£9K per annum gets you pot luck. £18K per annum gets you exposed to ides and theories espoused by some of today's most exciting theorists... In the fields these guys are specialising in, such a degree will look good on the old CV and that, in case nobody notices, is the point in the first place.

Is it? Might not part of the point, from a wider perspective, be to give meaningful CVs that take account of ability and attitude rather than wallet size?

Let me give you an example. My daughter is studying for an MA and tomorrow she and four other people are supposed to presenting feedback on a paper that one such 'Exciting Theorist' is due to publish shortly. For the past two weeks she has been trying to persuade the other members of her group and get up do something. Even reading the paper would be a good start. But it is not happening, so she is having to present her analysis of the entire paper, not just the section she was allocated.

All the other members of the group come from private schools and have had every stage of their education paid for by the parents, but they are simply uninterested. However, they will leave with 'a good CV' because it is one of the top Universities, even though they haven't actually bothered to do more than the absolute minimum. My daughter and one or two others have come up through the state sector and, because they have worked at every stage, are only there because they ARE interested.

This is not an anti-private education rant as such - there are some on her course from that background who are interested and work hard. But it is a rant against the view that what education is about is getting a good CV. Too focussed on the individual and not enough on the other interested parties, like the businesses who receive the CV, in my opinion.