Universities' annual funding reduced by £533m

Generali

nearlynew wrote: »

Is it christmas day where you are gen?

It's 51 minutes into Xmas day and I'm off to bed.

It's going to be a cool, wet Christmas over here by Aussie standards. Low 20s, cloudy and raining.

I'm going to spend Boxing Day just past the start of the Sydney-Hobart race. We're going to hang around at the first turning point after The Heads.

Love to you all,

G

olly300

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

It's not even about the institutions it's also about different departments within those institutions.

Having studied and known foreign students those who have a choice in where they go choose their places on both the institution's and their particular department's reputation.

While others who are sponsored by their governments have little choice in where they are going. Their choice seems to depend on the prejudices of some civil servant etc. and their view of that institution and department.

olly300

Running_Horse wrote: »

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?

Lots of students today are spoon fed. They don't know what to read up on and wouldn't do it unless someone stood over them.

Running_Horse wrote: »

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.

This is why some universities favour giving places from students from poorer and non-traditional backgrounds, and why the catch up year is there.

misskool

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I have been using my seven or eight year old science recently, and it is at times HOPELESSLY outdated.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

you can't publish a null hypothesis and if you don't publish you don't get jobs.

so no.

Everything you do proves something.

misskool

Running_Horse wrote: »

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?

The problem with modular A-levels is that students think they've learnt enough to get into their courses and have an audible whine when you try and teach them something they need to know but it's boring and they've dropped it from the modules they want to study.

It would be ideal if everyone could be brought up to speed on their own but it's not all about reading. It's about critical thought and forming their own opinions about the subject matter.

That's not something the universities can fix, the government created a system of pick 'n' education. By imposing fees, the students are now 'customers' and can demand what they want.

wigglebeena

I did a science degree as a mature student and worked quite a lot of hours during some of it. Squashing it into two years woulda killed me. (BTW the first year for many subjects, especially for mature students still recovering from a tough access year, isn't a luxury optional extra but covers essential fundamentals.)

What about all the money unis get from overseas students? If budgets and courses are cut and we look like a cheapskate budget Poundstretcher educational option, where are all those lovely fees going to go?

Masomnia

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

I don't think the point is to make all universities equal, rather to make university accessible to anyone who wants to go. That's not to say anyone of any intelligence level, rather anyone of any background. I don't see anything wrong with that.

phil_b_2

olly300 wrote: »

It's a way of screening people to reduce applicants.

Unfortunately it disadvantages those, and I studied with a few, who didn't see the point of working at their qualifications until they were a bit older.

Surely people could just lie about their GCSE results? I cant see an employer faffing about checking out such insignificant details when they read the Degree course result.

harryhound

lostinrates wrote: »

Some degree courses have HND students sitting in, and the two year completion (same courses different assignments...dare I say..less academic?) then they can sit the same final year and a year of WE and get a degree.
TBF, I believe the changes were arranged under the last year of Tory government.

Some students are too immature to cope with a real away from home degree course; they spend the first year trying to cut the apron strings, with various degrees of success.
At the end of the first year may drop out in a alcohol and drug fuelled mess, may realise the course is not suitable and start another, or may get stuck in and do two year's solid work.

Going away from the family home to university, should give kids more than a degree to their name.

zygurat789

Here we go again decrying the govnmt policy. I don't agree with it but am sympathetic to the aim. I am absolutely sick of the spongers who take their subsidised university education and refuse to give anything back. Such as those who emigrate when they qualify or immediately go into employments which are designed purely to feather their own nest ie private dentistry.
I would propose universities be made independent, say as a charity, and charge economic fees to the students. The government actually pays the fee as a loan to the student. Not that much change so far.
The government may require the loan to be repaid in full as now or may waive a significant % for work done in certain jobs ie teaching.
The cost to the government would, therefore, not change for a teacher but there would be a significant amount recouped from people emigrating, becoming private dentists or bankers.
This should enable the govtmnt to save considerable sums and give the universities a greater degree of autonomy