You are aware that this is a message board, not a peer reviewed paper
?
Yes, however that doesn't mean we should not support out claims when challenged.
I have lived through a lot of this, I have a memory, and I have an opinion, just like your good self.
Memorys are falliable, what you think you remember and what actually happened are not always the same thing.
Let's go back to your OP:
maybe we have all forgotten that the huge expansion was the Tories way of getting huge numbers of youngsters off the unemployment register.
This is the number of students obtaining degrees over time (link already provided):
From the data we see:
- student numbers relatively static until 1960;
- a huge increase in the 1960's, nearly 29,000 equating to 128%
- a further 17,000 or 33% increase in the 1970's.
In the 1980s by contrast we see only a further 9,000 students or about 12% in the 1980s and note also that the increase is only in female students, the male population remained the same.
So the idea that the expansion was a scheme to keep down unemployment numbers in the 1980s is patently bulls***, you're talking about the lowest absolute and relative increase for any decade since 1960.
There is one grain of truth in your claim:
There is a small peak in the early 1980's, which may have been somewhat related to the economy at the time, but compared to the Bliar era expansion it is utterly inconsequential, single figures thousands compared to 100,000 plus.
So, do you stand by your original claim?