-
And yes, I think the connection is simple: "I can get a loan to afford this now, so I'll go".
If there are no fees, you don't need a loan. If there are significantly lower fees you have significantly lower debt. You are talking about fees, not maintenance? The marketisation and corporatisation of higher education is unchecked. It's not a Tory thing, I don't think many people forget who brought fees in.
None of that was even the over simple stuff. Access to university is now broader than it was before fees - it's not necessarily directly causal. A lot else has also changed. There are also still nuances in who feels able to apply and who doesn't. There are also nuances in who benefits as graduates, and who doesn't, and how much of this is related to fees/debt or not.
Not the place, but i can't pass by an assertion that university fees = social mobility, yay fees.
No.
You are reading a single comment by @hoefla and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
hoefla
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".
I don't expect anyone on here to agree with this, so I'll accept in advance that these views make me an evil tory, and we can get back to the leadership discussion :)