Universities' annual funding reduced by £533m

kabayiri

ringo_24601 wrote: »

You forgot to say 'reading a sensible subject'..

I've had plenty of time to chew over my choice of 'sensible subject' in the time since my degree.

I chose Robotics and Electronics at Uni in the 80s. I found it tough but survived, and made my way through it.

But was it sensible? The only robots I ever got to look after in industry are now consigned to the scrapheap, as is the factory they were housed in. I had to evolve and adapt, like many.

As a chip in to this discussion, I'd say 2 year degrees may not be a bad thing for some subjects, if they lead into an extended study process in the workplace, alongside the OU perhaps.

The announcement by Mandy seems to lack any level of vision though.

[Deleted User]

The only robots I played with in the 80s were Transformers.. (ok, i guess i did learn LOGO on my BBC micro)

But i bet you leaned to program, how to work and think logically, design engineering-style projects.. all sorts of solid skills that would help as the subject and your career progressed.

(I ditched Genetics after working as a Research Fellow for 2 years once I realised i'd never earn a decent living in academia). I suspect my 8 year old knowledge is very out of date now

olly300

kabayiri wrote: »

The announcement by Mandy seems to lack any level of vision though.

Agreed. One size fits all in terms of degrees is not a good policy.

I have lived next to, am related to and have worked with engineering and technical students whose universities made them use the summer break as way to get industrial experience. They also did 30+ hours a week of lectures and labs during term time.

So a 2 year degree for these people would mean they wouldn't get the industrial experience.

hells_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

DH said the same. A two year degree is not a degree, its an HND. Which, for those that have forgotten, stands for Has No Degree...

Which is usually recognised just as much as a degree when you are looking for work, no?
I realise it depends which subject you are studying (i.e. something practical/a trade, it'd be enough).

When I've done my worthless 2 year degree (in Commercial Photography by the way) I'll post back and tell you if I fancy doing another year of being completely broke, or whether I've got work in my chosen industry, which is far more important than having my photograph taken with a gown and a silly hat on :rolleyes::rotfl:

lostinrates

ringo_24601 wrote: »

. I suspect my 8 year old knowledge is very out of date now

I have been using my seven or eight year old science recently, and it is at times HOPELESSLY outdated. I'm also struck by increasing religion of science, and if I read one more thing saying ''this proves that...'' I think I'll screech. Is no explanation about disproving a null hypothesis and why it is that way round given to young scientists now?

kabayiri

olly300 wrote: »

Agreed. One size fits all in terms of degrees is not a good policy.

I read this point, acknowledged it in my head (like you do) and then moved on. But then I re-read it and it made me think.

The Labour concept seemed to believe committing huge sums of money into Higher Education would create some kind of fairness for all / equality utopia.

I believe this is ultimately flawed. We need a complete range of diversity in it, where it is very clear that degrees from certain Universities have much higher rating than others. If I were a potential foreign undergrad looking to spend my hard earned, I'd be trying to get into places with reputation and demand.

kabayiri

lostinrates wrote: »

I have been using my seven or eight year old science recently, and it is at times HOPELESSLY outdated.

Forgive my extreme nosiness LIR, but I'm curious to know what discipline you studied?

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

I have been using my seven or eight year old science recently, and it is at times HOPELESSLY outdated. I'm also struck by increasing religion of science, and if I read one more thing saying ''this proves that...'' I think I'll screech. Is no explanation about disproving a null hypothesis and why it is that way round given to young scientists now?

Science should never be taught as a religion.

It's one of the things that upsets me about Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is evidence that demonstrates that the world is cooling or that the world is heating for reasons other than the actions of people. That should be examined thoroughly, not just dismissed.

nearlynew

Is it christmas day where you are gen?

Running_Horse

misskool wrote: »

Not at the universities where I've been to. First year is catching up a lot of students to be on the same playing field. It's especially worse this year because students can now choose to do modules which they liked at A-levels, meaning they lack the full breadth of knowledge required to read for their degree.

How about catching up a lot of students to be on the same playing field in their summer holidays? Have they not heard of reading around the subject they will be studying for three years?

When I got my degree part time, I was amazed how many full time students turned up for the course without reading any of the material beforehand, and more than a few didn't read anything during the course. The first year seems to be a way for dull middle class children to leave home, get very drunk, and lose their virginity.

At the risk of sounding like an old fart, I would have loved the opportunities children have today, but less than 10% of us went to university, and many had to leave school at 16 for dead end factory and retail jobs.