Equality of opportunity and standard of living are our new metrics, and that divide is becoming starker than ever.
And we're going backwards by both measures.
I went through my undergraduate degree as a member of the last year not to pay fees (indeed, LEA grants still existed). When originally introduced, fees began at a modest level, but the current £9,250 for a minimum of three years is going to either a) price out all but the economically comfortable or b) (via loans) more likely prove a millstone around the necks of new graduates and still further delay the point at which they begin to contribute financially to the exchequer via indirect taxation (by spending!).
Already, at the same time, the places at the best universities are being disproportionately filled by non-state (or at least non-comprehensive state) school leavers. I don't believe that that's a direct result of social discrimination ('classism'), but more simply the fact that (in general) privately educated children receive a better education, one that is geared specifically towards preparing them for university. They walk into an academic interview with a great advantage that comes from familiarity and mindset far more than from accent or geographic origin. Of the British students attending my own alma mater, 61% are state-school educated, but once you include the grammar-school mob from the South and Northern Ireland you aren't too far away from 50/50. That is in a country where 90% or so are state educated--this is bad.
Why? Well, that 'good degree' that is moving out of reach might not make you a better person, but it does bring a whole new tier of employment into the realms of the possible while, at the same time, increasing the chance that you
know people, the kind of people who will, ultimately, make your life easier: doctors, dentists, lawyers, academics etc. It's not a case of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'--or even an old boys' network, but rather that your friends are in a position to help and--being your friends--will try to do so. I don't want to go into personal details, but examples that spring to my mind are:
- A friend in law helping another friend of ours to overcome immigration issues for their then partner (now husband)
- A private doctor treating a friend's mother at no cost after she suffered a serious fall.
- A friend in banking securing another friend's brother a bank loan on more favourable terms than he could have otherwise secured.
When you've run a double filter to reduce first the chance of academic success for those that cannot afford to pay for schooling and second the chance of academic success for those who cannot afford university fees, you're not merely letting society petrify, you're hiring teams of Gorgons to wander around staring at people all day.
I'm an ardent believer in meritocracy, one who has been very fortunate in life, but what I see today is a system that (if not actually designed to do so) promotes selection by wealth, not ability. In many respects I hold conservative views, but I hate unfairness and see nothing valuable to conserve in a setup that makes it more likely that the less able rise to the top and shape future society.