Dilbert_X wrote:
I agree that tertiary education should be both low-cost and largely free.
I'm not sure the govt should be funding rich kids to bribe their way into Yale or Oxferd, and doctors etc with higher costs should have to repay the benefit through taxation.
Also the various closed shops like lawyering and medicine should be opened up to more people.
That said the govt didn't put the fees up, they just removed the caps which had worked so well. It was the university chancellors who upped the fees and put themselves on rock-star salaries.
Funny that the people you despise for ruining higher education are almost exclusively Oxford humanities grads.
PPE is not a humanities course in any traditional sense of the term. it’s classed as ‘interdisciplinary’. half of it is economics, which is not humanities, and optional units on sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc, which are social sciences, not humanities.
furthermore, humanities (like all trad subjects) is about disinterested research, not political agendas and learning how to win bigly in politics. with that said, yes, it is seen somewhat as an aberration, not to say with some disdain, within oxford’s academics, a sort of self-enclosed school. there’s always the ‘balliol set’ who come from the same 2-3 schools, do PPE, compete for the union presidency, etc, and clearly are more interested in Westminster (they’ve likely even from come the public school there) than writing on the works of john milton. making out they’re my classmates or kinfolk, making policy decisions based on their grounding in Dante's poetry, is disingenuous.
PPE is the acolyte neoliberal’s degree. depressingly it’s spreading around the world and many other universities who want to be seen as educating its future leaders. and it’s that playbook which says university education isn’t a right, it’s an individual investment, bla bla bla. so yes, now you have uncapped universities investing more in real-estate and luxury halls so they can top up their campuses with 2,500 more foreign students paying 3x normal tuition fees. and you have an administrative caste that are enriching themselves with a salary/bonus culture akin to the City for their success in managing this transition. meanwhile academics are continually on strike and there’s fewer than ever permanent contracts, and research funding is woefully inadequate and poorly organised. departments and researchers now have to ‘justify’ themselves to profit margins, not their discipline.
very curious that you blame the chancellors for the marketized state of affairs and not the legislators that created those conditions. you must have missed the part where the government removed most of its funding at the same time as stipulating a new fee limit/unlimited student numbers. surprise surprise, too, that everyone follows suit and charges the maximum fee to keep their brand perception intact. who da thunk it?!? a person taking an AS level in Marketing at a college in huddersfield could have foreseen that. though obviously i have no love for the chancellors (most of whom, incidentally, have management or IT backgrounds, or even, shudder, engineering) who are translating this ideological vision into depressing reality.
more importantly, you haven’t addressed the actual topic at hand and some officially presented figures, yet again. you’re still blustering about economic migrants and their vampiric effects on society, and yet now we’re facing a shortfall of 6.5 million jobs and there’s only tumbleweed in the queues to fill them. what gives if the native has been so oppressed?
Last edited by uziq (2020-03-01 01:38:31)