Some universities will go bust thread 2

[GinForBreakfast]

Continuing as thread 1 has filled up.

If some courses were standardised across universities, would it be cheaper to deliver and could it also act as quality control for some unis without the Russell Group brand?

But what do you guys who work in universities think is the answer??

It's complex as @GinForBreakfast says.

Although one thing the current Government could do which would be pretty low-hanging fruit is to take international students out of the immigration figures, and remove hostile policies - this would go a long way to re-establish the enormous soft power of UK HE, our international reputation, and a useful mix of students for our own UK nationals to learn with. It's actually not all about the money, although international students subsidise UK students far more than UK parents want to realise.

Think about it: if we are training the young people who will go on to form their own nations' elites, and they have a good experience, and learn useful stuff (yes, university is about learning not getting a job, shock horror) in the UK, and make relationships with peers who will also go on to become UK leaders in all sorts of areas - well, that's real power - soft or hard.

We could also do with a government that looks at various ways - not necessarily funding - which could undo the damage of 14 years of casual neglect, shading into antipathy to universities (by successive Tory governments all of whom had gained hugely by their university educations). A national programme of supporting the Humanities for example, along the lines of the development of human critical thinking - something AI cannot do; art-making which we saw in lockdowns was so important for well-being; interpretation of history, culture & society - in short the human sciences. Which will keep people ahead of the AI curve.

None of these things is "more funding" - they are sensible approaches to a vital need for our population to be property educated for the future.

And of course, UK undergrad fees should at least cover the costs of their degrees. So yes, fees need to go up.

@Piggywaspushed Universities were never set up for the local economy though. They are like any other industry, if if needs reorganization it should happen. Lincolnshire I believe has a very low % of grads in the workforce. It’s very debatable that the university needs to be the size it is. It had been near the top of the table for unconditional offers to grab students. We need a standard for admissions too!

Yes, some elements of some courses could be standardized but I guess more would fail - MN has great fears of failure.

So a sort of national curriculum across all universities where every single history degree throughout the country has exactly the same lectures/content?

Sounds a bit soulless and removes choice for students…some students will currently choose x university over y university because one has a better reputation for medieval history compared to ww2 history and the student has a preference for one over the other.

It also wouldn’t work with the current HE set up as ultimately universities are private businesses and compete against each other. So they won’t share course material. As a lecturer if I spend 3 hours prepping a session I’m not going to share my teaching material with other universities for them to use. If this was going to happen then the govt would have to take over the whole sector and make them effectively another level of schooling. Or universities go into some sort of partnership arrangement with each other to share material and cut down on prep time which yes would save money. But I think if they’re all carbon copies of each other then individual universities would worry about what’s their selling point, how do they market themselves.

This completely ignores the close interconnection between research and teaching @Araminta1003 Universities exist to do research as well as teaching; something most people don't realise, although if they weren't interconnected, people would soon notice.

Knowledge isn't fixed, it's constantly in motion. Through research

If I used curricula and exam papers from my discipline from 50 years ago, it would soon be noticed! It would look really old-fashioned and ignorant about later discoveries, research, and interpretations.

This would be a massive task, as currently the courses vary a lot between different universities. Given that staff are being cut, I can't see where the resource would come from (agreeing the new syllabus, re-designing all the course materials etc etc).

@YellowAsteroid nothing from 50 years ago. A core curriculum going forward with agreed marking schemes.

If we’re talking about Lincoln specifically their strategic plan has always been very much based on supporting and driving the local economy, being an asset to the wider city and community not just to their students. It’s pretty much their ethos.

The University of Lincoln is a university of and for the 21st Century. Created by the people of Lincolnshire, we are as much the University for Lincoln, as the University of Lincoln.

You could maybe argue is that too much of a luxury these days but the quote above is currently on their website so I assume is still their aim.

They have also had a big restructure last year so I don’t think they’re shying away from necessary change.

They weren’t even in the top 20 of universities making unconditional offers last year. Bucks was no 20 with 430 offers so Lincoln must make less than that.

With respect to course content, how does it work for countries where most students go to their local university? Also for degrees which are accredited by professional organisations, I assume there has to be some consistency with course content

Very good point. I update my course material every year. I check for new research, new guidelines, etc. I appreciate this may vary from subject to subject but for my course it’s very important. Guess people could argue it could be done centrally by someone still. But you’re then having to put your trust in someone else’s content.

A good lecture should not be reading words off a PowerPoint. If you did that you may as well just email the slides to the students and forgo the lecture. Or have an unqualified 21yo giving the lecture.

My slides are bullet points and I talk round the topic. To do that you have to know your topic in a way it’s hard to do if you haven’t prepped it yourself. If I was giving a lecture that had been prepared by someone else I’d have to still spend time reading up on it all beforehand, as much time as if I was prepping it myself. Otherwise I can’t explain it to the students, I can’t possibly answer questions.

If some courses were standardised across universities, would it be cheaper to deliver and could it also act as quality control for some unis without the Russell Group brand?

Do you think there is no quality control outside of RG universities?
RG is a marketing campaign, it doesn't mean they are subject to different checks and balances.

There are QAA subject benchmarks for all subjects but universities must have some autonomy over the curriculum. Otherwise what differentiates them from schools?

Not to mention to that differences in the curriculum is part of a university's USP and how we deliver research informed teaching.

No idea about other countries but for accredited courses they don’t look at specific lecture material. So for nursing for example the nmc will validate the course and the university has to demonstrate that they will teach a course which meets the nmc standards. So the nmc will want to know what modules are being taught and what the learning outcomes for those modules are. But there will be a massive variation between modules and learning outcomes between different universities. The nmc aren’t actually going to ask if the university has a lecture on the renal system, or a lecture on wound dressing though I guess there’s an assumption there will be.

Will be similar for other health care courses, medicine, architecture, etc.

RG is research led. Most people do know the difference between RG and Northampton. Some university usp is pretty low standards. Obviously the standards differ between most RG and bottom 1/3 in the tables. They cannot be the same as most applicants to Northampton and similar could not access the curriculum at LSE. The key is to look at standards at the lower levels of universities. Many employers don’t trust degrees from some universities and some subjects need culling too.

With respect to course content, how does it work for countries where most students go to their local university? Also for degrees which are accredited by professional organisations, I assume there has to be some consistency with course content

I ran a professionally accredited course for 8 years. We had a core set of learning outcomes we had to teach but they didn't dictate the full curriculum. Therefore we had our core modules and a set of optional modules which allowed students to specialise in a particular aspect of the sector.
We were able to potion ourselves as a specialist university in one particular aspect as the academic staff were also active researchers in that particular area.
Our competitors were specialists in different aspects of the subject. That gave students choice.

As for local students, I did some research on this as found that those who are determined to stay local will choose the university over the subject. They choose a subject that happens to be offered at their local university rather than choosing the subject first.
It was a relatively small study but I'll be looking at it in a larger scale soon.

I wouldn’t want to see the curriculum standardised. That would stifle excellence.

I don’t think the populace will accept large numbers of overseas students. There is a lot of distrust regarding immigration right now and I think there is a lot of scepticism over whether these students are going home to be elites in their own countries or looking for an immigration back door.

The idea of making the arts snd humanities more vibrant to meet the new AI world sounds great…but students need to find a discernible path from an arts/humanities degree into good quality employment. Not everyone is cutout to be a freelancer.

Many employers don’t trust degrees from some universities and some subjects need culling too.

You keep saying this but there is little evidence. I think it's just something you want to be true to support your personal views on higher education.

I know the CEO of the Institute of Student Employers. They are one of the key organisations linking universities with employers and they do a huge amount of research on what employers want from graduates. The latest figures state that 86% of graduate employers don't specify needing a specific subject. They're looking for skills, not subject knowledge.

And employers work with a much wider range of universities now. They're not so short sighted that they believe they'll only get good graduates from a small number of research intensive universities.

Of course one university could house all
tbd top research instead of students having to choose. Something else that needs to change. We run away from technology universities. Other countries have them. We don’t need local pockets of research. Economies of scale and a better choice for students should be available under fewer roofs.

We don’t need local pockets of research.

Say who? You?
Someone who clearly doesn't understand how research works at university.

I think Imperial is a technical, research university.

Of course one university could house all
tbd top research instead of students having to choose. Something else that needs to change.

@TizerorFizz Great idea! I look forward to finding out where I'm expected to relocate to do my job. I do hope DH gets reallocated to the same place... but it's going to be a big university if it's going to house ALL the top research so I think we have a good chance of both moving there. Can't wait!

Universities were never set up for the local economy though.

Umm, yes, lots were, going back quite some way. Most of the redbricks were set up with that intention as were many Scottish universities.

I don't know that you understand how and how far universities can (re) vitalise an economy. Even universities like Cambridge are hugely important to the local economy, including , of course, tourism.

It's not just about providing graduate level employees!

Are you going to choose Oxford or Cambridge for all this top research? Or Imperial?

Well quite a turn for the thread. It’s become more like a Reform election leaflet. Ardent free-market exhortations followed by a pivot to nationalisation. I’m surprised we’ve not had the sword of sense mentioned yet.

One Lecture to Rule them All. No idea that mass reading, or more likely streaming, of Lord of the Rings was such an Easter tradition. Though as far-fetched fantasy goes…………

Universities were never set up for the local economy though.

Lots of universities have mission statements which include contributing to the local economy. They recognise the important part they play.
My university supports local businesses through various initiatives and projects which can include spaces to work, consultancy projects, apprenticeships, networking etc.

The RG university I work for has definitely got, as part of its mission statement, the aim of benefiting the city - this aim goes back to its establishment at the turn of the 20th century. Nearly 1 in 50 jobs in the city are directly or indirectly dependant on the university.

Around a quarter of its students are local and the university has strong ties with local schools. This outreach is particularly beneficial to working class and ethnic minority students who, for various reasons, might not want to 'go away' to university elsewhere.