Read on Twitter
There are different motives for the government's change to university funding, but there's one that seems underdiscussed –
Increasing the cost of humanities degrees does not devalue them, just as law, economics, and medicine are not devalued by their expense, quite the opposite.
The logic goes:
decrease total enrolments in the humanities
=>
increases ATAR cutoff
increases the average SES of enrolees
=> increases the prestige of humanities degrees
decrease total enrolments in the humanities
=>
increases ATAR cutoff
increases the average SES of enrolees
=> increases the prestige of humanities degrees
With decreased enrolments, courses are consolidated.
The hope is 'fringe' disciplines like culture and gender studies will shrink more than 'core' disciplines (think Western Civ)
=> shifting the aggregate political alignment of humanities to the right
The hope is 'fringe' disciplines like culture and gender studies will shrink more than 'core' disciplines (think Western Civ)
=> shifting the aggregate political alignment of humanities to the right
(Here's a quote from Simon Haines, CEO of the Ramsay Centre, '[the centre] now finds itself as the only significant source of growth in the sector, possibly for years to come.')
The purpose is to recreate a 19th-century mode where some toff gets a degree in classics from Oxbridge and is then appointed to administer India.
At the same time, 'encouraging' STEM with lower fees reinforces them as (lower) middle class professions, while arts degrees return to their proper place as markers of the ruling class.
