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?

Well they are disadvantaged - they don’t get a job. Look at The Apprentice tonight and weep!

@TizerorFizz

Well they are disadvantaged - they don’t get a job. Look at The Apprentice tonight and weep!

Yes, I was about to bring this up @TizerorFizz!

For those of you who don't watch it, one of the teams devised a game called 'Artic Saviour' and none of the three contestants on the team realised the mis-spelling. They also set it in the 'Artic' [sic] and had the gaming character collecting penguins…

And then asserted it didn’t matter because no one would notice because it wasn’t important! Sugar disagreed.

What it really shows up is that these people don’t read. The sound “Artic” was repeated and repeated by the candidates. They didn’t pronounce it as “Arctic” so they spelt it as they heard it. I hear similar mistakes every day on the radio. If no one corrects this, it won’t help later on in life. I frequently hear words that are made up. Just saying a “word” that sounds like the correct word but it’s incorrect. Another issue is simply using a word in completely the wrong situation. This really shows up a gulf in education. It won’t matter if the person has a first if they talk gibberish.

People from all sorts of universities do undoubtedly have skills but they need to be trusted by their companies/employers to be effective and, if that includes writing, they need to spell. Saying it doesn’t matter actually excludes people.

Yes! They completely tried to gloss over it. I smiled when the older expert they were pitching to immediately brought it up, closely followed by asking them how many penguins they would expect to find there .

But on a more serious note, you are quite right, of course. If the universities are ignoring spelling and sentence construction and so on, then they aren't doing their students any favours at all because employers aren't going to ignore such things.

OK playing devil's advocate. We would wish not to discriminate against a regional accent, Scottish, Liverpudlian, Mancunian sex so why discriminate against minor grammatical aberrations that don't in reality detract from a meaning of a sentance. Someone may say 'I don't like them people over there' but although grating there has been meaning conveyed by that sentence.

If those from working class backgrounds have different grammatical formations simply because of the environment they were brought up in should this be overly penalised?

Sex was a typo

But in lots of cases they do detract from the meaning of what is written. It’s a bit like saying “Eats, Shoots and Leaves” is the same as “Eats shoots and leaves”. Same words but totally different meaning. You cannot expect employers to put up with spelling errors to be nice to people. Let alone have to listen to made up words that are meaningless. There are reasons why grads are not getting jobs. Even in the best of times we had significant numbers who didn’t. Some are not interested but for many they don’t have the skills needed.

I totally realise you cannot turn an artist into a mathematician. But we need to find a way to stem the skills shortage we have and be far more proactive about learning on the job. Lots of employers are happier correcting an 18 year old than they are a graduate.

I understand the issues on both sides of this argument and it depends on the job. If in the legal profession (my job) putting a word in the wrong place can lose the client £20m then it does matter. If in many other jobs it does not matter then that's fine. I was sent a legal article for a journal I publish a month or two ago and unlike most the writer had very bad English. I had to spent about 10x as long as on other articles to make it acceptable to our subscribers. I will not be looking to that firm again for contributions as it made me have more work to do. If they choose to take on disadvantaged people then they should make one of their senior partners spend the time correcting the English before sending it to me.

@Xenia
It’s difficult to think of a work situation when spelling doesn’t matter in my view. Especially if communication with clients or the general public is concerned. If I received something with spelling and grammar mistakes in it from a professional company I probably wouldn’t go back. The bigger issue is we accept it in the name of diversity.

Last sentence was incorrect! It should read: what do we accept in the name of diversity?

I totally agree. As a lawyer with a heavy caseload I frequently told trainees that when I was checking their drafting whether documents or letters I should really only be checking the legal content and that I would expect the spelling and grammar to be correct. Unfortunately on far too many occasions it wasn't. As expressed in The Apprentice if in the applicant/candidate hasn't take care to ensure a pitch/presentation was correct how could I as employer/client expect them to be all over the detail within the actual job?

I think there are issues with spoken English too. It’s not necessarily accent but it’s about saying a word incorrectly. Hence “Artic”. There are lots of other examples. I think many bright people are able to speak and write accurately but I think others don’t see the need. It can hold them back though. Presenting, explaining ideas and solutions, talking to clients is better if done in accurate English.

Saying 'Artic' rather than 'Arctic' would suggest you've never seen the word written down. Or think it's entirely acceptable to turn a bonafide proper noun into a non-word?!

I was talking specifically about provision from lecturers rather than student ability, but we do have some excellent students that I would absolutely stack up against Oxbridge graduates. One of my dissertation students just won a very competitive national prize for her work from the subject professional body; many others go on to masters courses at RG unis and yes Oxbridge, and so very well. Yes probably the average ability level is below that of the high tariff institutions but we work extensively with them to bring up their skills levels. Yes, we (try) and teach them to write and put together a logical argument supported by evidence etc. Lecturers joining us from high tariff institutions are often shocked by the level of support they get, and probably a student starting elsewhere wouldn't need that - but it works (not always, certainly, but often). I have a student just graduated with a 2:2 and I was massively proud of them given the level at which they came in. Ability was hidden behind such largely solve-able issues as poor grammar, poor general knowledge etc. but came out in the end (they also got a perfectly good job locally, not high-flying by MN standards but a significant achievement for their family. Not related to discipline but you can't have it all!). Note they got a 2:2, not a first - contrary to what the media would have you believe, we don't just hand out firsts. Less than 10% of our students get firsts.

The issue of whether everyone should do degrees is a different one and yes I do see a lot of students who probably shouldn't be there (yet!). I'm as honest with them as I can be, but there's really not a lot I can do! Better counselling/career advice at school would help - NOT blaming teachers, who have enough on their plate, they just simply often don't know enough about their options to make an informed choice.

Al of this is just my experience, I don't doubt there are poor post-92 universities and departments - I'm also aware there are poor RG options too. Another ex-student of mine has gone to do a master at an RG MN darling institution and is very disillusioned. Apparently he already covered everyone in one of our second year units here!

Tldr: it's a LOT more complicated than RG good, post-92 bad. I wish our institution had the RG marketing team!

Over and out, I have to go teach!

@QueenRefusenik
It’s the not ready “yet” that I would like to see solved. Introductory courses are needed. HNDs and similar day release courses are needed. Recognition that degrees are not necessary for lots of jobs. Your grad with a 2:2 probably went to a job that 25 years ago would be done by the company/organisation training them up. As a result of the less academic getting degrees that won’t get them into grad employment, the nation is paying for the wrong type of education. Apprenticeships and day release were probably a better course of action for the 2:2 grad.

Also why should universities accept people who are not ready? It’s obviously bums on seats and you market hard for that! I bet you take a lot of local students who know about you. Post 92 like Lincoln market very hard.

I think good courses should be maintained. If need be, under the umbrella of another university. Other courses should be reconfigured to HND. If the number of courses reduced, the quality of students would go up. People who need intensive tuition regarding essays , study skills and English really do need to get those skills first. There would be courses for everyone, just not degrees in the first instance.

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/universities-english-students-office-for-students-government-b959206.html

I agree with the comment above that it is not so much accent as correct English that matters. I am from NE England and my teacher mother up there was very careful to teach her pupils correct English, spoken and written, even things like you sit "at" the table and you do not do things "on the weekend" as you cannot sit on top of the weekend she use do tell us and her pupils so their prepositions were correct and you never use "for free". Obviously all the children spoke with Geordie accents but she was teaching how to be correct in what was said and hopefully for older ones a love of reading for life (I am not saying she always managed that of course)....

If schools were allowed to tell children they speak badly and write badly and they must get it right rather than have a prizes for all, let us all pretend you are all perfect kind of attitude we might benefit those pupils more as once they hit the real world in the higher paid jobs they will come a cropper. For example I couldn't care less what colour or class someone is but if they cannot do the work then that is an issue. It is why all the Nigerians educated at British top UK boarding schools tend to do better than some local sink comp black children in London.

I wouldn't disagree with a lot of this Tizer (mmm, Tizer, there's a blast from the past, do they even sell that anymore?!). I'd like to see this solved too. But there really isn't any way of telling whether a student is 'ready' ahead of time. Also, they don't let us lecturers do admissions here, probably for that very reason! It's only when they get here and are engaging poorly etc that is becomes clear. I've had tough conversations with students but many are simply not ready to accept they're not ready and insist on soldiering on, and as long as they are engaging a bit and scraping through, we can't remove them. It is massively frustrating sometimes! However others do shape up - one student who was a massive space cadet in yr one and had to repeat that year ust graduated with an excellent 1st, hats off to him! Ironically when students do realise it's not for them and decide to leave, we get penalised for non-completion. And yes, we probably get more of those than RGs because they've been poorly advised previously. There are access to HE courses etc and we do take students from those who typically do well, other programmes in our institution do foundation years etc. but all of this is us patching up issues with secondary education - is that our job? Should it be? I don't have easy answers. All I'd say is that we have to face these issues a lot more than RGs do ... And then we get penalised for it. MN's reaction to that Guardian value-added league table was quite eye-opening, 'oh it's ridiculous that post-92s can be adding more value'. Um, nope. Teaching at RGs was great, excellent students pre-conditioned to study and learn? Great! How lovely to see students collecting2:1s and 1sts. And yet teaching at my current post-92 is much more rewarding. Seeing someone go from not being able to string a sentence together to 2:2 material is brilliant. Oh, and most of them can spell Arctic, funnily enough it figured in a yr 1 semester1 exam this year. We didn't cover penguins though!

@QueenRefusenik
No. It’s not your job! Clearly some students will improve. With good teaching that’s what should happen. Your SLT know that without the less able ones you will be 1/3 empty. So there is a clear incentive to be open to all! I’m not against education for all. It truly matters. However I think foundations and other post 18 courses should be widely available. I’m not saying all post 92 university’s should go but we have several bearish to me that languish at the bottom of league tables. As HE colleges they were respected. They need to revert to that. Do some degrees where they are great but other courses should be removed or converted to 2 year ones. 3 if the students need help bridging between A levels and HE. At a lower level they should be ok though.

Autocorrect. Universities (not university’s )

I just find it sad how things have shifted over the last few decades. I'm actually firmly in agreement many polytechnics should have stayed polytechnics - they did excellent stuff. The problem was that society (and the government!) decreed that practical, vocational training was inferior to degrees. It isn't. So we are now in a ridiculous position where everyone has to have degrees just because. The trouble is, this attitude is hard to shift - you only have to read the HE section here on MN to see what people's attitudes are! RG degree or bust... And it's not that simple. And yes, universities (sadly) ARE businesses, and it's very much caveat emptor, with the problem that some people are in a much better position to caveat! I don't know what the solution is, but it's not to close post-92s. Nor is it to close 'under-performing' unis or even departments, not while our definitions of 'under-performing' are so focused on graduate salaries and entry tariffs! As we know, many very worthwhile jobs are poorly paid (many of which, though not all, do require degree level study), and A-level results are not a great guide to HE achievement. Ultimately universities are all dealing with the inequalities that dog our society more generally. I look forward to the levelling up agenda changing this !

@QueenRefusenik
Many polytechnics offered degrees. I’m fairly happy that they continues to do so. DH has employed many good grads from polys. I don’t think they are necessarily the problem. Neither are all post 92s. They just need to offer a wider variety of courses. Employers in many areas of work don’t value the lower tariff degrees or the subjects studied. So a realignment needs to take place and a bit of honesty is well overdue!

I think A level results at elite universities are a decent marker - or why bother to select at all? With huge teaching input at post 92 unis, the sands can shift for some but employers don’t believe they have for many. Hence grad unemployment or grads doing non grad work. It’s hundreds of thousands who are in this position. They didn’t need their degree. They needed training and part time study then maturity to consider options. I did exactly that. Did professional qualifications. Decided not to do a degree even though I could have done. I don’t regret it as I earned just as much as the degree holders!

Some of the post 92/ex-poly unis have excellent employability stats in quality careers. BUT it tends to be where they have large faculties which stuck with vocational subjects eg. Physiotherapy, mechanical engineering, computing, etc.
With most of these subjects it is professional qualifications/registration which is required and therefore employers are not too fussed about which institution a candidate obtained their degree from.

The issue mainly seems to arise where these institutions moved into subjects which the RG group were already heavily involved such as English, sociology, economics etc
It seems to me that this is where they are seen as 2nd best by employers and this is not explained to many students by their school (the university certainly isn't going to tell them) and probably disproportionately affects those who are 1st generation in family to go to university.

@TizerorFizz

I think A level results at elite universities are a decent marker - or why bother to select at all? With huge teaching input at post 92 unis, the sands can shift for some but employers don’t believe they have for many. Hence grad unemployment or grads doing non grad work. It’s hundreds of thousands who are in this position. They didn’t need their degree. They needed training and part time study then maturity to consider options. I did exactly that. Did professional qualifications. Decided not to do a degree even though I could have done. I don’t regret it as I earned just as much as the degree holders!

"then maturity to consider options"

I so agree with this.

I've recently come across an academically exceptional student, poorly advised in their UCAS choices by their state school and inadequately supported in other ways, failing to get any offers at all (early entry type candidate). Because of the "rejections" and hence a feeling of inadequacy by comparison with their Y13 cohort, they've been unable to think clearly about what they want to do, compounded by suffering another emotional blow which wouldn't have happened if they'd got away to Uni in September. They've subsequently missed the deadline for re-applying for any course this year let alone early entry courses.

I'm of the opinion that they just need time to recover and mature emotionally compared to some of their peers then think more about what they want to do career wise. Their family are pushing them to apply for anything just to "go to Uni sooner rather than later as they'll get out of the habit of studying and not be able to cope with it". They only get once chance at being (loan) funded, why rush the decision and potentially regret it in a few years.

Where did this notion that all universities have to offer all subjects first come from? In my day polytechnics (as they then were) were well thought of for offering more vocational subjects, and often had a good reputation for teaching and training people towards specific jobs, so you might go to one if you wanted to do, say business or surveying (no offence intended, I'm just picking random examples). The quality of teaching might well be excellent, which is why I suspect it is still often very good now those institutions are universities. And there was always the option of doing an MBA or further qualifications down the track if you wanted or needed to.

@TizerorFizz has an interesting idea of bridging the knowledge gap via HNDs, foundation courses etc, but why are these now necessary? Does the fault lie with schools who are no longer equipping their pupils for university? If so, why is that?

Could there be a model where some universities concentrate on a much smaller range of subjects, and really specialise in them or would they not be financially viable if they went down that route? Maybe they could have closer links to local industry and tailor courses accordingly to meet the requirements of a particular job or industry. The marketisation of universities has been a disaster in my opinion, encouraging institutions to compete for students across the board rather than focus on certain areas of expertise.