Student unrest
Sir: A finer example than your cover article 'Fewer means Better' (March 17), of anachronistic interpretation of a situation leading to gross misunderstanding and crass analysis, would be hard to find. You make two very basic errors. One is that all students are at university. The other is to present the inherently contradictory argument that "there are too many students" while asserting that "a university education confers cash benefits on those who receive it."
Of the half-million members of NUS less than half are at universities. The others are at colleges of education, polys, further education colleges and vocational schools. Of the students at university an ever increasing
percentage are, like the majority at the polys, on technical or vocational courses of some kind or another; viz, the new courses in computer science, business studies, etc. The government is thus supporting half a million students of whom the majority, one can safely assert, are on courses that will provide the country with skilled labour of an intellectual nature. These courses are not set up to provide the country's school leavers with "three or more comparatively idle and carefree years" but because the government sees a need for them.
What it seems must be pointed out to you is that it is the students who are undergoing the more technical training that suffer the most financial hardship. The few 'ivory tower' courses left are to be found in the universities, and yet it is the university students who are on mandatory grants from their LEA. Other students are on discretionary awards and it is in the interests of the latter parties that the campaign is being fought. Finally, if there are too many students, the laws of supply and demand of labour will no doubt continue to ensure that no cash benefit is conferred on the superfluity.
John Kassman
Vanbrugh College, University of York
Previous page
