Comment

THE MIXED reaction to the proposal for a diploma of higher education appears to be based not on the qualities or defects of the curriculum for the diploma—for no‐one yet really knows what it is going to be—but on attitudes which relate not to educational problems, but to social or political assumptions. The great British public has never wanted to spend more than it must on education. Expenditure on universities was never questioned when it was a fraction of the budget: since it has been a significant figure, the government of the day, whatever its complexion, has sought to economise. The polytechnics were supposed to be cheaper than universities; four term years cheaper than three term years. Now it is two‐year diplomas that are cheaper than three or four year degrees. No‐one with experience of the various changes in educational policy made by successive governments can, it seems to me, be other than cynical about the educational motives of politicians in making changes in the educational system. The case for the introduction of a two‐year course for a diploma in higher education is that many students would prefer to undertake a shorter course, with the possibility of topping it up later to degree standard if they wish to do so. This is presumably one example of the current fashionable phrase ‘continuous education’. Bodies such as the AUT and some members of professional associations fear that the introduction of the diploma will lead to a reduction in standards in the education students receive. The AUT also thinks it will affect the salaries of teaching staff.