If Science and Technology is important then more money should be invested in it not by taking it from the Arts and Humanities education but from a specific national science and technology budget. It should be noted that Parliament only recently re-instated the Science and Technology committee after it was scrapped in 2007 and made part of the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills. The reinstatement occurred because politicians realised that discussion of science funding and policy got lost within the considerable remit of the DIUS and was being badly neglected. This really infuriates me because actions like these totally contradict the public statements about "science" being important to the country.

I'm going to have to leave the forum for a while, not sure if I'll be back, which is a great shame because I am addicted to the forum. I really don't want to engage with a bunch of people who think my hard slog is not a 'proper' PhD, I may not agree with some of the research of other people, but I would not be so arrogant and rude as to say that their degrees were not 'proper' courses.

I think if your upset or offened you need to take a step back and take a breath. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and one should be carful about wording and consider the audince, and think how you would feel if you where to read that about your subject area!
However I don't think it's meant to be personal its just a view point and it's up to you how yu take it and weather you accept it into your life or not! Just igonore the comments you don't like andtry not to get oo caught up defending your subject/lifestyle/choices, you don't have to answer to anyone or defend yourslef either!

I guess I am just jealous cos a lot of my housemates did film at undergrad and it seems like they all managed to get 2:1s by just watchiing the directors commentary bits on dvds. Whereas I had to slog my way through mountains of journals :-s

And most essentially - they got to watch films - they HAD to watch films. If I had time to watch a film then I was lucky.

to be fair - I did say that others would take an alternative view. AND I did say that most peopel think my subject is 'soft' too - so it wasn't a personal dig at film studies - just an example of what many peopel have pulled out as soft subjects. I could have chosen film, media, english lit, psychology, sociology, culture studies, anthroplogy, even history now is seen as a course for having fun, i.e. interesting but not necessarily helpful in BUSINESS - just highlights the whole 'alan sugaring' of HE!

No offence meant Eska in fact, if I could understand half the films I watch then I would be a better person - I still haven't got a clue about what went on in mission impossible!

======= Date Modified 21 Sep 2009 15:27:19 =======
Well I think really, the way things are today, nobody would have gained funding if the implications of their PhD were unimportant or not useful to us in any way. I guess in some subjects it's just easier to see the relevance of the research. In my PhD in (non-soft-option!!) Clinical Psychology I work with people with Alzheimer's with the hope that my research will lead to improved care for those with this illness (that's a very general statement but I won't bore you all with the details!). Nobody has ever questioned the usefulness of my research and when I talk to people about it I usually get 'wow, that's great/a really worthwhile thing to be doing/so important etc etc'. So I guess I have it easy. Now I have friends doing PhDs in biology-based subjects including bird migration, soil science etc, where the direct implications and benefits of the research are less obvious to the average lay-person. I can honestly say that I really don't understand the implications of what they are doing all that well, and dare I say it, am not all that interested in their topics. But even though it's not obvious to (ignorant) me, I accept that there are important implications relating to this research, or people wouldn't be throwing money at it to start with. So I guess what I'm saying is, even though we don't understand/like/find other people's research relevant, we should either find out more about it and educate ourselves about the reasons for the research, or remain ignorant and keep it buttoned!! That's my thoughts on the topic anyway! KB

Yes, it does emphasise the whole Alan Sugaring of HE - Alan Sugar doesn't seem to put much store in higher education at all. It's amazing to me that people manage to get degrees in their own subject, while studying the content of other people's degrees so closely, and at such length so as to be an expert in them. I'm not going to respond to any more of your comments Sneaks, you're digging yourself deeper.

hmm eska, I think you are deliberately taking offence - I was merely trying to say that university courses are becoming more and more geared to what is useful in Alan Sugar's world of 'hard hitting business',  they assume these 'softer' subjects are worthless and refuse to look at the skills they actually provide you with. I would imagine that film studies provides you with very in depth analytical skills for example - although I do not know the subject in detail of course ;-)

My original point actually was that they shouldn't be even attempting to classify subjects in terms of more or less important or 'better' than others and that all courses offer their own benefits, but maybe I didn't make myself clear. Maybe I should enrol on communication studies at undergrad  :$

======= Date Modified 21 Sep 2009 15:54:44 =======
I think we have accept the 'no fee' option is now a thing of the past - but where do we go now, higher fees?  unlimited fees? a graduate tax? or privatisation?

I like the idea of a graduate tax (although many don't) - this at least shifts the financial burden to when one is earning. I don't agree that there should be no threshold for fees (something the Russell Group wants), I think this will price people out of education (already seen at masters level). Or what about privatisation? From an academic's point-of-view, salaries would be more commensurate with the private sector (eg. the London Business School pay staff much higher salaries), but then I think this would be a very bad thing for students. Imperial says privatisation would create a more equitable system "like the US" (to paraphrase), when I asked some American friends about this they laughed.

I'm very cynical about the CBI's views, it's full of the same rhetoric from the Russell Group, and it wouldn't surprise me if their alma maters have lent on them to produce this report.

I'd like to know if there are going to be higher fees or unlimited fees, are academic staff and admin staff going to get a better wage?

I saw the section about private sector organisations putting more money in - but it gets you thinking that somewhere along the line, will a piece of research be 'adapted' to suit that organisation? I.e. you write it up like that or your funding gets pulled .....

Hi Folks

Interesting debate

Something I can't help thinking about all this stuff is the more people are paying for education, the more they expect to get for their money. In a society such as ours this is understandable, but could cause quite some problems. Academics nowdays are generally overburdened with lectures, practicals, marking etc, to the point where everything is being dumbed down somewhat, and less attention is being given to the students and their learning experience. This is, in part due to the need to maximise incomes from tuition fees. As well as this, people who are paying for their education will all expect at least a 2(i) for their money.

We are essentially arrrving at a pay more for less situation, it would seem that the modern student today is especially hard done by, even compared to the likes of me, who had it relatively easy on 1,100 pounds per year fees a few years ago. I personally am not too sure I like where this is all going at the moment, in fact I disagree strongly.

I think it's time for a return to the 1960's when only the academic elite went to university, and degrees were an awful lot harder. The flipside is that the goverment could fund more university courses, allowing the gifted but financially poor to attend university. This therefore eliminates the situation we have today, with far too many graduates. I would still have most courses that are available today happening, just fewer of them.

Ultimately, it would probably mean what is now considered a graduate position would be filled by a non-graduate, but I think other forms of vocational training could be used here quite succesfully.

This may never happen, but that's what i believe in, and I don't see why the goverment consistently getting this wrong should change that

Cakeman, well put. However, I feel I need to take you to task on the issue of only the academic elite going to university, like the 1960s. I think if we returned to such a system, people from lower socioeconomic classes would be discriminated against because they generally go to poorer schools and don't have access to the learning resources that people from higher social classes do, such as extra paid tuition. When you're privileged, Daddy can buy you anything - even top grades to go to the best universities.
I'm a good example. Did absolutely crap at school (not even 5 GCSE's A-C!), took the vocational route at college. I never thought that I had any academic ability at all, and I realise now that this was because of my working class background and the crap teaching I had been exposed to. Under the 1960's elite system, I'd probably have just gone straight into the world of work - the end. I remember talking to my father at the time about trying to learn a trade, as a plumber or electrician. At the time, however, Labour was beginning to increase access to higher education and I was encouraged to give university a shot. So I did. Two first class degrees later, with a wealth of prizes for academic achievement, I'm two thirds of the way through my PhD (well, in terms of the time scale!). So, what I'm trying to say is that if we start to make university more what we perceive to be elite, we'll damn an awful lot of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have the potential but have never had the right environment, to lives where they can never realise their potential in the ways that they may want. I do think that trying to get 50% of students into university is a bit ridiculous though.

======= Date Modified 21 Sep 2009 16:58:57 =======
May I step in to attempt a little peace, between two highly valued posters? :-)



Eska: I think Sneaks made her comment based on seeing some film studies undergrads watching films (perceived often as just fun), while she was spending her time in labs (sneaks, you do science, right?) My mum was doing her degree in literature when my aunt, her sister, 2 yrs younger, same uni, same dorm was poring over microscopes, even they had these moments. My aunt (who went on with science and works with science today) and my mum (who is a prof of Eng lit) now perfectly 'get' the fact that they don't quite know the others subjects, but they do agree that what the other does is highly valuable. I dont think Sneaks's comment was geared towards the fiilm and cultural studies scholarly work, but more a general groan from undergrad memories that was phrased wrongly....so Sneak's comment was not made by a person commenting with intricate knowledge of cultural scholarship and why it matters, for they are well outside the field...



Sneaks: Eska, is very rightfully hurt (as I was, as a media studies person), because art and culture as I said earlier, is the site of societal shaping...what endless worries society has had and continues to have over media impacts/effects on the vulnerable, countered by those who speak of people's activity and agency, on the importance of representing minorities (with responsibility), on the interaction of cultural artefacts, identities, power, politics... one could go on... so your comment was interpreted not by the undergrad watching films (albeit, also, responsibly and seriously) but by the researcher of society and humankind...



:-) smile, you both!

An excellent point Walminskipeasucker

For the Cakeman model to work, one has to assume a relatively even playing field lower down the education system, which in reality, there is not.

Looks like there is no obviously easy way to improve things here, but I think by limiting places and setting certain minimum standards of academic excellence, we will at least retain some credibility in the current system and therefore retain the value of the degree.

Another point I ought to make, is that tuition fees have a social component as well. For example, harking back to my parents age, nearly all student were politically active, societies and sports clubs were also relatively well attended. Currently, participation in such activities is decreasing, probably because the students are having to take part time jobs to be able to afford to stay at university, once again lessening the experience for the students.

Once again, the cakeman argues for a less is more approach, although it's too bad this will never happen

I actually did an 'about turn' just before uni - I was going to go to do music as everyone assumed that was what would happen. So I do understand the 'arts'. I still work as a musician so please don't imagine me in a lab coat poking people to get reactions!