New universities are in the government 's sights?

[mids2019]

www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/20/ofs-publishes-plans-to-punish-english-universities-for-poor-value-for-money

The government plans to penalise universities whose courses are "poor value for money' . Won't this disproportionately effect newer universities and by extension students from poorer backgrounds? Are we starting to see the end of social mobility being extended through education?

Or.....is this a sensible approach to prevent students wasting time and money?

My DS was offered a degree apprenticeship. It is not just high grades but there were the interviews to get through both group and individual. These types of interviews are not something you will pass without prepping ahead of time. Unsurprisingly, year on year the requirements are rising for the better apprenticeships and selection rears it's ugly head again. Employers are looking for the best candidate but potential candidates could be sifted out or not even apply believing that they will not stand a chance.

I think the whole system really needs to be looked at as a whole instead of tinkering with little bits. If we want everyone to have a fair shot then the secondary school system needs to not only produce children with a clutch of A grades but the soft skills alongside that businesses say they are lacking.

@OnlyTheBravest
I think some schools do give students these advantages. Lots of private schools can help with this.

We do know though that only Oxbridge (and Manchester?) interview. Schools know they are judged on results. Not what employers want. I am also aware we have quite a few parents whose DC are very limited in what they like or who they engage with, but the parents kick the question of employment a long way down the road. So grunting answers, refusing to wear suitable clothes, not articulating opinions coherently, not being able to spell or hold a conversation about anything much is seen as no issue at all. So DC do their school subjects but don’t engage in much else. From what I have seen, parents who are more engaged with what’s needed for work, try and get DC a bit more prepared for work. They don’t just see exams as the only thing their 18 year old needs to achieve. There are plenty of DC who are wonderful at 18 but quite a few coming out of university are not employable.

I’m not sure schools will do much else other than teach subjects. I know what can be done, and some schools try hard, but it’s very difficult where their time is taken up with so many other issues.

I can see apprenticeships are very competitive and are taking well qualified DC. I always thought that was the case. The PWCs of this world would surely not choose lower qualified 18 year olds than they would take as grads. Surely they want equally as well qualified. Therefore DC going to them could have gone to an elite RG. I see all the time on these threads that posters think a DC who is struggling with A levels can get a degree apprenticeship. Where? I’m not sure that’s realistic advice at all.

Companies always want best fit. They are training up these young people. Investing in them. So of course they want ones who will be good. We do need to give the whole sector a head wobble! The low tariff courses shouldn’t be degrees. A quota of apprenticeships should be for 18 year olds and far more people should do HND/HNC. Then do a degree if required.

I agree with your thoughts @TizerorFizz on the need for non-degree routes being more actively developed instead of, or as a precursor to, a degree. Although degree apprenticeships are very competitive, I think they are less open to middle class 'gaming of the system' and so genuinely more inclusive. Most blue chip employers are very open about the process and the criteria and make sure the online and in-person tests level the playing field for those unfamiliar with their industry. Ultimately these employers want the best. A four year L7 apprenticeship typically costs the employer in excess of £100k in salary and training costs; obviously they get an economic return during that time but nevertheless they take great care in the selection process to get people with the right underlying work ethic and drive and not simply those 'trained for the test'. By contrast, the higher education sector is ultimately about capturing the £35k+ cashflow (3 years' course fees and first year accommodation) that each student represents. Much less care is taken in the selection process to attract those who would genuinely benefit from a university education. This is not to say that there are not many, many dedicated people teaching and working in FE and there are many, many students who benefit from going to university but the needs of students are not aligned with what drives HE institutions - hence the problem we are discussing.

@PerpetualOptimist
I absolutely agree that employers will be a lot more discerning. As they only choose circa 3000 18 year olds, it’s very different to the numbers that go to university. Some universities have huge drop out figures too. I sometimes think if those young people had the support of an employer snd aimed a bit lower, they would end up in the same place. We also need to have a buoyant economy to support jobs for young people as well. With the current pressures some firms are facing, the future isn’t great for lots of young people.

What this does show is that there should be an overhaul.

I am more optimistic about the general trend. For various reasons, employers (in broad terms) have got out of the habit and expectation of developing young people as they enter the workforce and of running that alongside theoretical and skills-based training at college. That approach was the norm in many sectors until the 1990s. There is a growing recognition that they do need to spend money on selecting, training and retaining. Yes, some sectors like hospitality have been badly hit, but other sectors are thriving. There is still work to do, though. My hairdresser was bemoaning the poor technical support at our local college for their apprentices and over-emphasis on 'tick box' essays to evaluate progress; equally the owner of the gas boiler maintenance company I use also teaches at the same college and was talking to me about how they ensure apprentices (whether for their company or others) get the right mix of practical and theoretical training. So it is all still very much a mix bag.

My children's late grandfather on their father's side of the family did not do a degree at 18 but his employer sent him off to do one as he was doing so well at work and was very bright, and he became an engineer, registered important patents, set up a company and worked well into his 80s at the company he founded (and brought out his first book on the patents etc in his 80s). That system enabled companies to pick who was pretty good and up to a degree in a relevant subject and send them off.

Go back much muich earlier and in all kinds of industries as 14 and 16 year olds are so useless at most things and a nuisance to have around fathers would pay someone in the 1500s+ to take on their child for 7 years - pay to have them taught in effect on the job. It was the same in law in the 1800s I think - you paid an upfront premium to a solicitor who then had the huge burden of dealing with a young useless person for 7 years until they became more useful (although my grandfather's brother did do an LLB which he began in 1883 (external London University) - the family must have been so proud because the newspaper article about his mother's 1906 funeral even mentions the children attending and what they were doing including that LLB (never mind the sister who qualified as a nurse in the 1890s)

@PerpetualOptimist
I agree about pre 90s employment patterns. That coincides with the post 92 university provision! That’s the key isn’t it? Was our system of education so poor we needed 150 plus universities?

It’s a great shame that employers don’t always readily accept their role in training and just want the finished article to slot in without much effort on their part. Bigger employers are better but so many have got out of the habit of training.

I was listening to You and Yours on Radio 4 earlier and they were talking about retraining of adults and how you cannot, for example, train as a nurse if you already have a degree in something else. It made me wonder if these people who want to change career could do an apprenticeship? The careers expert on the programme didn’t mention it, but are apprentice nurses a thing? Lots of adult degree holders can become apprentices I think. Maybe I’m wrong.

@TizerorFizz

"It’s a great shame that employers don’t always readily accept their role in training and just want the finished article to slot in without much effort on their part. Bigger employers are better but so many have got out of the habit of training".

Corporate greed plays a part. That and possibly the fact that graduates would be expectant of a graduate salary and disappointed to start on a quasi-apprentice salary to account for the money being spent on training them up in the role.

@littlegreenalien
I don’t know about you, but my pensions are invested in companies both here and abroad. We need businesses to make money or they don’t have jobs available or profits for the pension funds. I’m happy for companies to make money, pay tax, employ people and ensure we don’t have unemployment. I don’t see it as greed. I see it as necessary.

Grad jobs usually have a better salary than apprentices at 18. They can even up of course. As far as I’m aware, companies should expect to further train grads who are in grad jobs/training schemes. Often grads will be going for professional qualifications so they must be trained for that. If companies don’t bother, they won’t attract the better grads. Decent companies do train their grads. They don’t make them pay for it with uncompetitive salaries. That’s just a race to the bottom in my view.

I agree with all of the above. I also wonder whether there should just be a move ro revert to polys and technical colleges but can't see how that could happen in reality.

Funding would have to change. I’m sure lecturers wouldn’t fight any loss of prestige. I’m quite keen for the polys to remain and to offer degrees. They always did. It’s the post 92 sector that were not polys that need to be looked at. A gradual move away from some degree courses would maybe work but funding would be needed for the replacement courses.

I think the problem came about because polytechnics were viewed as 'lesser universities' rather than as a slightly different animal providing a slightly different education/service. One that was aimed at more practical and vocational training and qualifications. Some polys were excellent in their specific fields, but then diluted their offering by having to (choosing to?) offer the full range of academic subjects rather than sticking to their areas of expertise. They should have been valued more for what they were offering rather than looked at for what they were not.

I'm not sure anyone has benefited from this change tbh. It can be hard for sixth formers, and their schools, to assess the relative worth of various institutions now that everyone offers everything, and harder to identify pockets of excellence at universities which are less well regarded overall.

@TizerorFizz

Funding would have to change. I’m sure lecturers wouldn’t fight any loss of prestige. I’m quite keen for the polys to remain and to offer degrees. They always did. It’s the post 92 sector that were not polys that need to be looked at. A gradual move away from some degree courses would maybe work but funding would be needed for the replacement courses.

And this. @TizerorFizz has some interesting ideas about the reintroduction of other courses and other paths to qualifications, but of course the big stumbling block is funding – isn't it always? I wonder if there could be more direct links between college courses and industry, where industry actually part-funds them but gets a 'say' in how they are designed and taught so they know that people with x qualification will be well suited to going to work for them?

But that is rather too far away from my areas of expertise to know whether it's realistic or not…

And mine?!! However I think some degrees offered to apprentices are organised this way. Solicitor fast track training definitely is. So maybe it could be expanded for DC wanting qualifications below degree level?

@TizerorFizz

My view is possibly jaded from what I've experienced close up recently. My career has been all about finance so I'm well versed in the need for enterprise/industry/pension income/growth generation etc. I'm also old and have seen the cycle of boom & bust more than once. Some organisations' employees still haven't got back to where they should be (as far as pay is concerned) following the 2008 crash.

I've seen 18 year olds taken on side by side with graduates in the same intake. By the end of the post grad qualification period you wouldn't know the difference except for perhaps age and lack of tales of "when I was at Uni" . This is hopefully as a result of careful application sifting/interviewing though .

@littlegreenalien
I think 18 year olds can be great employees. The thrust of this thread has been that maybe fewer grads are needed and more opportunities for 18 year olds, especially if their A levels are below what a reasonable degree should require. If the 18 year olds are well qualified and able, I see no reason why they cannot be great employees. No doubt they could have gone to university but chose not to.

In my DH’s work though, doing part time qualifications really puts you behind your degree peers. By years! You simply could not be equally qualified for years and years after the grad intake. Mainly due to part time degrees being BEng, part time and lengthy. Some will take 7 plus years so the grad is well ahead at 22. So the salaries reflect this. Some careers do give big advantages to degree holders.

One thing I have noticed is that a significant number of RG universities offer degrees in quite vocational areas e.g. nursing , social work, early years children studies and this is so that the local populace get trained staff in given areas. I very much doubt Oxford and Cambridge will offer these type of degrees and I wonder if universities maintain their status by refusing to take on significant numbers of degrees like nursing where in reality employers don't care about university attended?

There is an overall here with another thread about the reduction of private school pupils at Oxbridge and I wonder if there is a concern that RG universities don't meet a level of 'elite' education as non Oxbridge unis are quite egalitarian in the breadth and utility of study?

@mids2019
I can see 11 RG universities offering nursing in the Complete University Guide. I imagine they make the decision based on broadening their medical schools and maybe the size of city and hospitals need the nurses? It’s a big like a vet school offering vet nursing. I would think they all do. Similar considerations might apply to social work. However only 4 RG offer social work as far as I can see plus Bath and Lancaster. Therefore I think it depends on links to existing departments and ability to teach the subject. I didn’t look at grades required but maybe they mop up the higher qualified candidates?

Not all RG are elite. They are more sought after and research shows their grads earn more. Any nurse or social worker is guaranteed employment (for life) due to huge numbers of vacancies so it’s never a waste of time. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to have these degrees available at different universities but what we could do is go back to SEN nurses and non degree social workers who could do shorter courses but get into work quicker to fill vacancies.

early years children studies and this is so that the local populace get trained staff in given areas. I very much doubt Oxford and Cambridge will offer these type of degrees

Both offer PGCEs...

PGCE is post degree. I cannot see Oxbridge offering vocational degrees that need work placements. I would think their medical schools could offer nursing but don’t appear to.

@TizerofFizz

Oxford has a medical school so it seems reasonable for Oxford to offer nursing degrees as obviously Oxford and it surrounds needs nurses?

The point is Oxford has defended its academic focus by not taking on this role. (Oxford Brookes does presumably offer nursing)

It is a good point suggesting that not all RG universities are elite as I think this is where confusion in the HE sector resides. The press are often denoting an elite RG university group in their reporting and indeed private schools mention RG as an aspiration for their leavers.

The fact is though there is probably an internal (and possibly subjective) hierarchy within the RG group themselves. I mentioned nursing above as employers really do not care where the degree was obtained and so it undermines the concept of elite universities to some extent.

There are probably elite courses within the RG amongst non elite courses and it is incredibly difficult to differentiate the two especially for employers and society as a whole. The public recognize Oxford and Cambridge as part of the British cultural landscape but for other universities name recognition is rather more complex.

In my opinion given the massive over subscription of Oxbridge and the fact many of the rejects are extremely clever and deserving of an 'elite' education there needs to be some wider and more formal acceptance of other non Oxbridge degrees as being of this category.

The remit and number of degrees offered by RG universities makes this challenging and unless you have particular insight it may be difficult for employees to know which degrees are elite and which aren't

I tend to agree the press just say RG but in reality there is a pecking order. Imperial and LSE are hardly back numbers! Durham, and quite a few others are often Oxbridge back ups. The students who didn’t get to Oxbridge can still get good jobs with their degrees. I think most normal people accept other top universities a good a job. A lot of success depends on the individual too. No one going to Oxbridge is guaranteed anything.

My DD1 found that the majority of international pupils at her school wanted universities in London. That meant the girls from the Arabic nations going to Soas! I’m not going to say which universities feature lower in the RG list but some are recruiting and not hugely difficult to access for some courses.

Yes. Oxford Brookes does offer nursing.

@TizerorFizz

I agree with Durham and the LSE being very good universities. However Durham does offer some quite vocational degrees (sports science for example) though admittedly the prospectus is mainly academic.

I noted both Durham and Cambridge offer education degrees for those that wish to become eachers. The Cambridge education degree describes itself as a foundation for those wishing to gain further qualifications to reach at primary levlel. This is fair enough as I guess Cambridge as a city (as well.as else where ) requires primary school teachers but in reality how many with Cambridge degrees will pursue careers in primary school education? Is this the type.of degree that maybe Cambridge should allow a newer university to take on if it has a specific vocational intent?

I In an ideal world we would reconfigure our idea of elite education and it's provision in this country as we have many talented academic high flyers and too many are being pushed down the very narrow Oxbridge filter with the annual frustration of rejections and having to make decisions where the best second choice university is. Perhaps we need a sunset of academic universities with the number of places aligned to the number of students who perform very well academically to allow a fair level of higher education (removing the blue between the purely vocational and academic)?

I do think high quality young people should have a go at Oxbridge if they want to but it’s all about managing expectations. There are very good universities where these young people will thrive if they don’t get in. Sometimes it’s not entirely appreciated how the selection process works and cannot understand why a bright DC isn’t selected. The big problem is that the parent or school, apart from the big hitters, don’t know the strength of the opposition. I think sensible people see it as a challenge and work out the odds. Then look around at well regarded courses elsewhere.

Education at Cambridge doesn’t just supply the teaching profession. The degrees are broad and in many ways not vocational. You can teach in a primary school after doing any degree. It’s the PGCE that matters. Centres of excellence in Education are a good idea though. I don’t think Cambridge should give up it’s research position and we do have other universities that are respected in this field.

@TizerorFizz

I agree with a lot.you say.

I think children should be encouraged to apply for Oxbridge if they have a reasonable chance of entry. The problem is how to judge how realistic the application is in a period of grade inflation. I have no doubt that Oxbridge rejects thrive elsewhere (they are academically very capable); the question is where and I think this is where some of the angst comes in.

Expectation !management is important obviously (in all aspects of life) but with 5 to 1 application to place ratios it must be difficult to be conscious of these odds and yet be full hearted in your application.

I was looking the leavers destinations of one of the more selective London privates schools (saint Paul's girls) and around 40% get into Oxbridge and I actually thought this quite low given the A level profile of their sixth form.
It was interesting to see the non Oxbridge universities chosen and there was a preponderance of London universities and IS schools. I think these choices may be an indication of where other 'prestige' universities may be. The fact the US is a destination of choice for many of our academically too flight youngsters I don't think is necessarily a positive.

I agree Cambridge education in reality is more academic than vocational but there is a suggestion on the subject website that primary school teaching is an option in future and indeed secondary education with a certain path. The point maybe is that it is difficult for Cambridge to offer any thing directly vocational which I can see the reasoning for.

I think referring back to some of the original arguments about low tier universities the concept of Oxbridge and 'the rest" would be a disservice to the more academically gifted students and I can see how students do put a huge amount of importance into getting into these two universities.