OK I suppose I meant in terms of expecting it to be dropped on your lap without pay-off. I think everyone should be ENTITLED to education in very broad terms, but that they should expect the benefits that they get from said education to come at some kind of cost.

The harsh reality is that education IS based on money.

I would also like to point out that Education is not, and never has been, "free" and that money has always been a factor.
The way it used to be (and still is for some) is that the state or another body can subsidise your education (either part or whole), and thus it does not cost the individual anything. For example, I won competitive scholarships for my postgrad studies, but am under no illusion that someone else still paid, and they paid a lot. For my fees, for my lab equipment, for my study participants time, even the stationery I used.

With all that in mind how can education NOT be based on money?

What I do challenge is the idea of a "right" to a university education rather than a choice. Higher education isn't everyones right but is an individual choice with individual consequences.

BHC, I take your point that on a practical level money is required to fund education (whichever source that should come from). When I said that education should not be based in money, I meant the financial status of the applicant *should not* be a factor in determining whether they may be permitted to have access to education. The reason I put "should not" in asterix is that I am making a subjective value judgement here, and that is the point of disagreement.
Pragmatically, money is the source of access to any number of services, however also pragmatically a lot of people do not have that money. As such, a significant number of people rely on credit to fund, particularly Masters. Given that the point of CDLs is to improve career prospects through education, then as they stand, whilst flawed, they are a positive thing.
The point to be challenged is the nexus between money and access to education - people intelligent and enthusiastic enough to go on to do postgraduate study should be afforded the means to do so - even if that is through a system of CDLs, which are still commercial loans. I know you say that in the past education access to education was limited, and still is, but there are lots of things that until recently were massively unjust and yet legal and everyday occurrences; and in fact still are. Just because things 'are' does not mean that they should be... Or perhaps you would also anyone who is not an upper-middle class white protestant male from education as was the case in this country less than 200 years ago?

I completely agree with you that financial status should not be a factor.

However, I would take this further and advocate AGAINST CDLs and and have fewer postgraduates who are entirely funded by bursaries, scholarships and funded seats. That way postgrad debt would be reduced, and the credential inflation we see (which encourages CDLs and the culture of everyone doing MScs + more debt) would be limited.

I don't think enthusiasm and "intelligent enough" should be the requirements. On the contrary I see that CDLs and self funded are actually a way of perpetuating inequalities, because it allows the rich (or those willing to get into debt, who are not going to be the debt adverse working class). This is more likely to result in perpetuating the social/class based elite, in favour of a meritocratic elite because this way you cant get people buying their way into prestigious courses.

I have seen the word elitist being bandied around, but it is ill defined. You could argue by the very virtue of entering Higher education (think of the very word "Higher") anyone doing so is pursuing an elitist agenda. By this yardstic everyone on this board is going to be elitist in some way.

In my (not statistically backed up in any way) opinion, the working classes (whoever the hell they are any more - again definition is needed) are not debt-averse. My parents are from what would be perceived as a "working class" background (dad a labourer in a warehouse, now unemployed; mum a shop assistant); and yet they had no hesitation in encouraging me to become indebted to afford a university education - or my brother.

Secondly; given the fact that the more prestigious universities rarely take students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, well as defined by postcode (Oxford 9%; Cambridge 9%; all 19 Russell group below 25% and 17 of those below their own targets http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/oxbridge-colleges-fail-to-attract-workingclass-students-576302.html; ) is it really fair to have students from a "working class" background, who went for example to an ex-poly (often berated on these boards) competing for PostGrad funding with a Cambridge grad? I know that the Research Council I'm linked to, would not even consider it to be competition...

======= Date Modified 23 Nov 2010 16:45:29 =======