show up as a black X beside their name, making a mortgage near impossible for graduates when also taking into consideration the mortgage rates. I will say it again, somehow the are trying to tell us, that this is fair?
It is a sad state of affairs ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubting that Universities are economically driven, but at increasing rates the economic benefits which they offer are limited. Ladies and gentlemen student debt is not a fair price to pay for an education.
No comments:
Post a Comment