Peak Education? Universities Struggle To Fill Courses: Falling A-Level Grades And Move To Btecs

[interestrateripoff]

Not only do you need to attend a Russell group uni, but you want to get a 2.1 at the end of it (a de facto "pass") rather than a 2.2 (the new "fail") Firsts and thirds are just glorified versions of the 2.1 and 2.2.

I think now you need to do a Masters to stand out from everyone else. Luckily most people can't do a masters after racking up tens of thousands of debt, so the elite win.

[justthisbloke]

So, if you were 18 and clutching good-but-not-Russell-group-good A Level results, what would you do? Or how would you counsel your teenager in this position?

What is a good career these days and what is the best route towards it?

A while back, a non-technical degree (and the right attitude, of course) got you onto the fast track in corporate management or in government (the FO was the hot ticket IIRC). You didn't need to be particularly brilliant - the mere fact that your cultural background and familial expectations pointed you to university and you got out of bed sufficiently often to get a 2:1 was enough.

And organisational life wasn't too bad until recently. Even for the majority who didn't excel, upper-middle management paid well, was secure, and contained a high degree of self-direction and independence. Today, none of this is true and management is insecure, and regimented to a very high degree. Apart from C-suite roles (which only suit a very small number of people), I don't think big corp (or govt dept) management is a pleasant place to spend a working life - even if your degree gets you there.

[porca misèria]

So, if you were 18 and clutching good-but-not-Russell-group-good A Level results, what would you do? Or how would you counsel your teenager in this position?

What is a good career these days and what is the best route towards it?

I think I'd retreat from that question. Judging what will be a good career over the next half-century from what has been one in the past is fraught with pitfalls. Pursue what motivates you and take opportunities as they come.

I'd recommend a good university to a bright youngster with no strong desire to pursue some different life path. But probably only if they could secure adequate grant/bursary funding.

A while back, a non-technical degree (and the right attitude, of course) got you onto the fast track in corporate management or in government (the FO was the hot ticket IIRC).

I think that was a phenomenon of the post-war era, when all those dead-mens-shoes provided lots of openings in the corporate world. It was no longer the case when Thatcher came to power, which was one reason for her emphasis on an entrepreneurial culture.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2718542/Universities-struggle-courses-Falling-A-Level-grades-shift-away-traditional-exams-mean-thousands-places-not-filled.html

I do love the paradox in the final sentence.

So our Universities are looking for undergrads from countries whose students will take out loans and never repay a penny back? I wonder how long they'll be able to keep that up for. Will these EU students be expected to take a punt on future foreign exchange values?

I hate to bang on about this but this is just another example of the patrician class pulling up the drawbridge, along with the destruction of grammar schools and the termination of affordable housing. It's not an accident, because there are no such things as accidents in politics, and it's not desperate measures for desperate times, because the patrician class saw a 60% rise in its wealth last year, so there are no desperate times. The plebeian classes got too powerful, rich and educated in the second half of the 20th century and the patrician class did what it has always done in this situation and destroyed the wealth and opportunities of the plebs. If you look closely you will see they have expanded the size of the proletarian classes, at the expense of the plebeian classes, with these simple methods. This is because proles do not vote and have no interest in the patrician classes (see Orwell).

Edited August 7, 2014 by Lord of the Pies

[Dorkins]

I think that was a phenomenon of the post-war era, when all those dead-mens-shoes provided lots of openings in the corporate world. It was no longer the case when Thatcher came to power, which was one reason for her emphasis on an entrepreneurial culture.

Hang on a minute. 0.94% of the UK population died in WW2, and you're saying that created a labour market that was favourable for workers for about 35 years? Doesn't seem like anywhere near enough dead men's shoes to account for such a large and long-lasting economic phenomenon.

[Dorkins]

What % of working age.

And what % of working age men?

Back of fag packet - let's just say half the popn. is of working age. Half the population is men. That makes your 0.94% roughly 4% ?

From census data (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18854073):

In 1931 there were 12.7m males aged 16-64 out of a population of 40.0m = 31.75% of the popn were working age males

In 1951 there were 13.8m males aged 16-64 out of a population of 43.8m = 31.51% of the popn were working age males

I'm really not sure where all these dead men's boots were that needed filling and which gave workers the upper hand in the labour market for a third of a century. WW2 wasn't the Black Death.

[porca misèria]

Hang on a minute. 0.94% of the UK population died in WW2, and you're saying that created a labour market that was favourable for workers for about 35 years? Doesn't seem like anywhere near enough dead men's shoes to account for such a large and long-lasting economic phenomenon.

You may care to take a basic course in Greek elementary logic before putting such words in my .. um .. keyboard. If I describe something as a 20th century phenomenon, you may leap to the conclusion that I'm attributing it to exactly 100 years starting in 1900, but I wouldn't.

I was commenting on an assertion by someone else. I believe the phenomenon he described was once true (it was certainly widely believed in my youth). I know it was no longer true in the 1980s. I suspect - but couldn't say for certain - it was in fact one of the casualties of the 70s bust, when the post-war boom ran out of steam (not to mention money).

[spyguy]

Postwar boom ran out when British Industry effeciency hit the Oil Crisis.

[StainlessSteelCat]

So, if you were 18 and clutching good-but-not-Russell-group-good A Level results, what would you do? Or how would you counsel your teenager in this position?

What is a good career these days and what is the best route towards it?

A good career is one that lets you play to your strengths/derive satisfaction from, have a bit of fun along the way, and earns you enough of a wedge to live a decent life outside of work.

Some of it is mindset/fit - some of the happiest chaps I know work on the bins. Some people even enjoy photocopying/telesales.

Personally, were a youngster again - I'd be building my abilities to make the best of whatever comes up, and adapt accordingly. Those would likely be communications, and other social intelligence skills. Entrepreneurial skills - even if plan to work in a company. Problem solving skills - if that includes the technical skills to hack up solutions so much the better.

[bankstersparadise]

So, if you were 18 and clutching good-but-not-Russell-group-good A Level results, what would you do? Or how would you counsel your teenager in this position?

What is a good career these days and what is the best route towards it?

A while back, a non-technical degree (and the right attitude, of course) got you onto the fast track in corporate management or in government (the FO was the hot ticket IIRC). You didn't need to be particularly brilliant - the mere fact that your cultural background and familial expectations pointed you to university and you got out of bed sufficiently often to get a 2:1 was enough.

And organisational life wasn't too bad until recently. Even for the majority who didn't excel, upper-middle management paid well, was secure, and contained a high degree of self-direction and independence. Today, none of this is true and management is insecure, and regimented to a very high degree. Apart from C-suite roles (which only suit a very small number of people), I don't think big corp (or govt dept) management is a pleasant place to spend a working life - even if your degree gets you there.

You sound pretty realistic so I don't want to patronise you but my advice would be the following:

- Don't allow them to seek general advice from anyone over the age of 30 years old. People tend to give advice on their own personal experience and someone 10+ years older than your kid will of been to uni and graduated in a completely different world so their perspective is now redundant. Of course however, they could give valuable insights into specific aspects of a career or vocation.

- Life is harder out there and opportunities don't just appear anymore you have to work for them, this needs to be made explicitly clear to any youngster. Everything, including good luck needs to be earned.

- The public sector is still too good to be true whatever branch you are looking at so odds on it doesn't make sense. Unless, there is a specific role that can provide non-monetary satisfaction. Likewise, avoid even thinking about a career in stagnating industries and companies.

- The idea of ekeing out an existence in a boring/in-fulfilling job but being financially compensated to the extent you don't care is over. Kids need to identify something they believe in, want to pursue and are interested in so they can find non-monetary pay-offs. The other reason for this is when they end up in the world of work they will instinctively find more opportunity because if they are happy with themselves they will be motivated and committed to their job. Most companies are chock full of lazy 35+ year olds who are easy pickings for a smart youngster, so quick progression is still possible.

- If they cannot justify the time and money (£40k+) of going to university these days including a clear career path then they are probably better off doing something else. That 40k+ of debt will give anyone a material standard of living decrease for the rest of their life if they can't pay it down reasonably quickly.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Peak education ? Nowhere near.

Modern jobs need more education, not less.

If people aren't going to do mcjobs and instead want to be electronic engineers, programmers, scientists they need to get equipped with an ever increasing skill set.

But people need educating in the right things, not the wrong ones.

[Marshmellow]

Peak education ? Nowhere near.

Modern jobs need more education, not less.

If people aren't going to do mcjobs and instead want to be electronic engineers, programmers, scientists they need to get equipped with an ever increasing skill set.

But people need educating in the right things, not the wrong ones.

Clueless

[billybong]

In the meantime while UK youngsters are spending years and years of their life getting into massive debt having to get more and more equipped just to (maybe) land a mediocre job people from overseas are arriving and doing years of work from a young age with few if any qualifications and building on that.

Edited August 8, 2014 by billybong

[Marshmellow]

Peak education ? Nowhere near.

Modern jobs need more education, not less.

If people aren't going to do mcjobs and instead want to be electronic engineers, programmers, scientists they need to get equipped with an ever increasing skill set.

But people need educating in the right things, not the wrong ones.

It's unfortunate that people like this are actually and genuinely believe that are the ones making the policies.

[Marshmellow]

If you think ANYBODY learns the 'skills' needed for 'high skilled jobs' at today's universities you are totally, and utterly clueless.

University has been dumbed down so much its basically an extension of school. It is totally awful.

This includes engineering degrees at Russell Group universities. I know of more than one lecturer in electrical engineering that had their modules removed from the course because it was 'too hard' - too hard for a degree level should not be possible. Most likely if you are intelligent you will sit there idle for 4 years. All you have to do is turn up to get a 2:1. It really is the most diabolical con I have ever seen.

European countries managed to build huge cities, huge structures and develop the technology to fly to the moon and back without the entire generations going to university. You do not need to go to university to 'acquire' a skill set. You do that by actually doing a job.

If you were to actually hire someone from a Russell Group university in electrical engineering after an MEng, for a highly technical position, you would most likely need to train them for another 2 or 3 years anyway before they become useful. University is just a wasted 3 years.

[doomed]

It's unfortunate that people like this are actually and genuinely believe that are the ones making the policies.

I disagree. Modern jobs do require more education.

The problem is that well over half the population do not have the ability or desire to educate themselves sufficiently to do the jobs. We are without doubt heading to a two tier society as any job that can be cost effectively automated will be. There is just not going to be the jobs there for people who are unable or unwilling to acquire skills needed.

[debtlessmanc]

If you think ANYBODY learns the 'skills' needed for 'high skilled jobs' at today's universities you are totally, and utterly clueless.

University has been dumbed down so much its basically an extension of school. It is totally awful.

This includes engineering degrees at Russell Group universities. I know of more than one lecturer in electrical engineering that had their modules removed from the course because it was 'too hard' - too hard for a degree level should not be possible. Most likely if you are intelligent you will sit there idle for 4 years. All you have to do is turn up to get a 2:1. It really is the most diabolical con I have ever seen.

European countries managed to build huge cities, huge structures and develop the technology to fly to the moon and back without the entire generations going to university. You do not need to go to university to 'acquire' a skill set. You do that by actually doing a job.

If you were to actually hire someone from a Russell Group university in electrical engineering after an MEng, for a highly technical position, you would most likely need to train them for another 2 or 3 years anyway before they become useful. University is just a wasted 3 years.

Does this apply to medicine or vetenary science or law? one of our engineering MSc courses charges £25k per year, cannot handle the number of overseas students willing to pay this and has 100% employment rate in a particular industrial sector which pays starting wages £+30k p.a.

to some extent what you say is true, what universities should do (if left to academics) is fail 50% in the first year as the education in that field is, as you say, of no use to them. It was Thatcher and Blair who essentially told us (the professionals) that we simply could not fail people. After all if we fail people after one year they would appear on the unemployment stats.

[porca misèria]

to some extent what you say is true, what universities should do (if left to academics) is fail 50% in the first year as the education in that field is, as you say, of no use to them. It was Thatcher and Blair who essentially told us (the professionals) that we simply could not fail people. After all if we fail people after one year they would appear on the unemployment stats.

Hmmm.

Several people among my contemporaries failed. Three out of ten in my year's intake for maths at my Cambridge college failed outright (which came as a shock to the remaining seven of us). That was during Thatcher's time.

[debtlessmanc]

To be honest I first experienced it myself when I was first appointed in 1993. The big increases in intake occurred round 1990 at the end of thatchers tenure. I do speak to Oxbridge staff, their complaints are identical to ours.

[Marshmellow]

Does this apply to medicine or vetenary science or law? one of our engineering MSc courses charges £25k per year, cannot handle the number of overseas students willing to pay this and has 100% employment rate in a particular industrial sector which pays starting wages £+30k p.a.

to some extent what you say is true, what universities should do (if left to academics) is fail 50% in the first year as the education in that field is, as you say, of no use to them. It was Thatcher and Blair who essentially told us (the professionals) that we simply could not fail people. After all if we fail people after one year they would appear on the unemployment stats.

What they are actually doing is buying a piece of paper for 25k so that they are allowed to get that job.

What they are doing is BUYING access to that job. Can you imagine what would happen if universities started applying actual standards to the course after they have taken 25k from each student? They have paid their money, they want their piece of paper.

I guarantee they will have learnt next to nothing by going on that course, they will be no better than their 18 year old self except they have 5 or 6 more years life experience (which they could have got more of by doing something different to university).

The standards of MSc are a joke too. I think the only reason senior lecturers in the UK don't say more about this is that they will be sacked, especially if they used the words I used.

The whole thing is a farce.

BTW I work at a university too. Some of the content in the courses is alright (when it hasnt been removed for being too hard), but the structure still allows people to get 2.1s and 1sts without knowing any of it.

If I was looking to employ someone I wouldnt even bother looking at what degree they have, or the grade, because I know it means nothing. Having been through the system myself I know first hand the standard of modern university. It requires such minimal effort to get a first (considering that all you have to do is turn up to get a 2:1) that really I would say you might as well throw the CV of someone with a 2:1 and definitely a 2:2 in the bin. They should never have been allowed into a university.

About 13% of people get 1sts today. It should be that 13% that is making up the entire university student population.

[debtlessmanc]

What they are actually doing is buying a piece of paper for 25k so that they are allowed to get that job.

What they are doing is BUYING access to that job. Can you imagine what would happen if universities started applying actual standards to the course after they have taken 25k from each student? They have paid their money, they want their piece of paper.

I guarantee they will have learnt next to nothing by going on that course, they will be no better than their 18 year old self except they have 5 or 6 more years life experience (which they could have got more of by doing something different to university).

The standards of MSc are a joke too. I think the only reason senior lecturers in the UK don't say more about this is that they will be sacked, especially if they used the words I used.

The whole thing is a farce.

BTW I work at a university too. Some of the content in the courses is alright (when it hasnt been removed for being too hard), but the structure still allows people to get 2.1s and 1sts without knowing any of it.

If I was looking to employ someone I wouldnt even bother looking at what degree they have, or the grade, because I know it means nothing. Having been through the system myself I know first hand the standard of modern university. It requires such minimal effort to get a first (considering that all you have to do is turn up to get a 2:1) that really I would say you might as well throw the CV of someone with a 2:1 and definitely a 2:2 in the bin. They should never have been allowed into a university.

About 13% of people get 1sts today. It should be that 13% that is making up the entire university student population.

You certainly sound angry and i agree that the old university system was set up for what you say, to educate 9% (in my day) of the population who needed to learn that kind of stuff. This is a much bigger conversation than can really be had here. It all depends on your utility function, i am actually a physicist by training and, at the risk of giving away where i am, two close colleagues and friends won the nobel prize a few years ago, and i got to witness that process first hand and even be involved in it. I have now changed direction to work with several companies on mass produceable healthcare monitors, i have the academic freedom to do that and as i get older i find it more motivating! the pay is enough to live on and I get to perhaps change the world. Another reward is that The PhD students who work with me are all still scientists, some outside the UK.

I like to think that I stayed in this career because i had the self awareness to realise i was rather good at it and should perhaps use my life in this way, one of my friends from the time i made this choice who chose not to stay in academia and became one of those b*****ds in the city these pages hate so much. I saw him again last year for the first time in 20 years he was retiring at 50 on his millions, he had tried to recruit me at the time, but i am still happy with what i did choose.

There is a place in society for higher education, it has just been hijacked by politicians who realised that a whole generation thinks they can be middle class and mediocre and are willing to pay for it. Always better to get people to pay freely than tax them. Does this change anyting? As you say the top 9% st university still go on to get good jobs, for the rest the system is dysfunctional, for many universities is a kind of post sixth form colleague waiting room.

Edited August 8, 2014 by debtlessmanc

[bankstersparadise]

Does this apply to medicine or vetenary science or law? one of our engineering MSc courses charges £25k per year, cannot handle the number of overseas students willing to pay this and has 100% employment rate in a particular industrial sector which pays starting wages £+30k p.a.

Is this a 1 year course at 25k (for those with a BEng already) or is it 25k for 4 years? Does that mean a UK student could do all four years of the course for 36k total?

[debtlessmanc]

It's one year postgrad, some scholarships available for uk students

[TheCountOfNowhere]

Is this a 1 year course at 25k (for those with a BEng already) or is it 25k for 4 years? Does that mean a UK student could do all four years of the course for 36k total?

Does the £25K include free food, accommodation and an invigorating Thai massage every day ?

Edited August 8, 2014 by TheCountOfNowhere

[debtlessmanc]

Somebody always had to lower the tone.. no, I am giving an example of were it seems to me that informed people are making the choice to pay for an engineering course. To balance this- last time I actually met one of our graduates out in the real world he was taking my details for a car rental!

Edited August 8, 2014 by debtlessmanc