To accept the inevitability of this is one thing, but (1) are we to embrace the complete marketisation of all we hold dear? (2) Are we happy to live with the decimation of arts and social sciences? (3) Do we not see this as straightforward ideological attack? (4) Do we think it is acceptable to make one generation pay for the sins of another?To the first question; chance would be a fine thing. To the second; I doubt that this will be the result of the government's changes. If it is, what does that signify? That people are not prepared to pay for such courses? Perhaps the free market she fears so much could provide alternatives which are worth paying for. To the third; I don't think so. The attack is not ideological, but the target is - an ideological sacred cow; 'free education'. To the fourth; what sin is this? The majority of the previous generation didn't go to university, and they certainly didn't get given pocket money by the government (EMA).
Saturday, 4 December 2010
Here's Suzanne Moore, getting all misty-eyed about her student days and wondering why she and her ilk (she says 'we', but I don't think I'm one of them) are not rushing to the barricades (my numeration):
In the end, the student protests seem like the cries of spoiled brats; 'It's not fair!' Well, you've learnt something then, at least. These are Blair's children; schooled in an era of heavy political indoctrination, and no doubt ready to put Labour back into government at the earliest opportunity. The established left wants to harness this potential, and has ready-made explanations for who is to blame, explanations that will not mention their own role in bringing us to this place, but rather will feed the mean-spirited sense of resentment for lost 'entitlements'.