You are reading a single comment by @Greenbank and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • Yes, the debt is very problematic. It is also true that before fees, top universities were struggling to recruit from outside of the usual middle class, often privately educated elite. Fees are one solution, though a very flawed one. A better solution wasn't put on the table. perhaps someone should come up with one. And yes, I think the connection is simple: "I can get a loan to afford this now, so I'll go".

    What does this even mean?

    Top universities weren't able to recruit from outside the privately educated middle classes so fees were raised? Huh?

  • I think it means one or two things:-

    a) Universities used to fill up their places from the middle classes. When fees came in fewer of them went, so there were more spaces for others. So it helped diversity indirectly.

    b) The fees (and loans to cover them) coincided with an increase in the amount students could borrow to cover their living expenses, which meant that those without the savings (or help from parents) could now afford (by borrowing) to go to University.

    But that's just my guess.

  • Not quite. The middle classes still go. University places have increased dramatically and everyone is trying to sell sell sell their places to any teenager that looks their way. More positively there have been big campaigns to recruit more broadly, and all the government talk of getting 50% young people into HE did after all have some effect. Uni is almost a default choice among a much bigger section of society now. Students are also much more used to working regular jobs through study to pay their way. Obviously these things have both positive and negative impacts.

About

Avatar for Greenbank @Greenbank started