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?

I do think high quality young people should have a go at Oxbridge if they want to

Possibly they are all going to have to, whether they actually want to go there or not, in order to qualify also to apply for a place at the newly-organised 'elite' alternatives...?

...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.

Although that does rather remind me of the university a good many years back now (?Bristol, ??Exeter), whose reputation was such that some students took to wearing T shirts stating I am not an Oxbridge reject.

@MarchingFrogs

I suppose a lot of this argument depends on whether there should be any sort of hierarchy in HE at all?

The Bristol undergraduates who were proud of their non Oxbridge reject status either

(a) did not apply to Oxbridge though academically able to go there
(b) did not have the academic credentials to get in

Both reasons are obviously fine but I don't think being an Oxbridge reject is necessarily a bad thing. I just think we need to think about how we arrange HE in general and we ask our children to aspire to the best possible A levels? What is the motivation?

The motivation should be work. We have moved away from that as being the most important outcome. When I was that age, the vast majority of undergrads saw their degree as a passport to a grad level job with further training. Many were intent on doing better than their parents.,Some didn’t of course and some degrees always were a bit ? However as grads were less common, in general employers were pleased to have them. At the same time the best employers also employed non grads and trained them too.

I think you will find the most sought after courses at Oxbridge are nearer a 10:1 ratio or even worse. Some are nearer 3:1 because there are fewer applicants but also plenty of good ones.

Schools have a crucial role here. Exam grades are not now all you need. Too many have top grades but are one dimensional people. Teachers should talk to pupils about the subject they want and make sure they read beyond the syllabus. Indeed being able to express their thoughts, show initiative and ability to pass the entry tests should be at the forefront when Oxbridge is discussed with pupils. I certainly know of pupils who achieve highly within the confines of the syllabus but do virtually nothing else to ensure they have broadened their education in their chosen subject. I think they can come unstuck when applying to Oxbridge. They won’t elsewhere though.

Schools really should have info about the other universities for the subject the pupil wants. I know it’s very hard for some.

Early applications are closely an indication a DC is going for Oxbridge (excluding a few other early closing dates). In the past it wasn’t uncommon for these DC to receive early rejections from some of their other choices too! That used to cause big problems. Good candidates getting no offers certainly dents confidence.

Oxbridge certainly can help with the chosen career but choosing the best below that level needs schools to be proactive and not lump all other universities as ok. Some are a lot more desirable than others.

They are very interesting issues. If you are going to get into good jobs A level and institution blind then should teenagers just put their feet up more like say my son who got CCC and a third class degree because there will be prizes for all particularly if you tick a disadvantaged box and it may be better in terms of time spent working on your research into your one eighth native American ancestry (which is sometimes done for US university entrance, play down your Asian and play up the African because that gets you more preference for entrance over there rather than working hard like the Asians and Chinese). Or if we can continue to find ways at age 18 to sift out who is best at all levels whether you are competing for Oxbridge, Bristol or my native Sunderland University.

It would be a pity if we moved away from working hard helps gets you in. I don't think we have reached that point yet nor even the point that we should move children at 14 to bad schools and tutor them in secret. If people think private school children or grammar school children with high A levels like most of my children do not really deserve them or they are in a sense fake A levels because their parents had money or time and comprehensive children with high grades are the real deal what would be a bit unfair on the children.

@TizerorFizz

The attributes Oxbridge are looking for seem more than sensible but with regard to wider interest in a subject is it the case that are rejected from very selective schools have simply not gone the extra mile or have been badly advised? Are we saying there is something lacking in A levels to indicate true academic talent? It is interesting to use the phrase 'one dimensional ' as I believe one of the focuses of modern university recruitment is to assess purely academic ability as to not socially bias. It is an interesting debate whether universities should take into account to a minor extent sporting or musical ability for instance to ensure the student body is well rounded and there is contribution to university life beyond the academic.

The issue with non Oxbridge highly ranking universities is that with grade inflation it is going to become increasingly hard for them to choose candidates fairly without resorting to interviews which they can't resource. A personal statement could be used to differentiate candidates but this could be written by anyone. I think schools have a big part to play but possibly career/university advice is constrained by political correctness in that teachers will not want to be seen biasing against any university and the student is left to wade through marketing material (and at an age where entry may be susceptible to this). As you pointed out we produce too many graduates for graduate jobs and this makes students very cautious about university/course choices (especially given the debt).

@Xenia

I think there arguments against university blindness which is encouraged for a lot of public sector recruitment as it does prevent university attended being a factor to consider. Why get the grades for a high level course at a top university of this is not to be a conservation when going to interview?

With regard to positive discrimination and target setting for different social groups we have to be very careful not to follow American practice. I believe in reality we don't but I think it is going to be hard for universities like Oxford to completely right off accusations of positive discrimination if they are lauding the proportion of state pupils now being accepted.

Just a thought. There are many courses not taught at Oxbridge so lots of very able students don't apply. Also, many don't like the style of teaching - they are not seen as the pinnacle for a large section of society, just Unis that offer a different, sometimes seen as old fashioned, way of teaching.
My DD at Bristol doesn't know anyone who applied, probably because her course is not offered at Oxford and is a year longer at Cambridge.
However, my school have got quite a few in again so for some it's a brilliant choice😊.
Medicine is now possible at Sunderland, Anglia Ruskin, Edge Hill, Lincoln, all newer Unis. They must be doing something right to get brand new medical schools built.

I would imagine trying to differentiate between 25% of all A level grades being A or A* must be hugely difficult. We all know AAA years ago meant a pretty bright DC. Now it means they have been well taught and might have worked their socks off. By having to pass extra tests for Law, Medicine and some other subjects, there are possibilities that these could be developed for other courses. Oxford used quite a few to pre test. Other unis might need to.

I’ve found it very interesting meeting DDs friends down the years. None are hugely different in terms of A level results but they are vastly different in personality and overall intelligence. Even my DD said that her former flat mate with a 1st in Law from Durham had shockingly little general knowledge and couldn’t hold much of a conversation outside Law and fitness regimes. My niece is similar. Only topic of conversation is football. She’ll probably get a 1st from a RG university but she’s very limited in terms of a broader education .

Another aspect of Oxbridge is teachability. Will the student benefit from the teaching methods? Being able to discuss your subject outside the curriculum must surely indicate someone who is suitable for Oxbridge as opposed to the “we learnt this at school” type conversation.

I’ve found, in life, that I’ve met a few very very bright people. Oxbridge doesn’t have a monopoly of them but when you meet one, you just know!

@mumsneedwine
It’s because we need more doctors! Buckingham uni trains doctors. They are just spreading them around in new unis. It’s not an endorsement of the whole uni. If you were suitable for Oxbridge to read PPE why would Lincoln be of any interest just because it has a medical school?

However Durham does offer some quite vocational degrees (sports science for example) though admittedly the prospectus is mainly academic.

Only just catching up with this interesting thread and I know the conversation has moved on a bit, but just wanted to say sports science is a prime example of something that is, imo, mis-sold to school pupils. The number of people who study sports science far outnumbers the jobs available for sports scientists. Some might go on to specialise in sports massage, or physiotherapy, or psychology but a general sports science undergraduate degree? Where are students expecting to get related jobs?

It's a subject which used to be offered only at a handful of universities and it would be much better if that were still the case. In the meantime, far more school pupils should be asked what they think they are going to do with a sports science degree (this isn't a dig at sports science btw, DH and DS both work in sport).

@TizerorFizz this thread was about the newer Unis not being viable. It would be weird to build medical schools at them if they were going to close. And they've been built in particular areas as they are the ones it's hard to get doctors to stay in. Less places available this year because of the mess from last year. Can't just increase places as not enough F1 positions or training opportunities if too many on wards.
Think the grades for medicine at Lincoln and PPE at Oxford are the same though.

@thing47 there are loads more law students than lawyers. Been that way for years.

@Mumneedswine

We do need doctors and it is sensible to distribute medic schools throughout the country.

However it further muddies the picture of university rankings as it has been pointed out not all the degrees awarded by one of the newer universities will lead to the same degree of employability

Oxbridge (and others) in my opinion guard their status carefully by offering a very slim prospectus if academic subjects I made the point upthread that even though Oxford has a medical as school it was unlikely to offer nursing degrees (as other RG universities do) even though it is a natural offering and would serve the local populace.

Oxbridge won't offer the course you may specifically want but there may be a course close enough in nature to make an application.

@mumsneedwine
I really meant that an Oxbridge type student would not look at Lincoln to do P or P or E. I wasn’t comparing medical schools where entry requirements are universally high.

I’m assuming most of the new med schools are at former Polys? If so, I’ve not advocated closing them. Former colleges of HE/teacher training are another matter.

@TizerorFizz I agree. Can't see any PPE student fancying medicine, or vice versa.

[quote mids2019]@Mumneedswine

We do need doctors and it is sensible to distribute medic schools throughout the country.

However it further muddies the picture of university rankings as it has been pointed out not all the degrees awarded by one of the newer universities will lead to the same degree of employability

Oxbridge (and others) in my opinion guard their status carefully by offering a very slim prospectus if academic subjects I made the point upthread that even though Oxford has a medical as school it was unlikely to offer nursing degrees (as other RG universities do) even though it is a natural offering and would serve the local populace.

Oxbridge won't offer the course you may specifically want but there may be a course close enough in nature to make an application.[/quote]
That's rubbish! Oxbridge offer loads of course with no relevance to jobs at all - classics, art history, philosophy? Obvs the kids gets jobs from them, but because they have an Oxbridge degree not because the degree content set them up for employability!

@mids2019 can you explain what course is 'similar' to vet med ? And leads to becoming a vet ? Because I don't think anything at Oxford is suitable.

@mumneedswine

Fair enough. However vet medicine is a vocational degree (very skilled though) and it is this type of degree that doesn't fit the Oxbridge mold. I think my overall point was that Oxbridge is worth considering even if there is not an exact match to the subject

@titchy

If Oxbridge degrees do not set up people for employability why the high employment rate of their graduates

I think a lot of this debate is how academic (and possibly esoteric) degrees are regarded more highly than degrees which have a more obvious vocational purpose.

There are probably school kids wondering what sort of jobs a classics or philosophy degree from Oxford can get them especially from schools with limited experience of this university.

Think Law and medicine are also vocational degrees 😊.

@mumneedswine

Yip both are. I think the difference though is a degree in medicine from any uni is just as valuable in terms of employability. Law though ..... there was a discussion upthread that a law degree from a newer university would not necessarily lead to a career in law and so is it fair to allow the student to believe they had a realistic chance of becoming a QC?

@mids2019 that is v true. Law does seem to be massively dependent on the Uni.
I think different Unis offer different things. So some are there for academic rigour, some are there to provide more vocational degrees (eg midwifery, acting, fashion design), and some provide both.
We are so lucky in this country to have access to all sorts of institutions. Lots of A star students apply to the vocational things as that is where they want to work.

@titchy

A whole range of universities offer philosophy and classics; many with good employment rates. I don't know to what extent the degree content differs (I am a STEM person) but I would guess Oxford degrees are more rigorous and would lead to possibly higher status/salary jobs?

If Oxbridge degrees do not set up people for employability why the high employment rate of their graduates

Because a) the name impresses people and b) Oxbridge has very large proportion of privileged students from backgrounds where parents professional networks and general sharp-elbowedness gives them huge advantages in the job market.

Do you really think a kid raised by a single parent who left school at 15 has the same job (and general life) chances as someone whose parents are a barrister and a COO even if they go to the same uni?

@titchy

That's a really interesting point and it will be interesting to see now that Oxbridge is widening access whether those students who for instance were on FSM gain the same average salary as those from Eton.

The theory would be that both students have the same life chances; in reality I don't know?

I think it might have challenges to be a poor student at Oxford when it comes to having the confidence to go for careers their richer peers do (even with similar degrees).

Of course they won't! And no the 'theory' isn't that they have the same life chance - there is a multitude of data and research which shows very clearly that they won't. That's why the new system the original article describes is so bloody awful - it takes no account of a student/graduates background. But expects unis who recruit largely disadvantaged students to deliver the same career prospects as Oxbridge.

Yup. It's so much easier to get internships and graduate jobs if mummy and daddy have cash & contacts. Lots of my students come from deprived families and have to fight so much harder to get into Uni and then to secure the same opportunities as their richer contemporaries. Stormzy is trying to help with his students but some Unis need to do a lot more to support their graduates who aren't born with the privilege of contacts.