Consuming Students

I am coming to the end of my studies at BPP Law School. BPP is a private 'University College' that prides itself on providing good quality, practical education to its students. My campus is a glossy, modern building in the centre of London where tuition is given through interactive seminars, large group sessions, and electronic 'e-learning'. In return, it demands the paltry sum of £15,000.

Grateful though I am for this first-class teaching, it saddens me to think that BPP will come to represent the future of higher education provision. If Universities Minister David 'Two Brains' Willetts has his way, the coalition government will create a market in further education with students acting as consumers and businesses supplying degrees. Willetts intends to make it easier for private colleges such as BPP to compete with publicly funded institutions. This is part of a package of whole scale reform in this area, which has seen tuition fees trebled at public universities and more emphasis being placed on the publishing of graduate recruitment statistics.

At first glance, any attempt to improve the standards of higher education should be welcomed. In my last post I lamented the awful graduate employment prospects facing those currently leaving university. Therefore, the government is surely right to prioritise careers and to focus on students getting better value for money.

There is something fundamentally troubling, however, about students being turned into consumers. At BPP there is a strange atmosphere, which is totally different from the atmosphere I experienced at my undergraduate public university. It does not feel like a centre of academic discovery. That's not to say the standards are low; the tuition is of high quality and the assessment process is rigorous to say the least. Rather, it feels like a place where people pass through as a means to an end, not a place that it is enjoyable to be for the sole purpose of learning.

In order to understand why this is problematic it is necessary to consider the purpose of higher education. Is it to produce top graduates? Or is there more to it than that?

Certainly, one of the key aims of a university education is to gain a good qualification that will lead to a prosperous career. That is why most young people make the decision to spend money and head to university. In the global economy it is nothing short of essential for the UK to produce the best graduates in order to support our industries. So the government is right to be fixated with driving up standards and improving graduate recruitment.

This is surely not enough by itself, however. One of the core aspects of a university education must be to stimulate intellectual curiosity. To foster thinking for no reason other than to think. To learn more about one's opinions. My fondest memories of undergraduate life include having discussions with my tutors about points of law for reasons of interest alone, not to pass an exam or succeed in a job interview.

Willetts seems to forget this with his desire to commoditize higher education. 'Two Brains' has overlooked the need to learn how to use one's brain. His plan to allow more private universities to run degree courses is a recipe for taking the soul and meaning out of academic endeavour. In my last post I also mentioned the New College of the Humanities, a private university which will offer the best possible teaching in exchange for fees of £18,000 a year, making BPP look cheap. No doubt the graduates of the New College will be in an envious position in the labour market. What of their university experience though? Will there be genuine intellectual curiosity when the students are mere consumers? Or will it be, as at BPP, that the majority of students attend because they see it as a means to an end, having paid so much money?

Maybe the view I have expressed is a romantic vision of further study. It may be possible that the notion of spending three years debating and thinking for no vocational gain is simply outdated in the modern economy. If this is right though I think it is a sad reflection on our society. As with most things, the government seems to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

No Country for Young Men

Perhaps Neil Kinnock's greatest ever moment was his 1983 'I warn you' speech where he desparately tried to prevent the British public from re-electing Margaret Thatcher. Kinnock warned people not to be ill, ordinary, unemployed or anything else that could put them at risk in Thatcher's Britain. While the speech has now been forgotten and consigned to the history books, one remark has never been more appropriate: 'I warn you not to be young'.

There is no doubt that young people face the greatest challenges under this Conservative government. Across the board, changes are being made that will make it harder than ever for young people to study, get jobs, find housing or become valued members of society. This is nothing short of tragic with far-reaching implications for the future of this country.

Let's take employment. In February it was reported that youth unemployment had surged to 20.5%. 1 in 5 people between 16 and 24 who are looking for work are unable to find any. The economic crisis has hit younger people worse than any other group. Employers are reluctant to take on young employees as they are unwilling to spend the time and effort training them. Younger employees are by definition inexperienced and in need of development.

Even graduates cannot find jobs. In my own sector, law, it is becoming increasingly difficult for younger applicants to compete with older cross-qualifying professionals. The Crown Prosectuion Service, for example, has suspended recruitment of legal trainees. Instead, those approaching retirment in the CPS are being forced to work two or three jobs to make up for the shortfall.

Graduate employment in general is around the 20% mark. One of the key triggers of the Arab Spring was graduates angry at being able to find jobs, even blue collar jobs, and taking out their anger on the repressive regimes of North Africa and the Middle East. This was expressed most powerfully in the story of Mohammad Bouazizi, a Tunisian graduate, who set himself on fire in protest after he was prevented from selling fruit and vegetables on a market stall. Tunisia is of course a far cry from the UK. It is a stark example, however, of the extreme consequences of graduate joblessness.

Younger people are not just facing a raw deal in the labour market. The reforms pushed through by this government will make it harder for ordinary young people to go to university. Tuition fees have now been trebled to £9,000 a year at almost all universities. It was reported a few weeks ago that a new college is being created in London with fees of £18,000 a year. Most observers predict that this model of higher education will become the norm in the next few years. The effect of this will be huge, irreparable damage to social mobility. There is simply no way that young people from modest social backgrounds will be able to access this kind of education. So what are they to do instead? Get a job? Fat chance.

Everywhere you look younger people are being placed at a disadvantage in society. In addition to trebling tuition fees, this government have abolished the educational maintenance allowance, providing a lifeline to students from less affluent homes. It has scrapped the future jobs fund, which would have created up to 200,000 jobs for young people. It has axed building schools for the future and consigned places of education to ruin and disrepair. Its failure to deal with the rising cost of living has disproportionately affected younger members of society. Its failure to put measures in place to guarantee affordable housing has left younger people unable to take their first steps on the property ladder.

Why is all this bad? It risks creating a 'lost generation' of people who have underdeveloped CVs. Research shows that a prolonged period of unemployment earlier in life can be fundamentally damaging for a person's employment prospects as they get older. This is bad for the individual, the economy, and society as a whole. In addition, having fewer people go to university is problematic in terms of the skills set of the workforce and the general need to create an educated citizenry. More than this though, it is a betrayal by an older generation who benefited from free higher education and an easy pathway into top jobs.

Until the political class take note of the vast challenges facing young people in Cameron's Britain, this state of affairs is unlikely to change. While young people are the losers now, the real loser will be society in the long-term.