Privatisation: The disincentives for University - Further Implications

Source: Royston Cartoons

In the last post I talked about how privatisation of education systems have had a negative effect on overall standards of teaching and research. In this post I will be looking at the further implications that this has on students themselves and not just the £27,000 debt that we are left to pay.

Privatisation of the universities have led the price of our education to sky rocket. Now while many of those in government argue there is very little change, in reality there is a massive change.
Those universities that only attract a small, niche set of students or specialise in a specific subject will likely not to exist in the long run as to put it 'most businesses fail, only few succeed.' This is a problem if we are to diversify education away from the elitist and restricted 'Oxbridge group' then we simply cannot treat universities as if they were business experiments. You don't leave a person's health down to the volatility of the market, so why do the same with a persons education.

So what other further knock on effects does this have? Well, social mobility as it stands is weak enough as it is with a diverse quality of education depending on where you live or how much you earn and what end of the large inequality gap you fall into. By privatising universities, it is not only choice that is compromised but also the social mobility benefits that comes with it. Those that doubt university because of the cost will reject it entirely and we will suffer a real loss of talent. Further if money becomes a prominent component of universities then they will inevitably try to attract foreign students to bring in the most revenue. Now I am not saying that foreign students should not apply, quite the opposite, but rather if there is a shift in focus towards those who will pay the most, then we will ultimately be restricting access from domestic students from lower social backgrounds. (Universities know that those who have the money or if they are an international student then they will most likely to pay in advance.)

So if the plan is to restrict talented and hard working students from applying to university, then I must give it 10/10 for the direction that it is going because at this rate we are prioritising the interests of the few, rather than the many.

Privatisation: The disincentives for University

As it continues to spark up a heated debate among home students, a £9,000 tuition fee is part of the privatisation of many of the state funded/subsidised services. Not only does it restrict those from lower social backgrounds, which I will discuss at a later date, but actually limits the potential of a university.

Source: Schnews

As many Universities are being influenced to run like a business, many positive factors of a publicly owned good will sharply disappear. I argue that such institutions are not businesses and should not act like them. Education as a whole is not a price you can put on but rather something we should invest in through the system of government expenditure, otherwise it would lead to large inequalities and a serious dumbing down effect.

As seen in the past few years, Universities have been led into this mentality of 'competition' or as I like to call it, exploitation. As a result, large cuts in the expenditure have been well on their way in order to achieve the greatest profitability. But maybe there's some hope if the universities pump that profit back into the system...unfortunately not. While unlike a business, a University has the ability to keep its 'customers' unconditionally for a three year minimum period. Therefore, all a University need to do is create flagship projects that look promising in the summer but far from sufficient facilities in term time. Cash-in!

So what are the long-term effects of this? Well as a result many universities have deeply slashed the funding for staff and postgraduate study, whilst also opening the floodgates for even more students. The result, even more overworked and paid less for it, is this really fair? Evidently not.

You may tell me that you really don't care as its not to do with me? This is seriously concerning if you are a student, hoping to be or even an employer. The simple fact is, the less incentives there are for students to go on and research and teach, then ultimately the quality of teaching and ground-breaking research would diminish (the dumbing down effect.) Do we really want to see failing institutions because it cannot keep its optimal potential in the market, or some of the greatest universities begin a process of dumbing down through 'cut and scrimper' tactics in order to survive?

Universities bring more benefit than its cost, so to cut and save from such subsidies may create a bit of ready cash now but overall society's weal
th will decrease.

Cuts: A necessity or an endorsement of ideology?

Original Source - Telegraph (Adams Cartoonist)

For those that have already read my post on 'Should the unemployed be forced to clean our streets?' would know that I am not a big fan of the cost saving tactics or cuts that have been pursued by the recent 'coalition' government. I say coalition loosely because it is evident what party is clearly dominant, so clear that I needn't say. However, what I challenge are not the cuts themselves but the reasons for these cuts, as I think we are simply being led into believing one thing to agree with something that radically goes against our interests.

So the reason for these cuts that I am sure you have had drilled into your mind that these are for the 'good of the country.' Merely use of propaganda and use of non-relevant jargon to make you believe so. I am sure you've heard of things like 'The Debt Crisis', 'The country is broke!' and 'We need to make ourselves competitive.' So to sum up the reason that has been drilled into our heads are that the cuts are to ensure we can pay back the debt that we owe and secure a low interest rate on doing so. However, is this really the reason for doing so or is this just convenient for the Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative ideology that was shaken by a slight change in consensus? (Apologies for the technicalities.)

Our political neutrality is being manipulated by irrational reasoning, we are simply given statistics of large negative numbers and suddenly we go into panic, lose our heads and begin to agree to cut left right and centre as if we were puppets on a string. So why do I say that having this 'Debt Crisis' is actually beneficial for the current government? Well I have already argued this has led to us being controlled like puppets on a string, and cuts in government expenditure on things such as the welfare state is highly favoured policy of the ideology that drives the current government. If for instance we were serious about the debt crisis we should spend out of recession and cut in booms, cut all factors of government expenditure and raise the taxes for the very wealthy.
But this is not the case because this does not fit with their ideology. Rather they would appear to be making significant 'savings' when in fact they are targeting cuts to dismantle the foundations of the welfare state. I am sure that if in the long run these cuts would make very little if not no contribution to national saving (by significantly reducing income) then in hindsight this government would still go ahead, because they are motivated by ideology, not necessity.

'The rich get richer and the poor get poorer - That's what I believe only because I'm rich'

'Google goes through your emails.' Is it a step too far?

Recently, Outlook has performed an attack on Google's reputation by exposing it as a privacy intruder. However, like always I am sure that Google or whatever company that comes into question will just throw up its terms and conditions in an attempt to smokescreen the situation.

It may seem they have a point, if we accepted their terms then we must abide by those conditions. Although, the big BUT here is that terms and conditions may have lots of legal jargon that can protect these companies but the real fact is, Google is the one in control. By establishing a large, loyal and regular users into their Gmail, YouTube Blogger and +1, they have been able to hook us into a advertisers goldmine.

But people can surely just move can't they? Just abandon Google?
No, because Google have integrated all their programs, blogs, videos, accounts and even their social networking together we cannot just opt out of Gmail going through our emails. It's not just controversial but it is a violation of a person's right and this angers me. The fact that they are using this blog, my emails, your searches and what you liked makes me angry, surely they have breached the our trust. While I thought what you posted on Facebook being used for advertising was crossing the line a little, this 'blows things out of the water' so to speak . Our privacy is being used for wealth, our interests and vulnerabilities exploited.
You can use your Terms and Conditions, but you cannot ignore that people have privacy rights.

Hopefully this post will protect our Freedom of Speech on the internet and keep our private messages, private.

Anksthay orfay eadingray!

(If you don't understand... http://www.keepyouremailprivate.com/)