To think university snobbery must stop

[Staceystace]

I was telling a friend about my nephew who is off to University. I said to her he is off to x uni to study English, she said oh I didn’t even realise that was even a uni. She then went on to emphasise how her daughter is off to a top 20 uni, she went on to say how she wouldn’t have gone if it was not a Russell or 1994 group as she does not think it is worth the debt. I just got the vibe she was looking down on my nephews uni. Aibu to think this sort of snobbery about unis is terrible and needs to stop. My nephew is not the most academic, but surely not everyone is capable of going to a russell group.

Someone I know went to Wolverhampton University to study IT. He's got the most amazing job now, earning megabucks and travelling round the world.

That’s IT.

I know someone who spent three years studying massage (massage, not physiotherapy) at some former HE place now called a university. She has never worked a day since.

Possibly worse is studying something like English at a former HE institution. Goodness me, I will be a snob - a snob with bells on - when a student there tells me they are studying Animal Farm. And asks me if I knew it is actually about Russia. This is a degree they are doing, not some access to English course. So I will judge, be a snob and think that their degree is a piece of crap compared with one from a top ten university.

..unless you can find a way of funding HE more effectively ( that doesn't disadvantage lower income families) this is what we have
Blaa

The key is endowments and institutional financial aid/write-offs. This is what allows leading US universities to offer a free ride to students whose families are in the lowest income brackets. Offering a world class third level education at potentially almost zero cost means these leading universities attract the absolute best candidates for admission from all over the world. Everyone wins.

www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2003/05/endowments_report-1.pdf
The differences between the UK and the US could not be more stark. Only Oxford and Cambridge can be compared with the best endowed US universities: either Oxford or Cambridge (with endowments of £2 billion each) would come 15th in the US list, while no other UK university would come in the top 150. Only 5 UK universities have endowments worth at least £100 million, compared with 207 US universities. The average top 500 US university has about fifteen times the endowment of the average top 100 UK university.

About one month after my DCs graduated from their US universities each of them started getting mail from the fundraising offices seeking donations. Even while they were all students I used to get phone calls soliciting donations twice or three times a year. I get the annual appeal letter from three universities. Donations can be offset against income for tax purposes. My DCs are happy to donate, and so am I. American university fundraising is a well-oiled and essential part of what keeps them ticking over.

There is also the model of higher taxation prevalent in Scandinavia and iirc in Germany, which imo is even better.

A more accurate description is a graduate tax. If you earn more due to university you pay more back. If you don't then it doesn't get paid back.
So maximising your earning potential is penalised, with ever-mounting interest accruing and those earning over £25k struggling to keep up, as MaisyPops described.
The average graduate is actually better off cocking a snook at the taxpayers. Unless you are able to make a quick leap from about threshold level to about twice that amount in income you will experience problems.
This is completely bonkers.

I can't help but think people would maybe spend more time thinking about what they will going gain from university if they knew they were going to have to pay it back.
MaisyPops

You are absolutely correct. This is what American students do - those who don't get into the highly selective universities with the massive endowments which guarantee to meet all demonstrated financial need of admitted students. There is a tier of excellent-to-very-good universities that will cost even the least well off families $30K per year, leaving either the student or the family with a debt of $120k after the four year 'student experience'.

Some families borrow that money - they refinance a house with low mortgage interest rates, or they use college savings accounts, or the return on investments. Many families ask the students themselves to borrow the money. That money must be paid back by whoever borrowed it, beginning 6 months after graduation and it makes no difference whether you take mat leave or extended sick leave or lose your job. You can get a grace period but interest keeps on piling up.

There is no writeoff, and student debt (including loans taken out by parents) is not included in chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As you can imagine, this causes families to examine university offerings very closely before applying, and it motivates students to get a job nailed down as soon as possible upon graduation, and to pay off as much as they can before they are faced with decisions like whether to have a baby, buy a home, buy a car.

Some families ask their student to apply to a university and then defer entry if accepted, while taking required first and second year core coursework to 200/250 level in a community college (aka junior college) in the broad areas US universities require on a transcript - stats, calc III, psychology, economics, English composition/rhetoric, history, chemistry, physics, biology, and even in some cases fine arts. Then the student heads off to study the courses they are majoring in for their final two years. So much for the priceless extended adolescence/university experience...

IrmaFayLear what a charmer you are!

So are you saying only well paid people should have the chance to go to uni? That's what it sounds like. People who can afford the tax, the Audi and the kids without a struggle
JillCrewesmum

No - the opposite.
I am saying all graduates should have to pay off the debt, or alternatively that society as a whole should have to pay higher taxes to support free third level for anyone who qualifies.

This would result in far more selectivity on the part of students, and eventually in many mickey mouse courses being eliminated, as cold, hard reality takes its rightful place in decision-making processes.

The system that exists right now is a massive lie -

• a lie to students and families that don't know any better and apparently go to schools where there is no counselling available to educate families about the ins and outs of application, securing admission, or financing the enterprise;
• a lie to the taxpayers who ultimately carry the can for courses that do nothing to add to the national bottom line;
• a lie to voters who have been sold the idea that the sham of 'university for all' will result in increased social mobility.

And on top of that there is apparently no integrated planning on a national level. Money is borrowed and simply thrown at the third level sector with no accounting and seemingly no cost-benefit analysis (or a very flawed one).

IrmaFayLear, you're not being a snob. You are a realist.

I agree with you @mathanxiety about higher taxes. But I think we should do that anyway.

What Irma said sounded awful, sorry. I have two very clever children and one who struggles with exams but genuinely loves her work. Hopefully she won't give a fuck about sneery old people when she's at her middle ranking uni.

Thank you for earnestly explaining how the loan system works. I am sure the parents of C grade children didn't really get it but will be enlightened now. I expect they will "guide them towards apprenticeships" (that meaningless patronising mumsnet trope!)

My description of the US loan system was offered as a comparison to that of the UK. I suggested that there are some dynamics in the US system that should be applied in the UK. I also illustrated the downside.

The apprenticeship system is not one I would advocate. I am on Team Technical College/Institute, having seen the impact of this system in Ireland.

Do you know, my dd got her prospectus from Nottingham Trent UNIVERSITY today. She's so, so excited about the open day. She's read absolutely every relevant part of the prospectus. She is applying for a partly vocational course but even so, watching how excited she was made me absolutely hate some of the posters on here. Time to go!

@jillcrewesmum Nottingham Trent is a great uni. It's performing brilliantly at the moment and is investing heavily in their support services ( in a way I wish mine would!)

Nottingham is also a great city to live in.

Peak

*Not sure that's actually correct but even if it is, 70% of what?

Are you unfamiliar with the word percentage and what it means? I believe it means out of 100....

There may be one exception to the grade boundaries, which is the Open University. Otherwise, all universities operate the following boundaries:
70%+- First
60-69%- 2.1
50-59%- 2.2
40-49%- 3rd
Below 40% -fail

And, no, the ex-polys don't let people graduate if they have in fact failed, and the RG does not require you to get 90%. The people saying this shit and then in the same breath saying they have an RG degree are just showing themselves up*

I think what they mean is that perhaps the course is not as rigorous/difficult/in-depth and so although a 1st is still 70%+, 70% on a tough course with rigorous coursework assessment and examinations is somewhat different to an easier course.

As I said previously, when I was at university doing a very similar course to a friend at a different (ex-poly) there was a huge difference in the exams and course content. So yes- a 1st still mean 70%+ but I have no doubt that it would have been easier to get 70%+ on that course than mine. Something my friend agreed with me BTW.

All that said, I think things are changing- lots of the "ex-polys" are offering outstanding courses, some are world class in a particular field even if not so good overall. I think you have to judge each course on it's merits.

Would she be as excited about a prospective from a place called 'Nottingham Trent Polytechnic', JillCrewesmum?

Because I have seen Irish students absolutely delighted to get an offer of a place in courses ranging from aerospace engineering to graphic design to nursing to marketing and digital media from third level institutions with names like Carlow Institute of Technology, Letterkenny Institute of Technology, Tallaght Institute of Technology, etc. A cousin of mine who began his career trajectory as a fitter graduated last year with a B. Eng (hons) degree in mechanical engineering, which he studied part time in an IT. His wife and three children were beaming with pride alongside him at his graduation ceremony.

Now you're just being unnecessarily goady @math

In England, that system doesn't exist . Whether you agree or not with the politics behind it there's no need to undermine a young person's choices or achievements.

I am not undermining anything or anyone, Blaa. I asked my question because JillCrewesmum stated that her DD is applying for a partly vocational course and I wanted to tease out whether this would be a good thing in a place with 'Institute' or 'Polytechnic' in its name.

People are unnecessarily tetchy about the paths of their DCs, seeing criticism where there is none, and in so doing illustrating very clearly how completely they have bought into the cachet of the term 'university'.

The criticism is directed at the idea of turning a perfectly good concept (and one that had the potential to transform a country that had become post-industrial, with many blighted areas and large numbers in need of retraining) into something whose relevance was limited.

The UK should have a technical college system, or a system of well funded polytechnics, call it what you will. It should not be seen as second choice/second rate/only for the kids who couldn't go anywhere else.

It won't get one until people stop feeling personally hurt when it is pointed out that degrees in many subjects from former polys are not worth the paper they are printed on and certainly not worth the price tag either to students or to the taxpayers. People need to demand well researched policies, not labels designed to pander to class consciousness.

@mathanxiety it was Nottingham Poly and depending on the subject studied was the best or one of the best in England for the particular course.

I went to college to do A levels with some students from very middle class backgrounds and they showed me how to choose university courses. Before then I would have just gone on the name of the institution.

When I went to uni as a mature student, my mother pointed out "it isn't a real university though is it?" as it was an ex-poly.

She is fairly critical and academically snobby - still hurt that she said that though.

@math I was willing to believe you didn't intend to undermine anyone until you started with the 'some degrees aren't worth the paper their written on' bullshit.
That phrase is the very definition of an elitist, snobby attitude to HE.

I can categorically say that, providing a person makes the most of their time at university, a degree in any subject from any university is worthwhile. I don't say this flippantly. I say this after years upon years of research into students who attend low to middle ranking and tariff institutions. You might not hold much stead in a genetic degree from the local ex-poly but for a student who is the first person in their family to attend HE it can be life changing - in many ways.

I found some of the opinions on this thread deeply offensive as it undermines the years of hard work and progress made towards widening participation and social mobility.

It makes me laugh a lot when people talk about Russell group - usually people with no idea what they're talking about. There are lots of things to take into consideration and lots of very good courses in newer universities. Don't let it annoy you just be amused!

*generic

I found some of the opinions on this thread deeply offensive as it undermines the years of hard work and progress made towards widening participation and social mobility
It depends on one's thoughts on widening participation and social mobility.

Personally, I have a bigger issue with students in deprived areas gettinf a crap curriculum in places, not getting access to extra curricular and enrichment that more middle class peers tale for granted. I dislike the fact that whilst those in private schools get a rich and varied curriculum, I know of state school English departments saying 'teach stone cold to y8 because it's edgy, about homelessness and will engage them'. Stuff the fact it's not linguist rich. Nope. Let's pick stereotypical topics to engage. Whilst those in affluent area schools and private schools get a full curriculum with music, art and drama & sport, other schools are cutting them from their timetables.
What I would like to see is a set standard of education regardless of background so that students from all backgrounds can be in a position to get into great courses.

I don't believe the solution to widening participation is lots of loans and selling students sub par courses so they can have an experience say they have a degree and the powers that be can pretend they have done something to help the poor folk. The people making the decisions are quite happy with a two tier system. It means they can tell their children to aim high and keep the tradition of families going to top universities safe in the knowledge that the oiks behind them will struggle to catch up.

Just because some of us have feelings about the wealth of not so good courses, it does not we somehow don't want to address educational disadvantage. I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to see educational outcomes improve to close that gap so they can stand as equals to the people who've had it handed to them, not push them onto a course at some barely regards course to tick a box.

Sorry about the rant.
Just there's more than one way to try to even the playing field.
There's a clas divide at top unis. And I bet lower income backgrounds are more representative at less regarded lower ranked universities.
I think the challenge to educational disadvantage should be hitting well before applying to university.

There is significantly more the widening participation and social mobility than you realise.

I reckon irma has a bloody good point

@maisypops yes, non traditional students tend to use lower ranked, lower tariff universities - even when they have potential to achieve the entry requirements needed to higher ranked, higher tariff universities.
This is entirely due to the sense of 'belonging' and the lack of social and cultural capital.

Most university widening participation teams work with primary schools as well as secondary school pupils.