I wrote a similar letter to Waitrose as I find the food so nice, yet too expensive. I’ll let you know if they will let me shop for free from now on

Touche, Dave.

dave – brilliant.

Josh – were you unaware of Oxford’s policies when you applied?

it’s a tone which connotes normality, acknowledging without complaint that it’s an everyday truism that poorer applicants simply cannot get in to study at Oxford.

but you couldn’t get in to study at Luton polytechnic either. This isn’t about Oxford, or about an elite education being unavailable to the poor, it applies to all postgraduate degrees, anywhere, doesn’t it?

(well, those that don’t offer a part-time option)

cjcj and Luis Enrique – No, of course I knew that funding was only via scholarships and that, without it, I wouldn’t be able to take my place. I applied on a bit of a hope and a whim and under the belief that my research topic was/is important enough to be recognised for funding. Sadly for me, it wasn’t. The point I’m trying to make is that if they offered the course part-time (which most other History faculties in the UK do – and, incidentally, if Oxford didn’t expressly tell students that they may not work alongside their studies) it would be much more inclusive to poorer students – and I may have been able to go. Access is so much more restricted at postgraduate level because unlike at undergraduate level (and whatever you think of student loans, the undergrad system IS better), there is no state support and no tuition fee loan or maintenance loan. The rich are at a significant advantage – and Oxford’s policies aren’t helping.

Josh

have you looked at Birkbeck? That’s where I did my first post-grad degree, it was in evening classes so I could work full time. Birkbeck is a great institution but unfortunately as I recall it used to get funding because it offered people the chance of making a late-career change, but that fell out of fashion and funding was cut. So I’m not sure what its fees look like new.

There is a loan avaliable for post-grad study called the Professional & Career Development loan. It’s run through Barclays and the Coop & you can borrow up to £10,000 for fees or living costs.There’s no repayments or interest until a month after you finish studying but you do then have to pay it back in full. It’s not completely ideal, but it’s better than nothing. I’m borrowing £4,000 to qualify as an archivist & I don’t know how I’d afford it otherwise.

Hannah – Thanks for this. Unfortunately for me, the bank doesn’t consider studying US history to prepare one for a ‘career’ in the same way that taking a course in order to qualify as an archivist does. I’d like to do a PhD and teach at university, but neither bank will loan me money without a clear career path that starts immediately after completion or knowing that I will be heading into PhD study and thus unlikely to start paying back as much as they would like.

Luis Enrique – An enquiry is currently sitting in an inbox at Birkbeck somewhere

Marx once exclaimed (to derision as a fantasist and extremist) that capitalism would grow so all pervasive that even family and education would one day be a mere function of capitalism setting a price.

What is depressing is that both have become the case with no hint of the revolution he imagined must follow such horrendous human conditions.

People rather just quip about it and make light of our collective plight.

Josh – Oxford’s stance against part-time work to fund a part-time course is, I think, based on the belief that the learning experience is wholly detracted from in such circumstances. I appreciate that that’s your main point of contention, but let’s take that as a fixed stance for a second. Do you object to their allowing people to be self-funded insofar as it undoubtedly favours the rich? The situation is that in the US for grad study, places are only offered insofar as funding is available. Given how scarce funding is, Oxford takes the stance that given they can take more people than there are scholarships, if they can self-fund without resorting to destructive part-time work, they may join. Do you think they should only offer as many places as they have scholarships, even though they could take more and some could and would pay? It seems to me that there’s only so much a university can do to tackle injustice caused by so many social factors.

Well let’s look at the clues, access to well paid jobs are increasingly requiring post graduate qualifications in order to access them, preferably from specifically costly institutions, and generally to get access to those qualifications you, or more likely your family need to have a lot of money to spare to throw down to pay the fees.

Quite a well designed method to keep the plebs in their place.

“access to well paid jobs are increasingly requiring post graduate qualifications in order to access them”

Are they? Which ones?

Jacob – Your point is a good one – and you’re right. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of universities (or scholarship awarding bodies, like AHRC and ESRC) to ensure that everyone who applies has the means to undertake the programme. That should be what the government do, by extending the undergraduate student loan system to cover postgraduate study. At the moment, self-funding favours the rich precisely because there is no real support for poorer applicants. Self-funding wouldn’t be an issue if there was a greater equality of opportunity. You’re completely right: there’s only so much a university can do. But what it (Oxford) can do (and pretty easily) is offer courses part-time, allow students to work alongside their studies, and let them live outside of Oxford and commute a few days a week, rather then the current strict residency requirements.

I applied on a bit of a hope and a whim and under the belief that my research topic was/is important enough to be recognised for funding. Sadly for me, it wasn’t.

Very disappointing indeed.

Maybe you should consider paid employment instead.

Ponder on just how many doctorates will be researched and produced on Keynesianism and the Minsky moment, the ensuing financial crisis, if the efficient market hypothesis is robust in the light of the rigging of Libor and whether The Managerial Revolution (1940) by James Burnham was ahead of the game.

@ 8 Josh

“Marx once exclaimed (to derision as a fantasist and extremist) that capitalism would grow so all pervasive that even family and education would one day be a mere function of capitalism setting a price.

What is depressing is that both have become the case”

Um, what? How has family become a mere function of capitalism?

cjcj – Off the top of my head: (not always but often in) academia, journalism, some social work roles, and as competition gets more fierce in industries like law, applicants with master’s degrees jump above a thousand Joe Bloggs’ with 2:1s.

pagar – I work full-time, ta.

My eldest daughter is a history graduate and is about do a part time degree in fine art at Northampton so i cannot understand why Oxford can’t offer part time degrees. On a different note when my daughter left university in the nineties she applied for loads of jobs including one at the BBC. She received lots of very pleasent rejection letters. The rejection letter from the BBC was very snooty and it said that she had the wrong degree.

Chaise Guevara

for a start,

house prices — who can be single and afford to buy?
renting prices — is sharing a double-bed is cheaper?
council homes — sold off to fund councils?

the market dictates lives.

“Maybe you should consider paid employment instead.”

Maybe you should consider that this anti-intellectual mentality of yours would have prevented most of the major advances in science from ever happening, as nearly all originated from ‘blue sky thinking’ rather than what a bank considered to be important commercially.

Josh, this is an issue that has been a scandal in higher education for decades and failed to be addressed. Well done for raising it, and you’ll find there are a lot of people who agree with you – it just needs to be made more prominent politically. Perhaps you could start spamming some MPs this afternoon? I’d be happy to join in…..

Hannah – the main issue with Career development loans is they often require repayment immediately afterwords, which ignores the fact it often takes months (or years) to develop a career even once you have the qualification. In some sectors internships are the norm etc. Also you’ll reduce your chances of being able to obtain standard employment as you’ll be overqualified and HR scumbags will make unreasonable assumptions about how you will fit in with the team.

@ 20 rortytorty

“house prices — who can be single and afford to buy?
renting prices — is sharing a double-bed is cheaper?
council homes — sold off to fund councils?

the market dictates lives.”

Sure, but two things.

1) this has always been the case to a lesser or greater extent, so presenting it as a new thing is odd.

2) The fact that the market affects families, sometimes majorly, does not mean that family is “a mere function of capitalism setting a price”. It’s quite obviously more than that. What I object to is the melodrama.

“Moreover, with respect, it is misguided and out of date. More and more graduates are turning to postgraduate study (a five-fold increase in the UK since 1990) as a means of furthering their education and of distinguishing themselves from the thousands of other graduates competing for the same jobs. ”

OK, so we’re in a positional arms race here then. Too many BAs so you need an MA to stand out.

“History courses at Oxford could be opened up to thousands more applicants from a variety of backgrounds, injecting new, exciting and dynamic experiences into the study and practice of history.”

So you want even more people to do MAs and thus increase the arms race so that only a PhD makes you stand out?

Umm, wouldn’t it be better to reduce the number of BAs instead?

@ Planeshift

Maybe you should consider that this anti-intellectual mentality of yours would have prevented most of the major advances in science from ever happening, as nearly all originated from ‘blue sky thinking’ rather than what a bank considered to be important commercially.

I think you’ll find Josh wants to do on MA in history………..

Josh

I work full-time, ta.

Then in the current economic climate you are, indeed fortunate. Congratulations.

Tim – No need to reduce BAs if there are jobs for graduates when they finish.

Off the top of my head: (not always but often in) academia, journalism…

I’m not sure that either academia or journalism really count as highly paid jobs do they? When I was doctorating at Oxford I was looking at highly prestigious JRFs that paid £16-17k. And there are established broadsheet journos based in London that struggle to break £25k.

That’s pretty much why I’m a lawyer – they paid for my post-graduate qualifications.

cjcj: Josh – were you unaware of Oxford’s policies when you applied?

I’ll remember that next time you whine about offering opportunities from lower socio economic backgrounds.

Just staggering how right-wingers won’t even acknowledge how such a situation cements class divides.

This attitude of studying not having a direct material benefit is something that will hold back our society. Have we become obsessed with the cost of everything and the value of nothing, as the phrase goes?

Frankly, a lack of historical perspective in our life is a good reason we face many of the problems we face now. We had systems in place to prevent the kind of economic downturn we’ve faced, yet have conveniently forgotten them. We have forgotten the struggle our forebears made to bring us our current standards of living, because it’s easier not to worry and to keep our heads down. Workers rights, entrenched vested interests in our media, apathy, society are all suffering due to our cultural obsession with the superficial. We even hate the EU, somehow forgetting the reason of its formation was to prevent the horrors of war ever coming to pass again.

Don’t let people put you off something worth doing. There’s little good reason for Oxford not to offer this course part time and it’s good you’ve decided to hold them to account for this.

Hi Josh, thanks for continuing to hold higher education to account, it is much needed. It is also something those if us inside the system are very concerned about. Yes, I agree that there are part time courses elsewhere, but let’s not be naive about the status that studying at Oxford provides, especially to those who want an academic career. You are clearly bright enough to get in and there lies the frustration. At Leicester Uni we offer part time masters courses, but we also offer distance learning courses that a private company is bidding to take over and run for profit. Is this increasing access or continuing to commodify education that should be free for all? We need people like you to raise the issue so that those of us inside can point out a demand for a better system.

Lynne re comment 19:

“On a different note when my daughter left university in the nineties she applied for loads of jobs including one at the BBC. She received lots of very pleasent rejection letters. The rejection letter from the BBC was very snooty and it said that she had the wrong degree”.

Good for the BBC!
I’m not sure if they would dare write that now in case the applicant write a snooty reply and be shameless enough to forward it here for us to chew over.

Josh,
Good luck for the future. Just remember – the world doesn’t owe you anything so try to avoid owing it a large sum to start off with.

@12+17

“access to well paid jobs are increasingly requiring post graduate qualifications in order to access them”

Are they? Which ones?

cjcj – Off the top of my head: (not always but often in) academia, journalism, some social work roles, and as competition gets more fierce in industries like law, applicants with master’s degrees jump above a thousand Joe Bloggs’ with 2:1s.

Not to mention the countless entry level graduate positions that require 1-2 years worth of experience as a minimum requirement. Getting a Post-grad is usually an acceptable compromise. T’otherwise it’s unpaid intern time, assuming you don’t need to worry about cashflow for keeping a roof over your head and food in your belly. Rich parents ahoy!
Of course both these methods pale in comparison to the very best way of securing a graduate job – social connections. Being the friend of the manager or recommended by a current employee are by and far away the most successful way of securing that high power job (or frankly, any job at all anywhere in the world).

@25

Tim – No need to reduce BAs if there are jobs for graduates when they finish.

Thing is, Tim does have a point someone IS going to have to do the unpleasant shitty work (which often come with unpleasant shitty wages), and those with the means to do so are going to rig the system to ensure that their kids, regardless of any lack of merit or ability on their children’s behalf, are most certainly NOT going to be the ones that do it. Social mobility is usually described as a ladder we can all climb with enough aspiration, but it’s not, for true social mobility to function it requires elites to be able to fall. That’s why we’ll never see it, not when a middle class existence can be bought rather than earned.

I always note when an OP has the manners to reply to us filthy commentators: so my thanks to Josh White.

@23. Tim Worstallt (sic, real Tim?): “OK, so we’re in a positional arms race here then. Too many BAs so you need an MA to stand out.”

Indeed, signalling by degree possession is a problem. A BA or BSc is required because employers assume that lower or different qualifications are a bad sign for a young person. But what qualifications do they demand of a 40 year old applicant?

Presumably they acknowledge life/work experience and maturity for the older one, but are unable to comprehend that an 18 year old, enthusiastic and as smart as an 18 year old can be, might do a decent job; I’d always respect an 18 year old who acknowledged that s/he needed a bit of time out from academia.

Few jobs require expertise in a discipline that demands a degree; a £30,000 tech or admin job requires that the worker is sociable and intelligent. No degree required. A degree is required to get the job but may not be necessary to perform it.

Thus, part of the problem is the job recruitment process and reliance on false signals. There is an opportunity for any employer to recognise this, to disregard the false signals and to employ on merit.

Today the employer looks through the application heap, and in desperation, discards applicants who fail to meet the minimum academic standard; irrespective of ability, the short list will be drawn from people who meet the minimum academic standard. How do you change that so the employer looks beyond?

The objection seems to be that Oxford doesn’t offer part-time post-graduate courses. That would be because Oxford University, and Cambridge for that matter, are both committed to a collegiate system of education – that is, that being part of a day to day community of like-minded individuals is an education in itself by way of a serendipitous exchange of ideas. And that’s why they believe that full-time residency is of the essence of their academic offering.

That’s an educational principle, not a financial one (though it does have financial implications).

The fundamental point is surely that if someone is deemed academically capable (as in the OP’s case – Oriel had actually made him an offer, which shows that they think he has what it takes), then their progress should not be blocked simply because they don’t have a wealthy family to subsidise them.

This exemplifies much of what has gone wrong with HE in the UK in my lifetime. Thirty-odd years ago, we used to whinge as undergrads about the parsimony of the grant system, but it was responsible for people gaining degrees who otherwise would never have had a chance of doing so. I would most emphatically not have been able even to consider going to University had full grants not been available.

(And before some Marketist (tendence Groucho Club) chimes in about how it’s so much better for the soul to rely on bursaries and other such-like largesse, consider how piece-meal such provision invariably is, and how it is usually the educational equivalent of a post-code lottery).

The marketisation of education in general – and FE/HE in particular – has led to a calamitous lapse in both academic and ethical standards as institutions become more concerned about their investment portfolios and their ‘brand identity’ than they are with being what they are supposed to be there for – the educating of people up to the very limits of their capability, something which should not be limited by considerations of mere (and it is mere) money.

That collegiate principle is crap. It’s meaningless rubbish that adds almost nothing to anyone’s education. It is however a stunningly convenient way of keeping out undesirables like Josh, who apparently wants nothing more radical than the chance to study without having a rich family. Oxford and Cambridge are more concerned about maintaining their exclusivity and Old Boy’s network than helping further education. I have little but contempt for both institutions.

@29. Jenny Pickerill: “At Leicester Uni we offer part time masters courses, but we also offer distance learning courses that a private company is bidding to take over and run for profit. Is this increasing access or continuing to commodify education that should be free for all?”

I think that everyone at University of Leicester (UoL) who read the Private Eye story a few weeks ago was shocked. Everyone that I know.

I’ll be at the UCU meeting tomorrow wearing my Animal Muppet cap.

The admissions officer’s response is a bit casual, but then that is the increasing tendency of responses and emails throughout … Not sure that you should take offence to it.

Have you contacted some of the charitiies that specifically look to fund academic study by people without access to funds from other ways? Not relevant to your position, but I used to be involved with a charity that continues to run that funds vocational training and education for people from poor backgrounds … As yours is purely academic rather than vocational, we wouldn’t have helped you, but there are other such grant making bodies …

Another alternative that is adopted by many people that I know who have gone on to do postgraduate studies is that they have saved money from their earnings and live very frugally in order to fund their studies. Not sure if your position would have enabled you to do that.

As to the requirements of some professions, my experience tells me that a good first degree is all that is required for entry to the legal professions. If someone has a particular interest in postgraduate study then that’s fine, and it can make up for a poorer first degree result, but once you have established the required academic standard, there is no need to go on studying in order to gain entry to these professions.

The admissions officer should have been able to put you in touch with grant making bodies … If there are any. Did you ask them?

@34. The Judge: “I would most emphatically not have been able even to consider going to University had full grants not been available.”

At 18 year entry, that would have applied to me too. I had a partial grant, and I had a choice that would have payed me to go there, but I went to my first choice. Bravado?

The Judge: “(And before some Marketist (tendence Groucho Club) chimes in about how it’s so much better for the soul to rely on bursaries and other such-like largesse, consider how piece-meal such provision invariably is, and how it is usually the educational equivalent of a post-code lottery).”

What does a “post code lottery” mean? It means that different councils have different priorities. As a liberal, I am content for those differences.

charlieman @38:

“What does a “post code lottery” mean? It means that different councils have different priorities.”

What I meant by that was rather that access to other sources of funding may be dependent on how many Lady (or Lord) Bountifuls (or their corporate equivalents) you may have in your home area.

By the time I went to Uni, my father had retired and was on the State Pension and a very small occupational pension from his time at the local steelworks. My mother hadn’t started getting the State Pension at that time, so that was all that was coming in. In addition to the state grant, I managed to get a small payment from a local educational charity, but access to its funds was limited to students whose family home was in one of a small number of parishes. Had my home been elsewhere nearby, there probably wouldn’t have been similar provision available. That’s what I meant by a ‘postcode lottery’.

@ Sunny 27

Just staggering how right-wingers won’t even acknowledge how such a situation cements class divides.

From someone who is far from right wing Sunny, isn’t Josh helping to cement the class divide here by seemingly insisting that only Oxford will do? Aren’t there any other universities that can offer this type of course on a part time basis thus allowing Josh to work? What’s so special about Oxford anyway?

[37] you have missed the fundamental point of this post – it is not so much about who can dream up whackiest schemes for securing the £17k, such as putting your own mother on the game – but the fact elite education is, and always has been about transgenerational transmission of cultural advantage (private school, paid for extra-curricular tuition, gang-free neighbourhoods, etc) rather than academic ability.

In this case Oxford offered a place after Josh had met the standard – then withdrew it simply because his family background did not comply with the usual profile of those who have bought their way to the top.

Their polite fuck you is all too typical a system that remains impervious to it’s own deep rooted prejudices – and, yes, I know those from lower socioeconomic groups have ALWAYS missed out – I’m sure that thought will be of great comfort to those who are being fucked over this time?

Why is it that so many intelligent people fail to realise how little part intelligence plays when it comes to educational winners and losers.

Did you know Eton College produced 19 Prime Ministers, Harrow School, 8, while Westminster School produced 2 (or 3 if you stretch to Clegg) – all on ability, of course.

Does the Bullingdon club offer any bungs for working class scum?
http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bullingdon_club_at__417769a.jpg?w=700

Evan – There are some charities and funds (I’ve contacted at least 50, I’d say) but I’ve only been pledged around £500, and that actually came from my ex-girlfriend’s dad, rather than a charitable body who (a) really don’t like giving for non-vocational subjects, like arts and humanities and (b) don’t offer anywhere near that kind of money. To be fair to the graduate admissions team, their help with funding information is excellent, much better than any other university I applied to (and Oxford has MUCH more financial support available than most, too) but there’s very little they can do if you don’t qualify for scholarships.

Bitter & Twisted – It’s not even the case that Oxford is, well, Oxford, and that’s why it’s special. The course I wanted to take was the MSt in US History which was one of the only master’s courses in the country specifically in my area of interest. Plus, at Oxford, there is the Rothermere Institute and Vere Harmsworth Library – two outstanding (and pretty unrivalled in the UK) centres of knowledge for American history and culture. Not to mention the faculty’s strengths in US history, and the course’s breadth: colonies to Clinton, basically. Oxford was a perfect fit for what I wanted, really.

Josh,

As I explained in my post, my experience is with funding for vocational training … and I do understand that there are more difficulties arising from people who wish to study for the sake of academic purposes, although I have to say that I sometimes find myself a little bemused by that explanation.

I am glad that you have received some information and assistance from the admissions people at Oxford, as this is what I would expect to happen.

Have you looked at some of the websites that are available. The charity that I was involved with can be found through some of them – for example, http://www.turn2us.org.uk. It is no possible to understand your detailed circumstances from your post, but you may find that you satisfy some of the requirements for charities listed there.

For those who are thinking about coming to the Bar, the Inns of Court should be your first port of call. We provide very significant scholarship funding and my Inn provides funding according to needs while the scholarships are given on merit.

[43 + 44] sorry, the injustice of this decision will play out time and time again once it is reduced to polite chit-chat about ‘charidee’, or how helpful an elite Uni is when it comes to giving out info on preferred begging bowls.

I would suggest that academic attainment should be ranked depending on how many barriers candidates had to overcome to attain the same end point (A-level result, or a BA, etc).

I propose a system of point deductions, or point additions.
So, grade A at A-level, say, would be worth less if you attended private school, family income exceeded £100k, etc, while additional points should be awarded to those with the same grade despite social disadvantage (came from a deprived inner city school, family income below <£20k, etc) – obviously the scoring system would need to be refined but the principle still hold in my opinion.

We have to accept that exam results, to a large extent do not measure intelligence (which should be the true bedrock of higher education) but class advantage.

A&E – 45

“We have to accept that exam results, to a large extent do not measure intelligence (which should be the true bedrock of higher education) but class advantage.”

We have to start with some assessment of ability. Where a university is making an assessment of someone’s ability or potential, they will usually take account of the qualifications already received. When it comes to handing out scholarships, it will be the combination of qualifications and potential that is considered.

As to intelligence; there is in my view no objective test or standard that can be discerned from any particular result. What intelligence? How does it apply to the role that is being sought? The truth is that academic intelligence as measured by academic qualifications is merely one aspect of what makes someone a good lawyer … doctor … lecturer … teacher … policeman … soldier … plumber … IT specialist … etc

One of the ironies of the increasing numbers of people getting better and top grades is that it is increasingly difficult to assess immediately distinguish between the very best and the next best academic qualifications. It is for this reason that interviews and discussions have become more important. The irony is that the grade inflation that some say is simply irrelevant has made it more difficult to make the assessment required and ironically hands additional power to those who are best able to help themselves … at the expense of those lease able to do so.

I hate computers – ‘least’ not ‘lease’

[46] ‘We have to start with some assessment of ability’ – yes, and no.

First of all, as this post demonstrates, ability alone still secure squat, unless candidates have the necessary financial clout to muscle their way into the elite education market.

As we already know ’33% of all admissions to Oxbridge came from 100 schools (3% of the total), 78 of which were private. In particular, Eton, St Paul’s, Westminster and Winchester did massively better than their actual exam results would predict – In contrast, more recent research found that less than 1% of state school students on free school meals gain a place. As a result, students from private schools are fifty-five times more likely to get a place at Oxbridge than state educated free school meal pupils’ – 55 times more likely!
http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/A-Manifesto-for-the-Public-University/chapter-ba-9781849666459-chapter-008.xml

Now, I’m sure we can all agree that some sort of assessment is required to determine who gets the best, and who gets Reading Poly – but isn’t it patently obvious that economic advantage is so deeply rooted in exam attainment that this factor should be weighted when working class scum make preliminary enquiries about joining the Bullingdon club?

The Eton:PM ratio is a good exemplar of how far the system is stacked in favour of the chosen few – on the other hand ordinary families are expected to place their educational fate in the hands of charidee.

Once such an iniquitous system becomes so deeply ingrained into the application process (with selection panels essentially looking for facsimiles of themselves ) then even intelligent people stop seeing it for what it really is, a rigged game – one that the overwhelming majority of free-school-mealers should probably not trouble themselves with.

@ 48,

“ordinary families are expected to place their educational fate in the hands of charidee.”

More like wingeing lefties want someone else (i.e. ordinary families) to pay their entrance fee to the academic elite.

A&E @ 41:

“In this case Oxford offered a place after Josh had met the standard – then withdrew it simply because his family background did not comply with the usual profile of those who have bought their way to the top.”

Erm, no, they withdrew it because he couldn’t afford to pay his fees. His inability to do so might have been caused by his family background, but that’s not the same thing as rejecting him simply because his background didn’t fit the usual profile.

[49] ‘more like wingeing lefties want someone else (i.e. ordinary families) to pay their entrance fee to the academic elite’ – oh dear, you haven’t been paying attention have you?

Can anybody remind TT of the likely student DEBT for those starting Uni in 2012?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/aug/12/student-debt-to-rocket-2012-freshers

Education is important – entry to elite institutions should not be conditional on Mummy & Daddy, or interviewing panels holding a mirror to themselves.

@ Josh White: I don’t wish to appear unsympathetic, but I find it hard to sympathise with your complaint that the state is unwilling to pay for the precise course which you want to undertake, at the institution of your choice, and on your own conditions.

I’m rather with Bitter and Twisted @40 on this one.

@ 49 TT

“More like wingeing lefties want someone else (i.e. ordinary families) to pay their entrance fee to the academic elite.”

As opposed to selfish righties wanting to reserve access to the academic elite to those with rich parents?

@ Chaise,

“As opposed to selfish righties wanting to reserve access to the academic elite to those with rich parents?”

If someone wants to join the academic elite, let them do so, but don’t make ordinary people, who can’t afford such things for themselves, subsidise it. If you disagree, send me some money, and if it’s a big enough cheque, I’ll be happy to jack in the 9-to-5 and devote myself to academic pursuits.

@ 54 Trooper Thompson

“If someone wants to join the academic elite, let them do so, but don’t make ordinary people, who can’t afford such things for themselves, subsidise it.”

See, that’s a *much* better way of phrasing it. I still disagree, because if we don’t tax people (I’ve dropped “ordinary” from your description as I think it’s a red-top red herring) then the capable poor tend to get left out in the cold. Taxing “ordinary people” helps other “ordinary people” who may be more in need.

I guess we could avoid taxing “ordinary people” by removing all tax on those earning <£50k and hugely raising tax on those earning over it, but I suspect that's not the solution you're looking for.

"If you disagree, send me some money, and if it’s a big enough cheque, I’ll be happy to jack in the 9-to-5 and devote myself to academic pursuits."

That would be charity, not taxation, and while it's all well and good it's not effective enough as a form of redistribution. And no, I doubt I can afford to send you to college on my £18k-ish income.

Without taxation, Alice (who has rich parents) goes to college, gets a degree and ends up earning good money doing a job she loves. Equally capable Bob (whose parents are poor) can't go to college, has to get a job stacking shelves and ends up earning chicken feed for doing a job she hates. Does your system a) admit this will happen, b) admit that it's a downside and c) explain what benefits make up for it?

It’s simple. Just actually tax rich people. The rest follows…

@ Chaise,

the thing about education, is there is no limit to the demand, if you remove all thought of the grubby matter of who’s going to pay. If money was no object, I would be quite happy to devote myself to reading books, writing scholarly papers, smoking my pipe and stroking my facial hair, whilst perfecting a pensive yet serene expression, rather than getting up and going to work.

I’ve heard it said that post-graduate studies are being increasingly stressed as necessary, due to the expansion of higher education. In other words, a degree is no longer enough. Therefore, if post-graduate studies were made more accessible through tax-payer money, the same thing may happen again.

As for your example, what I will say is that inequality of wealth does produce some injustices, or certainly things which seem unjust. However if we were to enforce or attempt to enforce equality of wealth, this would lead to injustice also. Not only that, if you treat everyone the same, whether they’re hard working, frugal and talented, or lazy, profligate and thick, that’s unjust, wouldn’t you say? That’s why socialists like George Bernard Shaw made it clear that, if equality was achieved, there would be no shirking – people would be compelled to work for their equal share of the common treasury.

@ Chaise, p.s

“I guess we could avoid taxing “ordinary people” by removing all tax on those earning <£50k and hugely raising tax on those earning over it, but I suspect that's not the solution you're looking for."

If there has to be tax, I think it should fall on everyone. The best thing is to try to reduce it, rather than muck around trying to find a 'fair' system. Anyway, your proposal would be hamstrung by the perverse incentives it would engender.

“I guess we could avoid taxing “ordinary people” by removing all tax on those earning <£50k and hugely raising tax on those earning over it, but I suspect that's not the solution you're looking for."

I'd be quite happywith that. Yes, let's have the rich pay for everything.

Peak of the Laffer Curve is around 54% according to Diamond and Saetz (that's a lefty evaluation BTW). Let's tax only the rich, the top 10%. That's roughly the people who pay the 40% tax rate at present.

Actually, top 10% of households have an average income of about 85k. 2.5 million households, about £200 billion. Let's take 50% of everything they have each year.

That gives us £100 billion for government.

Going to be a pretty minarchist sort of government isn't it? Hurrah!

Hwll, let's take 100% of all the rich earn each year….despite the problems with being able to do it in year two.

That still only pays for one third of the government we currently have.

@ 57 Trooper Thompson

“the thing about education, is there is no limit to the demand, if you remove all thought of the grubby matter of who’s going to pay. If money was no object, I would be quite happy to devote myself to reading books, writing scholarly papers, smoking my pipe and stroking my facial hair, whilst perfecting a pensive yet serene expression, rather than getting up and going to work.”

Well, we usually place a limit on the right to a free education. If I wanted to quit my job and do an MA, I’d either have to convince someone I deserved/was worth funding, or pay for it myself.

“I’ve heard it said that post-graduate studies are being increasingly stressed as necessary, due to the expansion of higher education. In other words, a degree is no longer enough. Therefore, if post-graduate studies were made more accessible through tax-payer money, the same thing may happen again.”

Are we specifically talking about post-grad here? If so, I missed it. I agree that saturation of education can reduce the value of each year of education at least in its role as a job-getter. Perhaps MAs, PhDs etc should be free, but harder to get into, relying on exceptional results at BA?

“As for your example, what I will say is that inequality of wealth does produce some injustices, or certainly things which seem unjust. However if we were to enforce or attempt to enforce equality of wealth, this would lead to injustice also. Not only that, if you treat everyone the same, whether they’re hard working, frugal and talented, or lazy, profligate and thick, that’s unjust, wouldn’t you say? That’s why socialists like George Bernard Shaw made it clear that, if equality was achieved, there would be no shirking – people would be compelled to work for their equal share of the common treasury.”

I’m talking about funding education through tax. You can reasonably assume that I’m not proposing other changes unless I either mention them or they’re made necessary by my proposals. So why are you arguing against communism here?

@ 58 Trooper and 59 Tim

I am not actually proposing that we only tax the rich, for pretty much the reasons you describe, plus a few others. I was really referencing the fact that Trooper’s “don’t tax ordinary people” line seemed to lead to a conclusion that probably wouldn’t fit with his values, mainly as a lazy way of exposing the red herring that is the whole “ordinary people” concept.

That said: Tim, accepting your analysis would require me accepting the Laffer Curve, and I’m kind of under the impression that that’s a libertarian talisman that people believe in because it’s convenient to their politics. Kind of like the whole “when the people own the means of production, everyone will naturally desire to work as hard as possible to protect his shared investment!” thing, albeit a good deal less mental.

“That said: Tim, accepting your analysis would require me accepting the Laffer Curve, and I’m kind of under the impression that that’s a libertarian talisman that people believe in because it’s convenient to their politics.”

Where it is I am sure is influenced by pre extant politics.

Existence at some tax rate is simple maths I’m afraid.

But as above, I also included the idea that there is no Laffer Curve. And even then the rich still don’t have enough money to pay for the government everyone seems to want. Still a £400 billion a year gap.

@ 62 Tim

“Existence at some tax rate is simple maths I’m afraid.”

Well, obviously there’ll be a point where raising tax becomes counterproductive. What I meant is that I’ve never been convinced that it’s roughly 50%

“But as above, I also included the idea that there is no Laffer Curve. And even then the rich still don’t have enough money to pay for the government everyone seems to want. Still a £400 billion a year gap.”

Agreed, as above.

Can’t be bothered reading through the thread to see if this point has already been made, but Oxford does offer some postgrad history courses part time. I know someone at my college (Corpus Christ) who’s doing a part time PhD in history. And there’s a whole college mostly dedicated to part time students (Kellog) and another to mature students (Harris Manchester) who after all come predominantly from working class backgrounds.Not saying Oxford isn’t an elitist institution but since going there and finding out how various things work, I’ve also discovered that a lot of what’s said about its problems with elitism in the media is a bit misleading. I.e. people give the low absolute numbers of Afro-Carribean students here, but don’t point out that they’re not that bad given the percentage of Afro-Carribean people in the UK as a whole, and furthermore that they’re really not that bad if you look at the number of Afro-Carribean kids who achieve 3 As at A-level, the gap in achievement in secondary Education being a serious issue but not Oxford’s problem. They also give the figure for Afro-Carribean or black students and not for non-white students as a whole because the later does reflect the make-up of the population. They give the (entirely unacceptable) stats for the percentage of kids here who come from private schools, but don’t point out that other Russell group uni’s are nearly as bad etc.

I’d be careful also of framing your issue solely in terms of working class representation. You don’t just have to be middle-class to afford to go without funding. To be frank, you have to be rich. I come from a perfectly middle-class family, two parents with degrees from a Russell Group uni, one the head of a state primary, the other a middle manager in the public sector. My parents have been very generous with me with money, but there is absolutely no way in hell I could have afforded to have done my masters course and PhD course without full funding and cost of living being paid by the government. I notice this a lot in British journalism: people right as if there are only people from the roughest of working class backgrounds and the very upper, privately educated end of the middle class. (Maybe it’s a London thing in general?). Nobody writes about the more ordinary end of the middle-class or (to a lesser extent) the many people who are culturally working class but who live in semi-detached wimpy houses not grey tower blocks and grim ex-mining villages near Durham. Its the same with cinema, there are only three kinds of British films, frothy comedy about rich private school types of the upper-middle class, comedies about ‘warm’ working class people in traditional working class areas, and ‘gritty’ dramas about poor people struggling with ‘social issues.’ You only see the poorest third and the richest 5% of the country on screen. You don’t see people like my old friend, son of a taxi driver and a bank clerk, who grew up in a small detached house on estate that also had middle-class kids like me, and went to a not-great (he would describe it in ruder terms) new university and now lives with mum and dad and works in bottom rung admin for the NHS. Even though people like him are fairly typical of the population…