Ridiculous to try and sue a university over a "mickey mouse" degree?

[Creambun2]

thetab.com/uk/2018/03/10/a-graduate-is-suing-her-university-for-60000-for-giving-her-a-mickey-mouse-degree-62377

Surely, it is down to individuals to research their university and course appropriately and understand that whatever degree or university you go to, getting the job you want will be mostly about you and your skills?

I agree universities pump out lots of propaganda about "employment prospects" but saying, for example, 90% of graduates employed within 6 months means nothing is 89% of those are not in graduate level jobs.

Soul rider - they survey graduates and ask them! The type of job you do determines whether they score well on the 'graduate employment' measure. When did you graduate?

2001, I've never responded to any of their questionnaires. I wonder what percentage do

I wonder what percentage do

Typically 85%

Entitled codswallop. Blame everyone else but yourself. Youngsters now just want spoon feeding.

Funny, I thought ageism was frowned upon on Mumsnet?

I went to a former polytechnic, very new university, incredibly low ranked. None of us wanted spoonfeeding. We worked individually and in groups, sought support when we needed it, every theory lecture was put into practice either independently or in a group.

Well, no. It means that the particular external examiner at the institution thinks the university has marked the papers fairly. External examiners at post-92 universities tend to be from other post-92 universities. There is no central standard. What about those being awarded CNAA degrees pre-92? I have always been told that the CNAA exercised rigour in moderating to keep poly awarded degrees to a good standard.

Is it old-fashioned of me to suggest that you don't go to university with the aim of improving your job prospects? You go to university to study a subject that you are interested in, to meet different people, to widen your horizons and transform the way you think. This may have an effect on the kind of salary you get but it might not. My DD went to a Russell Group uni and got an outstanding first. She's working for peanuts in a caring profession. Her salary is not a reflection of the humanitarian values she developed at university and the university is not responsible for the ethical life choices she has made, although it helped her to articulate them.

I was Head of Marketing for a RG University and I think this discussion is missing the point. It's not so much about domestic students but...

The issue is really about international students who are recruited like cattle from countries like India and China at an extremely high tuition rate to essentially subsidise our Universities. They are given limited information about the course from agents who 'sell' these courses in their country and promises are made which aren't always exact. Universities are having to become more rigorous in explaining career paths and validating courses but still they are 'selling' something. As for the international students, sometimes they don't even pass the english competency exams and so are given an extra year of learning english with a guarantee that at the end of the year they can get into the University.

Although Universities claim to be rigorous in their selection of these international students, the quality and standard can be patchy. Many MA programmes like "international business strategy' (which will be a module made up of a whole bunch of vague courses like Strategy Development and International Affairs, that can be part of numerous different MA courses) are made up of 90% international students and sometimes not a very mixed cohort.

All these programmes are just ways to bring money into the Universities because despite the fact that UK students are now paying 9k tuition it still doesn't cover the cost of running an institution and govt/HEFCE funding is going down. Meanwhile we've got far too many Universities than we need (Clearing, anyone?) and Universities and no one wants to shut any down because they are excellent job centres for more deprived areas.

How do we square this circle? We exploit international students by overselling our 'amazing' British education at Universities. In fact selling someone a degree purely on conjecture - on the basis that 'they need to have one' but making no claims on quality and no guarantees for the future - is almost the perfect swindle!!

So how do the universities offering forensic science / criminology degrees get away with it ?

I know several kids from poor families doing these degrees and the parents are beyond proud and think their kid is going to be Taggart’s right hand man with a six figure salary on graduation.

Whilst I think suing is wrong and only the lawyers will win, there are too many university places on offer. The mistake since the 1990s of over-expansion and not enough emphasis on vocational training and apprenticeships is one of the reasons why the post-Brexit adjustment will be painful.

Is it old-fashioned of me to suggest that you don't go to university with the aim of improving your job prospects? You go to university to study a subject that you are interested in, to meet different people, to widen your horizons and transform the way you think. This may have an effect on the kind of salary you get but it might not

I think this as well.

External examiners at post-92 universities tend to be from other post-92 universities.

For some post-92s, maybe. I'm a lecturer in an RG university and, like a lot of my colleagues, I'm an external for one of the higher-ranked post-92s. I've also done accreditation work with another post-92. They appear to actively seek out people from the RG. But, ironically, their moderation standards are way better than ours, as is the conduct of their exam boards.

What about those being awarded CNAA degrees pre-92? I have always been told that the CNAA exercised rigour in moderating to keep poly awarded degrees to a good standard.

That is anecdotally true, but it's hard to compare with nearly 30 years ago.

We exploit international students by overselling our 'amazing' British education at Universities.

I've had it on good authority that at one RG university with a high level of Chinese students, not my own, there have been complaints from the Chinese students that there are too many Chinese students and they might as well have stayed at home. If you're in a campus university on the edge of a provincial city, in a room which is 80% Chinese, the demonstrators being Chinese PhD students and the lecturers mostly non-British, just which part of the "British" education system are you getting for your twenty grand a year?

For some post-92s, maybe. I'm a lecturer in an RG university and, like a lot of my colleagues, I'm an external for one of the higher-ranked post-92s. I've also done accreditation work with another post-92. They appear to actively seek out people from the RG. But, ironically, their moderation standards are way better than ours, as is the conduct of their exam boards. This. I was external examiner for an ex-Poly while a RG Professor, and would second your comment about exam board rigour also.

I am sure that there are some former polys - and their equivalents - that have far better reputations in some degree areas than any RG equivalent. DSib did Textiles at Trent Poly back in the day. Sure it was one of the most respected places to do it in the UK at that point in time. Similarly one of the south coast former polys is the place to study animation, is it not? And similarly some post-92 universities the best for computing for games degrees.

I think that before 27k tuition fees for a 3 year course existed, students could go with the aim of widening their horizons, learning more about a subject they love. Few can afford to take on that debt now, without good job prospects at the end of it.

am sure that there are some former polys - and their equivalents - that have far better reputations in some degree areas than any RG equivalent

Oh absolutely - Herriot Watt springs to mind. Tends to be areas that are more new technology based but not always. They’ve always been good at the applied side whereas traditional unis perhaps dealt with the theoretical side (gross generalisation but never mind.)

It’s wrong to say that ex polys are across the board inferior, it’s just not true. For some subjects they are better and they always were. I think the problem is that by turning what we’re technical centres of excellence into all-degree institutions something was lost. An institution that was offering high quality technical gaming/brewing/textiles course that then had to branch out to offer degrees in the more English/French/politics type stuff - well maybe that is what didn’t work?

The debate here is really whether a degree should improve your job prospects or just be an educational experience. Students expect the former but universities claim the latter. She won't win her case - the university will just say it isn't a vocational course and a job isn't guaranteed after graduating. I do think it's too expensive nowadays if it's just for educational purposes though!

If the uni is marketing itself as a route to a good job and someone with a first from their institution cannot get one, then it's right that this is questioned.
This was always going to happen once universities started to engage in direct financial transactions with students. They have to deliver the goods, ie good employability prospects for their high achieving students.

Is it old-fashioned of me to suggest that you don't go to university with the aim of improving your job prospects? You go to university to study a subject that you are interested in, to meet different people, to widen your horizons and transform the way you think.

Yes. Old fashioned and/or wadded.

For kids from families on low and middle incomes, with fees as high as they are and things like NHS bursaries and funding for training later in life being slashed, going to university for the reasons you list is looking like a pretty unaffordable luxury. It's just too expensive for most people to be able to do it without thinking about how they're going to leverage the investment. And that's a damn shame, and I wish it weren't so, but it doesn't make it any less the reality.

Is it old-fashioned of me to suggest that you don't go to university with the aim of improving your job prospects? You go to university to study a subject that you are interested in, to meet different people, to widen your horizons and transform the way you think

Not old fashioned, but elitist and plain wrong. People have always gone to university to improve their job prospects, even a thousand years ago it was only a percentage that could afford to do it just for fun and experience.

I have a degree in Philosophy and Ethics. I managed to get a job. It's about applying yourself and an ability to learn that employers look for, the subject isn't necessarily important. Unless they thought they'd walk into a job with a mega salary due to the topic!

Oh absolutely - Herriot Watt springs to mind...They’ve always been good at the applied side whereas traditional unis

Why? It isn't an ex-poly, it's had what amounted to degree-granting powers for more than a hundred years and it's had actual, Royal Charter degree-granting powers for more than fifty years. Herriot Watt was appointing professors in the nineteenth century, and has a single continuous history back to the early part of that century. If you think Herriot Watt is an "ex poly" then so is most of the Russell Group, which have (Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and the Scottish Ancients aside) histories mostly considerably shorter and considerably less distinguished.

Whether or not the degree subject is important depends very much on the job pollymere. I don't just mean the obvious vocational, you can't go and be a social worker straight out of a chemistry degree stuff. But there are also some recruiters than specify eg a degree in a numerate discipline.

Oh absolutely - Herriot Watt springs to mind...They’ve always been good at the applied side whereas traditional unis
Why? It isn't an ex-poly, it's had what amounted to degree-granting powers for more than a hundred years and it's had actual, Royal Charter degree-granting powers for more than fifty years. Herriot Watt was appointing professors in the nineteenth century, and has a single continuous history back to the early part of that century. If you think Herriot Watt is an "ex poly" then so is most of the Russell Group, which have (Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and the Scottish Ancients aside) histories mostly considerably shorter and considerably less distinguished.
Not a sock puppet. I've posted on the thread before just NC for unrelated reason. Before 1992 when the Polys who had proved themselves rigorous through CNAA became called Universities there was a layer of universities who offered applied courses (such as Herriot Watt) who were excellent universities but were treated with distain by some of those from research universities. University snobbery has always been, and probably always will be, as these threads on mumsnet show..
My DB studied Town Planning there back in the 80s and said that the HW students were looked down on by the Edinburgh students. My mother told everyone he was studying architecture. My father called it a mickey mouse degree. Of all my siblings DB has the happiest lifestyle (by far) and the most enjoyable job.

Teaching is probably better in the post 92 uni's. RG uni's don't care about teaching as they are (or were until very recently) judged solely on research. Huge lecture theatres with a dusty old prof at the front was the standard. You would just learn it yourself/with friends after getting a few pointers from the lectures. All this emphasis on teaching has only come in after the tuition fees went up

My DB studied Town Planning there back in the 80s and said that the HW students were looked down on by the Edinburgh student

I had no idea there was even such a thing as Town Planning until my first day at uni when two of my hallmates were studying it.

Back to the earlier posts of how it pretty much impossible to even get a handle on the courses and career paths available if you don’t have “insider” or family knowledge. I remember thinking how the fuck to people know Town Planning even exists so apply for it? Let alone which are the better courses and uni’s.

In the same way i had no idea that architecture was a degree course. And by the time i found out, i was already half way through the “wrong” a’levels.