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?

And yes, universities (sadly) ARE businesses,

Haven’t they always been?

The only difference now is who pays the bill.

What is possibly questionable is that no matter what the employability/graduate employment stats are for a post 92 Uni, all Unis charge the same tuition fees p.a.

I'm not sure that the government initially intended this to be the situation. I seem to recall there was a suggested range for tuition fees in the early days, but there's no incentive to tackle the lack of comparable value for money as ultimately so many of those who don't end up with graduate level jobs, because their degree really didn't measurably enhance their skills/ability much as far as employability at that level goes, inevitably don't earn enough to have to pay it back anyway.

This has been a long time coming and is necessary. Tony Blair's 50% to university nonsense was just that. Doing a Mickey Mouse degree at a Mickey Mouse university does not support social mobility. It racks up debt that the person racking it up will never pay off and which ends up having to be written off.

With so many more opportunities to do apprenticeships right from school, it's about time someone saw sense.

A bug bear of mine is when the employability stats for a course are published and they quote the average salary 6 months after graduation.
That's not the salary that matters as everyone has to start somewhere.
It's where that degree then takes the student in, say, 5 years time which is the important bit.
And some graduates from certain institutions will not be earning any higher!

The Institute for Fiscal Studies did look at salaries 5 years down the line. I think in around 2017. They found RG grads did best but of course places like Bath and St Andrews were in the mix too. Also what subject you did really mattered. So medicine and economics were top and arts were bottom. However English wasn’t great. I’ll try and dig out the tables. After 5 years there were big differences between a LSE economics grad and one from Wolverhampton regarding salaries.

I quoted a Law prospectus from Worcester university up thread. I would have a sneaking suspicion that Law at Worcester won’t produce the same outcomes as Law at Oxbridge. So why is Law even offered at Worcester with detailed info about how you get elements on the course that support the student becoming a barrister. There’s a chance - but a slim one.

Yes. The Government did intend there to be a range of fees. However that’s a red herring in a way when 50% don’t pay them back. Therefore the cost to the tax payer cannot have changed much from when 20% went to university and the tax payer paid all the tuition costs. My employer paid for me. I also had a contract about working for them for several years afterwards. No waltzing off to Australia for a better paid job.

I think the grad stats say those employed and those staying in education. HESA drills down a bit more but in plenty of non Stem areas, grads getting high skilled work is around 1/3. Some like arts is way lower.

@thing47
When I went to a poly, (80s) lots of us were on part time courses and working. They were definitely stronger in work related courses. I’m not necessarily against former polys offering History and English but any university that was a college of HE should not offer Law, History or English. There is no need. However if we expanded work related courses then the polys are admirably placed for that. Also other firmer colleges of HE. The money might as well come from the government! It gives it already to people who don’t pay back fees! Few of our universities are new. They nearly all existed before 1992. They were not unis and they were smaller.

I feel sorry for the youth of today at school as there are too many mixed messages regarding education.

My theory (and I may be wrong) is that it is becoming politically incorrect to suggest to school children that they should overly aspire to extremely good A level results with the reasoning that 50% go to university and there a huge range of work based training options.

The aspiration to go to the 'better' universities may become increasing embedded in the independent and grammar sectors as they will be considered the middle class option.

The concept that academic high performance is regarded as elitist by some and schools may not necessarily put such an ethos in place as there is a misguided view that the 'playing field' is a lot more open from an employment perpective.

It is becoming increasingly apparent from this three that good honest careers advice is invaluable and I think honesty in this advise is paramount.

It is unfair for school children to hold into dreams of highly competitive careers e.g. medicine, law, journalism etc without the being told the vast majority in such professions have very good academic profiles.

I think one of the motivations for increasing university places was social mobility or at least improved career opportunities. The removal of the grammar school system in the UK was presumably so that children weren't war marked in terms of careers and life chances at an early age but are we not effectively pushing this life chance split further up the educational chain?

Are RG and the new universities becoming the new grammar schools and secondary moderns in effect?

@mids2019
Just a quick response. I had a slight snigger at your comment about kicking selection down the road from 11 to 18. I said exactly this on another thread. It was about selection at 11. Many posters said how they wanted DC to be educated with everyone else in their area, with separation being cruel at 11, that the DC in the secondary schools were disadvantaged etc. Several said not selected DC then went on to go to the most competitive universities where their talents were recognised. Fair enough but no qualms about selection at that point. No concerns at all for those who didn’t get to an elite uni - unlike their concerns at age 11 for the not selected. It didn’t matter though at that point because they were 17/18 and not 11.

It’s important we do the best for DC but I’m not sure further selection works. What serves everyone well is good schools. We know in many areas this is not universal. Inadequate schools fail children. In many areas parents wouldn’t accept selection again because enough DC do well at the comps in the leafy lane areas. At this point I pointed out the non leafy lane comp schools can have results far worse than some secondary schools with 25% of DC in grammar schools! So we also need to recognise that intelligence is not spread evenly throughout the county. We need different solutions for different areas maybe?

Inflation is bad for employment. Rising costs, the prospects of wages going up, and other pressures make firms more reluctant to recruit. I agree, it’s not a great time to be 21. I’m not sure we have 50% of 18 years olds gobbled to university. I think it’s 42%. We have adults retraining too.

@mids2019
I found this in The Guardian. July 2021.

Pushing the selection can down the road is a good point. My parents both went to state grammar schools before and during WWII because they passed the 11+ and in areas of NE England where just about everyone was badly off so it was not an area where rich people creamed off the grammar school places so in a sense (other than that having bright parents probably helps you) the system was working as designed.

Grammar schools went in about 1970 when I was coming up to 10 in Newcastle and there are only comps (and private schools) since.

If we don't select at 18 (and in practice if you can get CCC you will get to university in the UK if you apply so no really selection whereas better universities are more competitive) then employers have to do the selection or in professions the professional exams (eg as up thread solicitors' SQE exams with 50% failure rates) may do it. If that does not work - and we have all seen someone either a Tim nice but dim or someone let in to a job because of some other factor who should not be there because they tick a box then that person tends not to last very long if they are not very good so I suppose selection catches up with most people in due course during their life - you are only as good as your last play, film (actor), court case (lawyer) etc. Yo do get those very rare cases of someone impersonating a barrister or doctor for a few years before getting found out I suppose but most of these jobs if you are not up to it you will be out on your ear so selection tends to catch up with people in the end.

[quote TizerorFizz]@mids2019
I found this in The Guardian. July 2021.[/quote]
I think the main complaint factor from undergrads during the pandemic was that it was spoiling "the Uni experience" for them.

I'm a member of a social media site for students of one University (post 1992 in case that's relevant).

2020's intake were highly vocal about missing out on the much anticipated riotous Freshers Week experience. They and those in their second or subsequent year were clearly breaking the guidelines throughout the Autumn of 2020 as their location went up through the various Tiers/restrictions but it was clear that they felt cheated of "their Uni experience" by not being able to party on at the usual student nights at local bars and clubs. The amount of parties being organised/attended would make even Downing Street look dull by comparison.

The attitude was generally "we're paying the same as people who've gone before us and it's not fair that we're not getting the full Uni experience".

Given some of the degree courses that the Uni in question offers, I concluded that furthering their employability isn't necessarily uppermost in the minds of many 18 year olds heading off to Uni. Having 3 years of funded independent lifestyle with plenty of socialising is what many of them are keen on.
How the degree course they embarked on with their CCC grades leads to employment thereafter isn't thought through in much detail at all. Why worry whether it's money well spent when unless they reach a certain earning threshold, they personally won't be paying any material amount towards it but they'll have hopefully have had a "fantastic fun filled 3 years and made friends for life" to quote some of the postgrad feed back.

@TizerorFizz

You raise some interesting points about grammar schools. I know of grammar schools in my region and the competition is intense. It is very hard to unpick how much teaching is better at a grammar school as obviously their intake is the best 25% or so academically. It is interesting to note how non grammar school kids in grammar school areas get into elite universities as they would seem to suggest (a) a parent has sent a bright child there as a point about the system being unfair or (b) there has been quite a marked change in intellectual ability between 11 and 18. I suppose (b) happens and it would be interesting to see how often in reality.

With regard to failing schools this is obviously a vexed topic and I think it is a nuanced discussion. We live near a comprehensive which is good academically but is heavily criticised by some parents as (a) only concentrating on academic achievement (b) allowing bullying based on wealth (c) being non SEN inclusive so the idea (strangely) of having high achieving schools is not universally popular.
.
With the failing schools I am aware of there is a culture locally of non achievment but also a parental dismissal of the need for education and an attitude of there being reasonable paying unskilled locally so why the need?

I suppose this is one argument for low tier universities to give children from such schools a second chance to develop academically where separated from a culture of under achievment there may be more scope for academic development.

@Xenia

Could there be dangers of recruitment selection tests becomingly increasingly important as more children go to university and there appears to be continual grade inflation?

With Law there seems to be a good infrastructure for setting these tests but for other industries it takes a lot of resource to set up such tests. If the tests are imperfect it could lead to people without adequate skills entering professions and I think it is actually quite sad to see people failing in their careers at a stage of life where job security is important.

I'm loath to turn this interesting discussion about universities into one about grammar schools as that is well covered elsewhere, and @TizerorFizz and I have differing views on them (though we are in agreement on a lot else), but I would just point out that selection at 18 is, imo, a slightly different beast from selection at 10. Apart from the obvious factor of eight more years of schooling, all pupils do GCSEs and most do A levels so the playing field is more level than it is at 10 when tutoring, a primary school's approach and parental influence are all more likely to have a decisive effect.

It is interesting to note how non grammar school kids in grammar school areas get into elite universities as they would seem to suggest (a) a parent has sent a bright child there as a point about the system being unfair or (b) there has been quite a marked change in intellectual ability between 11 and 18. I suppose (b) happens and it would be interesting to see how often in reality.
I have one of these, @mids2019 and it is interesting. She didn't pass the 11+, went to a fairly average secondary modern and now has a first-class Masters from a post-grad school which is ranked above Cambridge and every RG university for her particular field of study. So, was a) the 11+ not indicative of her true academic potential, maybe because the style of exam didn't suit her? or b) has she got smarter as she got older? Or is there another possible explanation? I have my own opinion, but it's hard to say objectively.

What are your views in university league tables and the way they are compiled? There is always some variation each year and though I think they reflect general perceptions this is probably because guides don't want to lose credibility by producing unrealistic lists.

I don’t support the introduction of grammar schools. However I don’t see that the existing systems can easily be changed. I also would never see secondary DC who don’t go to a grammar as disadvantaged if they have advantages in other ways. Around me, the vast majority are well supported and thrive. That’s why these DC can get to decent unis and, when they can specialise, these DC can do very well. Sometimes (and I’ve seen this time and time again) it’s speed of answering the 11 plus papers that counts against pupils. If they are then well taught and enjoy school and are well supported they definitely can do well.

But there is competition at 18. We do not label DC a failure when they do some subjects at low tariff universities but we seem to do that at 11 and say it stays with them. What about those who don’t get near a university? I think, overall, we need to stop labelling!!

The lists are not compiled in the same way. I see them as a guide. What difference there really is between 20th and 30th is a moot point! The Guardian says we have 165 universities. I suggest this is too many. The Guardian also champions teaching over research. I rather think some DC need more teaching than others and degrees vary on this too. This seems like a school measurement. I rather suspect employers ignore it! Overall they a part of the jigsaw puzzle but parents, schools, careers advisers should be aware of them when advising or there’s a danger of a bright DC going somewhere for ease rather then challenge. It can affect the rest of their life.

@mids2019

What are your views in university league tables and the way they are compiled? There is always some variation each year and though I think they reflect general perceptions this is probably because guides don't want to lose credibility by producing unrealistic lists.

Except for The Guardian

These stats are from HESA. Qualifications obtained since 2015/16. Final column is 19/20 grads. As you can see HND/HNC is now tiny. Nowhere near what it should be. The degrees awarded are overblown. Foundation degrees are tiny too but I’m guessing many of these are arts based. I do think a realignment from degree to HND is necessary.

I went to an RG uni with someone who studied American History who gained a job with KPMG ... Newer uni s do offer very good specific vocational degrees ... but I think the government s overall strategy is to make these courses non degree level and link them more to apprenticeships or other vocational quaifications.

OP, I don't know when you graduated but KPMG's recruitment profile has changed a lot - they are now offering many degree level apprenticeships and other direct entry positions, so are likely to have reduced their graduate intake..Many other financial and technical employers are doing the same. They have been lobbying Government for years over the skills gap at graduate level, and the new and growing apprenticeship system is part of the solution for that. Another part is providing incentives to universities to offer programmes in skills needed for the 21st Century economy, such as Cyber Security and Data Science. There are opportunities for numerate students from any degree background to do a masters degree in these areas.

In the meantime, we will always need cake, but cake making is a skill best learned in apprenticeship to a cake maker, perhaps with a proportion of time spent in the classroom along the way, rather than 100% in university. The shift towards apprenticeships is a much needed reform. It is very narrow minded to consider a university degree to be the only route to social mobility.

@mids2019

What are your views in university league tables and the way they are compiled? There is always some variation each year and though I think they reflect general perceptions this is probably because guides don't want to lose credibility by producing unrealistic lists.

There is a good Wikipedia article on University rankings which provides some much needed context and summarises some of the criticism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings

I forgot to attach the stats! Here goes.

Talking of apprenticeships that are foundation degree or degree level for school leavers, the stats are actually alarming. In my opinion. I dug this out from a House of Commons briefing paper. It compares 2 years: 19/20 and 20/21 apprenticeship starts. For age under 19 there are hardly any! 3400 p/a and reducing! No doubt covid altered 20/21 figures but even starts in 19/20 we’re not great. It looks like the vast majority are taken by employees who are a bit older. The numbers below degree level are pretty good but again not great for younger people who you might have thought would be the majority. So yes, 2800 under 19s started degree apprenticeships but quite frankly, this is woefully small. One rather suspects it’s flagship companies but it’s not universally available to all.

Im glad others are retraining but it’s hardly great news for 18 year olds. So when companies say they want cyber security degrees snd experts, I have a sneaking suspicion they don’t mean 18 year olds. The stats show school leavers with A levels are overwhelmingly going to full time university courses and apprenticeship offers are thin on the ground in comparison.

Degree Apprenticeship offers that should be!

So when companies say they want cyber security degrees snd experts, I have a sneaking suspicion they don’t mean 18 year olds.

Wrong. They want trainees at age 18. For example ...
www.mi5.gov.uk/careers/opportunities/school-leavers

Also, many listed here:
www.notgoingtouni.co.uk/opportunities

For age under 19 there are hardly any! 3400 p/a and reducing! No doubt covid altered 20/21 figures but even starts in 19/20 we’re not great.

They're new, and fragile. Parents are nervous. But the ones that exist seem to be very competitive to get onto, and with big name employers which will help. The main problem with them, as far as I can tell as a parent, is that each one takes a lot of time and effort to apply to, so, unlike uni where there is one form for 5 preferences, school leavers will realistically just apply to one or two apprenticeships (often alongside uni applications), which will diminish their chances. A UCAS style application system for apprenticeships would be a positive addition to the process.

For younger school leavers in the UK you can join the army at 16 - I think we have a remote cousin who did that from NE England. Also with the police you can apply at 17 but must be 18 before starting. The other area I know a fair bit about locally is local traders who bring in their sons at age 16 (and presumably on the sly sometimes younger), no formal courses but the boy is learning the trade and working for his father's company (they are usually men).

I won't get into 11+ stuff either buy my youngest go much better at school in terms of academic work as he got older and ended up with the best A levels of anyone in the family. Some people work better at different ages perhaps boys more than girls which is partly why private boys' prep schools still have 13+ as the age to move to your next school and boys mature older than girls too.

We just have to decide what was want as a nation particularly for I think it is 50% of children who don't get what used to be A- C at GCSE. Some don't get any. I am not sure as a country we can afford to fund degrees (as many will never pay any fees back) for some to study for 3 years from age 18.