Sara Malm and the need to say why

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" has never been more relevant for a Miss Sara Malm. Her opinion piece on the Indy has been ruthlessly torn to shreds by an angry readership, who see her view on teacher strikes as "ignorant", "nasty" and "delusional" among other adjectives. 

First of all, a note to some readers. I quoted Voltaire in the intro to this post, because it sums up the hate-storm that Malm has weathered in the past few days. It is fair to disagree with her opinions but plainly insulting her, labelling as a "twit", "idiot" and "imbecile" is stupid. Some argue that Malm needs to understand her history, to understand that workers unions are a product of an effective democracy but guess what else is? Pluralism. 

A diversity of views informs debate and strengthens democracy, by saying "this is how I feel, but others disagree and this is why". By all means, it is your right to disagree with Malm. I disagree too, for reasons that will likely be a follow-up to this post in the next few days. But for some readers to ignore the issues in favour of hateful responses, even going so far as to find her blog and trash it, is not how democracy should be. People fought in blood and sweat for the right to strike, to exercise their power to give us a clean, safe environment in which to work. However it was our ancestors who fought for the freedom of speech. It was those people who gave Malm the opportunity to speak, and for the readers to insult the course she studies, as well as the people on that course (which, by the way, would include me).

I will finish this by saying that not all of the commentators on Malm's piece are the subject of this post. Some offered factual, insightful opinion, grounded in logic that act as an effective counter to Malm's views. Some people even agreed with her, commending her opinion and the way in which she articulated it. But their voices have been drowned out by those who rush in to call her "the new Samantha Brick" and then leave again without saying why. Just say why and then we can take it from there.

The death of the party-hard student

Richard Garner, the Independent's education editor, wrote a piece today where he looks at the change of attitude in university students. As he puts it:

"It used to be about daytime TV, being carried home from bad nightclubs, and halls of residence awash with half-eaten pot noodles and stolen traffic cones, but for the new breed of university student weighed down with the pressures of inflated tuition fees, it's all about business."

The business in question is employment. There is a trend emerging, as students are going to university whilst working full-time jobs. It is a lifestyle that I feel I can talk about, because I am one of these students.

I study journalism at the University of Kent, five days a week, amounting to 18 hours of face-to-face learning. Plus to that, the expected two hours a night in research and reading, my degree is a 30 hour a week course. At the same time, I work as a training duty manager at a local leisure centre. I have set shifts on Saturdays and Sundays, as well as one or two week nights, totalling about 25 - 30 hours in a week, short of the 40 hour mark that is the benchmark for a full-time job.

So why so much work? I am going to be approximately £15,000 in debt by the end of my third year. It is a debt that I do not regret, but my aim is to have enough money that I can strike quite a chunk of that amount off. But that is not the only reason. 

I live 40 minutes away from my university and I have to catch two buses every morning. This is reasonable. But I also have a full driving license. That is the frustrating thing. Ridiculously expensive insurance premiums, averaging about £4,000 a quote, have stopped me from buying a car. A car is not a vanity issue for me; it is not because I am a "GRR PUBLIC TRANSPORT" type. It is just inconvenient when I leave up to an hour before my first lecture and still cannot get there, because a bus is either cancelled or simply does not turn up. And when you are paying £3,000 to be somewhere, you would like to be there. A car is also a valuable thing for a journalist; if your editor tells you to talk to a source within the next hour, and they are not answering their phone/e-mail/messenger pigeon, it is a good tool to have.

Another reason why I choose to work so much is to have money in my pocket. The stereotype is students live off their taxpayer-funded maintenance grants, spending it on what the Indy's Garner described as "bad nightclubs and pot noodles." To be honest, some do. But some do not. Some just get scraps to start with. My own grant is £15 every three months.

Maintenance grants are decided by household income and living at home means mine was dramatically reduced. With an income of about £45,000, I am seen by the government to be in a high-earning household. But this requirement does not take into account outgoings. Simply put, I am poor enough to benefit from government support, through their exclusive grants and bursaries, but too rich to get any of that support from them. That’s a contradiction if I’ve ever seen one.

I admit the tone of this piece is probably making me sound like a whiny, undeserving crybaby with a case of sour grapes. I understand that I am a much better position, financially and socially, than a lot of other people, who really do struggle to make ends meet and fear their next payment of rent or fees. But it is an insight into the various factors and flaws in student finance, from my own personal experience. Take for example, someone I personally know of, who receives a much larger maintanance grant, thousands of pounds worth, by claiming that they live with their unemployed mother. Except their mother lives in another country. And they attend university in the UK. See, flaws.