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?

Why is law such a popular degree? So many students are taking it in post 92 universities with lower tariff entry requirements. What are their chances of a career in law?

Thanks for the clarification.

I do think we have to be careful, because what people will define as ‘low paid’ is widely variable.

I expect that the family member attending a conservatoire on a creative degree will never reach grad tax repayment level unless they are unusually successful or cash in the ‘it’s a degree’ aspect in a different field.

It is one of the factors in considering it, tbh - their debt is only living expenses as the loan for tuition is effectively a grant.

@RampantIvy

Why is law such a popular degree? So many students are taking it in post 92 universities with lower tariff entry requirements. What are their chances of a career in law?

I do think people need to be a bit more careful with this - it assumes that students do law degrees because they want to become solicitors or barristers. Many won't - they want to be legal advisors for charities, local government, CABs, legal executive, heck even A level law teachers. Many also do it because they find it interesting, others may want to be a solicitor aged 18, but subsequently change their mind after one module of torts!

@mids2019 that's a very narrow view. Would you say the same of Warwick (also a 60s university!). I believe Bath may also fit into that category? And UEA is consistently higher up the Sunday Times league tables than somewhere like Newcastle or Reading?

Thank you for clarifying that @titchy

@RampantIvy

Thank you for clarifying that *@titchy*

Just annoys me a little - no one says people shouldn't study History because there aren't enough historian jobs. For some reason it's OK to study History because you're interested in the subject and it'll get you a generic grad job. But Law is somehow different...

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

Apologies I was being slight facetious.

The difficulty of targeting lower end universities if a 'cull' is suggested is that many if these universities do have courses with reasonable A level tariffs and in practice it would be difficult to pin down which courses are 'failing'. Additionally lecturers jobs depend on these courses so it is not a case of simply of slashing and burning parts of the newer universities.

UEA which is a good university has an A level tariff of BBB for biochemistry similar to institutions further down the pecking order but it would be hard to argue UEA does not produce good graduates.

The idea of university blind interviewing has found favour with someone above who is grateful for such a policy for her which is interesting. Blind interviewing to remove unconscious bias for gender and ethnicity seems hard to argue against and the extension to universities to avoid bias is natural and once you go down a university blind route it is hard to argue out of it.

Whether university blindness is fair on those applicants from high status institutions who have put in considerable effort to maximise their GCSE and a level profiles is a matter of discussion .....

I think the distinction is that many choose a History degree knowing that it most likely will be a pathway to a generic non-History based grad job whilst huge numbers pursue Law in the belief that it will lead them to a high-flying legal career and for the majority it won't.

Except you don't know that. You're assuming. Again. It might be true, equally it might not and half of Law applicants might just be interested in Law and happy to go on to apply for generic graduate roles.

Just because you can't imagine someone finding Law fascinating doesn't mean that such people don't exist!

I am sure those people do exist and of course they should do a law degree if it is going to lead them to their own goals. Conversely, I also know from my own experience that top London law firms are inundated with applications from Law graduates who don't realise that their degree is not as valuable as they had thought. I really truly sorry for these kids who have done a tough degree and thought they were on that path. So by all means, study Law, as long as it is with eyes open.

@titchy
Why would anyone choose law at uni but not be interested in it? They are not making the best choice surely?

I would bet quite a lot of money that at the outset of a Law degree, students want a job in law. For most that will be a solicitor. A few will want to be a barrister. I suspect the top 15 law degrees will see more students with these ambitions at the beginning. Given that we have 18,000 law degree places but around 6,000 training contracts each year which are open to all grads, the chances are not great if you have got BBB and are at the University of Nowhere Much. It’s definitely selling dreams. However it’s possible some students didn’t dream I guess.

A lot of students will be doing law because they like the sound of it, rather than expecting a career in it. After all, schools tell their students to choose degree subjects that sound interesting and not to obsess about future careers.

@user1497207191
I’m not sure 18,000 DC and their parents truly believe law is what they should study because a teacher, who almost certainly hasn’t studied it, says it’s a good idea. I wonder how many law students would admit to never wanting to work in law? Not that we can ever find out I suspect.

@user1497207191

A lot of students will be doing law because they like the sound of it, rather than expecting a career in it. After all, schools tell their students to choose degree subjects that sound interesting and not to obsess about future careers.

Yes they will. They perceive it as a 'serious' subject (ironically not one like the much-maligned Media Studies). Even if they don't want to be a solicitor or barrister. They perceive that they will be seen as more intelligent by employers.

Funny things 18 year olds!

[quote TizerorFizz]@user1497207191
I’m not sure 18,000 DC and their parents truly believe law is what they should study because a teacher, who almost certainly hasn’t studied it, says it’s a good idea. I wonder how many law students would admit to never wanting to work in law? Not that we can ever find out I suspect.[/quote]
And how many history undergrads would be happy to admit they don't want anything to do with history once they've graduated?

[quote TizerorFizz]@user1497207191
I’m not sure 18,000 DC and their parents truly believe law is what they should study because a teacher, who almost certainly hasn’t studied it, says it’s a good idea. I wonder how many law students would admit to never wanting to work in law? Not that we can ever find out I suspect.[/quote]
You mis read my post. I'm not saying teachers tell them to study law, I'm saying teachers tell them to study a subject that interests them.

@user1497207191
Sorry. I did misread that! Apologies.

Just been looking at CCC/CCB entry law degrees. One referred to court rooms nearby, pictures of students in wigs, students qualifying for further training to be a solicitor/barrister, support from visiting barristers and solicitors and one even said they had a “Bar Pathway” specialising in court room skills. Not sure which “bar”? In the Complete University Guide one very lowly ranked university which offers LLB with ucas points entry tariff describes its course as attached. I think it is dreams being sold!

@titchy
Well one imagines most history grads don’t see their degrees as part of training for a vocation. They are really not the same. It would be better if law was sold honestly. As you can see from the above, they are not. It’s pretty easy to understand that history grads won’t work in “history” unless they teach it!

I think law would be rather dry to study just out of interest of you had no inclination to pursue a career in it. I am presuming most people who embark on a law degree harbour ambitions to be a lawyer in much the same way as people studying medicine harbour ambitions to be doctors.

It seems like there a r e law degrees where entry to the legal profession is overly ambitious and I think this does not serve students well. However there will be graduates of more 'middling' universities that should perhaps have that chance of a career but in order to have firms gain confidence in a particular degree the university must demonstrate serious intent.

I take @Xenia point that ultimately professional exams are the litmus test for a legal career and in reality there probably is a reasonably strong correlation between university rank and scores in these exams. This is not to say that only students from a very small subset of universities will be able pass them and the university blind system could have a role here?

On a side note looking at the Oxbridge entrance thread I become increasingly of the opinion that there is something imperfect in a system where we have a 1 in 5 application success rate from amongst the brightest pupils in the country. The process seems absolutely brutal.

One feature I have noticed of RG (non Oxbridge unis) is that courses have to cater for those ranging from narrowly missing out on Oxbridge (often with immaculate grade profiles) to those that have gained entrance through clearing and this can be challenging.

You either have those at the bottom struggling and in real danger of getting a 2:2 or those at the top funding the rigour not adequate and feeling short
changed.

It seems that theoretically we should have Level 1 degrees (Oxbridge and a select number of elite courses at other universities to accommodate those of Oxbridge aspirant level), Level 2 degrees that would take up a significant proportion of RG courses then Level 3 taking in the rest.

All this is obviously hypothetical (and maybe counter intuitive to my previous posts) but the make or break Oxbridge application route seems not the best way to set up an education system.

One thing to remember too is that many of the uni blind applications do require the applicant to do their own form of testing and it is often the results of these that sort the wheat from the chaff (to coin a phrase). Thisnisnwhere the A* student getting a 2.1 or higher from a Level 1/2 uni using your categories than a C/D student getting a 1st or 2.1 at a level 3. Alternatively they are looking for a way of thinking which is why an history student may be selected by KMPG over a finance student.

The reality is in a world where previously 17% went to uni and post Blair it is 50% there simply are not 50% graduate level jobs unless you include jobs that don't need degrees but are advertised as needing them just to thin out number of applications.

@mids2019
I agree with @SeasonFinale. The other selection procedures may well result in the type of candidate being chosen.

I’m finding it quite interesting that on another forum, posters insist a masters is a sign of great intelligence. I think it’s a sign of a specialist education. My Dd often meets people who are highly educated in their field but they don’t know about much else. My DH has employed masters educated people who cannot write English or use spell check! Sometimes “education” needs to be broad and some people really are not highly educated. They are just very good at something they love.

I am not sure if you realise, but law grads can pay to do the further qualifications for the Bar. Not sure about new solicitors exams. However as over 1400 take them each year, few get pupillage because all the DC from previous years are still trying! If courses were honest about possibilities and what students are most likely to do it would be fairer. Lowly universities promising the earth is just wrong!

The 2:2 needs to be re-established as a decent enough degree from a top flight university. They have nearly disappeared! Firsts used to be 1/100 students. They meant something. Is it any wonder employers use more and more tests to sift candidates.

The young people going to uni are not 50% of the cohort. To get to that number, adults and retraining employees are counted too. However I still think there should be a cull of unis.

As for Oxbridge - some courses are 1:10! 1:5 is quite good! Be good at MFL to get the odds down! Don’t forget there are lots of overseas applicants too. But yes, it’s the Holy Grail for many. I do think other attributes make a great employee though but I would hope Oxbridge educated employees can write English and spell!

@TizerorFizz
@SeasonFinale

Interesting points.

The idea of employers relying on their own entrance tests to a greater extent does potentially have ramifications.

Will universities (especially career sections) aim to 'teach to the test' for large or well known employers. If the entrance to a career is a test rather than an institution or degree classification will this mean students will be more focussed on their preparation for a certain type of test rather than their degree?

There must be a correlation between employer test result and institution/degree classification. However if this correlation becomes weaker what will the result be? Will there be pressure for public sector employers to design tests to not encourage any bias towards certain universities?

Research into the above will be interesting as will you in fact get a more diverse range of university applicant being recruited of will the status quo be maintained ?

It would be interesting to know your thoughts on the effect of grade inflation generally on higher education. 25% of A levels being awarded at A and A star levels must be creating nightmares for university admissions and employers when differentiating candidates. Possibly some of the lack of realism about career destinations is due to the fact that an A level student may feel their grades are better than their perception especially compared to previous generations.

@TizerorFizz

The idea of a university cull is an interesting one but as I said before where and how do you draw the line? There are reasonable courses interspersed with some less than feasible options towards the lower end of the spectrum.

I think this will ultimately come down to how we as a society view educational fairness. If we have a large excess of graduates for graduate jobs should we be stringent in allowing only applicants from higher institutions to get these jobs as on a population level you will perhaps have 'top flight' university graduated squeezed out by graduated from the lower tiers. (This may not be a norm but pressure to diversify university entrants points in this direction,)

I am open to arguments and U think a worrying message may be for teachers to advise students that pulling out all the stops for top grades may be redundant as when it comes to employability there may be not that much of a difference due to university choice.

I think it is a case of allowing some graduates from mid tier universities to aspire towards competitive jobs while not being too diverse as to have the unanticipated consequence on allowing lack of ambition. Tricky.

@mids2019
Very interesting questions. I can only really speak with authority about people I know or where I have had recruitment responsibility. Every single case I can think of adds in tests for grad employees. DH’s company has done them for decades. Having said that, they are not a major employer but they set a range of design problems at interview and ask potential grad employees to tackle them. They didn’t have the luxury of discarding huge numbers of applications before interview but they wouldn’t want a 2:2. They would look at people from any university and if they did well in the tests they stood a chance of employment. Universities had no idea about what was asked and given that plenty struggled to think through solutions to engineering problems, DH felt their university courses were not great in some instances. They were producing numerate grads but not ones who could understand or solve engineering problems. Often ex poly students were great. So it’s engineering skills and fit with company that matters. Not university.

DD is in a highly competitive sector. She’s a barrister. She organised what she needed to do to get a pupilage and then tenancy. She and people like her are self starters. She now sifts applicants for pupilage at her Chambers. They are university blind. However they then don’t offer tenancy to all the pupils. When it comes to the training process (pupillage) a lot of other factors come into play. It’s not all about degree and university at all. It’s not a science regarding how decisions are made, and they agonise over decisions. I think these aspiring barristers have to be outstanding to get anywhere and choosing is difficult. Generality though, barristers are mostly RG.

The A level results will make it more difficult for employers as the number of firsts has done. They are not necessarily interested in a first from a less good university because it’s not demonstrating excellence. It is no guarantee of a good fit for a job. As I’ve said on other posts, academics isn’t the only factor that matters for employment but employers don’t trust universities giving 40% firsts on a course. Of course they will do their own tests. Academics doesn’t always mean that person is better. I’m sure the universities have a headache making choices too.

My radical solution regarding university provision: admit some courses are not good enough to be degrees. Save the best degree courses by putting them under the umbrella of a better uni. This is what used to happen. The colleges of HE ran a few degrees but didn’t validate them. This would preserve their niche but excellent degrees. Then convert other courses back to HND. So we should have colleges of Higher Education offering bridge courses between A levels snd degrees for lower achieving DC. After HND young people can go and do a degree of get a job snd do professional qualifications. Plenty of careers don’t need a degree. We know that. We just need to accept that far too many grads don’t get grad jobs so the state is wasting money. It could be used more creatively.

This has been such an interesting thread to read. I never expected to learn so much about law careers! I do have a question to ask about university blind recruitment: what happens to those students who worked hard to get to a “top tier” university and end up with a 2.2 when another candidate goes to a “lower tier” university and gets a 2.1. This seems unfair when university staff here are clearly saying that some universities gift students a 2.1 who clearly don’t deserve it.