Many higher education institutions face financial collapse, but what has
brought about this perfect storm and what can be done about it? ----
Headlines often focus on 'over-reliance on international students', but
it is more complex. Why do universities try so hard to recruit
international students? Because international fees are not regulated and
universities can charge what they can get away with, meaning Cambridge
can charge a Chinese student more than Cardiff Met. So, are they just
being greedy? Not really - they are trying to cover the short-fall
arising from domestic student fees barely rising in a decade.
In 2012, universities could charge an undergraduate student £9,000 per
year; twelve years later, it has only risen to £9,250, while
universities' costs have gone through the roof. We are all familiar with
the cost of living crisis, but imagine how much worse it would be
without a pay rise in twelve years!
So is the answer to raise tuition fees? Of course not - the answer is to
challenge the marketisation of higher education. This, and this alone,
is the cause of the problem.
In a stroke of neo-liberal "genius", the then established £3,000 per
year tuition fee hit true capitalist territory in 2012, and universities
could charge between £6,000 and £9,000 a year. A typical university was
expected to charge £6,000, and only exceptional institutions would
charge £9,000. The government believed market forces would sort it all
out; the 'good' universities would survive, and the sub-par ones would
wither away or merge.
To make matters worse, 2015 saw the market forces strategy at play
again, with the lifting of the cap on student numbers. Rather than each
university being capped regarding numbers of students they could
recruit, any university could now recruit as many students as it wanted.
This was great for Russell Group universities and other prestigious
institutions, but less good for smaller, regional universities and
ex-polytechnics. If you could get into Bristol Uni, why go to the
University of the West of England (ex-Bristol Poly)?
So the older (pre-1992) universities hoovered up as many students as
they could by lowering their entry standards. The knock-on effect was
the post-1992 universities lowering their own entry standards even
further to stand a chance of attracting enough students and their
much-needed fees.
Many universities are now reporting levels of student mental health
concerns at an all-time high. The pressure to get a degree, and the
willingness of universities to offer places, means that many students
are really struggling with degree-level study, as well as debt.
There is no positive spin on the marketisation of higher education; all
that happens is rich institutions get richer and the poor get poorer,
while student choice and mental health suffer.
Market forces have no place in our education. While the economy may be
too messed up to expect an immediate abolition of student fees, a
realistic step forward would be to reinstate the cap on student numbers,
which would at least distribute student fee income more fairly. Despite
what the Russell Group of universities may say, this idea is not unheard
of - during Covid, it looked like it could happen.
What we see now are the all too familiar effects of market forces -
increasing concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands and a declining
standard of service available to all but those with the deepest pockets.
Looking no further than housing or the railways or the water companies,
to name but a few, should leave little doubt as to where marketisation
of education, if unchecked, is headed.
The Solidarity Federation Education Union sees the education system,
including the HE sector, as a resource that must be as widely accessible
as possible. Market forces, however, are about re-distributing society's
wealth into the hands of those at the top. In other words, education for
the majority is becoming increasingly substandard, while the richest can
always pay for the best.
SFEU is not motivated by the self-interest of capitalist structures like
the Russell Group. Instead, all our collective energy is directed at
fighting for the interests of those engaged in education, whether as
workers, no matter what job, or as consumers.
http://solfed.org.uk/da/direct-action-solidarity-federation-2024-issue-2
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
brought about this perfect storm and what can be done about it? ----
Headlines often focus on 'over-reliance on international students', but
it is more complex. Why do universities try so hard to recruit
international students? Because international fees are not regulated and
universities can charge what they can get away with, meaning Cambridge
can charge a Chinese student more than Cardiff Met. So, are they just
being greedy? Not really - they are trying to cover the short-fall
arising from domestic student fees barely rising in a decade.
In 2012, universities could charge an undergraduate student £9,000 per
year; twelve years later, it has only risen to £9,250, while
universities' costs have gone through the roof. We are all familiar with
the cost of living crisis, but imagine how much worse it would be
without a pay rise in twelve years!
So is the answer to raise tuition fees? Of course not - the answer is to
challenge the marketisation of higher education. This, and this alone,
is the cause of the problem.
In a stroke of neo-liberal "genius", the then established £3,000 per
year tuition fee hit true capitalist territory in 2012, and universities
could charge between £6,000 and £9,000 a year. A typical university was
expected to charge £6,000, and only exceptional institutions would
charge £9,000. The government believed market forces would sort it all
out; the 'good' universities would survive, and the sub-par ones would
wither away or merge.
To make matters worse, 2015 saw the market forces strategy at play
again, with the lifting of the cap on student numbers. Rather than each
university being capped regarding numbers of students they could
recruit, any university could now recruit as many students as it wanted.
This was great for Russell Group universities and other prestigious
institutions, but less good for smaller, regional universities and
ex-polytechnics. If you could get into Bristol Uni, why go to the
University of the West of England (ex-Bristol Poly)?
So the older (pre-1992) universities hoovered up as many students as
they could by lowering their entry standards. The knock-on effect was
the post-1992 universities lowering their own entry standards even
further to stand a chance of attracting enough students and their
much-needed fees.
Many universities are now reporting levels of student mental health
concerns at an all-time high. The pressure to get a degree, and the
willingness of universities to offer places, means that many students
are really struggling with degree-level study, as well as debt.
There is no positive spin on the marketisation of higher education; all
that happens is rich institutions get richer and the poor get poorer,
while student choice and mental health suffer.
Market forces have no place in our education. While the economy may be
too messed up to expect an immediate abolition of student fees, a
realistic step forward would be to reinstate the cap on student numbers,
which would at least distribute student fee income more fairly. Despite
what the Russell Group of universities may say, this idea is not unheard
of - during Covid, it looked like it could happen.
What we see now are the all too familiar effects of market forces -
increasing concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands and a declining
standard of service available to all but those with the deepest pockets.
Looking no further than housing or the railways or the water companies,
to name but a few, should leave little doubt as to where marketisation
of education, if unchecked, is headed.
The Solidarity Federation Education Union sees the education system,
including the HE sector, as a resource that must be as widely accessible
as possible. Market forces, however, are about re-distributing society's
wealth into the hands of those at the top. In other words, education for
the majority is becoming increasingly substandard, while the richest can
always pay for the best.
SFEU is not motivated by the self-interest of capitalist structures like
the Russell Group. Instead, all our collective energy is directed at
fighting for the interests of those engaged in education, whether as
workers, no matter what job, or as consumers.
http://solfed.org.uk/da/direct-action-solidarity-federation-2024-issue-2
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten