Journalists are (sometimes) really stupid

From today's guardian

"Student debt doubles as top-up fees hit poorest (Matthew TaylorFriday March 31, 2006)"

"Student debt has doubled over the last six years and students from poorer families are suffering most, according to government research published yesterday.
Final year students averaged £7,918 debt at the end of their course and students from poor homes averaged £9,842, according to the survey of 3,700 undergraduates and trainee teachers at 88 universities and colleges in England and Wales.
Top-up fees were considered a key factor, and increasing numbers need help from their families.
From this autumn students will be charged £3,000 a year, more than double what most pay now."


Look at the bulk of the article. You'd read that and think that Top-up fees were causing all that student debt wouldn't you? ( "Top-up fees were considered a key factor", "top up fees hit poorest")

But the read the first three words of the last paragraph...."From this autumn"...

Can you spot the really obvious flaw here?

Actually if anything this article presents quite a good argument FOR the reforms. If the poorest students are struggling to meet their living costs under the existing system, increasing student loans and giving them grants and bursaries might be considered helpful. I'd have thought.

I also wonder who Matthew meant when he said "were considered a key factor". Considered by whom? Which educational expert did he find to tell him that top up fees had caused existing graduates to be in more debt? Or did he just make it up?