Thousands Of University Job Losses

[cartimandua51]

http://www.guardian....of-universities

'Universities and colleges could stop teaching their own degree programmes and instead follow nationally recognised courses, the higher education minister proposed today.

David Willetts called for chains of universities and colleges to teach the same course, externally set by the University of London or another well-regarded institution.

sounds liek a good idea,but will it end in dumbing down?

Just like the old University colleges in the 1890s where most of the Russell Group started!

Or, more recently, the monitoring by the CNAA (Council for National Academic Awards) whose demise signalled the worst of the post 1992 dumbing down.

Edited June 14, 2010 by cartimandua51

[HPC001]

I would there were no age between sixteen and three-and-twenty, or that youth would sleep out the rest; for there is nothing in the between but getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting.

Shakespeare

The Winter's Tale, III, iii

Edit: ignore, was on profile

Just like the old University colleges in the 1890s where most of the Russell Group started!

Or, more recently, the monitoring by the CNAA (Council for National Academic Awards) whose demise signalled the worst of the post 1992 dumbing down.

Indeed, Oxford's Dean was pathetically asking for more government money and cutting their own grants to less well off students there. At this rate it will be known better as the destination for idiots with rich parents rather than a centre of excellence...

Much as I dislike the current system, more government involvement is not the answer. Universities already use this kind of government funding as a substitute for competitiveness. Not to mention the other private sector organisations doing well out of programs like New Deal.

The degree I'm studying myself is 50% vocational and 50% traditional, with some management stuff thrown in for good measure... I wasn't able to abuse the grant system anyway as I was deemed ineligible. Unlike the child of a single parent doing Psychology at a third-rate institution like Roehampton...

Edited June 14, 2010 by HPC001

[Lone_Twin]

Universities shouldn't be the place for people to have another crack at education. It should be the peak of the education system. If you are as academically bright as you say, and chose girls over study, then you should have retaken your A Levels and gone to a decent university.

It's pointless having bottom feeder ex-polies teaching law, english, history, etc... Fair enough if it's teaching a practical degree that's valued in industry, but what's the point of a English degree from the University of the back of beyond?

I didn't say I was academicaly bright, my degree was a joke. However I consider that I have done pretty well in work since leaving uni just 5 years ago and I think that for most people, unless it is a professional requirement having done a degree really makes sh1t all difference to career and earning outcomes. I could have told you in my first semester how "well" people would go on to do. (not that career success is everything of course)

However I know that I would still do it all again, the girls, the shoddy degree, the debt, the friends, the fun.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

yes but do employers know it.even when I went to Uni-early 90's-there were some poly's that had excellent reputations..The problem is though that aside from specialist areas like engineering,a degree in business studies is a degree in business studies,and what'll sell you more is where you got it.

the key difference between then and now is the sheer scale of the number of students currently approaching 42% of 18 year olds(I await correction,read that figure somehwere).would love to know the per centage in 1990 if anyone has it.

Employers do not know it, you are quite right. They are largely ignorant of it and rely on the tiny amounf of prejudiced information they get out of the media, i.e., Oxbridge = good, LSE = good, Durham = good, Everywhere Else = bad.

Also bang on target with the numbers argument. We all understand on this website what happens to the value of money if you print more of it, so it shouldn't be too dofficult for people to grasp what happens to the value of a degree if you make more of them. Sadly, the same people responsible for printing money were also in charge of making degrees.

Their failings are understandable if you know their ideology, but it's still all wrong. People are not all equal and cannot be equalised. If you give more people degrees you do not end up with a more intelligent workforce, but instead you get lots of unequal people with devalued quals = back where we started from.

[dissident junk]

I didn't say I was academicaly bright, my degree was a joke. However I consider that I have done pretty well in work since leaving uni just 5 years ago and I think that for most people, unless it is a professional requirement having done a degree really makes sh1t all difference to career and earning outcomes. I could have told you in my first semester how "well" people would go on to do. (not that career success is everything of course)

However I know that I would still do it all again, the girls, the shoddy degree, the debt, the friends, the fun.

I think you are being admirably considered about the situation. From my perspective, I think it is appalling that you had to get into debt to do something that you do not feel was worthy of the money -- and remember it's not just the cost to you of funding and fees, but also the loss of income had you worked for those years.

The fact is that a degree should convey enough understanding, training, knowledge and ability to make a difference to your career and learning outcomes. Instead, what we are seeing is the effects of inflation across HE, whereby qualifications are being downgraded by employers -- for example, there is evidence to suggest that employers now view an MA at the level they once used to perceive a degree to be, a degree is now A levels, A levels are now old O'levels, and GCSEs are now the old "left school at 14".

All this means is that it costs more and more for young people to enter the labour market, in terms of time and money, and that burden is falling on young people, their parents and government. As a former teacher who taught across Europe, I know there is absolutely no fundamental reason why most young people cannot reach A level standards of knowledge and ability by the time they are 15 -- all that is needed is a rigorous education system that educates rather than socialises and sufficient parental and cultural support for such a rigorous system.

Edited June 15, 2010 by dissident junk

[hilltop]

On the recruitment issue we have to return again to the fact that degree grades are meaningless. "Not fit for purpose" as the Head of the University Funding body said.

It is time that for a more dynamic and less class ridden appointment sytem employers used selection techniques which are more competency based and tuned to the job on offer.

At the risk of being contentious, in some jobs we need more agressive, cynical, inventive men and fewer clever girls who have mugged up on the old answers.

[Fudge]

21st June Day of Dissent

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

21st June Day of Dissent

Silly, silly people.

[dissident junk]

21st June Day of Dissent

I am sorry, fudge, but I disagree with the unison perspective.

Putting more money into HE and FE education will not solve the integral problems of our economy, the future of our young people and the state of our education system. What is required is a change of mentality and perspective about education in Britain, and that doesn't require money; it requires will. Indeed, pouring money into our present system with its distorted purpose and vision is possibly one of the the worst things you can do.

In my view, British unions are revealing themselves to be innately conservative institutions that fight only for the preservation of a bankrupt status quo that benefits their members rather than their clients who use, or the workers that fund, the public services they claim to defend. They shroud their conservatism through ideological talk of equality and social mobility, when the reality is that they wish to engage with, and work within, a climate of client politics.

[Cogs]

Universities already use this kind of government funding as a substitute for competitiveness.

Explain yourself. I suggest you have a look at the OECD Education At A Glance report before answering btw. You could read this as well: http://royalsociety....ntific-century/ I like the way many of the headings are written in nonsense, a font problem presumably. Science, they can't even spell it!

Edited June 15, 2010 by Cogs

[the shaping machine]

I say that as someone who'd cut the funding for media studies degrees and give the cash to the kids of the less well off/mature students,who otherwise wouldn't go.

If media studies degrees took at most 12 months, they wouldn't be such an issue.

Maybe we need to examine the fundamentals of university education. I would suggest that most first degrees/diplomas should be a year or two long, and taken at a local college. This would provide the 'student experience' many feel is a right, but at a far lower cost.

Traditional three year hard academic courses would follow on for those subject areas where they are vocationally necessary (medicine, engineering etc.). Being fewer in number they could be far better funded and of higher quality.

.

[Cogs]

If media studies degrees took at most 12 months, they wouldn't be such an issue.

Maybe we need to examine the fundamentals of university education. I would suggest that most first degrees/diplomas should be a year or two long, and taken at a local college. This would provide the 'student experience' many feel is a right, but at a far lower cost.

Traditional three year hard academic courses would follow on for those subject areas where they are vocationally necessary (medicine, engineering etc.). Being fewer in number they could be far better funded and of higher quality.

.

An excellent idea for trapping young people in the UK permanently to pay off their parent's debts.

[the shaping machine]

An excellent idea for trapping young people in the UK permanently to pay off their parent's debts.

How so? Surely cheaper shorter degrees would make young people more independent and do so faster?

.

[HPC001]

Explain yourself. I suggest you have a look at the OECD Education At A Glance report before answering btw.

What I'm saying is some institutions would rather absorb the money for nonsense degrees than offer something useful for less overall cost...

[Lone_Twin]

I think you are being admirably considered about the situation. From my perspective, I think it is appalling that you had to get into debt to do something that you do not feel was worthy of the money -- and remember it's not just the cost to you of funding and fees, but also the loss of income had you worked for those years.

The fact is that a degree should convey enough understanding, training, knowledge and ability to make a difference to your career and learning outcomes. Instead, what we are seeing is the effects of inflation across HE, whereby qualifications are being downgraded by employers -- for example, there is evidence to suggest that employers now view an MA at the level they once used to perceive a degree to be, a degree is now A levels, A levels are now old O'levels, and GCSEs are now the old "left school at 14".

All this means is that it costs more and more for young people to enter the labour market, in terms of time and money, and that burden is falling on young people, their parents and government. As a former teacher who taught across Europe, I know there is absolutely no fundamental reason why most young people cannot reach A level standards of knowledge and ability by the time they are 15 -- all that is needed is a rigorous education system that educates rather than socialises and sufficient parental and cultural support for such a rigorous system.

I agree with everything are saying. I hit the end of school just as the "all good employers want grads" meme was gaining ground in 1999. I took two years out and by the time I graduated you needed a degree for a cr4ppy sales job in London. Bad timing I guess but better luck than those poor s0ds leaving university now.

I just never really quite suited school and academic learning. I was hungry for knowledge and I know from experience in work that I pick up things really quickly but I just could not stick the style of teaching you get in school or university. They kept wanting us to go through motions and excercises as a route to learning things rather than just learn things. It was like being talked down to year after year after year by people that thought their higher level of knowledge meant they were more intelligent than you. Just tell me the stuff you want me to know you fracking tw@ts!!!!

Chip, shoulder, much?

[Cogs]

How so?  Surely cheaper shorter degrees would make young people more independent and do so faster?

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process

[the shaping machine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process

But what proportion of graduates go on to use their degrees abroad (without first gaining work experience)?

Of course those that intend to do so could still take a traditional three course, though the entrance requirements would be higher.

.

[dissident junk]

in terms of social mobility,I wonder if it is.Ayatollah earlier on in the thread stated most kids at his (Russell Group) uni are from private schools.Under the Tories,when grants existed,a poor kid could go to uni and come out without debts.Could the same be said now?Seems to me that Uni education is still the preserve of the well off.

edit to add..I say that as someone who'd cut the funding for media studies degrees and give the cash to the kids of the less well off/mature students,who otehrwise wouldn't go.

I do think the problem of state comprehensive pupil entrance to elite higher education institutions is worse than it was in the 80s and 90s -- though this is not the fault of many HE institutions, they do put a lot of resources into widening participation (foundation years, access courses, sixth form mentoring programmes etc).

Tuition fees and costs are a large part of this, but, at the end of the day, the real problem is the mentality that exists about the purpose of education and schooling within the state sector. To be blunt, a Russell Group university cannot offer a place to a state school child if that student does not apply to the institution, their A2 grades are just too low or they never do A level work in the first place (this is my particular bugbear: so many reasonably bright state-schooled children just never cross the second hurdle). Furthermore, the private sector's ability to hothouse and drill their intelligent students to achieve ever higher and higher exam grades in a climate where those exams are also becoming easier (and they are, believe me) puts state school pupils at even more of a disadvantage.

My personal feeling is that the system appeared to work in the late 80s and early 90s (the real high point of state school access to HE, and the climate in which Blair made his 50 percent pledge, which was actually a feasible notion at that particular point in time) because many comprehensives still had teachers that had been trained in the 50s, 60s and early 70s, or who had worked in comprehensives when they had been grammar schools or local school with grammar streams. To my mind, the problems seemed to begin when these teachers began to retire: the ethos of schools then changed.

We now face the additional problem that the last decade of government has altered the very notion of what a school is and does. It has tried to solve current affairs issues through pushing socially-politicised policies through the school system -- inclusion, diversity, healthy eating, appropriate behaviours, medical diagnoses etc -- a situation that has pushed teachers into impressing, or having to support, politicised value judgements on pupils and thus made them into social workers and surrogate parents. All this has come at the disadvantage of actual learning and skills accumulation.

The other problem, and this is pretty controversial for me to say, is that many teachers now in the state primary sector simply mother pupils too much (much of this issue is amplified by the presence of teaching assistants who themselves are mothers of small children and carry that role into the classroom). Old style primary teachers have been forced into early retirement or the private sector.

There are similar issues with the secondary state system where many teachers don't go into teaching to impart their knowledge to the young, but see teaching as a viable career with decent pecuniary awards if you play the game and become a head of department or year, or end up in senior management. This now means that the politics within state schools can be pretty horrendous, and detrimental to the actual education of the pupils.

All this adds up, with so many other issues I have not gone into here, to the fact that many state school pupils just do not have a chance, even with a pro-education parental atmosphere at home.

As a teacher, you can tell who has the ability to go on and do extraordinary things, and most children do have that ability. But the system, our society and our culture really stacks the odds against them.

It's heart-breaking, and one of the reasons why I left the profession when I returned to Britain. I've taught dirt-poor children from agricultural backgrounds in Eastern Europe who work in fields to pay for their exam fees who, at 15, through a combination of the former Soviet system and autodidactism had educated themselves to the extent they were academically and vocationally superior to many British undergraduates. To come back and see the standards and attitudes of British youngsters and British educational management was a shock.

Edited June 16, 2010 by dissident junk

[I want a house!]

Have never used their services......but have done distant learning courses, college evening classes, and my employer gave and paid for free training that we both benefited from....there is always books and the internet to fall back on...also the open university looks interesting, will have to find out more.

OU is very good. Depending on your course but the Mathematics Department is top notch. They start slowish, then accelerate. Loads of tutorials and exams to do however, so not for the faint hearted.

[alwightchav!]

OU is very good. Depending on your course but the Mathematics Department is top notch. They start slowish, then accelerate. Loads of tutorials and exams to do however, so not for the faint hearted.

OU is kinda DIY... you are given a set of excellent tools/manuals for the job in hand, however, you have to learn through trial and error in an self-learning, self-structured fashion.

This allows you to set your pace/structure... I generally do 6 mths worth of essays/studying in 2/3 mths, thus freeing up time for other things.

[Cogs]

another pointless quango that we have to pay for.

I dunno, some people would say its necessary to facilitate free movement of labour in Europe. Depends on your other views doesn't it.

[Cogs]

a sad post to read in many ways.the politicisation of schooling has been a creeping thing over decades.

I also think the pay scales now do pull people into teaching who are in it for the money,and whilst it's important to pay people well tog et good staff,it amazes me that an art teacher gets paid the same salary as a maths teacher.is that still the case?

Apparently not though, they don't last. Teacher recruitment has been in crisis since the 80s, they've solved the problem of a leaking bucket by turning the taps on full blast. Perhaps they should fix the bucket...dear liza, dear liza.

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

Sorry - misread the thread!

Edited June 17, 2010 by Shylock

[talksalot81]

OU is kinda DIY... you are given a set of excellent tools/manuals for the job in hand, however, you have to learn through trial and error in an self-learning, self-structured fashion.

Which is actually a major benefit. One of the things we notice most in PhD students is that they are less and less able or willing to think! The education system is teaching people facts and figures and forgetting to teach them to apply existing knowledge to new problems.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Times Higher Ed Supplement, no. 1,941 (1-7 April 2010), p. 9

The V-C, council chairman and finance officer of the University of Gloucestershire have resigned following 08-09 financial statements that show the institution to have made a £6.3 million deficit on an overall income of £67.4 million.