Useless degrees

Thanks for that, Ed. You've enlightened us all.

I garnered little to no lasting knowledge from the curriculum of my course. A lot of employers in the finance industry consider degrees a prerequisite to employment even though its widely accepted that the real learning occurs in the workplace. It really shouldnt be that way if you have the aptitude.

Having said that, I'd prefer my surgeons to have completed formal studies.

I blame Peter fucking Andre.

being on an internet forum I really has no idea if you're being sarcastic or not Horatio.

Are you sure you should be in higher education?

(joke!)

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.

being on an internet forum I really has no idea if you're being sarcastic or not Horatio.

I was being 100% sincere.

No, it was sarcastic. But in the nicest possible way!

See that's where we differ fella.

I'd much rather a 'retard who fucked up the first 20-or-so-plus year of their education' (sic) went on to higher education. Why is someone like that doing it and how did they get there? I guess not to fuck about.

Again I think we are in agreement but why go to Uni at 18? Sorry at 19 after a gap year in India/Thailand/South America. When you know fuck all about the world or how you can help in it?

That was the point of my education in quotation marks.

Still with you that there are some people who should go at that age though - some are mature enough and it is absolutely the right thing to do. Just not all / the majority?

I think you're right (that we are in more agreement, than disagreement). However, I think the opportunities need to be there for anyone to give university a shot (even retards who fucked up the first 20-or-so-plus year of their education). Opportunities also need to exist for them (and everyone else, especially middle-class fuck wads) to fail.

(And the ones who fail, should have the opportunity to try again).

Never said it was.

Never said what was what? I'm guessing you mean my statement that you stated that more student = shittier education. In which case, I think you did? I think I actually quoted it. Put it in bold, even ;)

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.

I'm not sure how you measure merit in this case. I'm speaking of education for educations sake (academics). I am not saying that the higher level degree you have, the more capable you will be in any particular mundane money-making job (i.e., that is not a merit of higher education, although it may actually be a reality).

My point is that the pool of students thins as expectations increase.

Also, would you care to explain how better HE = fewer students?

Higher expectations are likely to results in fewer students, assuming equality of capability when it comes to academics is a myth (which I'm pretty sure it is).

Also, the fact that HE numbers have increased almost every year and now reside at almost 50%?

You want me to explain this? Or you're telling me this? As far as I can tell this is just a fact posing as a question.

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.

So more students =/= shittier education? It's just a symptom of the "money is king" disease? In which case I agree completely. Although, not all symptoms are bad. I stand by my belief that people should have access to higher education if they want to give it a go.

I think you're right (that we are in more agreement, than disagreement). However, I think the opportunities need to be there for anyone to give university a shot (even retards who fucked up the first 20-or-so-plus year of their education). Opportunities also need to exist for them (and everyone else, especially middle-class fuck wads) to fail.

(And the ones who fail, should have the opportunity to try again).

I agree with you on principle. However, in the long term, I don't think the world can afford this. It is too expensive for a country for 50% of it's young people to be in approx. £30,000 in debt.

What needs to change is the way education is financed (like fuck, I don't really believe that money has any place in education. Definitely not in terms of making profit). Disciplines that have a direct corrolation to an industry should be funded by that industry, with things like apprenticeships etc. Obviously, HE works for some subjects, such as medicine etc.

Education + investment = the destruction of meaningful education, and its replacement with a mediocre simulacrum designed for profit only.

Also, goodhead you didn't put any words in my mouth, i totally agree with you!

See that's where we differ fella.

I'd much rather a 'retard who fucked up the first 20-or-so-plus year of their education' (sic) went on to higher education. Why is someone like that doing it and how did they get there? I guess not to fuck about.

Again I think we are in agreement but why go to Uni at 18? Sorry at 19 after a gap year in India/Thailand/South America. When you know fuck all about the world or how you can help in it?

That was the point of my education in quotation marks.

Still with you that there are some people who should go at that age though - some are mature enough and it is absolutely the right thing to do. Just not all / the majority?

I think you misread what I wrote. Too busy catching typos so you could throw in a condescending "(sic) [sic]" I suspect. ;)

I was arguing that the person in question (the "retard" [this is me, btw]) should have the opportunity to study.

Never said what was what? I'm guessing you mean my statement that you stated that more student = shittier education. In which case, I think you did? I think I actually quoted it. Put it in bold, even ;)

I never said that education shouldn't be for everyone.

I'm not sure how you measure merit in this case. I'm speaking of education for educations sake (academics). I am not saying that the higher level degree you have, the more capable you will be in any particular mundane money-making job (i.e., that is not a merit of higher education, although it may actually be a reality).
Show me an example of education for education's sake and we can discuss that further. It definitely does not exist in my university experience.

My point is that the pool of students thins as expectations increase.

Academic expectations yes, but the expectations of most BRITISH HE institutions are financial. primarily.

Higher expectations are likely to results in fewer students, assuming equality of capability when it comes to academics is a myth (which I'm pretty sure it is).

Again, education for education's sake is almost non existent in my experience.

So more students =/= shittier education? It's just a symptom of the "money is king" disease? In which case I agree completely. Although, not all symptoms are bad. I stand by my belief that people should have access to higher education if they want to give it a go.
Agreed. But at what cost to the british economy.

I never said that education shouldn't be for everyone.

Fair enough. This is what I (and it seems Will) saw you as arguing at the beginning, though.

Show me an example of education for education's sake and we can discuss that further. It definitely does not exist in my university experience.

Do you consider academia (thinking in particular of the humanities and liberal arts) being education for education's sake?

Academic expectations yes, but the expectations of most BRITISH HE institutions are financial. primarily.

Sure. This is an issue. Fewer students is not the solution, though.

Again, education for education's sake is almost non existent in my experience.

Fair enough. It exists though! It does!

Agreed. But at what cost to the british economy.

Fuck the British economy. I'm Canadian.

(this is an issue - the economic burden of higher education - much bigger than I'm able/willing to argue about. Unless it's over a pint at a pub).

Blimey,

On a purely pedantic level my 'sic' was only so I didn't quote 'retards' as 'retard' - fuck the typos!

The argument asm seems to be putting is that higher education is not for everyone. Especially not in the format it takes today. I agree with this.

I hope that the new apprentice scheme goes some way to addressing this as I don't believe that academia is some kind of 'catch all' panacea.

People learn in different ways is what I'm saying. Start addressing the problems at the bottom of the ladder and it will help all involved.

I think you misread what I wrote. Too busy catching typos so you could throw in a condescending "(sic) [sic]" I suspect. ;)

I was arguing that the person in question (the "retard" [this is me, btw]) should have the opportunity to study.

I wonder what happen if you have sherry.

I crack out the Stilton.

I wonder what happen if you have sherry.

Pinto Grigio FTW!

Apparently I've had enough.

Are you watching me?

Pinto Grigio FTW!

The argument asm seems to be putting is that higher education is not for everyone. Especially not in the format it takes today. I agree with this.

I agree with this 100%. Everyone should have access to higher education (should they want it) though.

I do agree with you in lots of ways, asm. The expansion of the universities post-92 has meant that degrees have become a production line, and that these universities now have to pursue fairly aggressive recruitment policies – which inevitably result in less able students being taught completely inappropriate subjects. I've taught people who shouldn't be doing English degrees, for sure. But I've also taught people who shouldn't be doing English degrees at one of the 'best' universities in the country – privileged kids who have been tutored to within an inch of their lives but who display absolutely no original thought or enthusiasm for the subject.

The ideal university experience which I believe in is completely unmoored from economic factors. Education should be an end in itself. There is a necessary elitism involved: but it should be of intelligence and aptitude, not class.

The problem is that this is impossible to achieve with the inequality in society. The education system cannot correct that. I've taught at universities, good ones, where the percentage of students that come from private school backgrounds is shocking. We had more equality of opportunity in the sixties. Interviews help, in the selecion process, as hopefully academics can spot potential more easily – but they are being phased out rapidly. And how do we get those bright kids to the interview at all? Widening access has probably not helped this basic problem, but narrowing it now would certainly exacerbate it.

Having talked to the dude I can't help but agree with him, because at ground zero, from inside higher education, much of what he says is painfully true. That guardian article stank of left wing journalism attacking a right wing figure. I don't care about what chris woodhouse says about genes or any of that nonsense, I care about what he says about education, because I can tell that, aside from his context (which is one that, on many levels, I am opposed to), he genuinely cares about education, and he can see that it is suffering, above all else.

The article didn't really attack him, though – it was a news piece, not comment. It just reported his words, which were, and remain, pretty controversial. The problem here is when you say that his argument about genes and that about education are somehow separable: they are not, unfortunately. His argument is that 'middle-classness', the thing that undoubtedly makes you more likely to get to a good university to study a good degree regardless of raw potential, is somehow inherent. He doesn't believe that it is poverty that dictates this; he thinks that being working-class is some sort of original sin. It is a terrible, ludicrous thing to say.

speaking as a working class council housed student with no other degree educated family i didn't find any class distinction while i was in higher education.
Only a nationality bias through a willingness to give places to foreign students with little ability or talent because of the extra funds available from the government/E.U.

That's great. But the figures speak otherwise. Something like 5% of kids are privately educated, but they make up about 60% of the intake at the top universities. That is off the top of my head, but it's thereabouts.

I am a privately educated student, and I think part of the reason behind that figure is the social stigma I mentioned earlier.

If you go to a private school and then don't go on to university, this brands you as a drop out or a failure. Obviously that's a generalization but it's fairly accurate, from my experience. Universities are really relying on the fact that nobody really knows the real deal until they are on the inside, which is also the issue that is impeding any real efforts to change anything.

Oddly enough, it's the students and the students alone who are in a position to do anything at all (in UAL), because if a tutor is critical of the college it could fairly easily mean the loss of their job. Direct opposition to the university doesn't work though, because UAL relies on the fact that any dissenting student is probably only dissenting because s/he's in 2nd year. And even if they're an unusual case, they are only going to be protesting for 3 years before they're out the other end and powerless once again.

In the eyes of my parents, and my old school teachers, universities seem to still be these shining bastions of uncorrupted educational excellence, which is obviously not the case.

oh, and MrSmyth: when i was on foundation at CSM, it was more or less a 50-50 split in terms of domestic and EU/international students. The reason being, that as an under 19 year old the course for me was free, subsidized by the government, but for an international student it costs somewhere in the region of £9-10K. Direct payment is always more desirable than government subsidy, probably because CSM sees the money quicker.

You get out what you put in.

Andy
university drop out.

For what it's worth this is my view. Study what you want at university, not what you think you should do because you think it will guarantee you a good job. However, try to be active in clubs/societies/events, do some work experience, try to get contacts in the industry areas you're interested in, and generally broaden your CV. You should then stand out in applications. Obvious advice, but it's what I've learned over the last few years.