Social mobility, not social welfare

Scenes of students blockading entire streets, while police drag their fellow protesters away, show the real emotion that taking away what seemed to be a free lunch brings out in those students who are terribly hungry for their tertiary education.

The problem is that the lunch isn't free. Someone has to pay and, right now, it's the Government footing the bill to a great extent. The Government currently pays for about two-thirds of the university fees that students pay; it provides a number of students with allowances, and make interest-free loans for students, across the board. All that, as well as providing a generous scholarship scheme to reward the best and brightest.

As I plan for university next year, the financial constraints are visible, but relatively minor given the gargantuan assistance the state will give me through those various avenues of funding as well as the fact that I'm relatively confident that, after completing university, I will have utilised that education to the point where I will be in a position to earn an income sufficient to pay off any debt I incur.

The financial ramifications of tertiary education are certainly more significant depending on your family's socio-economic position, but we must demand that when we provide such great assistance, students leave with something tangible to show for it.

The largesse of our tertiary education system would be fine, one would think, if we lived in the days that my teachers often speak of, where university was reserved for those students who proved that they were of the calibre to deserve to be there. But, to be honest, it seems that today any old Joe who wants to go to university can do so.

Passing most of your grades at achieved level with a few merits thrown in here and there seems to be the target for a worryingly large number of students of the NCEA system.

That's not to say it's not good that the majority of students have the opportunity to further themselves through tertiary education. But the burden on the Government cannot be to cover the downside risk almost entirely for these students.

And it's not so much that the Government is covering it; it's that every person in the work force covers it.

I have a number of friends who have realised that school and university are no longer of great benefit to them and they've done the prudent thing on their part and moved into employment. It seems intuitively wrong that they should be paying taxes on their earnings as a result of that realism, which are funding a vast number of students who have chosen to continue to sit on the Government's educational merry-go-round for many years after leaving school.

It's because of that reality that I feel it's entirely reasonable for the Government to announce the slight tweaks to this funding that they did in this year's Budget.

The two changes that appear to have been the catalysts for students "Blockade the Budget' protests are increasing the loan (which is still interest-free) repayment rate from 10 to 12 per cent of income over the threshold of $367 per week, and removing student allowances after the first four years of study.

The only students who will be discouraged are those who suspect they may not finish the degree or that the degree will be futile in earning them money. In those circumstances, I am glad we are pushing them off the educational merry-go-round.

The changes announced in Budget 2012 will improve the role tertiary education plays in society. As a future student, I look forward to embracing it, rather than blockading it. Our education system must exist as a platform for social mobility, not social welfare.

James Penn is deputy head boy at Wanganui High School and was a member of the New Zealand team that competed in the World School Debating Championships.