Are degrees in the UK value for money?

chucknorris

happyandcontented wrote: »

The other issue is that it seems that the same degrees are not covering the same ground at every university.

For example, one of my sons is doing an MChemEng at a Russell Group university and aside from the entrance criteria being much higher, the course content and depth differs greatly from what his friend is doing for the same degree at a former poly. They were chatting at Christmas and his friend openly said that he would stand no chance of graduating if he was working at that level and to that depth, yet to all intents and purposes they will achieve the same degree.

I know what you mean, however some employers will know the difference (in the case of vocational degree subjects). I don't work as an external examiner (I am trying to do less hours, in fact I have recently dropped down to one day per week), but the lecturer that I share an office does, and he does give me feedback on how other universities compare to ours (in our particular subject area). Additionally of course we also talk to our external examiners, as well as attend conferences. On our course the RICS has a significant say in what our course/module content is, if it isn't satisfactory, they could withdraw their accreditation, which has happened in the past to some of our local competitors. When that happens some students transfer to us, and their next year's intake falls.

zagubov

chucknorris wrote: »

I know what you mean, however some employers will know the difference (in the case of vocational degree subjects).

This is where we're getting too much like the US. It used to be the case that a uni degree was like a pass in a driving test, in that wherever you passed it you had confidence that the graduate had a certain minimum amount of ability (in the case of unis, intellectual horsepower),

The unis all conformed to minimum standards and employers would have confidence in that. IIRC, the polys were monitored by an external body that awarded the degrees (the CNAA).

In the US it matters enormously where you got your degree. You can collect degrees from some unis with very little study while others are pretty much like our own. There are almost 5000 of them and there are bout half a dozen degree accrediting agencies.

As we increase the quantity of HE, we need to avoid letting the quality slip.

Lingua

I'm paying 9k a year in tuition fees. Someone who started the year before me is paying 3.5k, yet from what I can tell we receive the exact same services and teaching material - I received notes from a student in the year above and they had covered the same content.

Of course, there's also the fact that the science students here get beautiful new multi-million pound facilities while we get brutalist buildings no longer able to function because of their dilapidated state and the surge of new students that the uni has decided in its wisdom to induct despite no extra capacity.

Excellent value for money!
/s

Lingua

SingleSue

happyandcontented wrote: »

Regardless of what Solent say on their website the offer wasn't for the foundation degree, the student was quite clear he was doing a full three year degree course. As I say, I was very surprised too.

It's either as Chuck Norris says and he is confused (a foundation year then if he passes onto the full 3 year degree) or they have taken leave of their senses. Someone achieving passes in a BTEC extended diploma will struggle completely to keep up with the rest of the cohort.

It would be setting him up to fail before he even started bearing in mind the general entry requirements for all bar 3 courses in computer and IT is Distinction, Merit, Merit. The odd ones out require Merit, Merit, Merit.

Cakeguts

It is totally obvious that some university courses are easier than others. If one university asks for A*AA as minimum entry requirements you can see straight away that the students who go there are going to be faster learners than those that get CCC. The faster learners can cope with a much more complex course than the others.

Also you have to consider that because A levels have become easier to pass and to get good grades in there are going to be people with A level passes who would not 40 or 50 years ago gone to university so obviously for them the degrees have to be easier. For the people who get A*s they would have passed A levels 40 or 50 years ago as well so they would be the people who have always gone to university. Anyone who got an E at A level 40 or 50 years ago would now get an A so you are really looking at the difference between people who would have passed A levels and people who wouldn't so it is not surprising that some degree courses have to cater for people who wouldn't have got the qualifications to go to university in the past.

As I understand it around 8% of jobs depend on where you went to university which is roughly the same percentage of the population who used to get a place at university. So for those people at those universities nothing has changed. However it is the rest of the students attending university that have the problem because they are paying for degrees that don't make any difference. They would still have got the same kind of jobs from a training course at a technical college for free. Many university degrees are a complete waste of time and money because of the difference in standards of degree.

zagubov

Cakeguts wrote: »

It is totally obvious that some university courses are easier than others. I one university asks for A*AA as minimum entry requirements you can see straight away that the students who go there are going to be faster learners than those that get CCC. The faster learners can cope with a much more complex course than the others.

Also you have to consider that because A levels have become easier to pass and to get good grades in there are going to be people with A level passes who would not 40 or 50 years ago gone to university so obviously for them the degrees have to be easier. For the people who get A*s they would have passed A levels 40 or 50 years ago as well so they would be the people who have always gone to university. Anyone who got an E at A level 40 or 50 years ago would now get an A so you are really looking at the difference between people who would have passed A levels and people who wouldn't so it is not surprising that some degree courses have to cater for people who wouldn't have got the qualifications to go to university in the past.

As I understand it around 8% of jobs depend on where you went to university which is roughly the same percentage of the population who used to get a place at university. So for those people at those universities nothing has changed. However it is the rest of the students attending university that have the problem because they are paying for degrees that don't make any difference. They would still have got the same kind of jobs from a training course at a technical college for free. Many university degrees are a complete waste of time and money because of the difference in standards of degree.

That's the point: the baseline has moved, and many employers are now recruiting people with HE qualifications. Perhaps it's because school-leaving qualifications are perceived as being less demanding. Perhaps if we took secondary education more seriously this wouldn't be necessary. If this seems to have become a red queen's race, well perhaps it is.

Decades ago, I remember helping our students apply to US universities, and realising that our A levels (as they were then, linear and exam-based) were equivalent to the freshman first year and about half of the sophomore second year of the US HE degree system; frankly abut three-quarters of the way to their Associate Degree level which required two years of full time study.

Frankly I'm worried we've chosen the wrong direction to travel, but until somebody gets into power with an understanding of what kind of a secondary and HE structure this country needs, we're stuffed.

happyandcontented

SingleSue wrote: »

It's either as Chuck Norris says and he is confused (a foundation year then if he passes onto the full 3 year degree) or they have taken leave of their senses. Someone achieving passes in a BTEC extended diploma will struggle completely to keep up with the rest of the cohort.

It would be setting him up to fail before he even started bearing in mind the general entry requirements for all bar 3 courses in computer and IT is Distinction, Merit, Merit. The odd ones out require Merit, Merit, Merit.

My point exactly. However, the cynic in me says that Universities will have similar recruitment/income/ bums on seats targets that everyone in FE is currently being put under the cosh to meet. Maybe they prioritise that over retention and achievement, as do many institutions. What loss to the Uni if a student drops out after 18 months? Maybe on the cost/benefit analysis 18k covers their bases?

zagubov

SingleSue wrote: »

It's either as Chuck Norris says and he is confused (a foundation year then if he passes onto the full 3 year degree) or they have taken leave of their senses. Someone achieving passes in a BTEC extended diploma will struggle completely to keep up with the rest of the cohort.

Achieving bare passes at this level by the end of the qualification means that the student has peaked, and unless something changes, they're not ready for the next step up the educational ladder. You need to achieve merit or better to show potential for progression to a higher level.

happyandcontented

zagubov wrote: »

Achieving bare passes at this level by the end of the qualification means that the student has peaked, and unless something changes, they're not ready for the next step up the educational ladder. You need to achieve merit or better to show potential for progression to a higher level.

Or, as in this particular case, it means that the student is actually reasonably capable but bone idle, wastes time in class on computer games and so will need to up his game and mature considerably to gain a degree;)

LHW99

Also you have to consider that because A levels have become easier to pass and to get good grades in there are going to be people with A level passes who would not 40 or 50 years ago gone to university so obviously for them the degrees have to be easier. For the people who get A*s they would have passed A levels 40 or 50 years ago as well so they would be the people who have always gone to university. Anyone who got an E at A level 40 or 50 years ago would now get an A so you are really looking at the difference between people who would have passed A levels and people who wouldn't so it is not surprising that some degree courses have to cater for people who wouldn't have got the qualifications to go to university in the past.

This seems to be only a continuation od a process. Back when school leaving age was still 14, those who left school with O-levels could get jobs in a local bank, or county council. By the time the leaving age was raised to 16, that needed A-levels, now it seems to need degrees and no doubt in another 20 years or so they'll be requiring PhD students.
Unfortunately the proportion of students in each cohort who have high levels of skill in abstract thinking seems to change relatively little.
The old IQ tests fell out of favour, IMO because the result was called "Intelligence", whereas what they really tested was the ability of a child to gain concepts through written leaning.
That was what was needed for the old style university degrees, and still is for some of the more rigorous courses.
It never did correlate with the sort of "intelligence" that relates to common sense, hand-eye co-ordination or many of the other life-skills that at one time were taught through multi-year apprenticeships, BTEC, polytechnic course etc.