Yes, that's what I'm saying. They two do not need to be seen as inherently connected in the way you seem to be arguing (more students = shittier education - "I am jaded by the fact that I have discovered that all of these drives to get more and more people into university do not produce more and more people who have received a worthwhile educational experience. The education itself is reduced and diluted as the numbers increase").
In reality, wouldn't a better quality (higher) education result in fewer students? Is this not what happens already (from tertiary education, to undergrad, to graduate, to post grad?). I'm happy to be the first one to say the level of expectation when it comes to undergraduate education (and graduate in the UK) is not where it should be. However, fewer opportunities for students is not an answer.
Never said it was.
I think you're missing the point with that statement. I think the fewer numbers on post grad courses compared to undergrad are more because of the fewer places than any merit of the higher education.
Also, would you care to explain how better HE = fewer students?
Also, the fact that HE numbers have increased almost every year and now reside at almost 50%?
Also, everything I said is true, at least in the context of UAL. Numbers have gone up while quality has gone down, because money is king. Cut costs is easiest if you cut the education provided (teacher hours, lectures, access to workshops, technicians), bump up numbers to increase revenue.
The government has said to UAL that they cannot increase the numbers on any course unless they reduce the number of people on the unemployment register.
As in, if UAL lets people on the dole onto the course, that's fine.
This gives you a pretty good idea of the motives of government. They don't give a shit about education, they give a shit about looking good, and reducing bad figures (unemployment) while increasing good ones (number of people in HE).
Disregarding the fact that it means that in 3 years time, there will be EVEN MORE people on unemployment benefit, except with even more debt. Woohoo.
Never said it was.
I think you're missing the point with that statement. I think the fewer numbers on post grad courses compared to undergrad are more because of the fewer places than any merit of the higher education.
Also, would you care to explain how better HE = fewer students?
Also, the fact that HE numbers have increased almost every year and now reside at almost 50%?
Also, everything I said is true, at least in the context of UAL. Numbers have gone up while quality has gone down, because money is king. Cut costs is easiest if you cut the education provided (teacher hours, lectures, access to workshops, technicians), bump up numbers to increase revenue.
The government has said to UAL that they cannot increase the numbers on any course unless they reduce the number of people on the unemployment register.
As in, if UAL lets people on the dole onto the course, that's fine.
This gives you a pretty good idea of the motives of government. They don't give a shit about education, they give a shit about looking good, and reducing bad figures (unemployment) while increasing good ones (number of people in HE).
Disregarding the fact that it means that in 3 years time, there will be EVEN MORE people on unemployment benefit, except with even more debt. Woohoo.