Today, the National Union of Students (NUS) published a ‘Blueprint for an alternative higher education funding system’, which it argues “puts an end to the idea that top-up fees are the only way of funding higher education”.

However, and more importantly, it reveals that the only national organisation representing students has bought the government argument that the benefit of higher education lies in the ability of graduates to earn more.

The evidence for this is to be found in the foreword from Wes Streeting (President) and Aaron Porter (Vice President), where they state that, under their proposed model, “those who benefit the most from university by earning more will contribute more”.

Whilst being opposed to higher education fees, I am under no illusion that the tired arguments the NUS has been making in recent years were counter productive. They made the student movement appear unprofessional, dogmatic and unimaginative. I accept (and argued with colleagues over a number of years) that a new position had to be developed, but that is no reason to buy wholesale into an instrumentalist conception of higher education, especially one that places money above all other motivations.

This is by no means to suggest that the ability to earn more is not a reason to enter higher education, but rather to argue that to say that those who benefit the most from attending university do so in terms of higher wages is to ignore the myriad advantages that continuing one’s education can provide.

Perhaps the leadership (both officers and staff) of NUS have been working so hard – and to great positive effect – to professionalise and mature the organisation, that they do not realise they have placed realpolitik before values and beliefs. Then again, maybe it was a strategic decision. Either way, the ‘blueprint’ is another nail in the coffin of the belief that education is beneficial to the individual and society in terms of forging communities, human advancement, technological development and more.

Now, I don’t believe that the NUS considers the graduate’s ability to earn more to be the only benefit of higher education, but then I have been involved with the organisation and the student movement for a number of years. The uninitated, however, could well be forgiven for drawing such an erroneous conclusion from the above quote. And when they do, as I believe they will, the conception of higher education as of benefit only to the individual will take a greater hold on the minds of the public.

The subject of my undergraduate degree, and of the postgraduate degree I am currently studying for, is philosophy. Although I believe that the analytic skills I developed and learned at university have indeed helped me to earn more than I otherwise would have (assuming I wouldn’t have entered a trade or worked my way up through a financial institution), by no means do I consider this to be the main benefit of my studies. The ability to consider the world critically, to form a cogent and compelling argument, to revel in a piece of original and groundbreaking writing, to simply know things about the world;  I value these things far above my (third sector) salary.

I could enter into an analysis of the ‘blueprint’, but that would be to detract from my central point. That is, it doesn’t matter what the details of the funding model are, because it is based on a false premise that places to one side the fact that ignorant societies are more violent, divided, bigoted and reactionary, in favour of  the pursuit of political ’success’.

Tony Blair’s third way stated that there doesn’t need to be a dichotomy between the state and the private sector, and that the nature of the means is unimportant as long as the end is reached. As I watch NUS saunter down that path, I fear for the future not only of higher education, but of our educated society.