Now there’s a headline I bet you thought you’d never see attached to an article on ConservativeHome, let alone one by me. But I stick to it, and it’s nothing to do with seasonal goodwill or anything like that. The truth is, and it pains me to say it, but I ought to say it now before he reverts to normal service of being entirely wrong on everything, so here it is: Peter Mandelson has said something right. Call Reuters, call the Associated Press, call CNN – it’s a mini-miracle.
"Over the next spending review period, we will want some shift away from full-time three year [degree] places and towards a wider variety of provision," Lord Mandelson said, with two year courses on the cards. Three cheers for that.
When I applied for university I was part of the first year paying “top-up tuition fees” and was rather alone in my form – that’s an understatement, I was alone – in believing they were a good idea. Indeed I went beyond that and believed, indeed still do believe, that they should be increased to cover the full cost of the specific degree course at that specific institution. (With loans repayable upon a certain earning’s threshold, and maybe a few specific scholarships for deprived youngsters and sponsorships on a commercial basis, for instance by the NHS for doctors). Otherwise, non-graduates shouldn’t pick up the tab of graduates, the bin man should not subsidise the barrister.
The whole system of higher education seemed archaic to me, and the more you research the more archaic it appears. University places are decided not by student demand in the form of course applicants meeting entry requirements and the willingness of the institution to supply, but by the government Higher Educational Funding Council’s willingness to fund places (in one instance rejecting a bid from the oversubscribed LSE in favour of expanding an undersubscribed new university); with offers made among the qualified applicants at random, by quick interview, or by reading their largely fictional personal statements. Once accepted, students on cost intense degrees pay the same as those on a basic degree costing far less, with the government contribution and support the same regardless of the degree’s economic use to the student, let alone the country and long suffering taxpayer. Who thought up such madness?
But what struck me most was the time taken. Three years, three whole years! As Lord Mandelson now agrees, it can be done easily in two, maybe even just one.
Now some critics say students will lose out on the social aspects of being at university if degrees are shortened, but I really cannot fathom this argument out. Are the government in the business of subsidising the social lives of 18-21 year olds, at taxpayer expense? Of course not. And besides, the three year option will still be there: let individual students decide.
So that is why, for once, credit where credit is due, I can say that Lord Mandelson is right. It just goes to show that there’s a first time for everything (except voting Labour of course).
