All universities should provide an excellent standard of higher education

[MapleandPear]

I see plenty of argument on here for kids having access to equal education in terms of schooling. People arguing against any schools which are exclusive, whether it be grammar or private schools.

I don't see a lot of argument, however, against the exclusivity of different universities, or that qualifications and grades should be all employers are allowed to see on CVs and job applications.

If social class, money and privilege buy you a standard level of education, do they not also forge a path into higher education?

This is particularly pertinent now universities get a lot of funding through tuition fees directly paid by students (or by the state/a quasi-governmental body which the student pays back). And many charge the same. Yet not many would say degrees are the same wherever you get them from, even in the same degree class. Or are they? If not, shouldn't they be?

Maybe an IT course and an insistance that all essays are word processed and good communication skills are developed. Maybe force students use presentation software like PowerPoint or the Google office equivalent to present their seminars.

Can you name me one medieval history course that does not already do this? One place where essays are written by hand these days? And where students don't already give presentations via PowerPoint (which BTW my own DC have been using since primary school, so hardly a university level skill)?

And of course many transferable skills are acquired by medieval literature courses: research skills, argumentation, logic, presentation, communication, organisation, .... I would emphasise in particular the research skills, of working independently to research a topic in depth and present the results of this investigation in a coherent manner.

"BTW many universities already penalise academics directly for "poor" teaching, measured by student surveys. Scores below a threshold level on such surveys lead to pay freezes (i.e. pay cuts in real terms). "

I would argue that student surveys have limited value. Students often aren't in a position to assess how good a course is. Enjoying a course is different from whether a course actually helps you in later life. A student survey may show how likable a lecturer is, rather than how good he is at imparting useful knowledge.

In the past universities were very much learning how to learn for yourself. Sometimes university courses where the lecturers took more risks produced more skilled graduates even if the got a poor degree. Often you learn more from failure than being spoonfed a 2.1. If a student has to teach themselves a computer language and made a hash of it they may have learnt lots of life skills.

I don't think the usefulness of graduates is necessarily reflected by degree classification.

But then we are back to how we measure the quality of a course. As you say, the quality is not measured by student opinions. The quality often does not become clear until several years later, when one sees how graduate have progressed in their careers. Any time delayed measure would however be difficult to measure and to use - it would be telling you about how good the teaching was 5 years earlier, not how good it is right now.

*In the past universities were very much learning how to learn for yourself. Sometimes university courses where the lecturers took more risks produced more skilled graduates even if the got a poor degree. Often you learn more from failure than being spoonfed a 2.1. If a student has to teach themselves a computer language and made a hash of it they may have learnt lots of life skills.

I don't think the usefulness of graduates is necessarily reflected by degree classification.*

You've just argued against yourself there! University study is EXACTLY about learning how to learn for yourself! And failure can often do that.

But you and others want success measured by job outcome, which leaves no room for failure, learning how to do things for yourself. If we';re measured by graduate jobs then we're forced to spoon feed to get a good grade. And that's catastrophic for UK HE.

Are universities entirely about getting a well-paid job, then, and not about learning?

Are universities going to weed out the very bright students who are there because they love the subject in the early stages in case they on to spend years in badly pad research jobs? Will the arts courses carefully filter out the creative students who write beautiful essays in case they grow up to be writers? Maybe they should exclude the over 50s, or anyone who wants to spend time at home with children?

Maybe they should exclude the over 50s, or anyone who wants to spend time at home with children?

Yep and those with disabilites, those from working class backgrounds, BME students. All of whom will on average have lower paid jobs.

In fact only white middle class able-bodied 18 year olds should go to university and only to study a small range of subjects (Law, Medicine and Engineering). Yep that'd work.

In fact only white middle class able-bodied 18 year olds should go to university and only to study a small range of subjects (Law, Medicine and Engineering). Yep that'd work.

I'm not sure that's enough titchy. You still get hopeless idealists in those subjects attracted to nonsense like 'helping people' and 'making the world a better place'. For it to work you'll need to weed out the lawyers who want to work in child protection or housing rights, the engineers who want to improve access to clean water supplies and sanitation, medics who want to research debilitating diseases that only occur in countries without much cash etc. I guess the UCAS personal statement might be helpful here. Any 17 year old writing something like 'I took part in the model UN and have completed an extended essay on improving access to education for the most deprived children' is straight out.

Agreed gin

I'm glad the concept of social value has finally surfaced, and to that we could add total cost of ownership - those less well paid jobs that may well have far greater societal cost benefits, as opposed to an inflated salary

Of course what we really need is more economics graduates. Well paid, almost always wrong, the ultimate in incompetence without consequence. But presumably would look good on graduate salary stats as a twisted measure of a uni's success.

More worrying though is the seeming genuine belief that powerpoint is somehow related to effective communication

45% of student loans will never be repaid - those people have effectively had grants.

Maybe we should actively reconsider whether University is the right place for a lot of courses
or whether many "vocational courses" should return to the HND / day release route that was respected for many years.

People doing PHDs and research are a different category - but it would not take much to add a box to the repayment form

as with a DD about to head off to Uni
what she is most looking forward to is the end of standardised courses.
Her UCAS form was on the basis of what each different department taught. She is not alone.

45% of student loans will never be repaid - those people have effectively had grants.

And what fraction of these are from women who work part-time or stay at home with their children? If student loan repayments were based on household income, rather than individual income (as they are in most other places), the recovery rate would improve considerably.

A fair number of my female contemporaries from university have not paid off student loans, not because they were ill-prepared for work (top ranked university across all categories) but because they are stay at home parents whose partners earn very high salaries. It is not fair that they have avoided paying back their loans when households with two much lower incomes have had to pay back theirs.

haybott

what ever your thoughts on those not paying back they are the rules that we all signed up to before we took out the loan.

Would it be fair that someone that didn't sign for the debt is forced to repay it?

No, of course retrospective changes to the loans are unfair. I am proposing that the change could be made to future loans.

As for someone who didn't sign for the debt being forced to repay it: this is a bit misleading. In a household with one person earning, the income is not that person's income - it is the household's income. The debt is being paid from the household income, and one person in that household did sign for it. All other debts taken out by one person in the household would have to be paid back by the household income (unless that person declares bankruptcy).

The UK is fairly unusual in not using household income. Not using household income leads to other unfair issues such as a household with 2 x 49,999 income getting child benefit but a household with a 60,000 income not receiving anything. Other countries which have independent taxation do allow household incomes to be linked by the tax revenue services, for the purposes of claiming child benefits, tax credits, paying student loan debts.

I suspect this is all a bit of a moot point, though, because in the future the terms of repayments are anyhow likely to become more harsh to improve the recovery rate i.e. more women working part-time on low incomes will be forced to make loan repayments.

And BTW in the examples I have in mind the household incomes are in the mid 6 figures. These women could easily pay back their whole student loans from household assets and income but they are not going to do so as they have absolutely no plans to work and so will never have to pay the loans off.

Cynically these women have gone to university to find a rich husband. Very 19th century. I agree that student loan repayments should be based on household income. Similarly a graduate who supports a family should be allowed a higher repayment freshold then someone single with no children.

I think with graduates you need to look at ones who work full time. That would knock out those taking career breaks or those who are disabled or those with severe mental health issues. If someone after five years of full time work cannot earn over 21k (working 35 hours a week minimum) then it's only fair to ask why. If a job is very badly paid then it should at least require a particular degree.

If you look at a cohort of 180 students and 80% are in dead end jobs then it's worth asking what benefit they got from giving to university.

I stopped working full time after having kids
active choice
admittedly even part time I earn more than the student loan limit

nuances are not the system's forte

FWIW I know of an old school friend who on paper, between her and her husband earn stuff all - but he's an Earl ....