I'm a university admissions tutor (make decisions about who to give offers to).. AMA

[JoshChan]

Think I must have cross-posted with you, Josh. The old-farty bloke was being jolly hail-fellow-well-met at a conference for teachers about how to support pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in accessing university and professions on an equal basis with those from more privileged circumstances and he said 'make sure they know not to do Law for Law'.

I think the point that you do not do law A level on the whole if you want a high paid job in law is just the kind of thing that I am sure those comprehensives in deprived areas are getting the message about nor that whether it is a hard to get into university or not does matter for some careers. Eg I know someone whose daughter got the best A levels in her comprehensive and went to an ex poly because all her friends were going. She wanted to be a lawyer. I don't know why her intelligent father nor her school nor even her could not just do a websearch and realise that was not a good idea. Obviously she doesn't now have a job in law. There is no equality of subjects or institutions for some careers (usually the ones with the high pay although of course as this thread has shown for some kinds of jobs this does not apply)

very hierarchical system in which students going to lower ranked universities have poorer employment opportunities. It’s often billed as a way for working class kids to educate themselves “up” but this isn’t remotely guaranteed.

This attitude bothers me a bit. Firstly, my DS isn't working class, so you are sort of implying he is OK to go and 'fritter' away money. Secondly, you are suggesting the poor are and should be debt averse : which is a problem in itself and whitehr risk taking and entrepeneurship! Thirdly, if the second thing is the case, we run the risks of universities becoming once more the preserve of the middle classes : the less well off being told that - unless they are super bright - university is not the right choice.

Students may end up a bit less well paid ultimately than those from the very top university: but having a degree, whtehr from Lincoln or Leeds or Luton (now called Bedfordshire but doesn't alliterate) increases your long term prospects and pay more than not having one at all...

I remain unsure what you (and others on MN) enviasge someone with , say, CCC should do upon leaving school?

My oldest is in her second year at uni (feb start) and doing paramedic science. As well as studying she does 12 hour shifts in medical roles and has no chance to work part time to supplement her income except when she is home for the summer (and she only gets 4 weeks due to placements). Do you think that nursing and paramedic training should be done through the NHS as it used to be?

My DD faces leaving uni with approx. £55k worth of debt to work as a paramedic. It's job she is passionate about and has no other option but to get the degree to work. The same with nursing and midwifery.

This attitude bothers me a bit. Firstly, my DS isn't working class, so you are sort of implying he is OK to go and 'fritter' away money
No, not at all but tuition fees are much more daunting and problematic for poorer students. It doesn't mean that middle class students should just fritter away money at all but what I mean is that the financial impact is bigger when there isn't as much "family money" (I don't mean thousands squirreled away in properties!). For families that don't own any property, with zero savings, with parents on zero-hours job, £9000 tuition fees is an enormous risk compared with families that own a house, with parents with stable jobs etc

Secondly, you are suggesting the poor are and should be debt averse : which is a problem in itself and whitehr risk taking and entrepeneurship!
No, I'm not at all. I'm talking about calculated risks. It's subjective. For me (as someone from a very poor background), going to a non-RG university wasn't worth the risk and the debt. For others it will be. It's a subjective decision. The fact is employers think better of "top" universities- there's another debate to be had about whether that's right but that's how things are ATM.

Thirdly, if the second thing is the case, we run the risks of universities becoming once more the preserve of the middle classes : the less well off being told that - unless they are super bright - university is not the right choice.
I agree but we kind of already have that system. Because so many young people have degrees, a degree in itself isn't particularly worth much so people with PG degrees or degrees from top universities become more attractive to employers. And most people at top universities and entering PG education are middle class. I do think universities should only be for the brightest kids (with adjustments made for context) but we'd also need to see a increased value attached to more vocational education so it wasn't seen as a "cop out" or "second rate". I'm not sure how you do this!

Students may end up a bit less well paid ultimately than those from the very top university: but having a degree, whtehr from Lincoln or Leeds or Luton (now called Bedfordshire but doesn't alliterate) increases your long term prospects and pay more than not having one at all...
You could've said Liverpool John Moores which does alliterate! I agree but it goes back to my point above about calculated risk and chance. There will be some students for whom doing a degree makes no difference to their lifetime earnings and it's much more likely that these students will have their degrees from worse performing universities.

I remain unsure what you (and others on MN) enviasge someone with , say, CCC should do upon leaving school?
In an ideal world, I would say that students with the profile would get into the workplace, earn some money, get cracking on a career then maybe go to university later on when there's a bit of experience behind them. Unfortunately too many entry-level jobs now require a degree (which is what I mean above about a degree not being particularly valuable nowadays because everyone has one and they're a requirement for low-skill jobs).

Do you think that nursing and paramedic training should be done through the NHS as it used to be?
Of course. It's ridiculous that students have to fund their own way through these vital courses.

We are going to have to disagree. My DS won't know what workplace he wants to go into aged 17. And there ARE no jobs around here unless you can drive. A university degree is much better. The implication again is that he is not interested in academic ideas, which is not true. He has not one vocational bone in his body. As a teacher, I do know there are lots and lots of boys like this...
Even apprenticeships are very hard to get on to!

My DS won't know what workplace he wants to go into aged 17.
I completely understand what you mean. 17 is really young to know what job sector they want to go into yet we (not you and me, I mean society as a whole!) think it's perfectly acceptable that 17 year olds will know and can make decisions about education which ultimately influence their career direction and make the choice to go into shit tonnes of debt for it!

Even apprenticeships are very hard to get on to!
This annoys me so much. I think apprenticeships could be brilliant (and not just about learning to be a tradesperson) but there's no will behind reinvigorating this type of learning, unfortunately.

I really wish your son all the very best.

No, not at all but tuition fees are much more daunting and problematic for poorer students.

Why? They have the same repayment conditions as everybody else - I get that they have more debt but they won't be repaying it if they aren't earning enough.

I mean is that the financial impact is bigger when there isn't as much "family money" (I don't mean thousands squirreled away in properties!).

It isn't though, the impact is the same as the impact is not on family money but on the future earnings of the graduate.

For families that don't own any property, with zero savings, with parents on zero-hours job, £9000 tuition fees is an enormous risk compared with families that own a house, with parents with stable jobs etc

Not at all. I have not taken any risk at all by having children at university. They have a student loan, they will have to pay it back at a certain percentage over £X of earnings and it doesn't make any difference that I have no savings or assets in property etc. How have I taken a risk? The government are not going to be asking me to pay it back and my children won't be paying it back until they earn enough.

Sorry, even apprenticeships doesn't sound quite right. I menat apprenticeships cna have higher grade expectations than many might tink and have quite a daunting application process (and require travel!)

God I wish my IT people would sort out this Windows 10 no spellcheck malarkey!!!

interestingly OP my DS is a social scientist. He loves politics. He is just a bit shit at getting ideas on paper (and has a v questionable work ethic at present !)

Re "Student Loans"
I REALLY wish that the language we used was more accurate.
It is a targeted university student tax as opposed to a 'student loan' Using the right language would make things more clear to everyone, instead of the mass of misinformation that abounds about HE at the moment, including from those who work in it

Re Russell groups
I am also fed up of Russell Group elitism. The RG is no more than a marketing ploy (though I admit a very successful one)

It is absolutely not the case that they can be described as 'better' than non-RG universities in such a blanket way. (with the possible exceptions of Oxford and Cambridge, both of which have so much money they can't fail to be better than most of the other institutions)

I would also warn that since the numbers cap came off and RG universities have been taking students with lower grades who might have go to other universities in the past, that the experience at these universities is going to deteriorate as student numbers on many courses grow too high, often outgrowing the resources available to provide a good education/experience.

Thanks for an interesting thread.

When I went to a Scottish university, back in the dark ages, I applied for English lit +my pick of two other humanities subjects. I was certain I wanted to study psychology and interested in philosophy and linguistics. My tutor suggested I begin all four subjects and drop the one I liked least asap. I did that and went on to get a degree in philosophy. I was very grateful to have the choice. I often wonder how applicants can be sure which subject they would like to do especially if they are interested in subjects not taught at school. It took me two years of undergraduate study to realise that my passion, which I still have today is for ethics/moral philosophy. Any thoughts?

I have always thought the Scottish university system has those benefits. My DSis went to Glasgow and I to York. She ended up with a degree in psychology, and I don't think that was her intention at the outset. I would say her degree had more breadth, mine more depth. Mine was more outwardly 'intellectualised'. Scotland has always favoured breadth and knowledge over depth , I'd say (not a criticism , an observation)

Keele used to have a similar approach : not sure if you still have to do joint honours there?

I completely agree with @bumblingbovine49

I think the Scottish system is fantastic. Some universities offer combined honours-type degrees where students construct their degrees from modules across different departments and then many choose to "specialise" in one area in their final year.

I'd like to see degrees move to this kind of model where students take a degree in something broad like "social sciences" or "humanities" and find their own interest/passion along the way.

I went to a Scottish University - I ended up with a Science degree, but did Psychology along the way

Do you think employers are interested in these liberal arts degrees, Josh, rather than a degree in something specific?

What an interesting thread, thanks so much for posting!

At 38 years old I've been having pangs of "my life is slipping away" I know sounds very melodramatic doesn't it. I did have a very good but stressful job as a National Account Manager, but gave it up to for a much less stressful job in the family firm. The reason for doing this was to anticipate the family we were about to have. Well the family never materialised so I'm now thinking that I've probably got the best part of 30 years ahead of me and would actually like a job/career in which I enjoy and could maybe make a "difference"

As a mature student, what avenues would you suggest, I'd be interested in doing a History & Politics degree but not sure what the job opportunities would be like for this degree or whether an old bird like me would even be considered :-)

regarding Personal Statement, ds did one extra-curricular activity (which he did not mention), no DofE or anything like that, no sporting participation let alone achievements, and got offers immediately from St Andrews, Warwick and UCL. They couldn’t possibly have had time to read his personal statement. Durham limped in with a March offer but apparently they always leave it to the last minute.

Whether institutions are flexible about grades completely depends on the popularity of a place and more specifically course. Ds’s course is utterly inflexible. They say that allowing people in with dropped grades would be unfair to the many applicants they had to turn down, and would encourage schools to inflate predictions in the knowledge that “Oh, they’ll let them in anyway.”

Thanks for your reply Josh, re Dutch universities.

DD first choice is Leiden University in the Hague to do Political Science, the University of Amsterdam.

I am trying to convince her to apply to British universities too, as Brexit may scupper her Dutch dreams!

She has predicted grades of A A A and has an A* in a Geo-Politics related EPQ. She has no interest in going to London or Oxbridge, but is interested in combining Politics with Quantitative Methods. This is quite a new course. Which universities, with her profile, would you recommend for good Politics courses?

interested in combining Politics with Quantitative Methods. This is quite a new course. Which universities, with her profile, would you recommend for good Politics courses?

I know someone who is currently doing this at Warwick. She said it's hard work but a good course and I was impressed with the help given to find a summer internship. Great politics and maths departments and the entry requirements would be about right for your DD. They're not flexible about grade requirements - they go give contextual offers but if you don't mange your offer, they won't let you on the course.

Do you think employers are interested in these liberal arts degrees, Josh, rather than a degree in something specific?
It's hard to say. It depends what employers you're looking at. Obviously employers that do something very specific will prefer a degree in a specific subject or area. For example, a biotechnology company will want people with a degree in something related.
However, more general graduate schemes are much more interested in (a) the university a student attends, (b) what skills they develop through their degree and how they're able to demonstrate this in an application and (c) what extra-curricular stuff they do to make themselves a well-rounded graduate.
What we find is that students do engage with a tonne of "key skills" during their degree but have a hard time narrating this to employers. For example, doing a group presentation as an assessment is so often seen as "just" a group presentation for an assessment rather than an exercise is group management, collaboration, task delegation, verbal communication, presentation skills etc (all stuff employers want to see!!)

As a mature student, what avenues would you suggest, I'd be interested in doing a History & Politics degree but not sure what the job opportunities would be like for this degree or whether an old bird like me would even be considered
An old bird like you would definitely be considered! Have a look at history and politics courses (either as separate degree or a joint honour degree) at places you'd want to go and see what takes your fancy. Then I'd recommend getting in touch with the Foundation Centre at those universities and having a chat with them about options. There should be open days in September for a lot of places - get yourself to them even if it's just to have a look!

Which universities, with her profile, would you recommend for good Politics courses?
I'd echo Warwick and also think about Sheffield.

Why? They have the same repayment conditions as everybody else - I get that they have more debt but they won't be repaying it if they aren't earning enough
From experience of being a student from a poor background, it's different because £9,000 is an overwhelmingly staggering amount of money to comprehend. I'd never known anyone in my life who earned more than about £15,000 and my mum never had a penny of savings to her name so the idea of paying £9,000 per year for a degree which didn't guarantee me a job was terrifying.
I'd grown up in financial precarity where debt was necessary. My mum always encouraged me not to live like this so the idea of taking on a student debt (even though I was fully aware it was earnings linked) seemed like a backwards-step to me. This was very different from my peers for whom this amount of money wasn't so other-worldly. Fees were only £1,200 when I went (I didn't actually have to pay them- I got a grant- so my loan was only living expenses) so it'd be a much more daunting prospect now. If I were 18 now, I wouldn't go to university because of the cost.
From experience of dealing with applicants and students, this feeling is still prevalent and even worse actually because of how high the fees are. The fact is, kids from lower socio-economic backgrounds are being put off university because of fees.

RGs and those in top 35-ish are the only ones really worth going to

So everyone (even members of the unenlightened proletariat) stops applying anywhere below this level and those institutions ranked '36-ish' downwards (who would have the privilege of setting the cut off date at which the ranking is set, I wonder?) would, as they obviously should, wither and die. Unless the lucky 35-ish were to be allowed to take over the campuses of any of the closed institutions within commuting distance of their existing staff - because presumably the lower-ranked ones are being so ranked on their teaching, not the state of their outbuildings, so you wouldn't want to take on the academics as well - this would certainly deal with the awful problem of too many young people going to university...

but tuition fees are much more daunting and problematic for poorer students. It doesn't mean that middle class students should just fritter away money at all but what I mean is that the financial impact is bigger when there isn't as much "family money" (I don't mean thousands squirreled away in properties!). For families that don't own any property, with zero savings, with parents on zero-hours job, £9000 tuition fees is an enormous risk compared with families that own a house, with parents with stable jobs etc

Beaten to it by brizzledrizzle and bumblingbovine49 on that one. Although I might not have argued so strongly had you mentioned maintenance loans rather than tuition fees. Having a tuition fee 'debt' which you only have to pay back once earning a decent salary is one thing, but even if your maintenance loan is repayable on the same basis, if it doesn't actually cover rent and sustenance in the here and now, you are taking a course with little scope for part time work and no-one in the family can help you out, that is more of an issue.