Universities push for higher fees

dizzie

Hi again Older Not Wiser,

One of my husband's relatives who is a retired senior academic firmly believes that we should go back to the old two tier system on economic grounds.

Some employers still look at where a candiate studied when looking for graduates. Indeed, I spoke to one businessman last year who said that he bins all the applications from candidates who graduated from former polytechnics as a way of beginning a shortlist! This is a real shame, but it proves that the old "divisions" between former Polytechnics and Universities still exist in some quarters.

In the old days, the grades were usually a fair bit lower to get into a Polytechnic and that made some regard them as second class institutions.

If we went back to a two tier system of sorts (based purely on the grounds of whether academic staff do research). And if this allowed more "intensive-style" degree courses (where appropriate) to be run in some institutions without the extended summer break, could we not make entry grades for both institutions reasonably comparable and thereby avoid the "class" distinctions that were/are held by some people?

Also, I'm still not convinced about the target of getting 50% of people into higher education. Is that really necessary for the jobs market? I think we should be putting an equal emphasis on apprenticeships. There is no shame in not having a degree, and not necessarily any economic disadvantage...as my friends who are local self-employed electricians, plumbers, builders, painter and decorators, gardeners would testify. They are all earning more than I do as a self employed locum pharmacist and good-on-em!

Oldernotwiser

dizzie wrote: »

Hi again Older Not Wiser,

One of my husband's relatives who is a retired senior academic firmly believes that we should go back to the old two tier system on economic grounds.

Some employers still look at where a candiate studied when looking for graduates. Indeed, I spoke to one businessman last year who said that he bins all the applications from candidates who graduated from former polytechnics as a way of beginning a shortlist! This is a real shame, but it proves that the old "divisions" between former Polytechnics and Universities still exist in some quarters.

In the old days, the grades were usually a fair bit lower to get into a Polytechnic and that made some regard them as second class institutions.

If we went back to a two tier system of sorts (based purely on the grounds of whether academic staff do research). And if this allowed more "intensive-style" degree courses (where appropriate) to be run in some institutions without the extended summer break, could we not make entry grades for both institutions reasonably comparable and thereby avoid the "class" distinctions that were/are held by some people?

Also, I'm still not convinced about the target of getting 50% of people into higher education. Is that really necessary for the jobs market? I think we should be putting an equal emphasis on apprenticeships. There is no shame in not having a degree, and not necessarily any economic disadvantage...as my friends who are local self-employed electricians, plumbers, builders, painter and decorators, gardeners would testify. They are all earning more than I do as a self employed locum pharmacist and good-on-em!

Personally, I believe that the two tier system was better and I also agree that we shouldn't be trying to get nearly so many into HE. 10% was always too low; 20% would seem to be nearer the mark. On the other hand, to do this we would need to raise standards at schools and colleges back to where they were many years ago and stop giving out academic rewards like Smarties.

If we did this, only the brightest would go into HE and they could be supported adequately.

Voyager2002

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Personally, I believe that the two tier system was better and I also agree that we shouldn't be trying to get nearly so many into HE. 10% was always too low; 20% would seem to be nearer the mark. On the other hand, to do this we would need to raise standards at schools and colleges back to where they were many years ago and stop giving out academic rewards like Smarties.

If we did this, only the brightest would go into HE and they could be supported adequately.

I have to disagree.

The problem with a two-tier system is that academics who are not research-active are not sufficiently engaged with their subject to teach at an advanced level. So degrees from the non-research universities (as from the four-year colleges in the USA) would be inferior to those from genuine universities. Furthermore, anyone who is sufficiently interested in a subject to pursue it to PhD level or beyond would not be content working in a role that did not encourage research. And if such people did end up "trapped" as lecturers in a teaching-only university, that would represent a terrible waste of talent.

As for the proportion of the population who could benefit from HE, the experience of the OU suggests that it is fairly high. A civilised society should provide HE to all those who desire it and are able to benefit from the experience (the old Robbins principle) although I do agree that there is a need to re-examine levels of achievement in schools and ensure that only people with the necessary background in the subject they wish to study are admitted to degree courses.

Oldernotwiser

Voyager2002 wrote: »

I have to disagree.

The problem with a two-tier system is that academics who are not research-active are not sufficiently engaged with their subject to teach at an advanced level. So degrees from the non-research universities (as from the four-year colleges in the USA) would be inferior to those from genuine universities.

But do you really need academics to be "research active" on vocational degrees? Many people would say that it's better for them to be active in the industry they're teaching rather than just in research.

I also don't think that it's necessarily a question of inferior but "different" if you have a two tier system. Many Polytechnics had an excellent record for their courses and were far more fit for purpose than the traditional universities in certain areas. It's also disingenuous to suggest that we don't have a two tier situation at the moment, as most people wouldn't consider that a degree from Bolton or Thames Valley was of the same value as a degree from, say, Exeter or Durham.

Voyager2002

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But do you really need academics to be "research active" on vocational degrees? Many people would say that it's better for them to be active in the industry they're teaching rather than just in research.

I also don't think that it's necessarily a question of inferior but "different" if you have a two tier system. Many Polytechnics had an excellent record for their courses and were far more fit for purpose than the traditional universities in certain areas. It's also disingenuous to suggest that we don't have a two tier situation at the moment, as most people wouldn't consider that a degree from Bolton or Thames Valley was of the same value as a degree from, say, Exeter or Durham.

Two-tier system? At the moment we have a multiple-tier system.

It is strange that you chose Exeter and Durham as your examples: I know them both well (first degree from one; five years as a post-doc at the other). A degree from one of these institutions is primarily a marker of social class: employers like management consultancies, city solicitors and parts of the financial industry know that someone from such a background will fit in well with the culture of the organisation and do well. In terms of actual academic excellence, I think that standards are far higher at Sussex and East Anglia, although degrees from these two are of far less value in obtaining a desirable job.

Anyway, I do believe that it is necessary to be research-active in order to teach an academic degree. However, vocational post-18 qualifications can indeed be taught to a high standard by people who are not research-active. I question whether it is appropriate to call such qualifications degrees.

Oldernotwiser

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Anyway, I do believe that it is necessary to be research-active in order to teach an academic degree. However, vocational post-18 qualifications can indeed be taught to a high standard by people who are not research-active. I question whether it is appropriate to call such qualifications degrees.

Now there we're in complete agreement! HNC and HNDs are/were perfectly respectable qualifications and had no need to be rebranded as Foundation Degrees, although that's exactly what's happened with other courses as well.

I can see nothing wrong with having teaching led Polytechnics, taught be people with strong industry connections and leading to qualifications like HND alongside research led universities offering academic degrees. Obviously there would be some crossovers in bordeline areas so flexibility would be vital.

Strong HNDs, particularly with a sandwich year in industry, would solve a lot of students' financial problems and be a better use of time for many people.

melancholly

Voyager2002 wrote: »

And if such people did end up "trapped" as lecturers in a teaching-only university, that would represent a terrible waste of talent.

there are already plenty of unis that are effectively teaching only and people are so bogged down in teaching, marking and meetings that virtually no research gets done....! (but with post-doc positions so thin on the ground thanks to funding drying up, i'm seriously looking at those posts!)

olly300

dizzie wrote: »

Thanks for your reply Olly.

I had talked about summer job in reply to the poster who sugested that this was useful for gaining relevant/valuable work experience and I was just wondering how many are actually in this position vs those who just take what they can in the hols purely for financial grounds.

Research is showing it depends on:
1. How wealthy your parents are
2. Where your parents live

If your parents are wealthy then you can afford to do unpaid work experience.

If you live in London, like I do, and your parents are supportive and financially stable then you can also afford to do unpaid work experience for a shorter time. However I know from friends' who did unpaid work placements you will also have to work on the weekends to afford to travel to the work placement. And if your work experience/placement involves irregular hours unless you live on a bus route or in walking distance you simply can't afford to do it.

If you don't fall into those 2 categories then you have to take any work that comes. This obviously won't help you when you graduate and want to go into certain professions unless you are lucky enough to be able to fit good relevant volunteer work around it.

dizzie wrote: »

I came from a low wage family, did a vocational degree and fortunately ended up with a graduate job after finishing Uni. My younger sister on the other hand did a non-vocational degree (in the Arts) and did not end up with a graduate-type job. She has always worked full time but has only recently managed to get a job that breaks the £20k/year barrier - 12 years after finishing Sheffield Uni. She feels that if she had been born later and was considering studying Uni now, the potential level of student debt would influence her degree choice - i.e. she would be more likely to chose a vocational degree rather than one based on her real interests/talents.

I am from a low wage family background as well.

I had Cambridge educated teachers at school for some of the Arts subjects I was good at and they dissuaded me from taking them any further post-18. I actually found out when I went to university that quite a few students had been dissuaded from doing Arts degrees by their teachers if they were also good at something else, even if they were better at the Arts subject.

I actually when to university when student loans had been in force for a couple of years so there were still grants available, and one thing that amazed me was how out of touch some academics where.

I remember going to have a look a Bristol and a academic there stating that no needed to take out a student loan. The course I was looking at had university time of 35 hours a week, and when I checked out the hall fees once you had paid for your accommodation with your grant cheque you had nothing to buy books with.

BTW I did end up with a graduate job - that was the second role after doing my Masters degree. I could have done one first but accepted a more interesting job offer before I got other offers. The graduate job was the worse job I've ever done due to the management at the company.