If we're so intent on shortening degrees, why bother with the lectures at all? Just put a price tag on the parchment and be done with it.

[User11010866]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/university-three-years-student-loans-opinion-5HjdWx2_2/

Having just read this article, it seems to highlight a worrying trend in UK Higher Education. Compared to other global leaders, the UK already has the shortest academic years and the lowest contact hours. One has to wonder how our new graduates are expected to remain competitive on the international stage.

The article isn't saying teaching time should be less, or learning experience reduced. It is saying they could shorten their holidays and fit the same course into less time. As a post graduate student off for three weeks for Easter, I agree.

Buckingham University offers two year courses-they have the same number of teaching weeks but accross two years instead of three years. This saves students money in terms of accommodation and living costs.
The Complete University Guide estimates that rent and living expenses are about £12,000 to £15,000 per year. Students then have the £9,500 tuition fees per year on top. Therefore, it costs on average £21,500 to £24,500 per year for a degree, which is incredibly expensive. Doing a degree over two years would save students a lot of money.
Many universities now do not offer any teaching after March. When I went to university, I had lectures throughout the summer term. Some universities do not teach from April to September, but the students have to pay accommodation costs for a longer period of time.
Even if universities taught in April, May and June like they used to when I went, they would be able to offer the same number of teaching weeks but over two years.
Students are taught on average 22-24 weeks a year nowadays- less than half a year!

And when are lecturers meant to complete research papers and other work relating to their job?

I'm glad you're off for three weeks because this household sure as hell ain't - I'm Professional Services (Library) and spouse is a lecturer (completing a book and reading postgraduate work over Easter)

DD is in first year and has 2 weeks of lectures after her 3 week Easter break. Exams in early May, but pays for accommodation til July.
There has to be more sensible ways to organise the academic year.

The challenge is that ‘holidays’ aren’t holidays, they are a break from teaching (arguably summer is different, but all other breaks assume study is still being carried out).

It is worth noting that at degree level contact should be a small amount of learning. In person teaching is about providing a start point to scaffolding critical thinking, so that people go out into the world able to do it for themselves. In humanities what is crucial to developing those skills is independent reading (the traditional way of saying you are ‘reading’ xyz subject at University), note taking and thinking. And wrestling with that challenge for yourself. In sciences, that is needed but so is lab time (hence higher ‘contact’ time).

University cannot be (and shouldn’t be) like school, where children are told what to do (and what to think to a degree). Benefit should not be measured by how much time is spent with academic staff.

I do agree that the funding model if wrong, for both students and universities. So many university staff are on their knees through (unpaid) overwork and burnout. So many of our students cannot spend the time outside class time doing the work they need to become they have to work to cover living costs. The challenge is where we can magic the money needed to sustain a world-class higher education system.

I remember when I went to university in the late 90s and thought year 1 was a bit of a waste of time and much easier than a-levels. This was a long time ago but I worked 20 hours a week, and in the holidays, and therefore didn't have to take out a student loan (and tuition fees were already covered back then). I still ended up with a 2-1 and thought I could quite easily have done it in two rather than three years. Saying that, as I was busy with work and friendships outside of university, I definitely didn't make the most of the social aspects of university - but not sure that's worth paying 20k for!

The article makes no comment about international comparison so not sure where you’ve got the idea from that our hours and quality is poor compared to the rest of the world.

The article is written by someone from a provider that can’t award degrees, which seems to have pretty poor outcomes for its students.

Not a great way to illustrate whatever point you were trying to make OP!

If they planned the year properly, universities could provide lecturers with protected research time.

'In person teaching is about providing a start point to scaffolding critical thinking, so that people go out into the world able to do it for themselves.'

This is just nonsense, it's just the excuses lecturers put out for really low contact hours. If students can just find everything out for themselves then what is the point of paying for university at all? Why bother with lecturers?

Even Google says that average contact time is low in the UK with some students getting less than 11 hours a week. The average in Germany is apparently 16-17 and in France it's 20-30.

Honestly where is the evidence that we're sending out better graduates because we're teaching them how to do it for themselves? - I haven't seen any evidence of that at all, people are saying grads are getting worse and worse, can't spell, don't check anything properly and need hand holding through everything.

It's completely delusional to think uni's are creating self starters who are amazing thinkers by giving students hardly any contact time.

DD went back to uni after Christmas on 8th February - she had to go back for her single in-person exam on 20th Jan. She's back this weekend and then will be done for the year beginning of May. Her accommodation is >£200 per week and we have to pay until end of June. DS went back at the beginning of January but finishes for the year two weeks after Easter. Again, we are paying for accommodation until July. He's only got 8 hours contact time per week which this term is only over 2 days.

Something is wrong. I think it's the disconnect between massive accommodation fees and cost of living - I stayed in my uni accommodation til the bitter end each term of halls and then mainly stayed over the holidays. The rent was £33pw at the most and Blastaways were £1 in the SU so we went out a lot My lectures and labs were mainly 9-5 every day except Wednesdays and there was a lot of work. My two uni students are budgeting, not going out and home more than they are at uni - both Sciencey subjects too. Yes they are working beyond contact time but perhaps 25 hours a week max?

@nighteynightey contact hours have not gone down over the years, they have gone up. They absolutely don’t give hardly any contact time. But they are not schools.

Lectures and seminars should provide the scaffold. That is the way it has always been. But learning in higher education does need independence. That is a positive, not a negative.

If my DC's experience is anything to go by (four different unis) contact time has definitely gone down compared to my generation.

@phyllidafosset I also think contact time has decreased since I when I was at university. I had lectures in April and May and exams in June.
Apparently, some students have 5 months off with no lectures or exams at all now.
I really think that the current university system is not working and need to be restructured. An accelerated 2-year degree will reduce costs.
IMO, here are some of the problems with the current university system:

1. UK degrees being more expensive than most other countries.
2. 80% of students getting 1st and 2.1s so the value of these degree classes diminishes
3. Lectures finishing in April but accommodation being paid until July
4. Too many people getting a degree so that graduates cannot get "graduate-level" jobs despite have paid the cost of a degree. The gap between graduate and non-graduate salaries is narrowing. There has been a 15% increase in the last 4 years in job postings not requiring a degree.
5. The value of a degree eroding. Large employers are now using skill-based hiring rather over formal qualifications. Perhaps because employers no longer trust that a degree demonstrates certain competencies.

From an economic standpoint, a degree is becoming increasingly hard to justify.

From an emotional perspective, I accept that a degree allow 18-year-olds to grow up before entering the job market. However, I think 2 years is adequate to do this rather than 3 years.

We do have relatively low contact time compared to other countries. We haven’t even addressed contact time in China! That. Includes, essentially, study halls.

I agree with @phyllidafosset and others that in the West lectures are properly regarded as one of the first steps in learning the material - ideally one reads around the topic first. The critical thing, however, is that it takes a lot of time to really learn material deeply after it is read/presented for the first time. You can only rush the human brain so much.

Also many countries do a four year degree. When A levels were more difficult the idea that British students started from a higher base may have been valid, but that is no longer true. It is obvious that we cannot do in three years what other countries do in four.
Compressing the amount of study time will only make the situation worse.

Our high global rankings are based on strong research, with large percentages of staff trained externally to the UK. And to be clear, top British scholars are, well, tops. League tables ranking UG education are internal to the UK.

Contact time for my DC at UCL is risible. DC finished term on 27th March and has no lectures/tutorials until next academic year commencing 28th September. 6 months with nothing save for a few exams in May. What exactly are we paying for? I suspect the answer to that is simply a gateway to graduate schemes but the financial outlay is getting harder to accept in an increasingly competitive job market.

DH a lecturer - this "hoilday" he completing this term admin - marking exams and projects - getting on with research paper writting as there never enough time in term - and updating next years courses he know he'll be teaching making sure they are as relevant and uptodate in fast moving fields as possible and having meeting with masters and phd students.

None of this is seen by students or parents and thus magiacally just happens - similar to how teachers only work 9 to 3 pm as that time they are in front of a class or how some parents seem to think.

DH often works in evenings and one day at weekend through the year becuase there is more work than the university allots time for.

Having said that I do think DD1 course contact time is to low though DS is pretty good.

DH would be first to say there are some who don't do more than the minimum but that's a management issue - and many are working flat out doing the stuff that isn't seen or appreciated and contact hours vary hugely between universities and departments and courses.

I think it they go for two year degrees staff who are there for research will walk - it's already hard enough to get a permanant contracts and often lots of moving round country for posts and many now have huge burden for getting in huge amounts research funding on them as well.

Well of course there can be a split between institutions that focus on tuition and those that focus on research and to some extent there already is. But to formalise it would create a two tier system.

One tier would have more contact time but only self funding masters and PhD students and ‘tutors’ would not be able to attract research funding. Maybe better financially for some undergraduates who are not inclined to engage independent study and want a cut price certificate with limited value in the employment market.

The other tier may have less contact hours and PhD students may do more teaching. But staff are attracting funding through research and providing funded masters and PhD places through research councils and departmental schemes. Staff and postgrad students are actively engaged in research that is groundbreaking and won’t be published in the short term. Course content is delivered with an added extra of trying to extend the boundaries of accepted knowledge combined with genuine passion and enthusiasm for the subject.

Perhaps there is an unofficial two tier system and those in tier one are paying the same as those in tier two with no hope of reaping benefits in terms of career advancement and income.

How dies this differ from the old system with a relatively few universities and many polytechnics?

I am a relatively late immigrant to the UK. I thought the old system seemed to have advantages, but linked uncomfortably into the class system: only ‘proper’ degrees are entrees into the middle class. My belief is that the crisis in HE cannot be solved until we decouple the degree system from the class system and provide more pathways into the MC.

But people who are there already guard the entrance very carefully.

Money. It costs the same to go to a teaching university as a research one in terms of loan if parents aren’t paying. But the added value can be very different.

I was thinking the same as @PocketSand - for many (most?) students, an undergraduate level qualification in two years, studying 10 or so months of the year, lots of contact time with lecturers who aren’t focused on their own research — that could work well, couldn’t it? Most UGs want good teachers, which really isn’t the same thing as being a talented researcher or academic although the two can co-exist. (Hands up everyone who had shitty UG teaching from a PhD student who had no idea how to teach…)

I take @poetryandwine point about the UK’s insane attachment to class signifiers. But if a less ‘classy’ degree also meant 30% less debt, I suspect quite a few perfectly middle class kids (and their parents) would take that deal.

The elision of undergraduate degrees and postgraduate research came about when a minuscule proportion of the population went to uni. Maybe it just doesn’t make much sense when 40% of 18yos go (or whatever the proportion is). I got my degree for free <laughs in Gen X> but if my academic years had ended in March so that their lecturers could go and write their research papers, and I was racking up c.£20k per annum for the privilege, I’d be feeling pretty ripped off.

@fairyring25 And Buckingham is where in the league tables? Keep scrolling and you will find it. It’s not a wholly successful model. 2 years at Buckingham is equivalent to 3 years in fees elsewhere but it’s inferior - it’s also a private university in a very very boring place (I know it well).

What we could do is reinvent the HND. 2 years of useful study allied to work. Or HNC. Then add on 2 years to convert to a degree. The old polys offered this and we should revert to it.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner
I know that Buckingham University does not rank highly in the university league tables. I mentioned it as a model of what other universities could do.
I think that many "teaching" universities, which do less research could offer 2 year degrees.

I don't think that most undergraduates or their parents care whether their lecturers are doing research or not. The three key factors that students and their parents want are:

1. University reputation as this links to getting a good job.
2. Good teaching
3. Reduced costs

I get your point about 2 year HNDs that can be converted to a degree. I think that this would suit many students at lower tier universities as it would hopefully be cheaper.

However, if you have an academic child who can go to one of the better universities, this is not the answer. They want a top tier university and a respected degree but they also want reduced costs. Maybe the answer is that academics should do less research. I don't understand why in my day I was taught all the way through to June but they don't do this now. Is research taking up too much of academic's time?

I think the biggest difference in terms of contact hours is between STEM and social science and humanities degrees. I teach social science and we offer the same number of contact hours as I had when I was a student in the 1990s. It hasnt changed and both my former uni and my current one are in the top 10.

It's true that in Europe, most degrees are four years and MAs two years. UK degrees are incredibly short in comparison.

FYI - 3rd term is for revision - our students often have six exams within the space of a month - so they need the time to revise.

"Maybe the answer is that academics should do less research. I don't understand why in my day I was taught all the way through to June but they don't do this now. Is research taking up too much of academic's time?"

I'm afraid this is a total misunderstanding of the current climate of academia. A huge amount of research only gets done on evenings and weekends, and during un-taken annual leave time (although some use their annual leave for it). One hour of teaching is not one hour of work. Academics are teaching, they are doing an enormous amount of admin (because universities have cut costs by cutting all of those support roles), they are doing things related to pastoral care, they are trying to do training, they are trying to do the scholarly work that is needed to prepare those teaching materials, they are marking, they are supervising projects, the are managing ethics, I could go on and on and on. The only person I know of who doesn't have the huge pressure is at Oxford. They have a relatively calm and peaceful academic career. Everyone else, all over the country, does not.

And, I think it is also crucial to dispel the myth that research only takes place in the 'research' universities. Research also takes place at the vast majority of post-1992 universities (there are a very few exceptions), and at all of the red-brick universities. That research can also be world-leading and prize winning.

At university level, research is a crucial part. @poetryandwine 's point about class is spot on. At my own post-1992 university, some of our undergraduates go on to have brilliant research careers, following a PhD (with us, at top Russell Group uni's and everywhere in between). If they did not have access to real-world research carried out by active researchers during their studies, their chances of doing that would be much much smaller. Our cohort is very different from the Russell Group, and although they haven't done brilliantly at A-levels, it is amazingly gratifying to watch them grow in confidence and skills until they are at the point that they can really shine.