I appeared on BBC Any Questions on Friday night to take on some lefties. I have the perfect face for radio so I agreed to do it, you can listen here.

One question was: Would I advise my son or daughter to go to university? I gave a decent answer, but on further reflection I have decided I want a ‘do-over.’ The question really should be: Is it a good idea to send your child to university so he can learn to hate you and your conservative views? Will the pay-off be worth it?

It is a tough choice. Yes, the debt is bad and, of course, this kind of debt (although brutal on the taxpayer when all these students with worthless degrees eventually default, which up to three quarters will) should not be acquired unless you are sure of the financial return.

But what of the cultural or moral return? What kind of adult will sit opposite you at the Christmas table? This is the more important question. The conservative parent must ask, should I risk sending my child to university where he/she will face a full three years of left wing propaganda? Because this is what you are doing – you are sending your kids to an institution that hates your views and thinks you are wicked.

University academics are overwhelmingly left wing. Of course, they will favour a huge welfare state – much of their income comes from the taxpayer. They also suffer form usual leftist disease where they like to spend other people’s money to make themselves look good. So your child will not only become an expert in, say, the field of English or engineering but in leftist ideology also.

When Tony Blair created a system that aimed to have 50 per cent of school leavers attending university, he did so for three morally bankrupt reasons.

First, he wanted to keep the employment figures low, secondly he wanted to expand his client base and bind students and academics to New Labour, and third he wanted the next generation to be steeped in left wing ideology.

He did all this at the expense of the taxpayer, many of whom are low-income groups subsidising the university degree and carefree lifestyle of middle-class students. Blair also did this at the expense of the students themselves.

The truth is that entering university for many students is seriously life-limiting. First and most obviously, is the debt they will rack up – up to £50,000 on paper. Secondly, they have contributed to a system where employers now look for degrees for jobs that do not really need them so a vicious cycle arises: more and more students must acquire debt and degrees to secure jobs that should not require a degree in reality, but must have one on paper.

Thirdly, and I believe this point is often overlooked, university can often be a period of extended adolescence. Yes, it can expand the mind but the idea that living in student halls and demanding trigger warning and safe spaces will result in a independent, strong-willed child with grit, character and determination, is, well, let’s say wishful thinking. University can infantilise a whole generation. And it has.

Finally, and closely linked to the closing of the student mind, is the leftism. The endless, repeated, peer-enforced leftism that will be poured into the student mind. Leftism is both stupid and selfish – that is why many students voted for Corbyn and his ‘free fees’ promise. These students selfishly wanted other people’s resources for themselves and stupidly thought Corbyn could deliver on this promise. Now they have neither free fees nor Prime Minister Corbyn, just a lot of debt and a useless degree.

Indebted, stupid, ignorant and selfish students – that is what the 50 per cent New Labour target has achieved. Conveniently enough, if you have these characteristics, you are also more likely you vote for a left wing party. For only with a leftist education do you think you can defy the economic laws of supply and demand.

Only in a lefty university life do you believe men can magically turn into women and that biological sex is an option. Only with a university education can you think being ruled by Brussels is a wise form of governance. You get the picture.

So dear parents of The Conservative Woman choose wisely. I am told a year working before university (NOT a gap yah), can inoculate a child against such lefty idiocy and I’d try to stick with sciences or perhaps law. Good luck – you have been warned.

(Image: David Davies)


  1. I am not sure the law or even STEM are truly free of left-wing bias – but at least these degrees will, hopefully, give them a way of getting a job at the end of it.

    • Lawyers are a mixed bunch to say the least. The lawyers and barristers involved in criminal, family and human rights law tend to be left wing in my experience (a tendency that increases as they get more senior and deal in things like complex human rights issues).

      Corporate lawyers who work in things like M & A tend to be more right wing.

      • That’s true in my experience here as well. But the biggest thing I notice about Lawyers in general wherever they work is that they are all specialized in finding reasons why you can’t do something.

        • Didn’t somebody in the United States discover that you actually had to be in a coma, to avoid breaking at least one law, every single day? Being genuinely dead didn’t make you any more virtuous, since you can carry on voting fraudulently for decades, post-mortem, in quite a few states.

    • My daughter is a lawyer. I would not recommend it nowadays. The hours are horrendous. All the firms seem to work them into the ground.
      If you go into local government it is probably easier, but who would want to do that?

      • It’s the same in accountancy and banking. Banking has ever been thus but the other two seem to be more because fees are under pressure but partners want to maintain their income so flog junior staff more.

        • I’ve always worked in industry, but know many accountants “in practice” so can attest to your comment.

      • A solicitor friend of mine said that legal people who work in LG do so because they can’t get a job anywhere else ; my experience of such bears this out.

        • That’s my experience too.
          I believe its a real problem. Their weakness leads to corruption (moral and financial) in local government.

  2. There was another motivation behind introducing student fees: to make being in debt seem normal.

    We have an economic system where the purpose of the banking system and monetary policy is to maximise asset prices and where a welfare state exists to prevent the extremes of poverty seen in Third World countries. This economic system works for the wealthy and for those dependent on welfare handouts. It does not work for most of the people in the middle – let’s call them the ‘working classes’ because they do the work to keep the system going.

    How can this large group of people be forced to bear the burden of keeping the system going? By turning them into indentured labour bound by debt. Student fees is only the first step. The second step is to get people to borrow a sum of money they will never pay off, in order to buy a flat or house within commuting distance of where they work. Welcome to the new plantation.

    • Regrettably, our country regards it normal for the government to be massively
      in debt.
      A rational start would be cancel the corrupt & corrupting foreign “aid” budget,
      followed by putting in rational controls on NHS spending, including buying
      practices, free operations for health tourists & training our own nurses instead of
      poaching them, at great expense, from the developing world.
      There are far too many degree courses, many of them in non subjects
      including womens studies, & sadly fine art, which is now usually neither fine nor art.

        • I’ve often said that the one thing that will restore small government (I was speaking on America, bust suggest it is true there, as well) is to outlaw withholding. If we all had to write that check to government at the end of the year, many things would change for the better.

          The evidence? The US had small government until FDRs term when withholding was introduced, since then it has done nothing but grow unaccountably. Of course what we tend to call the deep state (or other unkinder things) would likely rebel, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.

          • Wouldn’t it be nice 🙂
            The end of the year pi chart we get showing how much tax we’ve paid and what it has been wasted on always sends me apoplectic.
            It gets worse when I remember there’s VAT on top.

    • Working for a year is fine (a ‘sandwich course’?), but gap year’s travelling, not so much.

  3. “try to stick with sciences or perhaps law”

    …. or even accountancy. Non-graduate entry is still quite common in the profession.

  4. There is a big gender consideration in the points Laura raises. Almost 60% of students are women and the vast majority of those are in the humanities, history, geography, English, philosophy, social sciences etc.
    In other words they are doing the courses which are much more likely to have a strong left wing influence.
    The boys are more likely on average to be on degree courses that do not have so much scope for political mission creep.

  5. I think history is still worth studying, as long as you don’t take too much notice of the marxist ignoramus teaching it and do your own research. We do need historians who have had access to proper libraries – and the sooner the better. Now that the left is pulling down statues, they will be burning books next. The way things are going, in twenty years, there will be nothing left, on university library shelves, by Robert Conquest, Michael Burleigh, or Robert Service. On the other hand, there won’t be many students who can actually read, either.

    • You went to uni to continue your education, it used to be said that, you were ‘reading a subject’. Lecturers guided but stayed at arms length – the study and drawing your own conclusions was encouraged even viewpoints contrary to the particular Don – was looked upon as acceptable – within academic limits and reasoning.

      In pure science you were left to ponder and to hypothesize to push the limits, explore and discover, think in the abstract ‘wander the clouds’ and come back down, produce empirical evidence for those ideas – and then the Don’s preponderated and adduced and assessed thus, for science can only be grounded in Mathematical fact.

      Kids these days, attend uni to learn concepts by rote, individuality is frowned upon there is no allowance made for extraordinary speculation unless it is in and of the pure sciences and probably then, only up at Cambridge – where in the science faculties pure genius better hard work, ability in scientific order, sweat, inspiration and tears – are all still welcomed.

      • You can’t learn concepts by rote, as learning by rote involves memorising words, not imagining concepts, but they will be ready for the tick-box culture. 🙂

      • They even keep attendance registers in lectures now… in the Russell Group!
        My daughter found some lectures so slow and frustrating she decided to study the course in her own time and use the extra time to do her own research. They would not let her. They claimed they had a duty of care to make sure she attended lectures.

        • University? Or, warehouses stocking one line – cultural Marxism.

          Blimey, that is eye raising! But surely students [they ain’t kids anymore ]….. must be allowed some leeway, indeed, that sad little anecdote concerning your daughter and spoon feeding at a Russell Group uni’ – no less! It vexes me greatly. The trouble is, that, there is no room made for individual expression and that begs – [other than a piece of paper as Laura deftly points out] then, what is a university for?

    • Michael Burleigh and Robert Service are still, or should be, required reading for budding historians. I’ve not read Conquest recently, but Service’s Comrades was good. Ian Kershaw (currently reading The End: Hitler’s Germany 1944-45), Richard Overy and Norman Davies are also required reading on Europe and WWII.

      What I’m trying to get at is that I don’t think Marxist history has much kudos in the field these days.

  6. I recently replied to a question on a hobby site that I frequent (model boats, since you ask..) from a ‘young adult’ who had bought a ready-made racing boat and was having trouble running it.

    He asked some simple questions which were easy to answer once I read the manual by downloading it from the web. I referred him to this, and was told ‘I didn’t read it – it must have slipped out in the shop’.

    A little while later he came back with a broken propeller shaft – I pointed out the part of the manual where it stresses the necessity of continuous lubrication of that part, and his answer was ‘Surely the shop should have done all that?’

    In a few sentences here we see the unwillingness or inability to learn, the rejection of reading as a method of transmitting information, the proffering of fairly blatant untruths to explain the resultant ignorance and finally the attempt to offload blame and responsibility onto someone else when the inevitable impact of operating a complex device without knowing what you are doing occurs.

    We used to operate a technologically advanced society. Not for much longer, I’m afraid…

    • And when that happens, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when smartphones pack up and people can’t get onto social media.
      Of course, as you rightly say, it’ll be someone else’s fault.

    • Mr Geezer

      Don’t their dads buy them Air-fix kits and have fun together painting the models with snippets of history thrown in for good measure?

          • I can see it now. What glorious fun.

            Can we, even now, get our boys out of the bedroom and out into the wilds?

            I recall playing British bulldog at Cub scouts. I am told that for Elf ‘n’ Safety reasons – they can no longer do so.

            When questioned further, I am told that there are girls in the church hall and that ‘it’s not the same any more’ as the boys are instinctively more careful – and so the egalitarian robs my boys of fun and strategic aims, and tactics, and defeat, and victory and the scars of battle.

          • Fear not – my youngest three have gone off on what they said is an important exploration. I have no idea where they are within a three mile radius of the house. Neither do I have any idea what they are doing. I have told them that tea will be on the table at 5.30pm. They will be dirty, euphoric and hungry – and ready to be civilised to the females of the family. I might even learn the results of the exploration!

          • They turned up safe and sound and another day wiser. Meanwhile, I had enjoyed a peaceful house in which to turn into jam the blackberries which they had picked during the morning. Satisfied people all round 🙂

          • Busy Mum wrote:

            I have no idea where they are within a three mile radius of the house. Neither do I have any idea what they are doing. I have told them that tea will be on the table at 5.30pm. They will be dirty, euphoric and hungry … ‘

            You remind me of my favourite aunt, who died last week after a long illness. She believed in allowing boys to disappear, often for days or weeks at a time, and always had a feast of haute cuisine type things on the table, and scrubbing brushes and soap to hand, when we returned.

          • I easily remember (and very fondly) the BB gun wars of my youth. Funny how often the LRDG figured into them, even in the Midwest. And no, no one lost their eyes, either, although quite a few found it uncomfortable to sit down on occasion.

          • The Duke of Unberland, England wrote:

            ‘ … so the egalitarian robs my boys of fun and strategic aims, and tactics, and defeat, and victory and the scars of battle.

            You’re not thinking like a girl, are you. Girls can play with boys, and do as well as the boys as long as the boys are not too rough. Winning doesn’t matter as long as the girls get to play with the boys and the boys are not too rough, to give the girls a chance to win, until some really nasty rough boys come along and rape and enslave the girls, when boys who have not been allowed to develop fighting skills will be expected by the girls to protect them. Then, as Joe Gargery used to say, what larks.

          • You were allowed outside, near water. That was child abuse or at least child endangerment. I presume there were much fewer social workers around then.

      • Perhaps I’d better not talk about the armoured soap box cart with the rubber powered bent nail gun then?

      • Funnily enough, I also run a small web site with free plans for ‘starter’ model boats of a type that used to be common back in the 1960s.

        Most of the people who download the plans were adults reliving their childhood experiences – but I was particularly happy with this Aussie kid, who put his building experience on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAHJbJieV0o

        • I have heard similar things regarding Airfix kits ; that the resurgence (includes me) is often people *like* me. It is noticeable there are more clip together ready painted things.

    • I think it’s just laziness. Students are used to having everything done for them – things like essay skeletons “fill in the blanks” and so on.

      Things like reading the manual and so on before doing something I just view as obvious, the next generation can’t be bothered, so they get their boat, don’t bother charging the battery or whatever and throw a strop when it gets stuck mid pond.

      Nor are they willing to listen to “boring old fogeys” like yourself – aka people who know what they are talking about. They know better.

    • Dodgy Geezer wrote:

      ‘ … here we see the unwillingness or inability to learn, the rejection of reading as a method of transmitting information, the proffering of fairly blatant untruths to explain the resultant ignorance and finally the attempt to offload blame and responsibility onto someone else when the inevitable impact of operating a complex device without knowing what you are doing occurs.

      He’s in touch with his feminine side. That’s nothing to worry about; it’ll be all right on the night.

    • What Happened To The University? by Frank Furedi is also worth a read. Goes into great detail about its infantilisation.

    • Sen Sasse is quite good, although like us all he has some rough edges which are not apparent in that book. We raise that way out here in Nebraska, and not too many University presidents (Vice Chancellor to you guys) end up in politics.

  7. Miss

    Law is not immune to the influence of Marxian thought.

    What can we do as parents to fortify the intellects of our sons and daughters before they attend university? (I write from a Judeao-Christian position.)

    1. Those of us who can afford it should be sending them, during their gap-year, to L’Abri.
    2. Those of us who cannot, should be buying the works and essays of the following authours for our proto-students: Francis A. Schaeffer; Prof CS Lewis; GK Chesterton; Malcolm Muggeridge and the novels of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

  8. Two out of my four children went to Uni. I have been successful in undoing the damage of, and preventing them from being infected by, the left wing propaganda. It’s not easy. You have to start young.

  9. On most topics I inhabit the sensible right. On this topic, having done my best to present the competing social and political arguments fairly, I would simply accept that my child would now be presented with a multitude of views, many of ineluctable inanity, and allow my libertarian instinct to prevail and allow them to accept or reject them on their own terms.

    • But in most UK universities your child would not be presented with a variety
      of opinions.
      The scandal is that assorted leftist & far leftist attitudes are the only ones
      permitted to be expressed.
      Those who profit by this are usually state funded/charity funded persons who
      are paid way beyond their worth & who benefit from the status quo.
      Probably scientific & tech subjects have a broader range of opinions among the staff
      but when it comes to public discussions or the, taxpayer funded, Students’ Union
      they have no say if it is not Leftist.
      This applies in spades re EU membership/subservience.

      • You may well be right, and that is quite appalling. However, If my child had a real grasp of the arguments, and the intellectual strength and courage to make them in such an illiberal and restrictive environment, perhaps they’d survive. Obviously, it’s shameful that any of it should be necessary.

        • Why should they have to experience such rubbish? Their ‘superiors’ will always win out – because they hold the power, the power to grant a degree, and choose its class.

  10. But if the offspring of Conservative parents do not send their children to university, that effectively leaves the entire Further Education establishment to students who are already predisposed towards Leftism. The last remnants of intellectual diversity would be obliterated on campuses. Resources would allocate unevenly across ideological lines.

    That bias then compounds on graduate careers in the media, cultural institutions, government, etc. The BBC (and even many of the centrist/right-leaning newspapers) are already completely beholden to a fruity and extreme form of identity politics. Critical discourse on Islam, gender and low-quality immigration is also already dwindling.

    Thus, we have to view the question of university not merely in terms of personal utility, but also in terms of fighting an entrenched culture war – on which the foundational principles of Western democracy rely. Meritocracy, free speech, property rights, small government – these things won’t survive if we’re not prepared to fight for them.

    • Why expect your children to fight your battles: they are canon fodder when in front of seasoned political operators working within their own comfort zone and aiming to add to their numbers. They are like the Triffids 🙂

  11. I worked in a tech company for more than two decades. Despite having a decidedly non-IT degree, I never felt I was at a disadvantage, vis-à-vis the employees with computer studies qualifications, because their studies were so out of date.

    • Were you doing coding type work ? I would think this would be an advantage (probably not now, but maybe 20 years ago !). In terms of waffly IT stuff, no, it probably isn’t.

    • That’s a very salient point. It is thought that computers and robotics are taking over the world of work so quickly that students taking career- oriented degrees are increasingly going to find that their degrees are out of date by the time they graduate.

      The front page story of the Daily Mail today is about bank branches disappearing because people are doing their banking online. This serves to underline this trend. Branch banking is a dying occupation. Along with a lot of others. Company Accountancy is also doomed.

      • Far less than you think. It’s even arguable we are going backwards.

        There was a colossal boom in home computers from about 1978-1995 – roughly – that produced a generation of home taught programmers. This group – I’m one of them, almost, an outlier at the front – learnt an awful lot very fast.

        The generations after that are less likely to code at home, because of consoles and the way PCs are designed.

        Also, because of the about 5x growth in “University degrees” since my time, they have been dumbed down (even in Computer Science) to cope with the lower ability (overall ability is stable / slightly down probably, but it certainly isn’t up).

        This is not made up by knowledge about Facebook and other alleged modern technical skills ; might be very good for PR but not for anything technical.

        In reality since my first computers very little has changed. Object orientated programming has come to the front as has Online stuff (Javascript etc.), but most of it is prettification.

        There isn’t a lot of difference conceptually between a ZX81 and a modern PC. Yes, it’s way faster, more memory, graphics, sound, storage etc. but there’s nothing we didn’t know about in the 1980s. It’s just more affordable.

        If you have a look at the robotics stuff then (Robots controlled by ZX81s finding their way round a maze) it’s not that different. In some ways its worse.

        A good Computing teacher/lecturer (hobby horse) should not teach how to use MS Word, or Java or a *thing*. They should focus on one, but give experience of others. Too many don’t and just lock on Java or C# or Python and then panic when someone shows them something else.

        So the barrage I did at University (BCPL, Assembler, COBOL, Functional, LISP, Pascal and so on) are perhaps all now out of date but their successors aren’t that different (with the exception of Object Orientated programming).

        At least (like some graduates) I don’t think HTML is programming (it’s a page description language)

          • Actually you can …. there are so many cr*p old systems that there is always money for people who can unpick things. I’m lucky in that I seem to have a natural talent for taking code and figuring out how it works – I once figured out the hardware of an old console from binary dumps 😉

      • I think people are being forced to bank online, because the branches are closing. It suits the banks for everyone to be linked by computer and it it helps the taxman no end. It keeps the telephone companies in profits (if anyone doesn’t believe me, try ringing one of these banks) and puts food on tables in India.

    • It depends what your work was, doesn’t it. And there is a lot of ‘tech’ work that is only vaguely connected to IT.
      And it does depend what computer studies qualifications means as well! 🙂

  12. Eh – my kids turned out fine. But that could be because we had lots of grown-up conversations before they got to Uni.

    Also – the research suggests you vote your personality type. That’s why it’s nearly impossible to persuade with facts; and why apparently intelligent people vote for Corbyn.

  13. There is a lot of truth in this article but I doubt Mr Blair would admit to the motives attributed to him – even though it is quite likely they are true. It’s also not really fair to tarnish all students with the description: ‘ indebted, stupid, ignorant and selfish ‘. Almost all are ‘indebted’ and many are ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’ and ‘selfish’ – but many are not.
    I am not usually one to go for the usual socialist excuse that it is not the fault of individuals – society is to blame – but in this case we, or, in truth, the last Labour government of Mr Blair, have created a society that no longer generates the variety of semi-skilled, skilled and professional jobs that young people can take up in their mid-teens and then progress, in that work, and in their lives, generally. Going to university has become the norm for most young people whether or not they are academically gifted and regardless of the value in the workplace of any degree they main gain.
    Leaving the Brussels-based administration has encouraged some alarmist people who worship that law making body to warn that our government is intent on introducing ‘Henry VIII powers’ to weed-out all the EU law that has entwined itself with our domestic laws and powers to decide what laws we require. Obviously the regal dictatorship that Henry VIII bestowed upon himself is not comparable to the need, when the time is right, to discard any EU legislation that doesn’t suit us after we have left the EU. However, it did occur to me that the solution to the problem Laura Perrins highlights might be the ‘dissolution of the universities’. Now that’s where something like Henry VIII powers would be of use, non?

    • The answer is not ‘the dissolution of the universities’.

      We must ask ourselves how we can become a great nation again.

      We must ask ourselves: how come a small nation like New Zealand produces a great rugby football team?

      We must ask ourselves how can the Italians, knowing that they cannot produce better quality machines, produce products that are more attractive than ours from toasters to Fiat cars ( with Ford engines).

      We must ask ourselves why do the Japanese and now the Chinese emulate our cars – and yet fail in style.

      We must ask ourselves why cannot any other nation on Earth match the rythyms and cadences of the speeches by President Lincoln and prime minister Churchill.

      We must ask ask ourselves why no nation on Earth as been able to produce a Shakespeare.

      Aristotle said that if you want to know the truth: first ask the right questions.

      Why did your forefathers say this:

      Ask, seek, knock?


      • Ah, I surmise you may not have spotted that my tongue was firmly in my cheek!

        Clearly we need some universities to turn out not only great academic thinkers and writers but also mathematicians, medical scientists, computer engineers and software programmers, physicists, biologists, mechanical engineers and so on. It is just that, as Laura Perrins has highlighted, we are sending, at great cost to the students and to our country in general, too many young people to too many universities to study subjects of dubious merit.

        • In the long-run we cannot turn out great academics, thinkers and writers.

          First a nation must have a great box to think in.

          Then, and only then, can it think out of the box.

          The great issue is this: what is this ‘great box’?

      • And yet, neither Churchill nor Lincoln went to college. I basically agree with your point, but it is the quality of the student, not the quantity that matters. I went to Purdue, and since I was an Indiana resident there was no tuition, there was ~$300 a semester in fees plus books, a place to live and all that stuff. But I was a lousy student (at that time, due to outside pressures). I quit after 2.5 years, because it didn’t make any sense to spend more on something that was of little benefit. Noting of course, that a US bachelors degree is 4 years.

    • I actually think from memory that Blair/Brown’s motives as given were stupider.

      I think the argument goes like this “Graduates earn more (hence more GDP, Tax etc.) over their life time than non-Graduates. So if we have lots more graduates then we will get more GDP/Tax income”.

      Doesn’t work if you give a degree away with three vouchers off the Shreddies box.

      • In the USA, one sees job advertisements with the words, ‘Those with only Bachelors degrees need not apply’.

        • We have a UK problem (don’t know about the US) where a degree from 1970 is worth far more than one from 2015 ; the scaling up (about 5-7 x) has meant the content is much less because the population intelligence is fairly stable.

  14. Let us not forget that Blair, Brown, and New Labour were relentless in their 50% target to get students on university courses. So much so that they engineered a process of “dumbing down” to achieve this goal. Furthermore, during their period of government, we saw many “soft touch” courses being in vogue whilst academically demanding subjects like Physics and Mathematics courses were closing down in many universities. Easy courses should never exist in universities because any degree should be a challenge requiring hard work and commitment – anything less than that devalues a degree – both for the individual and society. Educational standards declined during the New Labour years and I am not convinced they have improved that much in recent years. This is why students, now paying higher fees, have a right to expect better.

  15. Nonsense.
    My children obtained Universtity degrees in vocational subjects.
    They worked extremely hard
    They did not encounter what the author lazily calls ‘leftist’ indoctrination.
    Nor did they encounter it.

    They had to work extremely hard.
    They learned a lot about life too, and had already become rounded, compassionate people quite independently.

    They are also in considerable debt due to the conservative tripling of fees – which was not reflected in a tripling of quality.

    Tony Blair was right.
    Such chances should be available to all – but affordably.

    Unless of course you recognise a correlation between education and political viewpoints – as LP implies and fears.

    • Blair is wrong ; what students should be given a chance of is training or learning that suits them. Too many people are shoe-horned into pointless degrees to keep the numbers up. Having recently done the rounds for my nephew it is comically obvious the Universities are selling themselves “Please come here” and will have almost anyone to fill up places (because the £3k/term comes through).

      (The debt does not matter ; they should learn some Mathematics)

        • If you can incur debt without having to pay it off in any meaningful way, why ?

          To repeat another post partially ; As an extreme but indicative example ; If I offered you a loan of
          £1,000,000, 20% interest per annum, paid back at a maximum of £10 a year
          and written off when you die, would you take it ?

          • The issue is not whether you will pay it off completely, but how much the repayments cost you over your working life, and how easily you will be able to afford those repayments at the time they are taken.
            Your example has an unrealistic payback rate.

          • So does the student loan. That’s the point. I am baffled that an accountant cannot see what a great deal it is.

            If you could borrow (say) twice as much to buy a house with the same repayment rate (9% of earnings over £21k) you’d bite your hand off surely ?

          • How about when the Government change the law and make your estate pay the loan back when you die – think it won’t happen???

          • I agree it’s possible ; two things against it ; firstly it would be politically very unpopular and secondly it would be questionably legal – after the fact legislation is very seriously frowned on, making something illegal and then prosecuting someone for something that wasn’t a crime at the time they did it. Verging on attainder.

            I do agree though in the sense that I think it is unsupportable in the long term and eventually it will be dropped ; reallly we are funding too many students to prat about for three years. I would expect much more encouragement (i) to do it in two years and (ii) live from home where possible.

            Probably like the other debts they will attempt to just kick it down the road.

          • No I wouldn’t.
            House values can go down as well as up.
            Sometimes just crunching the numbers gives you the wrong answer.

          • Assuming I could not rewrite it after the fact ? If you don’t accept this deal you are mad. It is a gift of over £999,000 pounds.

            It might be an issue for some things like taxation (student loans don’t count I think).

          • gift / loan make your mind up

            loans are loan – sometimes the payback is not in money

            You could go around telling everyone that I “owe” you £1,000,000 – my reputation has value more than money

          • For a free million I think I could live with it. Okay, supposing neither of us ever told anyone and we kept a fiction it was an inheritance from a long lost Aunt and you and I never met in any way, would you take it then ?

            It’s a gift of £999,000 because you would never pay it back. Unless you are immortal.

          • You could live with it, I couldn’t – unearned income is a very dangerous thing – you only have to look at lottery winners to see that

            It also de-values money if everyone gets it – as we are seeing now

            Inflation blah blah blah

            You really have not thought this one through Paul

          • Okay, so lets limit our £1m so that you can only spent £20k p.a. extra over 50 years. This would make your life more comfortable but you couldn’t go mad with it. Only you get it. The balance is kept in indexed linked gilts so all the numbers go up with inflation.

    • Not sure any of your family would spot leftist indoctrination :-).
      The correlation between education and political viewpoints is well known. Older and wiser….

        • Category error — active indoctrination on a massive scale into some political ideology will have its effects upon those who are subjected to it.

  16. I don’t think the debt is bad, because you don’t have to pay it back at any sort of sane rate.

    My son is just about to do Computing at University, living at home, so he doesn’t need a maintenance grant. I was quite tempted to get him to apply for one and invest the money. It’s a handout.

    My wife has 2 24+ learning loans (the same thing for adults) and we reckon she will never pay any of it back.

    • 6% and compound? For a useless qualification? And if she doesn’t pay it back, then we get to pay it back on her behalf. Neat eh? Sod that.

      • But it’s not 6% compounded, because you pay so little of it back. What matters with the debt is what you pay back, not some theoretical amount you owe but can’t be compelled to pay.

        As an extreme but indicative example ; If I offered you a loan of £1,000,000, 20% interest per annum, paid back at a maximum of £10 a year and written off when you die, would you take it ?

        • The issue is not whether you will pay it off completely, but how much the repayments cost you over your working life.
          Losing 9% of your earnings year in, year out, whilst you try to bring up a young family…..not such a good idea really.

          • It’s 9% of year earnings *after the first £21,000*. So if you earn (say) £71,000 that’s £4,500 a year which is 6.3% of your earnings, but you could attack the principal there and at levels above. If you take the average graduate salary (I found one for Barclays which was £39,226) then this 4.1% of your salary or £1,640.34 or £136 / month. Sorry, I can’t see this as a massive hardship on £40k.

          • If you were to earn this for 30 years (discount inflation for simplicity) then you’d pay back a total of £49,200 on loans of three years tuition plus three years maintenance (current figures) totalling £47,712.

          • But is the degree worth £47712 (plus £45k lost earnings) in todays market?

            Unless that degree is required for your future profession, you may be better off getting a foot in the door and hands on training and experience in one of the blue chips who have started hiring post A levels again.

            If you are earning £40K, that £136 a month will be handy when you’re paying London rent or trying to buy a house and baby clothes.

            There is an old saying about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

          • Good question. That’s more an issue of what you are purchasing with your loan rather than the loan details. I would argue in many cases “no” for the sort of reasons you give.

            London is a special case. There is a reasonable case to be made for the fixed exclusion part (the £21k) varying depending on where you live ; it’s much cheaper to live in Newcastle.

          • Sadly, as a graduate it is now much harder to get a job outside of London.
            Few of my daughter’s peer group actually wanted to go to London, but they all ended up there paying circa £900pm to share accommodation (not together).

        • It’s only a couple of clauses in an Act of Parliament when your student loan doesn’t die with you but attaches, limpet-like to your Estate. Our Parliamentarians are such an integrity-free group that it will probably be in the next Queen’s Speech.

          • Debts are part of your Estate, so yes the student loan should be repaid from your Estate and not written off.

          • Just to clarify, as Andy beat me to it, your debts rank in your Estate and have to be met before there is a distribution. I believe, though, that student debt is contractually written off at death. It doesn’t take much legislative effort to change that.

          • Here in the ‘United States of Europe’ students from other states can take out loans in the UK. Then fail to repay them when they return, as UK law does not apply, apparently, to them.

        • £60,000 to £100,000 for a degree? I think being a student is becoming a marker for having limited intelligence

          • Depends how much you have to pay back. If the payback is limited to affordability (which UK student loans are, obviously !) and time limited it doesn’t make much odds what the interest rate is, If you become so wealthy it’s a significant amount you can pay off the principal.

  17. Oh give me a break. I’m sure Laura went to university, used her time profitably, gained a useful qualification that was an asset in her legal career and would probably be upset if her children chose not to follow suit. I went to university in the 1970’s when there was genuine ‘leftism’ in our seats of learning – most professors of economics, along with most of their departments, were Marxists (the real deal, the political and economic type) as were a number of their colleagues in different disciplines. Many of our lecturers and tutors were men who had fought in WW2, seen something of the world and concluded that our political and economic systems were deficient in many ways. One of my tutors, for example, had served in India during the Bengal famine – he never forgot the horrors he saw and it made a socialist of him. These folk brainwashed no-one; in fact, they encouraged us to challenge them and welcomed robust debate.

    This article, like so many on this site, has nuggets of truth but is completely OTT. There are genuine questions to be asked about the expansion of higher education but that began under the Tories in the 1980’s when they expanded the number of places in further education but didn’t follow through with the requisite funding. Yes, it was a mistake to encourage polytechnics to convert to universities; many offered very good ‘sandwich’ degrees which included a year in the workplace and offered excellent training for those wanting to work in specific fields.

    Student debt is horrendous but that generally is not to do with the ‘cost’ of education but with the desire of the government to have a loan-book that can be ‘financialised’ and turned into financial products to be bought and sold thus generating more wealth for those holding the debt. Increasingly, the purpose of debt (any debt) is not to acquire goods or services (i.e. ultimately benefiting the debtor) but to provide the basis of a tradeable financial product to benefit the lender. It’s not our universities bringing about this change nor a Labour government but a Conservative one. If it is felt that graduates should have to contribute towards the cost of their degrees, then it can easily be done through the tax system, there’s no need to burden the students with these debts. Alternatives exist but were never looked at and why is that? Because the loan-book was the desired outcome.

    Yes, the trend towards ‘safe spaces’ in universities and the reluctance to defend speech and ideas which some may find unsettling or downright abhorrent is disturbing and should be confronted. But I suspect it is an overblown problem. I work with a number of young people, recent graduates, and none of them are ‘brainwashed’ or hate their parents. All are a credit to those who brought them up, hard-working, polite, wanting to make a difference in the world. I suspect most of our young people are just like them.

  18. Fantastic article.

    The vast majority of young millennials do not go to university to learn, do not go to university to open their minds, do not go to university in search of a career. They go to university to binge drink, they go to university to smoke drugs, they go to university to have pre-maritial sexual intercourse, they go to university to avoid responsibility, they go to university to scounge off the hard-working taxpayer.

    They have zero intention of finding a job after “graduating” from Mickey Mouse university with a 2:2 in gender studies – they will just go back to their parents, having learned nothing, smelling of drink and drugs.

    Millennials are a stain on society.

    • The issue is not what they are to learn.

      The issue is: what are they learning.

      Behind that, is what their lecturers know of their own ignorance.

      In the old days, a university was a place of humility and nobility.

      • I resigned from the main university & college union some years back.
        All parents & guardians of students might be interested in my reason.
        Its magazine regularly showed photos of reps fraternising with
        HAMAS terrorists.
        The person lecturing your young person could well be the same person who
        in vacations, visits & encourages those who throw their political opponents
        off roof tops & drag their, still living, broken bodies through the streets
        behind motor cycles.
        Such elections, where the victims came second, were described as
        being open & fair by the United Nations observers.

    • “go to university to have pre-maritial sexual intercourse”

      The horror!

      What next – women wearing trousers, or skirts that don’t cover our ankles?

  19. It won’t be over the Christmas dinner, Laura. ‘Winterval’ dinner, if anything.

    By the way, Allan Bloom’s 1987 book, ‘The Closing of the American Mind’ remains one of the best analyses of the decline of academia into Politically Correct vacuity. Of course, the progression towards the total obliteration of our Civilisation at the hands of the latter day barbarians dressed up in academic gowns has got even worse since he wrote.

    And yes, it does refer to the USA but it is just the same over here.

  20. Some sensible young are not going to university. Two I know are doing very well in commerce. No debt and a high salary. They are well ahead of the game and if you have something about you and have perseverance and brains then if you want a business career you will be surprised just how many employers are looking for you.

  21. As a former university lecturer, I have always argued that young people should not be allowed to take up a university place until the age of 21, when they will have acquired some experience of the real world. With this added maturity they will be in a better position to adopt a more critical and balanced view to both their studies and university life.

    • As one who also, for a time, toiled in academe, I would add to your specification.

      I would ban anyone from lecturing who had not acquired some experience of the real world. Similar benefits would flow.

      • T totally agree with your comment. Experience of the real world is vitally important as regards teaching subjects such as law and business studies, as well as a host of other disciplines.

        • Thank you. My preference would be for teachers of all subjects, not just those that have application in the real world, to have some serious life experience outside education before they teach. Why? For two reasons. Because a good teacher – at any level, from nursery to postgrad – does more than teach their discipline; they also help to form character which, some would argue, is an even more important contribution to the formation of an individual than technical knowledge and skills. One might wish to quibble in such cases as brain surgeons, but as a general rule I believe it holds good. Also, what a 22-y-o who has never left education (schools, uni, training college) has to offer is theory-based technical knowledge only. Their students/pupils may be getting training, but not education.

    • It is often said that those who got their degrees after serving in the second world war were the best students ever.

    • Dunno about 21, but at least a year’s experience working to pay the bills and buy the food would be very beneficial.

      Among other things, I had to spend several years helping to finance my younger sister’s Univ before I was finally able to start my own.

    • Odo Saunders wrote:

      ‘ … young people should not be allowed to take up a university place until the age of 21 … ‘

      I wholeheartedly concur. Three years or more of some socially redeeming activity, such as working in a care home for the minimum wage, might teach them some sense of responsibility and some idea of the real value of things, especially a decent education, making them better students. Another potential advantage is that many are likely to have learned some transferable and saleable skills and to have developed a liking for a steady income, such that ‘uni’ no longer holds any appeal. We might then see the re-emergence of an intelligent ‘craftsman’ class.

  22. We tend to see the extremes as in all things but ignore the vast majority that come out and get on with life. The biggest problem we probably have is the shift in the types of courses taken which is where the real problem is and is allowing those courses and their lecturers to dominate the Universities.
    Most students just keep their heads down and avoid the nutters who were probably already predisposed to that way of thinking by their parents.

    • UKCitizen wrote:

      Most students just keep their heads down and avoid the nutters … ‘

      That’s probably the way to get through university unscathed these days, however, after university comes the world of ‘gender’ quotas work, if the jobs the young men have taken so much trouble to qualify for actually exist now. A young man is perhaps better advised to save himself the bother, and a lot of money, and avoid university, choosing instead some manual skills with which to build a business unencumbered by debt and all the b*llsh*t of an oestrogen rotted environment.

      When young men no longer go to university young women will look elsewhere for validation, ladder climbing husbands and the personal adornment/glittery trinkets that academic qualifications too often are.

  23. The economy of the future is a knowledge economy.

    We need more young people going to uni, not fewer.

      • Do you know how many young people actually take Media Studies?

        You sound like you’re been “reading” the Daily Mail.

        • How may do take soft subjects then? As a percentage will do if you don’t have the figures to hand. Please show your working and don’t forget to include Gender Studies etc.

          • ethanedwards2002 wrote:

            Please show your working and don’t forget to include Gender Studies etc.

            a female future is f*cked replied:

            >bugger all deleted because he/she/it wrote bugger all in reply<

            As most if not all here expected.

          • Most economists and the like believe the future job economy is going to be more skill-based instead of manufacturing based, and last I checked universities were still some of the best places to learn the skills needed for the future job market, but what would I know, seeing as to the major readership and staff of this site I would just be another thick leftie whose views are immediately disqualified for any consideration because of my political stance. Also I would like to point out the dissonance in Laura’s point about the ‘free fees’ scheme, which is used in Ireland and which I assume funded both mine and Laura’s higher education.

    • You are under the impression that the majority of the Blair Expansion Universities actually educate or give knowledge to their graduates – all they do is create an ‘entitlement’ ideology.

    • the future is male wrote:

      The economy of the future is a knowledge economy.

      All economies, since the dawn of human history, have been ‘knowledge economies’. You do know the etymology of economy, do you not?

      We need more young people going to uni, not fewer.

      For what purpose? To be properly socially conditioned? To accrue ever greater burdens of enslaving debt?

      What do you mean by ‘we’? I don’t need anyone of any age to go to university. What I need is more young people able and willing to take over the running of a fully functioning society, and those I daily find rarer and rarer (I do not hold them responsible for their antecedents’ failure to hand on a fully functioning society to them, however, I see no appetite amongst our young to build one, nor the ability to do so.)

      • We are building a new society. It may not be to your liking, but to us it is a new Jerusalem – a green and pleasant land of diversity, tolerance, hope and change.

        • the future is male wrote:

          We are building a new society … it is a new Jerusalem – a green and pleasant land of diversity, tolerance, hope and change.

          I laughed a lot at ‘tolerance’: you’ve shown us a lot of tolerance in your many insane comments here. I dimly recall that there used to be a lunatic asylum called Jerusalem, however, I cannot recall where. I could be wrong , I’ll admit to that, but I’m pleased that your post suggest I’m not.

  24. Women are 35% more likely to go to uni than men.

    This is in spite of centuries of misogyny, sexism and discrimination telling girls that motherhood was more important than an education or a career.

    We should be celebrating the achievements of our girls and women, not trying to denigrate the idea of university.

      • In what sense?

        Sexism is power + prejudice. Therefore males cannot be victims of sexism, because they are the privileged group with power.

        • Positive discrimination is still discrimination. But you won’t see that. True believers never do.

        • No, sexism is just shorthand for unfair sexual discrimination. Whether one has power to put one’s sexism into action is another matter.

        • the future is male wrote:

          Sexism is power + prejudice.

          Sexism is a silly word invented to stigmatise and eventually criminalise men’s natural attitudes and behaviour. Power wielded with prejudice results in criminal miscarriages of justice, which is too often the outcome of trials instigated against innocent men by feminist fanatics bent on eradicating the wholly non-existent phenomenon of ‘sexism’.

          Now, after our group wimmin’s studies session we’re all going to form a circle, hold hands and menstruate together while grunting in an ugly way between shouts of ‘get away from me you filthy rapist (and secretly fantasising about being raped by the crew of a warship).’

    • I am glad a higher proportion of girls-women (bit old fashioned what with cisgender now, but let’s agree!) go to Uni, but what kind of Universities are they and indeed Boys-Men going to under the Blair Expansion?
      If half of them closed we would be no worse off in our skills base.

    • Absolutely.
      Its about time women picked up the slack and did some of the heavy lifting. Men need to put their feet up for a while and just relax.
      Being super brainy geniuses and highly productive workaholics is simply knackering, and so us blokes need a break 😉

    • Very likely. One problem though.. University trained women just do not have many children( 40% in Germany zero kids ever) and we are not far behind so we are seeing the last generations in the West. Not that you seem to care. The future is going to be neither male or female. No children no future.

    • Motherhood is more imporant than an education and career.

      Mothers should be influencing the next generation of our country’s leaders.

      • Would you say that fatherhood “is more imporant [sic] than an education and career”?

        If not, why not?

        • Fatherhood has always combined with education and career.

          Men, since time immemorial, have went out and tilled the soil; sat in the senate and discussed policy for family, neighbourhood and nation; and in times to defend the country, laid aside their ploughs and taken up arms.

          If men are to be called in defence of their country then they must debate and decide before they risk their lives.

          • And there we can all see the typical undergraduate response that is called debunking.

            Select two outliers on the graph of war and proclaim they undermine the central thesis since Cain and Abel.


          • a female future is f*cked wittered:

            Women have defended their countries too. Ever heard of Boadicea and Joan of Arc?

            Boudicca is recorded as leading her male subjects, in support of her not uncontested claim to her late father’s tribal territory, in an uprising that failed, if I recall correctly, and Joan of Arc was a deluded young woman who thought she could influence the decisions of powerful men and suffered appropriately.

            What was your point?

            Ever heard of Edith Cavell, Violette Zsabo, Odette Sansom? Those women were not driven by an incontinent lust for lost patrimony or delusions of sacerdotal destiny, both of which cost sympathetic men their lives, but by a commitment to liberty.

        • a female future is f*cked wittered:

          Would you say that fatherhood “is more imporant [sic] than an education and career”?


          If not, why not?

          An education and a career are far more important than fatherhood to a man because we are told that 80% of all the men who have ever lived did not reproduce themselves so fatherhood is less likely for a man than a decent career, and an uneducated or ill educated man who hasn’t a career is of absolutely no use to a woman looking for a husband. A man who wishes to provide for a wife and children must have a career with prospects and an education is essential for that.

          Women can marry success and live happily and comfortably ever after, men cannot, because women rarely allow us to.

          Your next stupid question is?

    • a female future is f*cked wittered:

      Women are 35% more likely to go to uni than men.

      >whining feminist drivel deleted<

      We should be celebrating the achievements of our girls and women, not trying to denigrate the idea of university.

      Why? 60% of ‘our’ medical graduates are girls who think they are women, and 60% of them are choosing not to practice medicine, preferring to market themselves to a higher rung of husbands and live a life of ease. Of the 40% of female medical graduates who are inclined to work, 60% are only inclined to work occasionally. As a result GP’s surgeries are practically deserted, and closed at weekends and after hours, and casualty departments are struggling to get into first gear, if they are not actually grinding to a halt. What is there to celebrate in that?

    • Women are 35% more likely to go to uni than men

      An outright LIE.

      If you look at the European statistics — http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/thumb/8/8b/Number_of_tertiary_education_students_by_level_and_sex%2C_2015_%28thousands%29_YB17.png/800px-Number_of_tertiary_education_students_by_level_and_sex%2C_2015_%28thousands%29_YB17.png — and add the Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral numbers :

      Total 18,133 ; male 8,300.4 (46%) ; female 9,832.6 (54%) — which is very close to the ratio of demographic imbalance between the number of male and female births in the species.

  25. This is possibly the most ill informed and utterly prejudice filled piece Ms Perrins has ever managed. It is devoid of any balance and understanding of the reality of university; many universities don’t have student unions these days-since the nineties at least—because their student majority is right wing and prefer the idea of a ‘guild’; perhaps Ms Perrins is smarting due to a personal experience but this hate filled prejudice towards different opinions is bordering on malignant hysteria.

      • There aren’t any points, it’s just one long diatribe. Ironic, since the upper middle classes Ms Perrins hails from still dominate Russell Group unis; I think the problem for Ms Perrins is that universities make people think. If she wants to make a valid point then really she should convince students that Hayek is God of all things but anyone who thinks will realise ideologues of all hues like him are myopic, as are their disciples.

    • My experience, and that of the majority of Christian Unions, is that she is completely right. And she hasn’t pointed out the utter waste of time and money that most first years of degree courses consist of – in those few brief moments when they are actually getting ‘teaching’ time.

  26. The increase in people going to university has created a fourth point, most journalists now go to uni and thus are all in the scam. That’s why most journalists are left wing, they have been indoctrinated and that’s why their views are easily argued against.

  27. I inoculated my kids against leftyism by being there. I was a stay at home parent and they were brought up by hand. Hands on, being handy, on hand. You have to be there when they ask the questions. I explained it all, the seventies, the Laffer curve, tax rates, the lot. They know I revere Nelson and they will understand the very real suffering that I feel today. Being conservative and knowing that they had to shut up, they went off to university as observers of the sociopolitical psychopathology. They have friends of all political outlooks. I encourage them to gently try and convert a few.

  28. I have sympathy for this view, but in the end, the world is out there, and you have to engage with it, even if it is completely “up the left”.
    At some point your children are going to meet these left-wing views anyway, if they haven’t already. Anyone who watches TV on a regular basis is probably well versed in leftism anyway, University only gives a more beefed up version. But TV creates the general “atmosphere” and is successful in getting left-wing views in under the radar, without any critical thought, so to speak. TV and its general values is just imbibed from a youngish age.
    I think you have to be prepared to let your children go and make those experiences at uni, and to make their own path. Having lots of critical discussions at home (and allowing them to express left-wing views and respecting their opinions) helps to build up critical thought at a young age.

  29. When Tony Blair created a system that aimed to have 50 per cent of school leavers attending university, he did so for three morally bankrupt reasons.

    First, he wanted to keep the employment figures low, secondly he wanted to expand his client base and bind students and academics to New Labour, and third he wanted the next generation to be steeped in left wing ideology.

    You credit Blair with too much, of everything.

  30. What a bunch of close minded drivel. I expected something more useful and fact-based, not just anti-left ramblings from someone with a very obvious bias who probably wouldn’t benefit from a university education if it smacked her upside the head.

    • Also spracht Linker Tom …

      There is actually a resistance movement within Academia against the rampant cultural-Marxist Leftification that has caused so much damage to the genuine education values of the West, but it will likely be decades before it will successfully trickle back out into the mainstream.

      • Honestly in my experience of university, I didn’t felt much influence of the ‘left’. Much of the leftist culture I saw in my university came from the student body themselves and not from the institution itself. I suspect most of my lecturers were lefties, but their beliefs never entered the lecture hall. And I like to think that most university students are at the point where they can form their own beliefs and opinions and not just blindly follow the masses.

    • `someone with a very obvious bias’

      Er yes, but this is Conservative Woman. To me, that looks like a clue.

      • Firstly, I already have a job at a large tech firm with all the dreaded ‘gender quotas’ and ‘political correctness’ and it’s the best place I’ve ever worked.

        Secondly, just because someone is conservative doesn’t mean they have to be aggressively anti-left, politics is a discussion not a fight.

        Finally, ‘upside the head’ is a very common idiom that has been used for lord knows how long.

        • last..I’ve never heard it either..is it an Irish thing?

          Middle, you might like to explain that to the next left lot who riot outside a Milo talk…..

          only time i have worked in a large company was as a contractor and the sea of company politics parted before me because they didnt want to waste any money on me to deal with it.
          I knew that they probably weren’t really paying me enough was when my last contracts had me involved with this sort of b****t.

          • It might be an American thing that spilled over.

            Also true, there are extremes on both sides and I don’t agree with either, I’m a leftie, and I would protest a certain issue if I was against it, but rioting is a step too far in my book.

            Honestly I do think gender quotas aren’t the best solution to the problem. Hiring different people just to fill a quota isn’t good for anyone except the person being hired, a business should hire the best person for position regardless of their race, sex, orientation, etc.

          • ‘Failing up’ is my favourite american saying.
            Two words , so much meaning…

            As for the left -rihjt thing , i’m definitly right as , essentially, the left ignore the one set of laws that even large criminal organisations have to adhere to.
            The laws of economics.

            You seem to be unusual in your conduct as by now it has usually got very personal and very nasty…’knuckle dragging arms dealer’ is my favourite speculation on my character.
            I think it was Boris who said that people on the right see people on the left as nice enough but a bit misguided.
            People on the left see people on the right as the Antichrist….

            I’m pleased to come across an exception…

  31. Most economists and the like believe the future job economy is going to be more skill-based instead of manufacturing based, and last I checked universities were still some of the best places to learn the skills needed for the future job market, but what would I know, seeing as to the major readership and staff of this site I would just be another thick leftie whose views are immediately disqualified for any consideration because of my political stance. Also I would like to point out Laura’s point about the ‘free fees’ scheme, which is used in Ireland and which I assume funded both mine and Laura’s higher education. Sometimes the people who would benefit most from a university education can’t afford to because of the massive debt they would incur. If Ireland operated on the same scheme as England, I would not have been able to attend university, which would’ve made getting into the industry I’m aiming for much more difficult for me.

    • Since you find the site and the majority of its users so objectionable, perhaps you should confine your online activities to what’s laughably called The “Independent” or that other beacon of tolerance and free speech, The Guardian.

      • Actually, I like reading news and comments from people with differing opinions to mine as I find it gives me an interesting perspective on these issues and helps me learn more about them.

    • `I would just be another thick leftie whose views are immediately disqualified for any consideration because of my political stance.’

      Quite elegantly put and happily very true. Self-realisation and awareness are useful steps forward.

      • And that my friend, just proves the point I made which you just specifically quoted, how the readerbase of this site seems so close minded as to not even try and consider a viewpoint that isn’t there own, on the basis that they must be wrong because of their political leanings, because if you’re ‘wrong’ about one thing, you’re ‘wrong’ about everything.

    • “Most economists and the like believe the future job economy is going to
      be more skill-based instead of manufacturing based, and last I checked
      universities were still some of the best places to learn the skills
      needed for the future job market”

      Citing ‘most economists’ as your authority is just about as weak as you can get. Maybe your memory doesn’t stretch back to last year, but the IMF and all of the international experts were telling us that Britain’s economy would tank because of Brexit.

      The term ‘skill-based’ is meaningless ed-speak. Picking your nose discretely is a skill of sorts. In any case, only a small percentage of uni courses teach any kind of skill that has even a remote application in the workplace; your degree only means that you are docile enough to play the game. Of course if you get into Oxbridge or perhaps a Russell Group uni, this can help because employer will reckon that you’ve networked with the ‘right’ sort of person–the kind who will go far in the civil service.

      Sadly, the days when a university education helped you understand the ideas that have created our civilisation and culture are long gone.

    • Until Tony ‘right hand of God’ Blair got in we had the same system as you.

      However ALL the thick lefties are unaware that the system in the UK was a Labour ‘innovation’.

      Perhaps you are a bit too clever by ‘alf to be a ‘real’ leftie…

  32. When I went to university, studying sciences including biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, microbiology etc I wasn’t particularly political and certainly my tutors, lecturerers and professors did not seek to discuss politics just science. In fact I only became more political thanks to the lunatic behaviour of the students union ruling committee and their outrageous and very left wing behaviour. We sacked the entire committee once because they invited an active IRA killer to speak at the university. A far more moderate bunch took their place. I suppose university made me a conservative right of centre person and not a left winger. I expect it is much different in the subjects where opinions count more than factual data.

    • Same here to some extent. Being in college, surrounded by a lot of hard-left people (mid-80s) pushed me towards the free market, classical liberal views I have. I am also not a “joiner” – I had no interest in the antics of student politics and regarded most of those involved in it with scorn. I preferred having fun, watching sports, etc.

      • I went to Essex which was pretty mad left at times, but it didn’t leak through into the courses. It was also exaggerated ; the SU ordered 4 coaches to Greenham Common ; three of them went back empty and the other was about 1/3 full.

        It was a joke really. It was the time of the Miners strike and Wivenhoe was used to bring in Coal so they went to picket alongside the real pickets who wanted nothing to do with them

  33. My son who claims to be the sole Conservative on the very large staff of an extremely well known university not a million miles from Devon, says that he is now hearing growing complaints at meetings attended by students about leftist bias and intimidation. This is new he says and he is encouraged.

    • The University based in the City in the approximate centre of the County of Devon has a history of antagonism towards its own Christian Union, banning them, and so forth, when the CU dared to espouse Christian teaching as found in the Bible.

      The University in the bottom left-hand corner of Devon is a poly, and not worth going to (I went there). It is just as bad though. A Social Work Practice Teacher told an entire year group, in public, that any men sent to ‘learn’ with her needed to watch out for their future. Needless to say, despite most of the staff being present nothing whatsoever was done about such an appalling statement.

    • If you mean Exeter then I agree completely. It is ruining a fair city by just being there. Far too big with barrack like blocks disfiguring the city and distorting it’s economy. It also seems overtly proud of voting in BDS against Israel by a large majority of sweet little middle class boys and girls from the home counties
      I would close it down and Devon would improve overnight. .

      • Dave S wrote

        It also seems overtly proud of voting in BDS against Israel by a large majority … ‘

        They may perhaps have been mindful of the 800 British servicemen murdered in Palestine by Jewish terrorists, led by treacherous thugs who later came to wield considerable influence over successive British governments, and do so still.

  34. We settled on this long ago, at least for our older boy. 1) STEM education 2) in good Moscow University. The nice side-effect of this would be finding a gorgeous socially conservative wife.

      • I might as well do that, you know, given the amount of Somali and Nigerians that English now so willingly import to replace themselves. Wouldn’t be the same country by then.

        • I’m sure that you’ll make outstanding contributions to Muscovite society – particularly in the field of social policy.

        • Sargv wrote:

          I might as well do that, you know, given the amount of Somali and Nigerians that English now so willingly import to replace themselves.

          How long have you been here? You think yourself such a clever fellow yet you still haven’t learnt that the English have no political power because, unlike the Scotch, the Welsh and those unruly ruffians in Northern Ireland, we are still governed entirely by the British.

          Could we vote on our affairs as the peoples of the little nations of the ‘union’ do, there would undoubtedly be many serious changes.

  35. My eldest daughter delightfully decided not to go to university. I can but pray that my younger one will decide not to either.

Comments are closed.