Useless degrees

worryingly shit. i did a year at a relatively ok uni (goldsmiths) before realising that i totally wasn't cut out for higher education despite getting decent a levels. i went and talked to a number of people at the uni and not once did anyone suggest that HE wasn't for me. taking a year out, changing groups, lecturers, courses were all possibilities apprently, but at no point did someone turn round and say 'y'know what ross maybe you don't have the mental capacity/patience/concentration/whatever for this'.
i think there are so many things wrong with our current university system.

I very fundamentally do not believe that children are 'born not very bright', as Woodhead of the resonant nom parlant says. There are so many factors that you would need to consider first before determining what, if anything, was the case at birth. A human life is an incredibly complex nexus of causes and effects, and some of the most important causes--the economic conditions in which you grow up, the love of your family, the school you go to, the teachers you have, how your friends influence you, any disasters or lucky breaks that may happen to you, etc.--and I could go on for hours, but that would be boring, because we all know these factors--all shape people much more than more minor factors, such as what colour your nursery was painted in.

I would be very surprised if any genetic theorist was able to explain all of the relevant factors away and put it all down to 'genes', a reductionist stub of an explanation.

What is true is that people have different potentials right from birth, but I remain to be convinced that there is a meaningful case to be made that some people have a lesser potential and others a greater potential. Naturally, growing up privileged can mean a greater potential to remain privileged later in life (and I use the word 'privileged' advisedly, as I don't think that there is a scale on which that is immediately preferable--real privileges are things like an intact family, and a lot of wealthy and supposedly 'privileged' families are desperately unhappy, whereas it's quite possible for a lowly working-class family to be much happier), but irrespective of such external factors, there is no reason to assume that a baby, at the moment he or she is born, might have lesser or greater potential than any other.

The difference in potential is rather to do with different categories of ability--being good at mechanical tasks, being good at linguistic tasks, visual tasks, etc., and unless stimulation is given in those areas in which a baby has potential, and I know of so many cases of people for whom something went wrong at a crucial juncture in their lives and who were given little chance to continue to develop their unrecognised potential.

By the time people reach the age at which they qualify for primary, secondary, or higher education, a lot of things will have taken place that shape their further course in life, and they may well appear to have greater or lesser potential. A child that has received little academic stimulation will generally not have developed much of the academic ability that is the prerequisite for study. By contrast, it is entirely possible that someone who has little academic interest or ability will have received considerable academic stimulation, and that this stimulation can really mask their original state.

What you see is not necessarily what you get.

I agree with äsm, university is full of people who shouldn't be there and who are lying and cheating themselves through the courses.

Extension? Yes, please! Why not?

Or the old classic "I couldn't finish my coursework because I had a pregnancy scare."

Oh, yeah, but for getting completely rat-arsed on a Friday night there is always time. Fucking lazy student scum. I can't wait to get out of uni.

while i agree, i think one of the main reasons students become so lazy is because there is so, so little work. i really felt that my degree course could have been condensed into two years work very easily. i use to be in lectures and seminars for something like 7/8 hours a week. (i don't understand how this sets anyone up for the 'real world') you can pretend that students make up a lot in their own time reading, but i think everyone including university staff know this isn't the case. unis seem to be becoming more and more of a money making exercise (like someone has already said look how much they charge foreign students) and i think there is a very real chance that we'll see american style college fees within a couple of decades

while i agree, i think one of the main reasons students become so lazy is because there is so, so little work. i really felt that my degree course could have been condensed into two years work very easily. i use to be in lectures and seminars for something like 7/8 hours a week. (i don't understand how this sets anyone up for the 'real world') you can pretend that students make up a lot in their own time reading, but i think everyone including university staff know this isn't the case. unis seem to be becoming more and more of a money making exercise (like someone has already said look how much they charge foreign students) and i think there is a very real chance that we'll see american style college fees within a couple of decades

If you choose not to do the reading you can't really complain when there isn't enough to do.

ok find me a student that does ALL of their required reading and puts in enough time to require their course to be stretched out over three years. i really can't see how anyone could say that the majority of uk students work hard, has anyone been to us colleges - dudes work fucking HARD and still find time to party, play extrememly conpetitive sports and a bunch of other shit. while i'm not sure that some of it is particularly healthy it still puts uni hours into perspective.

I just don't really get your point – you're saying that University courses don't stretch students enough or give them enough work, but then simultaneously that they're not doing the work they are given? And this is the university's fault?

Students are adults, not children. There's only so much hand-holding that can be done.

ok find me a student that does ALL of their required reading and puts in enough time to require their course to be stretched out over three years. i really can't see how anyone could say that the majority of uk students work hard, has anyone been to us colleges - dudes work fucking HARD and still find time to party, play extrememly conpetitive sports and a bunch of other shit. while i'm not sure that some of it is particularly healthy it still puts uni hours into perspective.

Try doing a proper course and you'll be busy.

i guess so, i'm not overly sure what my point is either. i'm pretty sure i could have done all the required reading of my course and stuffed it into two years. shit would have been tough and i wouldn't have had two days off a week and endless hours to dick about in. perhaps i think there should be more contact time, more written work and more reasons for students to do the work. maybe i'm just annoyed that it didn't work out for me?

ok find me a student that does ALL of their required reading and puts in enough time to require their course to be stretched out over three years. i really can't see how anyone could say that the majority of uk students work hard, has anyone been to us colleges - dudes work fucking HARD and still find time to party, play extrememly conpetitive sports and a bunch of other shit. while i'm not sure that some of it is particularly healthy it still puts uni hours into perspective.

I had no choice, if I hadn't done the reading, hadn't submitted the essays, hadn't attended the lectures - I would've been kicked out. It was pretty much full-time. I can't speak for anyone else, other than the MSc students I have examined and the same pretty much goes for them.

I just don't really get your point – you're saying that University courses don't stretch students enough or give them enough work, but then simultaneously that they're not doing the work they are given? And this is the university's fault?

Students are adults, not children. There's only so much hand-holding that can be done.

Yep, +1

Try doing a proper course and you'll be busy.

i knew someone was going to say this, how many students do you think we have in the country doing worthwhile courses at worthwhile unis?

i guess so, i'm not overly sure what my point is either. i'm pretty sure i could have done all the required reading of my course and stuffed it into two years. shit would have been tough and i wouldn't have had two days off a week and endless hours to dick about in. perhaps i think there should be more contact time, more written work and more reasons for students to do the work. maybe i'm just annoyed that it didn't work out for me?

So there wasn't enough reading to make it in to a challenging course, but too much for you actually do? But if you had done it, it wouldn't have been enough? :p

Sorry you had a shit time, honest. I agree there should be more contact time. A few universities, in my subject at least, run a tutorial system, which is by far the best way to teach, I think. But they are fairly rare due to the high teaching demands they put on academics. Which comes back to underfunding & cetera…

construction of point. D-

perhaps i think there should be more contact time, more written work and more reasons for students to do the work. maybe i'm just annoyed that it didn't work out for me?

It sounds as if you want it to be more like school? One of the points is that it isn't supposed to be--and this doesn't work for everyone.

I went into UniVERSITY (< see what I did there?) knowing full well I was wasting my time and my local authority's money (I got a partial grant ... jeez - I'm old, some of you might not know what a grant is). I 'read' Philosophy.

I left none the wiser. But it was 'an education' nonetheless... I learned lots more about drugs and nightclubs and sex. And a bit about philosophy, and my chosen minor subject, south asian religious traditions.

By the time I left I was ready to work hard. I mean really plug away and stay the course. I am actually still with the same employer that I joined the following year, after about 6 months on the rock'n'roll. That was in '95.

i think getting all the pratting about out of my system, in a protected environment, did me good.

Just because it may look pointless, that doesn't make it pointless.

Oliver, I absolutely concur with your point about the fallacy of the influence of genes. I brushed it aside because I was actually disappointed to learn that Mr. Woodhead had said it (although from my experiences of the fellow, it was probably an ill-timed offhand remark).

Ross + Plurabelle, I think you're discussing one of the most difficult issues of higher education. If it's fed to you on a plate, how is it distinguished from further education, but if it is left up to the student, how do you make sure they actually do anything?

And more importantly, is it ok to let a student drift through university without really attempting to learn anything?

I hate to keep harking on about it (really I do), but the answer, yet again, is money in my opinion. It is possible to strike a happy medium between the two, and it is very simple.

Markyboy's experience of higher education is markedly different to mine (and I'm guessing yours, Ross), because there was a clear line drawn. If you don't pass this, you fail. This works well for Bsc/Msc degrees, but it's much much harder to implement on BAs, because of their subjective nature.

For BAs the answer really is money. Money to pay for tutor hours to encourage discourse exactly like what we're having right now. Lectures are important, but there should be a greater emphasis put on the facilitation of discussion, both between students and staff.

My course is hiding behind this issue. It says, in defence of the cuts in tutor hours etc, that HE is about peer-to-peer learning. They call it** Autodidacticism.**

Which is the gayest, shittest term I've ever heard (when used in this context). They say that it's one of the most important thigns for us to achieve. The term refers to an individual's ability to self-teach, essentially. Which begs the question, what is the point of any of the tutors, or any of the administrators? Why don't you fire all of them, and leave us alone for 95% of the term with the money being spent on materials and library books, instead of administrator's wages?

In my view, peer-to-peer learning and autodidacticism are useful and important parts of an HE course, but both of them can exist without the course. If the course exists, then it needs to provide input from people who know more than the students. Not solely in the form of lectures, but in far more informal ways as well. The students need to actually seek these people out, but the tutors need actually be there. In my course's case, they simply aren't. They'll be in Ramsgate, or Paris.

plurabelle

The statistics for privately educated kids at universities belie the whole story. When I was at university (1976-9) around 50% of students were privately educated. Oxbridge in those days probably had a higher proportion of privately educated students. Today the term "university" encompasses a greater band of tertiary education. A far higher per centage of the population undergoes tertiary enducation and does so at university level. It is unlikely that as many as 60% are privately educated particualrly at a time when some independent schools are closing.

If you look at the performance tables, you will note that the best performing state schools are in middle class areas. The middle classes are the mainstay of independent schools. I suspect an element of middle class ethos coupled with parents' educational standards, are far more important for the level of education achieved by a child than the school to which they are sent.

this thread actually reminds me of what i see a lot of higher education produce. earnest questioning and analysis, navel gazing, a waste of resources (you should all be doing something productive), poor allocation of funds and not a lot to show for it at the end.

ha

Oliver, I absolutely concur with your point about the fallacy of the influence of genes. I brushed it aside because I was actually disappointed to learn that Mr. Woodhead had said it (although from my experiences of the fellow, it was probably an ill-timed offhand remark).

Ross + Plurabelle, I think you're discussing one of the most difficult issues of higher education. If it's fed to you on a plate, how is it distinguished from further education, but if it is left up to the student, how do you make sure they actually do anything?

And more importantly, is it ok to let a student drift through university without really attempting to learn anything?

I hate to keep harking on about it (really I do), but the answer, yet again, is money in my opinion. It is possible to strike a happy medium between the two, and it is very simple.

Markyboy's experience of higher education is markedly different to mine (and I'm guessing yours, Ross), because there was a clear line drawn. If you don't pass this, you fail. This works well for Bsc/Msc degrees, but it's much much harder to implement on BAs, because of their subjective nature.

For BAs the answer really is money. Money to pay for tutor hours to encourage discourse exactly like what we're having right now. Lectures are important, but there should be a greater emphasis put on the facilitation of discussion, both between students and staff.

My course is hiding behind this issue. It says, in defence of the cuts in tutor hours etc, that HE is about peer-to-peer learning. They call it** Autodidacticism.**

Which is the gayest, shittest term I've ever heard (when used in this context). They say that it's one of the most important thigns for us to achieve. The term refers to an individual's ability to self-teach, essentially. Which begs the question, what is the point of any of the tutors, or any of the administrators? Why don't you fire all of them, and leave us alone for 95% of the term with the money being spent on materials and library books, instead of administrator's wages?

In my view, peer-to-peer learning and autodidacticism are useful and important parts of an HE course, but both of them can exist without the course. If the course exists, then it needs to provide input from people who know more than the students. Not solely in the form of lectures, but in far more informal ways as well. The students need to actually seek these people out, but the tutors need actually be there. In my course's case, they simply aren't. They'll be in Ramsgate, or Paris.

As I mentioned above, in my subject, there are (I think) three departments in the country that have a tutorial system. This means that instead of contact with faculty members being limited to seminars/lectures/the odd dissertation consultation, each student gets one hour alone with their tutor once a week or fortnight to discuss each tutorial essay in depth. This is a marvellous system: the amount of attention the student gets no longer depends on their articulacy, or willingness to put themselves forward in seminars; it no longer privileges the arrogant, or the cocky, or even the clever ones. But it does of course also result in a far greater teaching burden than where it doesn't exist, so most departments wouldn't dream of implementing it: and this resistance is in part because in addition to their teaching load academics are expected to publish, publish, publish. Publications, which means research outwith the department, are the direct means to a good RAE rating for the department – which equals money.

this thread actually reminds me of what i see a lot of higher education produce. earnest questioning and analysis, navel gazing, a waste of resources (you should all be doing something productive), poor allocation of funds and not a lot to show for it at the end.

Actually, this is what I'm writing my dissertation on, so I dunno about you guys, but this is actually productive for me.

And it is a question I have asked myself. Despite all of the myriad problems with my educational experience, it has still produced a clear improvement in my awareness and knowledge about my subject. And I have learned skills that I otherwise wouldn't have, met people, made contacts, friends etc. that I possibly wouldn't have if I hadn't moved to London to attend university.

The thing is, that all of these things have happened despite the course rather than because of it. My awareness of issues surrounding education has been heightened because I'm the sort of person who is bugged by things when they're not right. The failings of the course have pushed me to achieve things. So, does this mean that it is better that the course is shit? If the course was perfect, then would it dampen the development of students' metacritical skills (which are very important for a discipline like fine art), because they haven't got clear things to critique within their own institution?

plurabelle

The statistics for privately educated kids at universities belie the whole story. When I was at university (1976-9) around 50% of students were privately educated. Oxbridge in those days probably had a higher proportion of privately educated students. Today the term "university" encompasses a greater band of tertiary education. A far higher per centage of the population undergoes tertiary enducation and does so at university level. It is unlikely that as many as 60% are privately educated particualrly at a time when some independent schools are closing.

If you look at the performance tables, you will note that the best performing state schools are in middle class areas. The middle classes are the mainstay of independent schools. I suspect an element of middle class ethos coupled with parents' educational standards, are far more important for the level of education achieved by a child than the school to which they are sent.

The 60% figure was for the university with which I am best acquainted, sorry if I didn't make that clear. It's a good 'un.

I completely agree about the 'middle-class ethos' – in my earlier post I said that one of the most important factors in getting to university was a sort of 'middle-classness' (Of course, when we say middle-class, we also mean upper, yes? :))

My point is that this ethos is not ingrained: the poverty of aspiration that prevents some deprived children from getting to university is because of poverty of the more mundane economic sort. There is no inherent educatability or otherwise. But then we're back to the old speccy cunt Woodhead, though, which I doubt is where you were going.

As I mentioned above, in my subject, there are (I think) three departments in the country that have a tutorial system. This means that instead of contact with faculty members being limited to seminars/lectures/the odd dissertation consultation, each student gets one hour alone with their tutor once a week or fortnight to discuss each tutorial essay in depth. This is a marvellous system: the amount of attention the student gets no longer depends on their articulacy, or willingness to put themselves forward in seminars; it no longer privileges the arrogant, or the cocky, or even the clever ones. But it does of course also result in a far greater teaching burden than where it doesn't exist, so most departments wouldn't dream of implementing it: and this resistance is in part because in addition to their teaching load academics are expected to publish, publish, publish. Publications, which means research outwith the department, are the direct means to a good RAE rating for the department – which equals money.

So perhaps the monetary rewards should come from the assessment of the quality of teaching, rather than the amount of publications. Obviously the question is how though, as always.

We get tutorials on my course, once a term. The problem I have with them is that because that tutorial will be one of 3 or 4 occasions that term where I'll see my tutor, he/she will have very little of any use say. But this is because fine art has different demands than english, of course. And is also less profitable, hence the ridiculous student-tutor contact times in 1st and 2nd year.

My course could in fact be condensed into 1 year, in terms of the amount of contact with staff. If they had any balls they would leave us completely on our own for 2 years, but the fact is they simply do not give a shit about us, at all.

So perhaps the monetary rewards should come from the assessment of the quality of teaching, rather than the amount of publications. Obviously the question is how though, as always.

We get tutorials on my course, once a term. The problem I have with them is that because that tutorial will be one of 3 or 4 occasions that term where I'll see my tutor, he/she will have very little of any use say. But this is because fine art has different demands than english, of course. And is also less profitable, hence the ridiculous student-tutor contact times in 1st and 2nd year.

My course could in fact be condensed into 1 year, in terms of the amount of contact with staff. If they had any balls they would leave us completely on our own for 2 years, but the fact is they simply do not give a shit about us, at all.

Yeah, I can believe it. I know a few people who teach at (decent) art colleges with just MFAs, which I find quite baffling...

The problem with de-emphasising publications is that as a system it does in some ways indicate the level of quality of research going on at that department: I do believe that the more academically sound institutions should be rewarded accordingly, and since the only publications that count are thoroughly peer-reviewed, it has a certain logic. So it is an intellectually rigorous system, but yes, it disadvantages students that are not capable of independent learning (it also makes earning a living pretty tough for young academics, but we don't care about them right now). At its best, it means that clever students will thrive through proximity to expertise in that particular field.

I think this used to work when universities were free and only the clever kids got in, to put it crudely. But that was incredibly unfair on bright kids from worse-off backgrounds, as I was arguing earlier. Anyway, I should do some work :s