Hmm - I don't know exactly when he went - he now makes musical instruments but I don't know what kind of stuff he did back then. He's always going on about how they made them go to st pauls cathedral to learn architectural drawing and how to construct arches etc.

Hi,

After the thread about interacting I thought I would try and be more active and lurk less…

As someone who is just about to start his PhD in a Management School I just wanted to raise an issue with ‘economically useful’ / ‘proper’ courses. Specifically related to the quantitative methods involved in derivatives and risk management which have provided jobs for various maths, science and engineering graduates. Surely the billions which governments have had to pour into supporting the banking system within the last year would bring into question the extent to which these courses are ‘economically useful’?

My students were talking about manufacturing lines for retail, at the college, and that the creation of a business (with college support, and within a framework), which sustains itself over a period of time - the final year or two of their degrees - would be part f their education. They were interested in the idea of British made, semi-crafted, but affordable, garments, and in building up 'real world' business skills, but with guidance. I suppose it would be rather like engineers who do sandwich courses, and work in industry, only in house, at the college.

From what the student were saying, Manchester School of Art doesn't seems to sell final year show work so much, there isn't an arrangement of that sort, that they knew of. They do have work placements though. I'd love to run an art school!! But maybe the reality would not live up to the dream.

Eska, that sounds really interesting. I wonder if similar models are being explored in different places... I feel like if the college can make money out of it then it would be viable, it always seems to come down to economics in the end, unsurprisingly, but if it was student-driven...

Sneaks, maybe that's where your musical interests came from if your dad makes instruments? I think it's a bit sad, but that original purpose-built Central School building is being sold off soon, it's such a lovely place and has so much character. They sold off the Long Acre site in Covent Garden a while back where my old bf did film and video, it was so weird walking through the building when it became H&M and remembering all the little editing suites in the basement, with students poring over their creations in the subterranean gloom. Oh, happy days!!

I think we DO need a major review of the way Higher education is conducted in the UK. Firstly I think having 50% of the population in university is pointless as it drags down the value of a degree. However, some tertiary vocational training may be a better route, but not as taught academic degrees.

As for the return to a two tier system, wake up. There already is one. The rich get into more respectable universities already, while the poor suffer in comparison. E.g. Private schools only teaches 7% of the population but 50% of Oxbridge undergrads come from them. Also, if you think about it accruing debt hasnt put people off so far, and there are more undergrads since the introduction of tuition fees than before. The effects of the two tier system really is apparent AFTER university, where the more affluent are better connected and manage to get desirable jobs far easier than the unfortunate, via internships, coaching etc.

What I would prefer is a meritocratic system where if you get good grades you are eligible for scholarships, bursaries etc. If you get worse grades, you can still go, but you pay more. I think this could help with some of the financial difficulties universities have, but still allow the poor and talented to attend. Note this is sort of how it works in the US and additional higher debt hasn't caused them to descend into anarchy.

To save money, I would rather have fewer well funded universities than a whole raft of poorly funded ones too, so would favour mergers and shut downs. I would also push free or employer funded apprenticeships (better for things like Journalism, accountancy and management in any case), and keep moderate fees and very high standards of entry for entirely academic courses. If people are passionate enough they will make ends meet, but also be in the best position to make use of that degree to get it to pay for itself.

As for "what subjects are more important?" its a futile debate. Science allows us to live, art makes life worth living. Its like asking "Is sight or touch more important as a sensory function?". Ultimately all subjects are human constructs (yes, even the hardest science, which are based on human understanding about observations of the world around us). Coming from a horrendous day of teaching yesterday, I can only conclude there are no bad subjects, only bad students of the field.

I agree Badhaircut, a two-tier system is alive and well, and it's not only Oxbridge who take approx. 50% for their students from private schools, but also many other top 20 uni's (both Durham and Newcastle have approx. 50% private educated students). I remember Bristol enforcing a positive discrimination policy for state-educated students then private schools boycotting Bristol (despite a large percentage of privately educated students still gaining entry).

Many FTSE 100 companies don't entertain job applicants unless they have an undergraduate degree with a Russell Group uni (or in some cases from the top 5 or 10 uni's). I remember talking to a recruiter who had a list in his hand of universities they consider (basically Oxbridge, London, and the city uni's...Durham, Bristol, Manc, Newcastle, Leeds, Edin, Sheffield etc) - he said applicants from anywhere else get binned. More recently, a recruiter told me they are only taking on people from the top 10, because of the economic conditions. So, in practice, there is no need to distinguish between a good 2.1 and a bad 2.1, because companies already have their own filtering systems in place. This is unfortunate because a lower ranked university may have 'pockets of excellence' (to use the RAE term) but their graduates will still never be considered for the top jobs. Universities should have a duty to tell students this corporate reality before they spend what will soon be 15k on their education.

I also disagree with the 50% policy, and favour fewer, better funded universities and better pay for academics (because we are losing too much talent). I also favour traditional universities becoming more open eg. having part-time/evening/distance courses, so people can work/bring up a family and get a great education at the same time.

I think changing the "two-tier" system is more the domain of the primary and secondary systems. By the time people get to A-Levels the damage is already done and I am not a fan of positive discrimination.

It is weird that this is not better known about because it was already happening in 2000 when I first started university.


There are downsides though. The overall academic sector will become a lot smaller, in particular, the new universities and the Arts and Humanities are going to take a big hit. The 50% target has generated a lot of jobs in the academic sector and reducing it back down is tricky. Also, there are specialist courses, like Computer Animation, which are very well taught by some new universities and are crucial for maintaining Britain's skills diversity. Will these survive if the academic sector is shrunk? I don't know.

======= Date Modified 22 Sep 2009 13:20:57 =======
======= Date Modified 22 Sep 2009 13:19:44 =======
I can't remember a time when there wasn't a two tier system - new universities have never beeen seen as equal to the old ones by those with power: the only people who have ever believed they are, are those with degrees from new unis; and I often wonder if there is a degree of denial going on there. I applied to uni in 95, and I remember thiking a degree from a new uni would cripple my academic career, not because of poor standards of research or teaching, but because of their poor reputations, academically, and amongst employees. My dad taught at a new uni, he started there when it was a poly, and the function of that institution has not changed much - my mum used to tease him at the time of the change over, back in the early 90s I think, calling it the 'pretty poly' or the 'puniversity' - parents eh!







I was one of very few students on my degree course who went to a state school - many of us on my course had straight As, and higher grades are far more frequently achieved at private schools - I think a grants for good grades system would end up giving money to those who don't need it, unless we had a grants for good grades AND low income family. The state school system, particularly senior schools need to be sorted out before there can be any hope of a level playing field in Higher Education.







I agree, this situation is worrying for the arts, and for all of us, because if acdemia shrinks, then so does our job pool. Just got to keep going, and do the best we can I guess.

Just to add on to the "economically useful, science and engineering threads", I think it is absurd to suggest that some degrees are better than others. As long as it is an Honours degree, it is just as good as the other. Take for example, medical scientists. Who is there to give counselling to a patient when they have given their cancer diagnosis, a counsellor(a social scientist). Doctors work hand in glove social scientists. When there is a major development about to take place in an area, e.g, a new motorway or shopping mall, who is there to study the culture and social aspects of the people to see what they need or don't need? It is a social scientist. So why this stupid distinction anyway? It is misleading. Some of us love the arts and social sciences will encourage our children to do the same if they wish.

I did my BA at a Poly, and I've never felt it was equal to, say, Oxbridge. My school was an Enid Blyton style girls grammar school, and my schoolfriend went to Cambridge, so I knew our HE choices were really different but suited us both in different ways, so definitely no denial there on my part! I've never felt it's stopped me from doing whatever I wanted to do though and neither have I ever wished I'd gone elsewhere. Maybe I was naive or ill-advised, but I chose that Poly because I liked the sound of both the college and the course, and really enjoyed both.

Maybe it matters more if you're from a family background where university is the norm, or if you have a grand life plan as to which uni you want to go to, in order to be successful in some field or other. I've probably pursued my education in an odd way compared to other people on here, but I've never regretted doing it that way or felt disadvantaged. I'd never realised how snobby attitudes were towards some HE institutions and their students until I started reading this forum, even though I've worked in HE for years now. (That's not directed at anyone in particular on this thread, btw). Even if places are crap in the league tables, their students might still have a valuable experience there, or do something that helps them change their lives for the better, so it must be worth something.

Hi Ruby,

That's good that you've always got what you wanted, without the red brick badge. I know when I tell people which degree course I've done, they perk up a bit and seem more interested - that's happened in industry situations and in Higher Education, and its got me more than a few of jobs - yes, snobbery seems to be rife, alarmingly so (it's not helped me get funding though). I hope all my sweat and sacrifcies (ie living on campus at the age of 26) when getting onto those courses wasn't a waste of effort though! You know, that I could have gone to the local poly and stayed with all my mates at home and had the same career chances.

I did choose those course because I knew I would want an academc career, in a particular subject, when I was applying, and it was mostly for the chance to be taught by people I greatly admired that I chose the the first degree - and people ask me about that experience at conferences etc.

On the denial thing: the only people I know who don't see a two tier system are my old school friends who went to ex-polys, they have no idea why I chose the unis I did, can't see that they are seen differently.

Eska, thanks for PMs!! :-)(up)