By Terrence Manyeh
‘At the University of Brighton there are around 80 maybe more students who are currently homeless’
The marketization of our education continues.
The rise in maximum tuition fees announced by George Osborne in the 2015 budget, was supported by most Universities, because it of course means more profit.
This, alongside an uncapping of student numbers at institutions, provides Universities with the perfect opportunity to maximise their revenues, but are students suffering at the expense of Higher Management’s profit pursuits?
The rise in maximum tuition fees announced by George Osborne in the 2015 budget, was supported by most Universities, because it of course means more profit.
This, alongside an uncapping of student numbers at institutions, provides Universities with the perfect opportunity to maximise their revenues, but are students suffering at the expense of Higher Management’s profit pursuits?
At the University of Brighton there are currently 80 or so, potentially more, students who are currently homeless. The University has failed to provide them with adequate support or accommodation. This is a direct outcome in the shift priorities and marketization; the University is spending money to bring in new students whilst at the same time ignoring their basic needs, such as a roof over their heads.
Simultaneously, there is a housing crisis in Brighton with a lack of houses and rents at an all-time high, the money that students get goes directly into the pockets of landlords, who are willingly exploiting desperate young people.
It is arguable that these changes are supported by two ideological frameworks, one being free market capitalism: The belief is that by pushing through these ‘educational reforms’ an increase in competition will increase options and standards.
What in fact really tends to happen is competition for the very top Universities increases; this has a damaging effect for Universities beyond this, the larger intuitions have more money to spend on marketing, therefore attracting more students, leaving the rest to catch up.
In this race to the bottom, money that should be spent on students, on maintaining and improving facilities, recourses and on staff is instead being used to attract more students, with millions being spent in marketing campaigns all over the world.
This has a detrimental effect on not only current students but also the very students they are spending so much on to attract. This has an increasingly damaging effect on staff; as priorities shift, staff security and stability is in jeopardy with many facing job losses, wage decreases and poorer working condition and terms.
At the same time top executives in Universities are awarding themselves pay rises, whilst at the same time making decisions that are harmful to staff and students likewise.
The disparity in wages is evident in the numbers; Average staff wages are around £20,000 to £30,00 whilst senior staff wages are £100,00 to £200,00.
The second ideological framework lays around the idea of ‘meritocracy’, which is a key component of the Conservative party's rhetoric, the idea that if you work hard enough you can achieve anything.
With more students from poorer backgrounds attending University’s this is a sign, Tory’s say that they are in fact, encouraging social mobility and not harming it.
What they leave out is that these students are hit with record debts.
Veiled beyond the rhetoric is the decision to scrap maintenance grants for the poorest students, not exactly in line with their talk of increased social mobility.
This is a sign that we are heading towards the American University model, incredibly high fees and little to no support, and it’s worrying.
Simultaneously, there is a housing crisis in Brighton with a lack of houses and rents at an all-time high, the money that students get goes directly into the pockets of landlords, who are willingly exploiting desperate young people.
It is arguable that these changes are supported by two ideological frameworks, one being free market capitalism: The belief is that by pushing through these ‘educational reforms’ an increase in competition will increase options and standards.
What in fact really tends to happen is competition for the very top Universities increases; this has a damaging effect for Universities beyond this, the larger intuitions have more money to spend on marketing, therefore attracting more students, leaving the rest to catch up.
In this race to the bottom, money that should be spent on students, on maintaining and improving facilities, recourses and on staff is instead being used to attract more students, with millions being spent in marketing campaigns all over the world.
This has a detrimental effect on not only current students but also the very students they are spending so much on to attract. This has an increasingly damaging effect on staff; as priorities shift, staff security and stability is in jeopardy with many facing job losses, wage decreases and poorer working condition and terms.
At the same time top executives in Universities are awarding themselves pay rises, whilst at the same time making decisions that are harmful to staff and students likewise.
The disparity in wages is evident in the numbers; Average staff wages are around £20,000 to £30,00 whilst senior staff wages are £100,00 to £200,00.
The second ideological framework lays around the idea of ‘meritocracy’, which is a key component of the Conservative party's rhetoric, the idea that if you work hard enough you can achieve anything.
With more students from poorer backgrounds attending University’s this is a sign, Tory’s say that they are in fact, encouraging social mobility and not harming it.
What they leave out is that these students are hit with record debts.
Veiled beyond the rhetoric is the decision to scrap maintenance grants for the poorest students, not exactly in line with their talk of increased social mobility.
This is a sign that we are heading towards the American University model, incredibly high fees and little to no support, and it’s worrying.