What the fuck am I doing here?

After two and a bit years of university I am thoroughly disappointed. Is it my mistake? What did I expect? What have I done? Three years of my life will have been spent largely unchallenged in a fruitless concentric of circle that leads nowhere. This a world where university has become a right rather than a privilege; a world where no-one dares to say "this is enough for you, you have reached the point at which you should progress no further". A degree is a necessity rather than a mark of excellence.

I have been herded through primary and secondary schools, through college and now university and am still waiting for the point at which I reach a genuine barrier, a point where a cut-off is made. I don't care which side of the line I am on, but I demand classification, I demand to know whether, damn it, I am actually one of the "cans" or the "cannots". Everyone passes GCSE's, 90% of people pass A-levels, pretty much anyone can get into a university, and most of these people will get some sort of degree. So here I stand, at the end of a great journey, but everyone is still equal. What is the fucking point?

Education in its formative stages serves to forge the basics: reading, writing and arithmetic. A grounding in language, expression and general awareness of the world around us. It teaches us, in short, how to function as people. Higher education, though, should serve to siphon off those who truly excel. University should be a government-funded process that clearly identifies who these people are and teach them and funnel them into the jobs where they are needed. If its government-funded, then financial progeny need not matter. It should cut through the flim-flam of "equal opportunities" and actually serve a purpose. What is Kent University? Its Falarachi without the sun, it is Butlins with lecturers instead of red-coats. University should not be a three-year game of pass-the-parcel, wherein everyone goes home with a mini Toblerone for turning up, it should cut, trim and mould the young of the country into what they should be. By accepting some and by denying others, it gains purpose. What use is a degree? I'm absolutely convinced that my base level of intelligence is identical to that I had upon completing A-Levels. The only thing that as changed is the volume and scope of my reading and, if you care enough in the first place, then you'll do it anyway because you want to.

Let us imagine a world, a world where students are told "you are not good enough to proceed". What is actually wrong with this? Surely, by 17 we are past the stage where any injustice can enter into the equation. No-one is being killed, or saying that you aren't a beautiful, special and unique individual, it is just being said that your term of education is ended; that your potential in this area has been reached. No-one is unfairly condemning you to a job in McDonalds. In a world where few people have degrees, then everyone competing in the job market (the same people who would all be comparing 2-1s to 2-2s in this world) is equal, and will be have to be judged solely upon their suitability for the job.

This world that I am imagining would be better. People wouldn't waste money (their own or their parent's) on funding a three-year jolly that postpones adulthood and, whilst not necessarily retrogressive, is certainly not progressive. Picture this world, for a moment more. Where government scholastic systems actually serve a purpose instead of tip-toeing around afraid of offending anyone. If you don't go to university in this world, then the government run home courses for anyone who is interested; these courses do not offer qualifications, they exist for people who want to learn. These people (the majority) can do with the pleasure and the information as they wish; it will help them find a job, but it is them and no-one else that takes responsibility. Surely this is what being an adult is, and surely "becoming an adult" is the prime purpose of education.

Let us imagine some closer detail of how this educatory system would work

* Scholastic programmes at primary and secondary levels are toughened. Everyone should reach the point at which they are flummoxed and beaten. The best in the class shouldn't get full marks, but 80%, with all other marks spread evenly below.

* There should be no 'setting' in schools. Separatism is never good, as it encourages laziness in the curriculum. God forbid that a programme of learning can be intuitive within itself without saying "this shall be taught to you and this to you". If a thing is to be taught then it is taught to all.

* At A-levels and GCSE, there should be no easy papers for less gifted students. Again, this is laziness. It is more difficult to construct a test that caters to all levels, but this is because it is a better test, not because it is not worth doing.

* Education is compulsory up to A-level standard. And the marking system more open, a greater array of marks should be introduced because it actually tells you more about the person's abilities. This child gets an 'A', that a 'B' and this a 'C', and all else are simply 'F'. Nonsense, identification between those who all received 'F's is crucial.

*Based upon interviews and marks, 10% of students are selected for university. The government pays for these institutions, so the best students will get in, irrespective of background.

I may not have made it to university under these conditions; but so what? most people didn't, and I can go out into the world knowing that my abilities have been fairly represented by the marks I receive, something that doesn't happen at the moment for various reasons. With the government's absolute arse of a top-up fees policy, it means that people who deserve to be at university are not, and all those who can afford it are. So the government is trimming down university numbers, but only of those who cannot afford it. Picture a diarrhetic shit-pool festering in the noon-day sun; imagine tripping and falling mouth-open into this and swallowing; imagine the utter abjection of this waste fluid gliding down your gullet and chunks of shit sticking between your teeth. This is how that policy should make you feel.

Anyway, returning to the core concern, there are problems. Fewer students mean fewer universities mean fewer lecturers needed. A cull of lecturers will occur, it might seem cruel, but this change in educatory process must be from top to bottom. The best lecturers will teach the best students, the worst will not. Other problems spring up instantly: What of the minor universities? What will happen to all the profits, all the millions upon millions that are milked from families whose offspring are taught indifferently and are indifferent themselves. This, in fact is the major stumbling block. Higher education is big, big business. What of this? I'm afraid you're back guzzling shit again, its disgusting, wasteful and pointless. If you asked people why they came to university then the base answer is probably "to help get a job"; some might initially say "to have fun" but if it didn't help get a job, then it wouldn't be worth the money. I wonder how many people would actually say they came for the love of learning? Because surely this is the actual purpose of higher education. My point is that, with this system you get hundreds of thousands of people attending university and who don't really care about being there, but see it as a further necessary stage in their education- when in fact university offers minimal benefits to all those who don't really want to learn.

But, of course, we have a whole slew of mid-level universities that positively clean up in this market (Kent probably hovers just below the borderline). Universities that sell themselves as sport's clubs, as a haven for those seeking night-life, as hotels. Again, what is the point?

Is this all the dream of a fevered brain? A skewed vision of unreality? The truth is that I am unhappy. I am unhappy with almost everything about my university experience. I like absorbing knowledge, I love the business, the industry and the struggle, but I loathe everything else. I loathe David Budd (the erstwhile SABB president). I loathe Chris "Besty" Best leering at me from the union website offering me help and advice (and a synthetic, heated football pitch, should one be necessary). Fuck off. Leave me the fuck alone and let me be about my goddamn business which, I may say, is learning and NOT going on the rugby 'D' team pub-crawl or paying £50 to watch Tyler "who the fuck is Tyler James" James play the prom.

Moreover, it is most certainly not my business to support your sabbatical year. I don't care that you have a 'living allowance' not 'a wage', I just care that my money buys your beer and serves only to fluff up your CV. This is where the money is going and its not pretty. As entrance to university is easier, and the demands lowered accordingly, so university begins to foster unhealthy and antisocial behaviour. Binge-drinking, unprotected sex, monetary profligacy, debt and anti-intellectualism are all part of a standard uni diet, and I hate it. I hate the insidious idea that children need this time to adjust to the world, the idea of university as an hermetically sealed world where we can all learn the ropes because it is simply inaccurate. The union is the epitome of this misconception. Armies of people selfishly fixated on running for 'office'. Atavistic, gross specimens that have no right to indulgence at my expense.

Ultimately there comes a point when I look at my government and say "well, how did I do, what am I to be?" For good or ill, I deserve an answer.

By J.L. Cranfield

Copyright October 2005