new gov policy of restricting student numbers in some degree courses

[justanotherdaduser]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66216005

Wondering how people feel about it?

I am unsure - in one hand, it feels needlessly prescriptive. People should be free to study what interests them without government's guiding hand

But also, not everyone signing up to such courses fully understand the degree outcomes.

Or, why should tax payers fund courses that are not good value for money? But by that logic, over time, we can lose many other valuable courses (IMO!)

Confused!

Exactly how many courses (how many Uni places) would be axed now if these criteria were applied overnight? I bet the number is very small. Seems like an idea designed to appeal to people who resent university goers anyway.

They've been restricting places on med courses for years - despite saying they will increase the number of doctors etc.

They seem to be basing it all on outcomes 15 months after finishing the course. How short sighted and quite frankly ludicrous a measure to use to curtail people's choices and ambitions.

Exactly the kind of BS the Conservatives use to justify measures that are actually about other agendas such as keeping poor people poor. And Rishi using the dog whistle of "at the taxpayers expense" designed to set their core hard-of-thinking voters minds frothing. Despicable as ever.

The rhetoric is abominable. 'Crack down', pictures of big hammers smashing the ground. Awful. Just awful. Universities are not drug dealers, people traffickers, violent abusers. Don't use the same language.

And don't create a policy (unneeded because OfS already has the power to restrict recruitment) based on a fucking survey that only 55% of respondents complete.

If you're an arts institution, get out now.

This is worrying. Courses should not be judged on eventual financial reward or some bleak idea of utility.

I think it is appalling. Agree with @titchy and @OutwiththeOutCrowd - "bleak idea of utility" and "abominable rhetoric" yes indeed.

What way is that to judge the value of a university course? My dd took Eng lit and has a job in a library. Just getting a job at all is a major achievement for her for various reasons; so now bc she is not earning ££ in a "professional" role (and probably never will) her degree was a waste of time and money? what a load of garbage.

It taught her timekeeping skills, self discipline, the ability to write and reference. It introduced her to a range of thinkers and ideas. It led her towards group work and collaboration.

I've got a degree too and I have always worked but have never been a higher-rate taxpayer. I like to think I have given something back to society tho.

Education to the highest level an individual can achieve is a good thing. This has made me so angry (as is perhaps clear!).

I don’t disagree with the general principle but how on earth do you choose which are low value. Do you cast off any degree that isn’t directly career leading eg medicine/engineering

for example a degree in history or english literature clearly by itself isn’t going to directly lead to a relevant well paid job. But many of the people who do them at the top unis are likely to be very bright and eventually do well.

On the face of it, the policy of lowering the fees that universities can charge for foundation years makes no sense whatsoever. If the government is worried about students being encouraged to take foundation years unnecessarily, the obvious answer is to be more prescriptive about the circumstances in which foundation years can be offered, not to impose across the board cuts in foundation year fees.

Excellent idea, teenagers shouldn’t be studying on dead end courses then being saddled with debt they’ll never pay off.

Except this measure says nothing whatsoever about 'dead-end' courses. It doesn't differentiate between a good quality and a poor quality degree. The measure of a high quality, intellectually sound, rigorous degree course went when OfS and QAA parted company.

The Gov now measure quality by a survey that 55% of graduates respond to.

I do think more education should be offered to students when deciding what they want to do post-18.

I've taught a lot of students who were middle of the road academically, who weren't very hard working, and then got unconditional offers from universities who wanted bums on seats. As soon as the unconditional offer was given they didn't want to put the work in for A Level. I'm not sure university was right for them but the dominant culture is that you go to university at 18 and have 3 years delaying adulthood.

On the other hand I don't think the proposed policy is the right approach. I think it will mean that arts and humanities will become the preserve of the elite.

I do think more education should be offered to students when deciding what they want to do post-18.

Assuming you mean information advice and guidance, I wholeheartedly agree.

Pity the Gov did away with careers services...

I wonder what sort of thing. They’ve already done something similar to arts and archaeology haven’t they?

Exactly! We should actually bombard Rishi with new dog whistles he gets through so fucking many! He must think we are all as thick as mince! We see through you Rishi, you’re so bloody transparent!

This doesn’t sound great for mature students who want to upgrade a niche interest.

I there’s a lot of hyperbole here. They are looking at courses where too many students drop out. That might be for a number of reasons but it’s not good for the student or the university. Since 2013 there has been no cap on places, except on a few courses. So there has been more and more students at uni with courses expanded to take them. That is poor value for the taxpayer and the student if they don’t get a grad job. Many clearly do not. There’s plenty of courses for most well qualified students. Losing a few won’t matter. I’d lose a few unis too.

A lot of the rhetoric I heard this morning was about lower grade unis working with employers. Mostly links for stem grads. It’s therefore really debatable if we really need the numbers of arts grads at this type of grade uni. Let them do what they are best at and did before they were unis.,

The state pays up front for these courses snd the unis use that money to subsidise stem courses. It’s perfectly reasonable to look at what is offered and whether it meets employer requirements or even the requirements of the student.

Why would mature students be impacted? Or niche courses? That’s not what’s been said at all.

I there’s a lot of hyperbole here. They are looking at courses where too many students drop out.

They're not - they've specifically said courses (which means subjects not courses btw) that fail to have x% in graduate level activity after graduation. The way this is measured is through a survey completed by around 55% of graduates.

Some university courses are essentially university level vocational courses. There is only one career goal for that degree. It makes sense to temper the number of seats as to not flood the job market.

courses that lead to a variety of careers do not require the same consideration. People should be able to follow their interests because it is often the process of study and becoming a learned person that is important for the career path, not the actual subject.

Oh and 'travelling' is counted as a graduate level activity!!!!

I’ve often thought that a lot of the degree courses offered are more useful as keeping lecturers employed than giving students skills for the workplace and life.
we really should have kept the polytechnics

I don't think it's helpful for music or arts specialists to effectively run themselves into the ground either.

I was just thinking that about the polytechnics.

We need to reduce the number of universities are so many run substandard courses.

There are too many and it is costing the country of fortune.

People should be doing apprenticeships instead.

The polytechnics do still exist you know - they've just got different names