Leicester University students' 'hanging' protest to highlight debt plight
Students have staged an eye-catching protest to highlight what they see as the crippling debt they face.
University of Leicester students dangled mannequins from washing lines across the city's Victoria Park to show how students were being "hung out to dry" by high tuition fees.
Photographs of the university's students holding up signs showing how much they were in debt were also attached to washing lines.
The students started assembling the protest at 4.30am yesterday so they would be ready in time to catch people's eyes walking to work through the park.
Owen Jones, 23, the student's union's campaign officer at the university, said people were shocked when they were told the scale of student debt.
He said: "With the average graduate already coming out of university with a debt of £20,000. the only outcome of this initiative will be a reversal back to the olden days.
"The days when the only sorts of students who attended were those who went to private schools and came from well-off backgrounds.
"The blame ultimately lies with the Government for turning its back on the students of this country."
Owen, who said his debt was "only £12,000" because he started university before top-up fees were introduced, said they were protesting against the Confederation of British Industry's suggestion that fees should rise further.
At the moment, universities can charge up to £3,225 a year for an undergraduate course, although they are obliged to offer some bursaries.
Both the Labour and Conservative parties have suggested the £3,225 cap could be lifted, with some top universities pressing for a doubling of fees to £7,000.
Students are required to begin paying back the loan once they start earning a salary of more than £15,000.
Owen said: "We've had a positive response from members of the public walking by, who know there is an argument about student debt but don't quite realise how high it is."
Stuart Cheaseley, 21, a final-year mathematics student, is already more than £26,000 in the red.
He said: "The amounts involved are now pretty staggering.
"The job situation means that A-levels are no longer enough.
"We need to go to university, there's still no guarantee of a job, and yet we end up being saddled with debt for the next 20 years or more."
Marie Grander, 36, of Clarendon Park, Leicester, was one of those who walked past the protest.
She said: "I feel sorry for them. We've obviously got to pay for universities somehow, but forcing them to run up so much debt is just going to persuade kids from poor families not to go."
19 Comments
View all
by Rob Watson, Leicester
Tuesday, October 27 2009, 3:59PM
“Who cares about students? send them all to universities away from leicester. If it dont make dollars it dont make sense.”
by steve, anstey
Tuesday, October 27 2009, 3:20PM
“Spot on Nick. I agree entirely.”
by Nick Di Perna, West End
Tuesday, October 27 2009, 1:22PM
“The popular view that everyone needs the chance to leave home and live the 'student experience' is symptomatic of this country's myopic view of higher education. Around the world, it is in fact the norm to study at your home university. And living with parents is just one way students can save money.
The impact of student colonies breaks up community cohesion for one thing and leads to increases in anti-social behaviour. What's the point in getting a degree anyway, if courses are being dumbed-down to suit and few threshers actually actual gain graduate type jobs if they manage to qualify.
Society doesn't need greater access to university ¿ this is just a vain utopian pipe-dream. Children need a better deal at secondary school level, with schools that prepare them adequately for the real world of real work. And for this to happen, we must first stop treating skilled manual workers as second-rate citizens.”
by annabel, Narb
Tuesday, October 27 2009, 12:21PM
“What about missed lectures. Do Students get a refund? Is it right to tell students they will put lecture on-line. After all they have paid to be taught or rather lectured by a professional”
by John, Glenfield
Tuesday, October 27 2009, 12:09PM
“I know what you mean Jacky and there's an answer here too. Who gets the benefit from the (still heavily subsidised) university education? The student AND the employer.
Spot the people who DON'T contribute anywhere near their fair share in this lot - student, parents, taxpayers and employers? Doesn't take a genius to work that one out does it?
If employers are demanding nonsensical degrees for jobs that didn't require them then I suggest they should pay a LOT more towards the costs.”
by Cathy, Leicester
Tuesday, October 27 2009, 11:57AM
“I totally agree with Uni fees. When I left school 10+ years ago, most of my friends went to Uni because they 'could'. Now they are working in shops or banks with a wasted degree, but they don't care because they had a blast while at Uni and didn't have to pay a penny for it!
Making people pay for a course sorts the time-wasters from the serious applicants. They will be in debt afterwards but considering the potential job they may get with their degree, its got to be worth it??
Besides, they complain about money yet they have enough to p*** up the wall each weekend (of course I'm not aiming this at all students but you can guarentee that the party-ers are moaning just as loud)”
by Lee, Leicester
Tuesday, October 27 2009, 11:51AM
“I agree that too many people are going to university these days, but who decides what a 'noddy' degree is? I did a degree in sport - quite often classed as many as a 'noddy' degree. But i needed my degree to get my job which helps people into exercise with the national growing obeasity problem. MOSTdegrees do have some relavance to general society.”
by Matt, Leicester
Tuesday, October 27 2009, 11:50AM
“John - You are probably right about the reason why we can't fund students anymore, but I was referring specifically to the point the article was trying to make. They are talking about the effect and you are talking about the cause - two different things.
I also realise that yes, we have finite resources but that doesn't change the fact that if this continues then higher education will be for the rich only (in the main) and that to me is plain wrong.
Does that mean that I think 50% of the population should be at uni, no, not if there are more appropriate career paths, perhaps in the trades as has been mentioned.
I also don't think that this is purely a story about students moaning about their own debts, as suggested by Kulgan. Do you not think that the motives behind the protests are perhaps aimed at helping students in the future, a case of people not wanting other to have to deal with the levels of debt they themselves have been saddled with?”
by karin, Oadby
Tuesday, October 27 2009, 11:28AM
“I agree with John, Glenfield. The key is to do a 'useful' degree, not something which is simply delaying having to go to work. No-one should have an inalienable right to go to University. Why not learn a useful trade instead? I feel a degree of pity for the students but it is the system that needs looking at.”
by Jo, Leicester
Tuesday, October 27 2009, 11:27AM
“Its needs the politicians to be brave and totally re-think education.
My view is that (ideally) everyone should get GCSE Maths and English so that they can cope in the real world.
Those that are not 'academic' should be allowed to follow a more vocational course while at school (along side Maths, English) - we need plumbers, electricians, hairdressers etc. - why make them do 'academic' courses at school and then need 'correctional' corses after school to get a job ?
More 'academically' orientted students would do GCSE's and A levels as now.
About 20%(?) of students would go to University and do approved subjects (of use to the greater population) for FREE. People wanting to do a Noddy degrees could, but for a price.
OK - this plan needs some work, but I'm sure it could be made to work better than the present system.”