[andrewb]

I went to state schools and believe I have the capacity to achieve at University. As for the article I disagree completely that we should have a 50% 'target' of students going into higher education. It benefits nobody if we have people at university based on a target and not on their actual capacity to achieve. Not enough focus is being made on the alternatives. We still need builders, electricians, plumbers and many other skills which do not require a typical university degree. It would be a waste of a persons talents if they were placed into university when they would be better suited elsewhere.

The target proposes other problems with funding. Before Labour came to power university education was free. Now it costs around £3,200 (a year, typical degree lasting 3 years) and growing year on year. We get student loans to deal with this and then pay it back at a progressive rate based upon income when we leave; those who earn more pay back faster.

Currently our National Union of Students are trying to pressure the government into a new funding scheme where graduates are faced with a graduate tax based on earnings. This would mean those who earn the most, pay for those who go to university, drop out, or simply graduate with low grades and end up in low paid jobs. A punishment for achieving. This will no doubt mean that even more unsuitable people will attend university as there is no responsibility for the student at all. It's risk free, if you fail, you pay nothing, while those who succeed pay for you. No students have of course been asked if we agree with the NUS on this.

The problem is that some people seem to think that it's not 'fair' if everybody doesn't get to go to university, or it's not 'fair' if people fail at things.

At sports day when I was at school we were always told "it's not about winning, it's the taking part that counts" this philosophy was ingrained in various forms within the education system. I would not imagine grammar and private schools would have the same attitude.