Is education in the UK a scam ?

Pennywise

adindas wrote: »

Do you want to study a useless degree and finishing your degree the chance is that you will be working in a job which does not need degree at all.

Whether the job "needs" a degree is a mute point. Many employers won't even look at your cv without a degree even for "menial" and low skilled jobs, so, by default, such jobs "do" need a degree!

p00hsticks

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I think it is a scam in the sense that not all degrees (or subjects) have the same value to the graduate, yet they all charge the same fees. That is a sign of a dysfunctional market (insofar as there is a "market" in education.)

Value in what way though ? Salary isn't everything. If someone really wants to get a student loan to study (say) interpretive dance or Grand Theft Auto strategy, should we prohibit them ?


One could argue that the market forces should apply and those universities / courses that can't / don't attract enough willing punters have to reduce their prices to a point where they can fill the places or go out of business.

adindas

p00hsticks wrote: »

Value in what way though ? Salary isn't everything. If someone really wants to get a student loan to study (say) interpretive dance or Grand Theft Auto strategy, should we prohibit them ?

[FONT=&quot]Well of course not. But studying with your own money and studying using taxpayer’s money are entirely different thing. No one could prevent you to study what you like with your own money. If you use the taxpayer’s money, the taxpayer’s who funded the system will need to get something in return. What the taxpayer will get in return if these people after spending £70k in student loan ended up working in the job which does not need degree getting paid less than £25k. These people will never pay their loan back, not a single penny. Compare it with doctors, dentists, accountants, engineers, nurses? How many of them do not pay their loan back? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Money is limited resource. Allocation of funding where resources is limited will need prioritising. Is it not better that the money is used to fund the education where there is skills shortage in the UK, like this ?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-k-shortage-occupation-list
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Is interpretive dance or Grand Theft Auto need to be learned at the University or it is a vocational training with thousands of hours of practising until you master it and of course talent, strong determination and luck. How many people study Michael Jackson degree ended up to become a stage choreographer, singer or song writer? How many people study Hollywood degree (Grand Theft Auto) ended up working in Hollywood ? Many people of this kind become famous because of of the elements mentioned above [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] e.g training with [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]with prominent figures, [/FONT]thousands of hours of practising with strong determination until you master it and of course talent, and a little luck[/FONT]. There are some skills that you cannot get it from studying for a degree at the university. But there are many skills where ordinary people with avarage capability could learn it and acquire it by studying for a degree at the university.[/FONT]

Manxman_in_exile

p00hsticks wrote: »

Value in what way though ? Salary isn't everything. If someone really wants to get a student loan to study (say) interpretive dance or Grand Theft Auto strategy, should we prohibit them ?


One could argue that the market forces should apply and those universities / courses that can't / don't attract enough willing punters have to reduce their prices to a point where they can fill the places or go out of business.

Sorry - I may not have expressed myself very well. By "value" I mean that I suspect that many students go to university with the mistaken impression that the degree they study will in some way enhance them in the view of prospective employers or help advance their future career. With some subjects and universities this will undoubtedly be true. But with some subjects and universities this is pretty unlikely to be true. I'm certain that many students (possibly from a working class background and perhaps with relatively naïve or not so well educated parents) attend universities with mediocre reputations and study for degrees that are "worth" very little. Many will be unsuitable for academic study and would be better off in some sort of proper vocational training or an apprenticeship. (I'm also sorry that I'm beginning to sound a bit elitist, but quite simply, some students should not be at university).


I fully agree with you that "material" considerations should not be the sole determinant of a degree's value - but we may both be in a minority. I draw a firm line between education and training, and if someone wants to attend university to study a particular subject for their own satisfaction or curiosity, I have no problem with that. You should go to university to be educated in the broadest sense of the word, not (just) to be trained for work.


In fact I'm not really bothered what subjects (including interpretative dance) people study, so long as the institution providing it does so with proper academic rigour. In this sense I mean that the only thing that should distinguish one degree subject from another is the knowledge gained, and not how the subject is studied or how it is perceived.


I am much more concerned that not all universities are equal and I do not understand how they can all essentially charge the same course fees for degrees of different "values". Unfortunately, this contrived market is dysfunctional in that not-so-good universities have plenty of applicants for courses despite charging the same as better universities; perhaps because lots of students don't meet the academic standards of better universities so are excluded from them; or because only not-so-good universities are the only places that offer courses where the applicants can meet the standards. (That doesn't read well, but I'm sure you understand what I mean).


This is why I think it's a sham.

Manxman_in_exile

Pennywise wrote: »

If you want a professional career, then qualification is far more important. You're not going to become a qualified lawyer or accountant or actuary or doctor or architect by spending you time down the pub instead of the university lecture hall.

QUOTE]


I can assure you that that was not true 40 years ago and I'm not sure it's any different now! (Maybe it is... )

Manxman_in_exile

About ten years ago I had to do a work-related course at a new university in London, funded by the NHS. It was a managerial/information analysis course, not clinical.


The HEI in question wanted the course to be run according to the same academic standards and procedures as one of their degree courses.


Comparing my experience on that course with my bachelor's degree (1979) and with my master's degree (1983) from one of the better universities in the country, I can hardly describe what a miserable and unsatisfying academic experience it was. Assessment was based on three assignments, each of which was accompanied by a "Marking Grid" which essentially explained what areas of knowledge had to be covered and what proportion of the marks would be allocated to each area.


Completing the assignments basically boiled down to a tick box exercise to ensure that each of the areas were satisfactorily covered to achieve a pass - and the marking grid told you how to do this.


Students would even get credit (10% of the total marks available IIRC) for using the Harvard referencing system correctly. Surely that should be a given, not something you get marks for?


The ironic thing was, the actual subject matter and content was quite interesting even if you didn't have to do it for work.


The problem is, this HEI charges the same fees as the best HEIs in the country.


Yes - it's a sham and a scam.

Pennywise

I think the bigger scam is the myth that a 2:1 from an ex Poly is the same as a 2:1 from a Russell Group/Top 10 Uni in the same subject.

All you need to do is look at the course detail/modules etc to see the difference in standard as the typical ex-Poly doesn't included the "hardest" elements that are core to the RG/Top 10 uni.

Re costs etc., the easiest way to reduce Uni costs and make it more affordable would be to shorten the course from 3 to 2 years. The first year often seems to be a "consolidation/basics" year which doesn't form part of the final grade, so it sounds more of a doss year than real study.

We've been doing Uni Open days with our son. He was torn between a single Physics degree or a double Maths/Physics degree, so at each uni, we asked about what's "missing" as it's still the same number of points you work towards whether you do 1 or 2 subjects, so it's common sense that you must do less Maths and less Physics in a double subject than a single - it can't be otherwise if the points/times are the same. The answer from most was, to paraphrase the lecturers, "there's less padding with the joint subjects" so you do actually do the same core elements. What they remove are the optional "add on" modules that aren't part of your subject, i.e. if you do Physics, you can do, say, German or Art or Geography modules as part of the point accumulation, but if you do Maths & Physics, you can't do anything other than Maths or Physics. The other shock was that with a single Physics, you spend a morning per week in the labs doing practical experiments, but if you do the joint, you don't do the practicals.

So, that suggest the practicals aren't actually required. It also suggests that the single courses are artificially lengthened to fill 3 years. For single Physics, you have to do unnecessary practicals and fill in gaps by non relevant subject modules.

So, why not just offer 2 year courses in the first place and save a shed load of cost and time. It would also make it more attractive to "wavering" students who may not want to commit to 3 years.

Manxman_in_exile

I agree with much of what you say, Pennywise.


I don't wholly agree that an ex-poly/new university degree doesn't necessarily have the same value as one from a RG university - it does depend on the subject and how well it is taught or guided by the staff. But I'm willing to agree that they aren't necessarily the same "thing" either.


What I have difficulty with is what I see as the fiction that all degrees should carry equal weight and therefore it is reasonable for all HEIs to charge the same fees, when this fiction is palpably false.


When I was an undergraduate the first year was widely seen as a pre-qualification year to weed out those students who were either not academically able enough or too lazy to graduate. All you had to do was to get through the first year and if the "system" had worked correctly you were pretty much guaranteed to get a degree. That may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing. There are pros and cons to that approach, so a two year degree may or may not be a good idea.


I would have thought that in a traditional science subject some sort of practical/experimental experience would be essential for any students who wanted to follow a research career. But if they don't want to follow that path, it may be of limited value to them. At least a combined degree offers an increased choice, and at least maths and physics are complementary subjects. Interestingly, when I did my first degree I was in digs for a term with an older couple (their children had left home) and he was a physics lecturer. The uni had a pretty good academic reputation, but he always complained that it (and most other unis at that time) no longer offered a pure physics degree. That was 40 years ago and I don't know how far it's still true.


As a general point on quality - we live in a Russell Group university town. In some subjects the university could be considered as the leading academic institution in the country, but in other subjects its reputation is probably not so good. A few years ago my grand-nephew decided to come here to do his degree. He acquired a girl friend who was studying some kind of business degree. We were appalled by some of the stories she told us about the course which, as a first year student, she was finding less than satisfactory. Class sizes for both lectures and tutorials were massive, and both were constantly being interrupted by non-UK educated students who either were struggling to overcome the language barrier or simply didn't have the same basic knowledge background as the UK educated students. (Sorry - not being racist here - it was a fact. And I'm not saying it was true of all overseas students either - just that many of them were unintentionally disruptive in lectures and tutorials).


And yet she was being charged exactly the same fees as someone doing a better, or at least more effectively, taught course.


And this was not a crap university. (Well some might disagree...)

adindas

Russell Group university have a more higher entry requirement than non- Russell Group universities. So definitely they get better students than non-Russell Group universities. Many employer will definitely prefer to employ these graduates as they are likely more competitive and smarter.

But both Russell Group universities and non Russell Group universities cannot produce enough graduates needed for this country. Let alone if it is just a Russell Group universities.

This is list of occupation where UK is relying on immigrants to fill the vacancies.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-k-shortage-occupation-list

Many of the vacancies filled in this subject are not even educated in the UK, some even from former eastern EU countries, other countries like india, china etc

The point here is that what subject you study at the university.
Go to major supermarket chain, retailers those who are working with degrees might come from Russell Group Universities. But they are there because they study a soft subject like histories, development studies, etc which is actually not in demand instead of say, medicine, dentistry, engineering, nursing, accountant, pharmacy etc

Many of those subjects which give you a lot of chances to be employed are not only offered by Russell group universities by also by other universities.

So the most important thing here is that what subjects you choose to study. The second one of course is the ranking of those universities in the League tables. But if the youngsters could not get admitted at say oxbridge, imperial college, they could still go to other universities. Their chance to get employed is probably will be much better compared to those study at the Russell group universities but they choose the subject which is actually not in demand.

But most of the subjects in demand is normally much more rigorous academically, much harder and much more demanding, required hardwork and strong determination than the one which is not in demand. I believe the taxpayers will be happy to fund if they see they get something in return.

Samsonite1

Pennywise wrote: »

I think the bigger scam is the myth that a 2:1 from an ex Poly is the same as a 2:1 from a Russell Group/Top 10 Uni in the same subject.

All you need to do is look at the course detail/modules etc to see the difference in standard as the typical ex-Poly doesn't included the "hardest" elements that are core to the RG/Top 10 uni.

This was very true when I graduated. I started a job with 2 other graduates and one was from my course (RG Computer Science course) and the other was from the ex-Poly with a degree in "Computing". It turns out the the Computing degree consisted of 3 years of studying MS Office and nothing else. He did not know much about anything related to the job and should not have been hired really,

Now, as someone who hires people, I always check the course syllabus of any degree - the university is not important if it has a good syllabus as such, but actually in the field of Computer Science, there is BCS (British Computer Society) accredited courses, which is more important than RG (they have to cover certain subjects such as maths), although most RG universities will have this too. I am sure other subjects can have relevant accreditations.