Category Archives: Education

Dear Mr Corbyn, hands off my tuition fees

I wish Leftist politicians would stop lumping me in with all the other, equally Leftist students in this depressing General Election. Specifically, I don’t like to hear Jeremy Corbyn talk about tuition fees as if all students are utterly appalled by them.

He did it last night during his relatively underwhelming Question Time performance. He reiterated his desire for national funding in education before making the false claim that “the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university has gone down”.

Naturally, he attributed this trend to the introduction of and rises in the cost of tuition fees. Though immediately after he said this, ‘Full Fact’ rebutted his nonsensical claim, saying:

“There are a number of ways to measure what a ‘disadvantaged pupil’ is, but on all UCAS measures young students from disadvantaged groups in England are more likely to go to university now than any other year on record.”

The reference to England is particularly interesting when you compare it to its historically hostile northern neighbour, Scotland. In May 2016, the Sutton Trust, a distinguished education agency, published a report entitled Access in Scotland, in which they found:

“The gap in university participation between young people from the most and least advantaged areas is higher in Scotland than in the other home nations. Scottish 18 year olds from the most advantaged areas are still more than four times more likely to go straight to university than those from the least advantaged areas.  In England, those from the most advantaged areas are 2.4 times as likely to go to university as those from the least, and three times as likely in Wales and Northern Ireland.”

Scotland, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, does not charge its home students tuition fees. It seems that where tuition fees are implemented, the proportion of ‘disadvantaged pupils’ (of which I am one) attending universities actually increases.

By scrapping tuition fees, as the Labour Party plans at the cost of £8bn per year (according to the IFS), they propose not only a subsidy for the rich, but a strangulation on university funding, which relies largely on fees across both undergraduate and postgraduate study. It is unclear that, with existing cuts to teaching budgets already made, scrapping fees will not be adequately compensated for.

Research by ‘The Russell Group’ showed that between 1989 and 2005, ‘government funding did not keep pace with increasing student numbers, leading to a 40% fall in funding per student’. Even in light of compelling evidence, I do admit that funding caps have not been kept even with the rate of inflation, which has started to see decline in real term funding gains.

There is therefore a stronger argument for increases to fees than there is to scrapping them altogether. Fears over under-admitting students from poorer backgrounds simply haven’t been realised. The reality has been that tuition fees have increased ‘per student’ funding and improved the quality of education for the disadvantaged, with repayments organised on the basis of post-study income.

The system is fair as we look at things. Education cannot be free, as the Left often claim it ought to be. There is a bill to be paid, and it is a question of who pays and for whom. It is not acceptable for working taxpayers to pay for the education of students from wealthy families. And why should others pay for my degree? They do not benefit. I benefit. And thus, I should foot the bill for my studies.

My current student debt sits at £36,000 when additional, supplementary loans are factored in. I am classified by government as a ‘disadvantaged pupil’ by income measure. My journalism degree has just concluded, but when I was studying, I constantly reminded myself of the costs of study.

Tuition fees didn’t put me off or make me want to drop out in order to avoid large, growing debts. They actually had the opposite effect on me psychologically. Fees galvanised me, reminding me of the price I would pay and that I should strive to get as much out of university as I possibly could. I do not pretend to represent all students (especially as a Right-wing conservative), but I suspect I am not the only student who experienced this.

The Labour leader has repeatedly referred to his party’s manifesto as a careful and well-considered document that is both fully costed and a positive alternative for the country. Though as far as university funding is concerned, I don’t think students should see it this way.

Students may be dismayed by the prospect of sizeable debts, but they ought to consider the factors that I have outlined above. The national conversation about the costs of tuition tends to imply that scrapping fees is a policy that students universally agree with and one that will encourage poorer students to embark upon Higher Education. Neither claim is the case.

Mr Corbyn, hands off my tuition fees.

Take sex education out of the classroom and restore it where it belongs

Being just 21 years old, I well remember my secondary school education. I often walk past the school I went to, bilateral (operating grammar and comprehensive systems simultaneously) and located in the north of Kent.

Thinking about school brings back many great memories. I was one of those children who loved going to school. I enjoyed quite a number of subjects, though was only good at a select few, and forged a group of close friends, with whom I am still in frequent contact today.

This week I was again reminded of secondary school by an interesting study linking state initiatives with teenage pregnancy published in the Journal of Health Economics and reported on by ‘The Times’. It highlighted the findings of David Paton and Liam Wright, of the universities of Nottingham and Sheffield respectively, who concluded (the emphasis is mine):

“There are arguments to suggest that the impact [of the cuts] on teenage pregnancy may be not as bad as feared and, indeed, that spending on projects relating to teenage pregnancy may even be counterproductive. Put simply, birth control will reduce the risk of pregnancy for sex acts which would have occurred anyway. But [it] may increase the risk among teenagers who are induced by easier access to birth control either to start having sex or to have sex more frequently.’

Can anybody seriously claim that they are surprised by these findings? If they are, they have not been following events too closely. A similar study, published thirteen years ago by the Family Education Trust, found that areas of the country experiencing high teenage pregnancy rates also played host to the most teenage pregnancy projects.

So, it seems, the more we talk to teenagers about sex, normalise the process and illustrate how it can be had more safely, the more they will do it. And this conclusion took the work of distinguished professors to reach? It is not rocket science.

The main problem with, for instance, sex education has always been that it further chips away at the sanctity of sex; something I have always argued against removing. Sex is, by its very nature, a powerful and private thing, and can come with quite horrid, unforeseen consequences if not engaged in appropriately or at the right time.

Sex education implies that excessive experimentation is inevitable, which it shouldn’t necessarily have to be, and that by introducing it at school, teenagers will effectively be taught how to channel their sexual desires.

These desires may be natural, but extortionate levels of transmitted diseases, abortions and teenage pregnancies are not. They are the result of a 1960s cultural and sexual revolution that promoted the ideals of individualism over those of a social conscience and restraint.

Cultural change isn’t easily changed or reversed, but schools have proven to be an incompetent and inappropriate source of direction for students susceptible to the problems of sex. It should always have been the duty of parents to talk to their children about sexual health and etiquette. Those who avoid this are bad parents.

I remember distinctly, too, how uncomfortable it made students who were more restrained and quiet, a little shier and less eager to talk about such things. Many of my old classmates did not find the experience to be anything other than embarrassing and uncomfortable.

I now appreciate the concerns that they had and wish I had been of clear enough mind to raise the issue whilst at school. Sex education is grotesque, gimmicky nonsense that has, like most government initiatives, proven to counter-productive. It ought to be removed from the school curriculum in the next parliament.



This election is oh so depressing

I am profoundly jealous of anybody who found an excuse not to watch yesterday’s pitiful TV debate between five of the country’s most uninspiring party leaders. I didn’t watch it expecting to be anything other than dismayed at the growing pile of political deadwood we now have in Britain.

It is made infinitely worse by how similar they all look. Tim Farron, Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood and Caroline Lucas are as irritating as they are indistinguishable from one another. They all, as far as I can see, have exactly the same beliefs.

They all sneer at the prospect of Britain being a self-governing, sovereign country once more. They all despise grammar schools whilst refusing to acknowledge the kinds of selection brought about by the massive and failed comprehensive experiment in education. They all support mass, uncontrolled immigration and the egalitarian wonders of multiculturalism.

But there is something else that unites them all so glaringly: none of them are even remotely electable. I am still surprised that broadcast time was allocated to them, given that the total number of MPs in England represented was 10 and neither of the two major parties took part.

Paul Nuttall, mediocre and paling in comparison to the charisma of Nigel Farage, stuck out, but that was to be expected from a UKIP candidate. It is time for their members to accept the now painfully obvious fact that they are no longer a purposeful or serious electoral force.

As always with these totally overhyped and underwhelming affairs, we were treated to two hours of spin from the Public Relations industry, whose agencies write the scripts and formulate the annoying slogans and soundbites that the live and televised audiences are showered with.

That, added to the fact that we already know which party will be victorious on June 8th, only helps to make this whole thing so utterly depressing. I now see the logic behind holding a snap General Election more clearly. The mobilisation of the non-blue parties was forced and feels so rushed and obligatory.

I wrote a few weeks ago that this election was a second referendum in disguise. I still hold that view, but I can’t describe myself as unsure about the result. Like readers, I know what will happen. The Conservative Party will expand on its majority, by perhaps 50 seats, the country will forget about the fraud it was proven to have committed during the 2015 General Election campaign and Theresa May will lead the country into its third post-war political era, whatever it hopes to look like.

(More on Theresa May very soon.)

The Tories, of course, don’t need to participate in meaningless debates, which I actually disagree with on the grounds that they reflect presidential systems and the UK’s localised, parliamentary format. I may not even feel it necessary to vote for them, since my constituency (Bexleyheath and Crayford) is both Leave-supporting and a relatively safe Conservative seat. After toying with this election for a few weeks, I now realise that there is simply no real need for me to vote.

For Labour, the principle target now ought to be to convince as many of its traditional voters as possible not to jump ship or abstain. Their defeat in June is inevitable, but a turnaround in the coming years (as we saw back in the 1990s) is more than possible. Much will depend upon who succeeds Mr Corbyn as leader later this year, provided of course, that he agrees to step down.

This election is a realisation of three things. Firstly, the neo-liberal consensus has been irrevocably altered. Secondly, the Conservative Party are embarking upon their second era of parliamentary dominance in the last forty years. And thirdly, that Brexit is now a Tory plaything; a policy they have total control over in Westminster and almost no yearning for in Brussels.

I left the party for a reason I am now sharply reminded of. I just can’t bring myself to trust them.

Politicians continue their hypocritical assault on grammar schools

An astonishing article written by the former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Labour MP for Manchester Central Lucy Powell, has appeared here in today’s ‘Observer’, thoroughly condemning plans to expand upon the tiny rump of besieged grammar schools in Britain.

Somebody should remind them that that number is a meagre 163, and since legislation introduced by Tony Blair in 1998, namely Labour’s School Standards and Framework Act, it has been illegal to open any new grammars in Britain (note that I do not include Northern Ireland in these figures). A quick history, too, on the figures for readers who are interested.

The Education Act of 1944 fundamentally reformed the organisation and availability of secondary school education in Britain. Prior to the introduction of the Act, which made state secondary education free, children over the age of 14 had to pay fees in order to continue their studies. The national system was then spliced primarily into two tiers: grammars for the more academically gifted and secondary moderns for those not considered so. There were also technical schools established for children who showcased particular skill in specific subject areas but not enough overall to go to grammars. Very few such schools were set up. The number of grammar schools in Britain then rose substantially, until in 1965 there were 1299.

Then, in 1965, the government (which comprised of Leftist egalitarians, many of whom benefited from selective education, such as Harold Wilson, then Prime Minister) ordered local authorities to cease opening new grammars and phase in new schools, called comprehensives, to replace grammars. The number of grammars began to plummet, reaching just 300 by 1978 and now stands at just over 160.

But back to today’s article.

The three politicians who penned the piece seem frustrated by present levels of selection within the British education system. “Times have moved on”, they write. “Expanding selection isn’t part of the answer to tackling social mobility.” I think this is odd, given how few officially selective schools are left. There must be more to selection within education in Britain than just grammars. And there is. The country’s best comprehensive schools, not available to children whose parents do not live in upper class catchment areas, are also highly selective. Important research recently conducted by the respected education charity ‘The Sutton Trust’ concluded that:

The top performing 500 comprehensive schools in England, based on GCSE attainment, continue to be highly socially selective, taking just 9.4% of pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), just over half the rate of the average comprehensive (17.2%)”

…and that:

“Living in the catchment area of a top comprehensive school is associated with a house price ‘premium’ of around 20%. A typical house in the catchment area of a top 500 school costs £45,700 more than the average house in the same local authority. The best schools measured using Progress 8 are associated with a much lower premium of 8.3%, or £18,200.”

So, grammars are not necessarily the essence of the problem. But Ms Powell, Ms Morgan and Mr Clegg fail to point this out in their article, which, they claim, concerns an issue that should be above party politics. I wonder if they think that just because otherwise partisan politicians agree on an issue that what they say is definitively correct. Their position would be far more consistent and carry much more weight if they would collectively condemn the copious amounts of selection engaged in by other schools. Those kinds of schools, perhaps, that have been actively imposed upon children by modern generations of politicians.

A huge issue to note, and highlighted by the aforementioned quotation, is the problem of selection by house price, which stands today as the main arbiter of educational selection for parents and their children. I ask the egalitarians so mightily outraged by the prospect of more grammars why they favour a system that espouses selection by wealth rather than selection based upon academic results. And don’t give me any more nonsense about the 11 plus. I don’t much like the 11 plus either, but I will at least recognise that other systems exist which could provide a much more adequate alternative to these silly tests. In Germany, for instance, a format of co-determination continues to operate in which parents and teachers sit down and mutually assess the possibility that a given child will benefit from streamed academic selection.

The article continues, with another extraordinary claim. “Now is not the time for more division or political ideology in education.” I tend to agree. So why not offer a system that will prove an effective buffer against the now overwhelming dominance of those lucky enough to attend private schools? Since comprehensives have clearly failed in this regard, apart from the aforementioned crop that perform extremely well that, chances are, your children will not get into, why not try to bridge the so-called ‘division’ of the current climate of education. The real divide, of course, stands between those kids rich enough to attend private schools and those who do not have such a luxury.

And as far as ideology goes, the most impactful and ideological change in education in the UK has been the 1960s-led comprehensive experiment, that left many poorer children in areas without a reachable grammar school (particularly in the north of England, since grammars can now be found circulated in middle class conurbations in Kent and Buckinghamshire) at the mercy of an inferior quality of schooling.

Egalitarianism has infested British schools at every level, threatening standards and discouraging success. Prizes and certificates are now given to all students, regardless of the extent of their achievement, and no longer do teachers recognise difference between passing and failing the 11 plus. If children are told that, no matter their efforts, they will succeed, they are indoctrinated with messages that disincentivize the pursuit of excellence. This culture has a profound impact on children, who as a result of their surroundings, become too comfortable and forget the value of hard work.

I have been relatively lucky. I was a disadvantaged pupil at school by government recommendations and found myself benefitting from the Free School Meals system. I only mention this because it is often used as a metric for how many poorer students attend particular types of school. I went to Erith School, in North West Kent and South East London, officially a bilateral school offering two tiers of education: selective (that included me) and non-selective. Some subjects did not acknowledge the divide and grouped children together regardless of academic ability.

Though I cannot count personal experience as anything other than subjective anecdote, I was quite clear that in classes selected on academic merit, there was a noticeably stronger urgency for learning and an atmosphere of encouraging others and welcoming progress. In non-selective environments, academic achievement is routinely mocked and those children less academically able to grasp subject matter may find themselves distracted or holding those in front of them back, contrary to the claim made that “having the brightest children in comprehensive schools helps raise standards for all, increasing aspiration and intellectual capital in a school.” My view has always been that cleverer kids are far more likely to become frustrated by lower standards around them than ever they are incentivized to help.

So, this newly-established campaign, just one of many created by establishment politicians who are dismissive of the merits that come with academic selection (despite often being beneficiaries of it themselves), is just another example of how divide and ideology have come to stand as the pillars of British education. Those political figures who deride grammars as being instruments of these characteristics aren’t even bothering to look at the flaws in their own proposals.

Quite how anybody can stomach it is beyond me.


Grammar schools may be a return to the past, but Theresa has a duty to restore them

I won’t return to this blog for at least another week as I am setting off on holiday to Zante early tomorrow morning, so I wanted to contribute before I go on a subject that I have addressed here fairly recently. A few weeks ago, when the grammar school debate had begun to stir up once again, I blogged about their potential reintroduction, and also highlighted some support for vouchers to compliment selection within education. That piece can be read here:

Only one thing comforts me as I sit pondering over whether our allegedly conservative government is serious about restoring the many hundreds of perfectly efficient grammar schools that were wrongly abolished or phased out after the 1960s: that Britain’s new Prime Minister benefitted from grammar school education. Mrs May, herself from rather more modest beginnings than so many of her fellow parliamentarians, was spring boarded onto St Hugh’s College at the University of Oxford after a successful spell at Holton Park Girls’ Grammar School.

She is, therefore, entirely familiar with the wonders of selection within education, of which there are many kinds. Some seem to me to make more sense than others. Selection by postcode or academic merit, for instance, are far more necessary within an education system than selection based upon the religious background or gender of potential pupils. I am confident that Theresa May hasn’t forgotten the tremendous opportunity afforded to her when she was a 13 year old girl, and will remember this when it comes to deciding upon whether or how to reintroduce academically selective education.

As things stand, we have a tiny, besieged crop of grammar schools in Britain, both unrepresentative of what a national system could offer (as research by John Marks in Northern Ireland, 2000 has suggested: and responsible for only a tiny proportion of educational selection. Left-wing egalitarians often argue that it isn’t morally right to select and divide children up at age 11, but many of them seem perfectly at ease with other, more prominent types of selection (often unnecessary and unjustified in their continued existence).

The education secretary, Justine Greening, told MPs in the House of Commons that the government would be taking a “pragmatic” approach to education in the current parliament. In my view, the pragmatic choice is to introduce as much selection as possible. Not just selection enacted by schools, but also by parents in the form of vouchers. Ms Greening explained that the government would not be ‘returning to the past’ (a phrase a conservative should seldom use derogatively) and implementing a ‘very broad-based’ system, and not a ‘binary’ one.

I think Justine misses the point about both selection and grammar schools. They work best on a widespread basis, not on an erratic, spotty one. If the government wants a return to selective success, it must abandon its policy ensuring that areas which do not want grammar schools are forced to have them against their better wishes. How long before we find out that poorer areas, with more stifling social mobility are the kind of areas most hostile to academically-selective education?

Before 1965 (this document will be especially useful to some readers: file:///C:/Users/Oliver/Downloads/SN01398.pdf), there were around 1,300 grammar schools stretched right across the United Kingdom. We must remember for a moment that in the mid-1960s, the population was much smaller and less diverse. The national system worked so well primarily because it better equipped brighter students with the means to achieve, or go on to university. It was (and remains today) particularly beneficial for the poorest, brighter children in our society to have access to a more extensive curriculum and more rigorous exams. It is they who are in most need of a socially mobile landscape, after all.

It is for this reason, and indeed to bolster her conservative credentials, that Theresa May must follow through with her pledge to reintroduce more selection to Britain’s education system. Since education in our country is already littered with selection (the hypocrisy over this issue is really quite staggering), it cannot conceivably make sense for academic merit to account for such a tiny proportion of it. That is, of course, unless you are in favour of continued private school dominance, which I suspect many of our politicians secretly are.

It could well be why, more than 50 years ago, British politicians turned their backs on the very system which helped them to get to the top and consigned many millions of children there after to the mediocrity of comprehensive education.

Weighing in on the grammar school debate

I thought I’d weigh in with a few thoughts on the ongoing (and frankly rather dull) grammar school debate that has attracted quite a lot of attention in recent days. It is an argument which is often dragged to the foreground, despite a far greater problem within education looming behind it. If we are to talk about this issue sensibly, I feel a sense of perspective must be established and the possibility of real educational reform proposed.

We are told ceaselessly by the leftist egalitarians that to select by academic merit is wrong. They will often claim that comprehensives are the ideal barricade to private school dominance, despite their obvious failures, that existing grammar schools (a pathetic crop of besieged, unrepresentative institutions) are stuffed full of middle class kids and that by attending grammar schools, many children will subsequently lose out on the opportunity to mix with a vast cross-section of society.

Some of these arguments are better than others. Writing as a former grammar student (I went to a bilateral school in south east London; half academy and half grammar), I am not convinced that grammar streams overproduce a certain type of student, ethnically or socio-economically. Britain is a diverse country, and grammar schools are themselves becoming increasingly socially mixed. I understand the many concerns that people have over the reinstatement of new grammar schools, but grammar education was able to pull me, a poorer, working class student, up the ladder and provide me with the necessary tools to progress.

But here lies the interesting question. Why are so many of us worrying about the possible reintroduction of a few more state grammar schools whilst, at the same time, not paying any attention whatsoever to the extensive selection that already exists throughout our society? Children (from the very beginning of their schooling, but particularly around the age of 11) are streamed according to their postcode, religious upbringing and parental income up and down the country, but do we ever hear fuss from the grammar school abolitionists? No. They are silent about it and do not ever attempt to discuss it.

Paul Mason, one of Britain’s more respectable Left-wing commentators, wrote a very intelligent piece in ‘The Guardian’ on Monday, which can be read here:

…in which he argues that ‘their [grammar schools] aim is to reimpose a social divide entirely at odds with technological change’, the kind of change that is taking the jobs market by storm. He writes that ‘the divide in the 21st-century economy will be between tasks you need a human for and those you don’t’, and that ‘what we need, instead of selection, is to set education free’.

His final sentence hits the nail on the head. Freedom is exactly what Britain’s education system needs, though I expect Mr Mason and I have very different takes on just how to bring freedom about. A national grammar system, rather than a fragmented system furnished with as little as 163 academically-selective schools, could well be a step up from the current structure, but a system I’d like to see implemented would be infinitely more efficient.

A full blown voucher system.

Also advocated by the libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, a full blown voucher system would be similar to (though, crucially, not the same as) voucher-based, privatised systems already underway in countries such as Chile, Sweden and Hong Kong. Voucher systems are usually introduced to promote school choice, rigorous competition and involve the subsidising of the consumer, rather than (as is currently the case) the producer.

In Sweden, where around 12% of students are recipients of school vouchers, the scheme has produced generally positive results. In an article for ‘Forbes’, Adam Ozimek wrote that

“another important factor is that for each student that attends an independent school, the school received an amount equal to a large majority of the average per-pupil cost of the students public school system, and this is paid by the student’s municipality. This means that the resources available to the local public school are decreased as more students choose independent schools. This increases the competitive pressure, which the results suggest is an important determinant of improving outcomes”.

The suggestion that schools can compete in their current format in Britain is pure fantasy. During his run as Education Secretary, Michael Gove dabbled with the introduction of school vouchers, but it remains to be said that only a tiny proportion of students have actually had any meaningful access to them. Within education, the taxpayer can either subsidise the producer (schools), or he can subsidise the consumer (parents with children). At the moment, we subsidise the producer, which has lead to mass bureaucratisation, a lot of money wasted and a generally sub-standard system of education. In short, if the government is to hold its monopoly on the creation, resourcing and funding of schools, then we cannot realistically expect schools to compete, as funds provided are pegged with the school’s size, location and need.

In this context, then, there is a strong argument for the return of a national grammar school system (as was the case pre-1965, when more than 1,300 grammar schools existed in Britain, compared with just 163 today and laws preventing more from being established). If we maintain that governmental administration of schools is the best way forward, bearing in mind the three, rampant selection processes that I outlined earlier in this blog, then we must allow for bright young children, many of whom will come from poorer backgrounds, to slide into better-performing selective schools, just as we did for those politicians (Harold Wilson comes to mind) who decided to pull up the ladder behind them in the mid 1960s.

Our current Prime Minister herself benefitted from a selective, grammar school education. I hope that her posturing over the re-introduction in many parts of the country of selection-by-academic merit isn’t merely an attempt at appearing conservative. My educational utopia doesn’t look set to be introduced any time soon, and as private school dominance continues to usurp the rest of society, Britain desperately needs to re-think its strategy on education. Ideally, handing over all schools to the free market and introducing tuition fee-pegged vouchers to parents who cannot afford private schooling for their children would make for the freest, most competitive structure, but if taxpayers’ money is not rerouted, and we continue with the state-funding of schools, then I hope Mrs May acts on her conservative instincts and decides to bring back those 1,000 grammar schools, lost in the winds of egalitarian dogma.



My personal debt just reached £21,000 and I’m anything but resentful

Applying for a second year’s allocation of student finance was an endeavour I approached with mixed emotions, early last week.

My excitement, after a predominantly unproductive summer, for a return to education is unwavering, and I look forward to reconnecting with my fellow students in October. They are, after all, the reason I was invited on four pub trips last term. I wouldn’t take my role as bastion of popularity lightly; it comes with a numbing sense of duty.

Thank heavens for the return of the autumn, my favourite season. God I hate summer. The populist enthusiasm for the hottest and most extroverted season of the year never ceases to baffle me. I’m not quite sure what it is about our traditional four days of stifling heat, the ever-present annoyance of a neighbour mowing their grass, or the lack of educational stimulation for two months that people take a shine to, exactly.

The closing of September, for me at least, signals my return to University, and I’m happy to be back once more. Perhaps I’m being too modest, but I suspect I’ll be welcomed back like a hero. But as I prepare to re-engage with my degree, my personal debt ascends in unstoppable fashion, and I am reminded powerfully of why it is that I advocate the implementation of student fees, and just what this financial burden offers me both academically and morally.

You’ll quite often hear politicians denounce their repulsion for the very existence of student expenses. ‘A person’s education should be based upon their ability to learn, not upon their ability to pay’ was a line pioneered by the SNP at this year’s general election.

Of course a student’s education should be defined by their ability to learn, but why should that mean he or she should not have to pay for it? Why discontinue the ring-fencing of a budget and transfer responsibility on to the tax-payer, when those reaping the benefits – of which there are many – can be held to account.

Universities, after all, do not come free. Equipment and facilities require investment and maintenance, and staff must be paid for their diligent organisation, passionate lecturing and consistent support or advice. Mark’s emails, too, have re-defined the phrase ‘passive-aggressive’.

I don’t think any member of the public, no matter how naive, can honestly say with confidence that a government planning to scrap tuition fees will not ensure that these expenses are subsequently repackaged into another form of unnecessary taxation, and sent marching back into an already-battered economy.

Tuition fees have granted me with a tool that no free educational platform ever could, and that is a sense of enhanced responsibility. They haven’t in any way denigrated my desire to self-educate, but have instead ensured that I feel obligated to achieve for the sake of my future, and for the sake of justifying the privilege of higher learning.

Just not when it comes to reflective learning. No offence, Bill.

Despite my stern defence of charged tuition, I would like to see the threshold, at which you start to pay back your educational expenses, increased. I think a salary of at least £25,000 per annum would suffice as a marker for the commencing of repayment. Though I’ll try not to get my hopes up.

While at sixth form, I was told that I should not be put off by the glooming debt I’ll no doubt bemoan in years to come. Instead, I was reminded of why charging those wanting to embark upon a degree has been particularly helpful in terms of encouraging the working class back in to university education.

With middle classes and the richest in society rendered ineligible for student finance, for the first time in years we are seeing a balanced and much more representative cross section of society attending universities up and down the country. This is a trend very often ignored by those who vehemently oppose financial requirement for learning.

And so here I sit, patiently awaiting my second year of study at the University of Arts, London. I’m bored senseless, lacking material stimulation and relish the prospect of yet more Tesco meal deals.

Oh, and my personal debt clock just ticked £20,967, and I couldn’t be happier to report it.