#Demo2012: Demolition of University As We Know It?

Today, a third year of student protesting descended on London. However, the crucial difference is that participants will be amongst the first to actually pay the increased 9k tuition fees that came into force this academic year. Whilst the previous efforts have been dismissed in cavalier fashion, put down to rowdy or disrespectful students, here for the first time in the campaign process will the voices of those directly affected be added in force to the fight.

Westminster need face these demonstrations and their impact with an open mind, because the increase in fees may have quietly ushered in a new era in the history of the English University institution.

Now that the fees have been implemented, it would be unbelievably difficult to reduce them once more: there would be riots over those penalised, a further reorganisation of the Student Loans Company, endless paperwork for universities to reassess its student population.

Yet, the 9k barrier doesn’t even proffer the solutions that many politicians advocated it would. A report by the Higher Education Policy Institute, a highly respected think-tank, professed that the new system was actually due to cost taxpayers more money in the long run, proclaiming the possibility of a £1billion a year black hole.

Possible ‘solutions’ only sound like fuel for fire in another possible student rebellion. Besides, can youth culture stand another such mass movement without galvanising some sort of modern 21^st century revolution?

It hardly seems as though any young adult will be pleased with either the prospect of having to pay more back on their university loans (with what money you may ask in such an economic climate with rising youth unemployment?), or satisfied with the possibility of fewer university places (the UCAS system already limits universities: how can fewer places be fairly allocated? And how will this affect overall employability prospects?). It’s hardly motivating or economy-saving stuff. What austerity drive Nick Clegg?

The Hepi report describes civil servants as having made "highly uncertain and optimistic assumptions" on funding. Findings cite that the assumption of an average net fee charged by universities would be £7,500 a year, but the true figure is nearer to £8,300, thus forcing students to borrow more. Further, questions the assumption that the average male graduate will be earning £75,000 a year in 30 years, the period by which loans have to be repaid (already a 25% reduction on earlier projections).

The higher fees regime also adds 0.2 percentage points to the Consumer Price Index – thus triggering larger rises in state benefits and civil service pensions of between £420m and £1.14bn a year.

Oh and then fees are only recuperated when graduates find employment of course. Please sort out the economy in a forward thinking manner, rather than taking a backwards approach. Jobs first; less economic turmoil. Hell, I’m an English student and this makes sense.

David Cameron and co may face a heavy backlash not only in these immediate costings, but how students approach their university careers.

Picture the scene: it’s the middle of September, I’m unpacking my boxes of student life essentials, hanging up posters of some indie band and quotes from my favourite popular comedy series. Sounds like your typical moving in day.

But no: I’m unloading everything into the dorms of a prestigious American university (college, whatever). The reason? For a much similar annual cost, I can study for my degree, whilst living in a different country, experiencing their culture, seeing many of the famous sites; from New York to Washington, Florida to Vegas. I can make contacts and friends abroad; links that can prove invaluable when searching, fruitlessly, for a job in the UK.

The appeal of this is all too apparent: students, young, free and with a world to experience, are at the first point in their lives without their parents, and that can offer a whole lot of new lifestyle choices!

Perhaps the only way to counter such a move would be the rise of private universities in the UK, which would undercut the national average cost and appear much more cost effective. But then, of course, there would be the problem of whether these institutions would deliver reputable degrees to its graduates, and whether employers would believe these universities to offer any valuable qualifications.

Essentially, the system either restricts students and the taxpayer in its costs and fees, or restricts the choice of education through conventions.

But while there are students empowered by the movement to reject 9k, and if the general public were more educated on the gaping financial hole that threatens to consume their income, there stands resolute chance for a government U-Turn.

Then again, what turmoil would that entail for the economy and public faith?