The violence witnessed during the student riots of late 2010 has met with a wave of pretty much universal condemnation. The prevailing view appears to be that the violence was hugely regrettable, in that it distracted the media and the general public's attention from the legitimacy of their greivances. Such a shame that those usual suspects, that minority of anarchists and rabble rousers exploited the opportunity for their own mindless ends. If only the protests had been peaceful, the implication is, then maybe they would have won their fight against tuition fees. Maybe. Maybe the Pope isn't Catholic. Perhaps the proverbial bear doesn't defecate in the woods. In all likelihood 50,000 students marching peacefully through London, singing a few songs and carrying some witty placards, would just about have made the "and finally" section on the BBC London news. Peaceful protest is to democracy what marriage guidance is to the doomed couple - both sides going through the motions before one either gives in, or things get nasty in the divorce courts. Lets not forget those who marched against the Iraq war, the largest expression of our democratic right to protest in living memory. Fat lot of good it did them, but I am sure everyone felt jolly good about it all for a day or two afterwards.
Iraq aside, more recently, until the age of plenty came crashing down around us, protest, perhaps in recognition of its utter futility in the face of government disinterest,seemed to have been diluted to simply "raising awareness". The bile-inspiring spectacle that was Live8 is perhaps the best example. This is all well and good when it is people we will never meet in faraway lands we will never go to who are the ones suffering, but real political change has only ever been brought about by self interest manifesting itself in crude and ugly violence, and it is to the students' credit that they have recognised this.
One wonders what alternative course of action these commentators would have the students follow. Those poor, innocent young things, seduced by the smooth-talking Clegg, decided to go all the way with the Liberal Democrats, dreaming of a long term relationship, based on mutual respect and understanding, only to discover that losing their electoral virginity actually consisted of getting lied to, bent over and robustly f*cked, before getting a humiliating public brush off. Well, as many a duped maiden will tell you, you never forget your first time. Many of those young protesters are probably in the cross section of the Stop the War and tuition fees Venn diagram. No wonder they are losing faith in the charade of democracy. If not the Liberal Democrats, who else could they have voted for to protect their interests?
As mentioned above, what this is all really about is plain self interest. We can't afford free university education for all, someone has to pay for it - the tax payer or the students - and the punch-up is over who is to pick up the tab. Much of the criticism of the student protesters has focussed is around the worthlessness of many degrees. This is an entirely valid criticism but for one small point - all but the most demeaning jobs these days seem to require a degree, even if it is just a 2:2 in Text Messaging and Twitter Studies from the University of Low Standards. I am not quite sure what drove us to this position: is it the case employers in our knowledge based economy need increasing numbers of graduates to function? This seems unlikely, given that all we generally hear from employers is that most graduates are functionally illiterate, and they have to spend months training them. Cynics say that the university system, in its current form, exists purely to get large numbers of young people to borrow to fund their own dole. They are probably right, but I suspect there may be even more to it than this.
Perhaps the government is worried that with homeownership and its bedfellow mortgage-slavery now out of reach to pretty much anyone under the age of 30 who doesn't have an premium account at the Bank of Mum & Dad, they need to find new ways to bind young people to the daily grind that the inculates the dumb compliance modern democracy requires to function smoothly. Think about it - educated young people are settling down later and later in life. It is not unusual nowadays for people in their late 20s and even mid 30s to still be single, child free, living transitory lives in rented accomodation, with no meaningful career, and jetting off to Thailand for 6 months every few years to find themselves. Most don't even bother to pretend that it is some kind of spiritual awakening they are looking for - no, it's hedonism pure and simple. Surely we need these people to be bought into UK PLC if they are to knuckle down and start making the national insurance contributions we need to fund the impending pensions crisis.
Why are so many middle class young people spending longer and longer in this state of pre-adulthood? - have they consciously rejected traditional homemaking, or is this extended adolescence simply the most sensible option available to them, just as the baby-making benefits route is the most rational to their council estate contempories? The subject of baby boomers pulling up the housing ladder behind them has been well covered, so I won't dwell on it, save for the fact that the tuition fees debacle looks mighty familiar. Previous generations who benefitted hugely from free university education (hell, most of them even got grants, and were allowed to sign on in the holidays) and the resultant social mobility, now generally seem to believe that it is not a right, but a priviledge, and thus something that todays beneficiaries should pay for. Imagine the hullabaloo that would ensue if tuition fees were introduced retrospectively. Just suppose the government priced up every degree received over the last 50 years in todays money, and then directly took money out of people's pay packets until such time that they had paid it off. It would make the furore over the capital gains increase on second homes seem like a storm in a teacup. Of course, we will never know, because this will never happen: the demographics of democracy will take care of that. Much simpler simply to enforce it upon a voting minority, or better still, those that aren't yet old enough to vote, and of course, those who haven't been born yet.
It is true that far fewer people went to University in the 60s and 70s, and that the system was thus much more affordable. I cannot see why any rational person would not champion a return to this system. Yes, it is elitist, but then, surely that is the point of higher education? Those worried about a reduction in the number of Universities negatively impacting social mobility should ask themselves whether it would actually be more damaging that the huge expansion we have seen in recent years? University should not be primarily concerned with social mobility - it should be about continuing to educate the brightest young minds, regardless of their background. If the state secondary education system is not churning out 18 years olds who are sufficiently numerate and literate to be of fairly immediate use to employers, then we should focus our efforts there, and not simply kick the can along the road to our universities. If employers require more than just numeracy and literacy from school leavers, then it should be up to them, not the taxpayer, or the students to pay for the training.
I remain hopeful that some good can come of all of this. The kids may be angry now, but when the rage subsides, a lot of them will be much wiser than the last few generations were at their age. Hopefully many will realise that the University dream that they are being sold is a sham. Hopefully smarter employers will realise that there is much to be gained from investing in bright school leavers - the recent news about the big accountancy firms increasing their intake of A-Level students is a hugely promising regression. Perhaps increased tuition fees will prove to be the final nail in the coffin of the substandard institutions they are designed to support.
