Fallout Studios Forums

First of all, this is basically only about the UK. Call me ignorant, but I don't have any clue on the specifics in other countries, so won't deal with them.

Its my own personal opinion that yes, to many people are going to university. The governments target was 50% of young people going to university, which is frankly ridiculous.

There are two possible ways to achieve this 50%, and i'm sure you can guess which one has been employed.

1. A huge proportion of the population suddenly becomes more intelligent.
2. Inflate grades by making tests easier at A level, introduce mickey mouse subjects, establish universities which accept basically anyone, create degrees for useless subjects or professions which do not need a degree - Yes golf course management, i'm looking at you!

First of all, the issue of making tests easier. Now people can disagree with this all they want, but at least in the subjects I did - Chemistry, Biology, Geography, Physics. The tests have gotten steadily easier. I know this because I was given some older tests for practice, and they were substantially harder than the tests I actually took. Futhermore the syllabus keeps reducing the amount of content present in the A level. I know this because older books had information on stuff we simply don't learn anymore.

Next the issue of Mickey mouse subjects. Now call me an elitist but some things just shouldn't be viable to use for university entry. I had a friend who did a B-tech in buisiness, and it was ridiculously easy. Thats from his own admission and from what I saw of the work they got given.

Now we have the problem of the institutions that accept anything and anyone. There are many universities in the UK that accept E candidates, which is fucking ridiculous. Yes an E is technically a pass, but it really means you haven't learn't anything at all. University should be a priveledge, not a right.

Now a golf course management degree, well that speaks for itself.

- So why is this a bad thing? well i'll tell you.

University is expensive, the more people you have going the more money is needed, some of which comes in the form of top up fees. Instead of cripping graduates with a extra 10k debt (average over 3 year degree for top up fees) reduce the amount of young people entering the system. This would remove the need for top up fees as the state contribution to universities would be sufficient once more for the reduced amount of graduates.

The system is over-burdened as it is. This year an estimated 80,000 students failed to get a university place, with the next year estimated at 200,000. Universities can also not accomodate the increased demand, with students at exeter having to share rooms because of the volumes of undergrads. Here in Birmingham 50 undergrads were allocated places in an older halls of residence as despite the university building a brand new 800 person hall, they simply didn't have enough beds available. One good example of the system not being able to cope was the student loans company. For some reason it was all amalgamated into the same area ( I suppose for money saving), which meant one place was dealing with ALL the student loans, instead of using the local system that had worked fine for many years. This resulted in many students not recieving their loans on time, and in some cases not recieving them at all.

With the government set to remove the cap on top up fees and the freezing of student loans/grants the problems are only set to get worse if the trend of more undergrads continues, discuss.

And here is a little article to read - http://news.bbc.co.u...ion/8556231.stm
Edited by Ion Cannon!, 14 March 2010 - 00:39.

This is a political problem caused by a left wing government, desperate to get anyone into university and pretend that it isn't an elitist opportunity. So, yes, they have systematically devalued both the A(S) Level and the degree in the same way. I agree with absolutely everything that you said above, however my answer to the problem is simple. Entry tests. Make them soo hard that if someone wants to go to university they will work for them. Then, make the whole experience free. Ergo, if you're smart enough you can earn one off of your own intelligence and dedication. If you're smart you'll work to get there. If you're lazy or a dumbass, then your presence, which in the last ten years has totally undercut the system of higher education, will not be an issue. It seems that today, if you want to go to uni, you'll need a Masters minimum to have the same standard or kudos as I did when I left.

I genuinely could not care about those that argue, "what about the poor or disadvantaged?", life isn't fair, deal with it. Intelligent people deserve to benefit from HIGHER education. I doubt that people are learning much at uni these days that I didn't learn at A level.

Wizard, on 14 Mar 2010, 1:40, said:

So assuming they implement this entry test you speak of, you wouldn't want the poor and disadvantaged to get in regardless of their academic capabilities?

deltaepsilon, on 14 Mar 2010, 2:54, said:

Now you're being well frankly a moron and reading without thinking.

If you are academically bright then regardless of the financial background you will be able to pass the exams and get into a university.

I too agree with Ion and Wiz, but the free thing does allow some nature of dossing around when you're at uni. I would make people pay if they dropped out and also with respect to the usefulness of their degree. If you take classics then all you're useful for is museum work, whereas medics and engineers are useful so they should pay less.

This plan also nicely stymies the mickey mouse unis (MMU I'm looking at you) since they will have to charge for 80%+ of their courses.

Quote

Well I can completely agree with this statement because the literal point of universities are that they are not fair.

Wizard, on 14 Mar 2010, 3:40, said:

I think you'd be throwing away a lot of potential with this though. I agree on your point (it's to some degree happening in the Netherlands as well, btw) but I don't think an entry test is any way to go on about this, especially a hard one that determines everything. Because I can tell you beforehand that this will not work in any of the exact subjects where substance has to be understood, not learned. I mean for Latin or English where you can just learn the subject by heart, this might work, but it won't for a subject you can't literally learn. This is because understanding from these subjects come from a bigger whole. You can't expect someone to grasp this from the get go as you generally need to be brought into contact with everything before you can form a bigger picture. Exact subjects aren't like non-exact ones in the respect that with non-exact subjects, there more you learn, the more you learn, whereas with exact subjects, the more you learn, the more intelligent you become. So you can't accurately judge their actual intelligence beforehand.

The entry test idea wouldn't be based on a particular subject but angled towards the humanity or science the entrant would study. If you are taking a degree in Maths then clearly there should be a level of understanding there already, but more obscure degrees, such as ship design and engineering (believe it or not is a valuable degree) could have entry level exams based on physics, maths and chemistry, all extremely useful but not needed as a speciality for the degree.

A single global test wouldn't work either, but there needs to be some standards beyond the already dumbed down AS levels we have in this country now. Schools and colleges are now being judged on results and the examination infrastructure as a whole is sympathetic to this, as no government wants to be seen as failing in education. It's up to someone else to ensure that only those who will benefit from higher education get it.

I think this is a world problem. It's happening in a lot of places including the US. While attending high school they made it seem like the next step was university/college. By that I mean they said "You'll end up flipping burgers at McDonalds," or that you won't be able to make a living. So a lot of students felted pushed into signing up for uni to do something. Which leads to a lot of people who probably would be better suited doing something like (vocational school, more on them later; joining the army or something). So it costs more to attend school, which is bad for these people who are attending anyway, because they decided to choose an easy degree (stares at liberal arts majors...). In the long run it doesn't help them because of the debt. They also tend to scare us a bit and say the university professors mean S.O.B.s, but often aren't really (not to say their classes cannot be hard). So at least they direct some of it's not for everyone, but a lot are still feeling forced to attend.

I agree it should be harder to get into and past the first year of university. I'm not sure if I agree on a some sort of test, but at least something related to the major would probably be good.

As far as golf management and the ilk I think that sort of thing belongs elsewhere like vocational, or trade school; better yet would be a certificate. I really wish some of these vocational/trade schools would not call themselves a(n) college/university though.

Dauth, on 14 Mar 2010, 8:48, said:

I agree with most of the responses in this thread, but I really dislike this idea. First, "usefulness" is a bit arbitrary, especially when you'd essentially have to organise all the degrees out there onto some sort of numerical "usefulness" scale in order to work out how much people ought to pay. Second, a lot of these newer "mickey mouse" degrees would probably score rather highly on such a scale, since many of them try to directly prepare people for specific careers. Thirdly, some of the "less obviously useful" degrees (such as the example of classics mentioned above) are more training of the mind than direct preparation for a career in the field. People with good degrees in classics, history, english (in fact most of the arts) are extremely employable in "useful" fields such as education and journalism.

One thing I'd like to add is a system in place in the Netherlands atm which I feel is a pretty useful way to partly deal with the issues. Two things specifically:

1) For all studies, after the first year, there is a "study advice" which tells you about how well you are doing so far and how well your prospects are. For some subjects, this is a binding advice: in other words, if you don't score high enough, you are not allowed to continue the study. I think this is much better than just a simple test, as it gives the student the opportunity to relate to several sections of the subject and see how well they do in them. So you can see what your strengths and weaknesses are. Also, it gives them the opportunity to use what they learned during one course for other courses, helping them build their understanding of the study as a whole.

2) Students get finances to help them out during their studies, and these are transformed into a gift instead of a loan if they complete a degree within x years. If a student stops the study before the first half of the first year, their debt from that year is also dropped. This is to help students who are extremely meh in dropping their subject.

I'm just going to be an arse by adding that I'm a lazy could-be-something-underachiever that probably doesn't deserve to be in University even half as much as, for example, AJ does. I do all my assignments half assed the night before and don't revise for my exams, yet I'm still achieving 80 to 90% on almost everything.

Also the title should be "Are too many people going to university?".

EDIT:

I think I should also mention the reasons I am in Uni;
The shit economy didn't look too promising for someone just coming out of College with a BTEC in IT Support.
I was initially to lazy to look into going to Uni. Then a mate said 'Warbzy go to Uni'. Eventually they made me log onto the UCAS website where I asked 'What course am I going to do?'.
'IT Security' he replied. So that's what I did.
Then I again wasn't going to bother continuing with my application when I remembered I had to do a personal statement. My Mum then wrote it for me.
Edited by W!, 15 March 2010 - 01:36.

W!, on 15 Mar 2010, 1:31, said:

I can never remember which one to use, so I just use "to" for everything.

It might also be worth adding to my previous post that had I not gone to Uni I would now most likely be on Job Seekers Allowance due to a lack of jobs in the area I used to live. (There's also a lack of anything in general where I used to live).

W!, on 15 Mar 2010, 1:31, said:

In general the first year of university is sort of meant to be easy, although you should have to do some level of work IMO, especially to attain a 80-90% mark. I'm on a 2.1 myself currently, with a rather small amount of work done outside of lectures and lots of "Wing it". I'm assured it gets harder in the 2nd year though.

Yeah that really is lazy, sounds like your at uni because you didn't know what else to do / or were to lazy to find out. That really isn't the intention of university, your supposed to go there because your passionate about X subject, want to learn more about it and generally get a career out of it.

W!, on 15 Mar 2010, 3:31, said:

And you think I was any different during my first year?

Seriously, the first year is always easy. The second, for me at least, contained subjects which ranged from being generally considered very easy to quite hard, and the third year only had hard subjects. My current (first master's) year contains only subjects for which you get taught only half of the subject and expects students to basically master the course mostly on their own and which are of a high level.

Sadly Warbzy you are one of the people I would prefer not to be at uni. But I do totally understand your reasons for going. Everyone should want to go to uni. It should be something that everyone aspires to though, not something that people "end up in". I don't blame you for taking the attitude you have to work there. You are a product of an especially shit education system. For the last 20 years the teachers I know, from infant to college, have all said that the last decent graduation year for students in this country was 1990!! I am sure there are people here who can equate the decade with the politcal changes in this country.

Now if you had been on Job Seekers, if things were different, then you would have had to buckle down, find a job or you'd be pretty much a bum. I would not be averse to people being able to continue their education after 18, but a degree really isn't something that someone who didn't work hard at school, or has any particular inate intelligence should be doing. I am sure you'll do fine at uni and I have nothing against you for being there, but in my mind, university should not be for the priviledged, or seemingly so now, the under-priviledged, but the deserving. Education, like most things in life, is devalued the more people do it. It should be something that carries gravitas and dedication. Not a certificate that said I have drunk my body weight for three years as there wasn't anything better to do when I got out of college.

Wizard, on 15 Mar 2010, 11:45, said:

I kind of disagree here. I think you'll find most people that would deserve to be in university in your system didn't do much at all in school.

From my experience, the people that gain their degree by learning 24/7 are far less qualified than those that have innate skills on the subject. Merely rehashing already existing information doesn't mean being good at a subject, only good at memorizing.

By the way, how come some of you feel the need to put other studies down? Every course seems to have its own "other courses that are inferior to us" list and tell you what, I'm quite sure that just as well every course actually is on one of these too. If others think they will gain from doing what you would consider academic junk, why not let them waste their time? Ion Cannon, you have time preparing for a marathon for Christ's sake, don't tell me your study is so mind-blowing challenging that only the best of the best can compete.
Edited by Golan, 15 March 2010 - 10:47.

Golan, on 15 Mar 2010, 12:45, said:

You'll agree though that as courses go more to exact sciences, they are on fewer lists. I doubt anyone would consider theoretical phyiscs inferior, actually.

Well perhaps theology.

But there is a definitive "ranking" of subjects in the amount of people mentally capable of successfully completing them.

Golan, on 15 Mar 2010, 10:45, said:

I didn't say mine was. But seriously, universitys teach a degree in golf course management here, how fucking pointless is that! Instead of wasting money doing that, work on a golf course for a few years..

Chyros, on 15 Mar 2010, 12:47, said:

Mathematicians. At least those two that were in my Quantum mechanics II course. The one theologian I know was quite happy she didn't have to put up with any of my stuff.

Chyros, on 15 Mar 2010, 12:47, said:

Um yeah, so? Does a course have to be top 10 to be considered worthwhile? Or top 50? How do you account for courses so stupid only the most skilled morons can stand them for more than a week? Does a study become superior when your professor is a die-hard asshole who isn't satisfied until you give the correct answer on a full moon night at 12am while wearing a quilt and reciting your university's motto in Klingon backwards?
Besides, once you've gone high enough in your ranking, another one may become significant which can be easily described as "common sense index" - we physicists have some minor deficits with that one but don't even let me start with the mathematicians. Being S.M.A.R.T. in one way usually comes with being quite stupid in another, no matter how smart you're overall.

Ion Cannon!, on 15 Mar 2010, 14:48, said:

Okay. Then we send the biologists to do some gardening and feed the trolls. I guess the chemists would do well in a kitchen, mixing and cooking all that stuff. We physicists could start by working as janitors in CERN. Historians would just step outside and look at all the history unfolding itself!
Edited by Golan, 15 March 2010 - 15:22.

Quote

That may be your personal experience, but mine is quite different. The more intelligent someone is academically the more common sense they tend to have.

Quote

Now your just being silly, the point is anything you learn on that course would just be picked up if you just got a job there. This is not the case for Biologists or Chemists, it cannot just all be picked up in the work place, and even if it could I doubt employers would want employees that know so little to begin with, that they're dangerous.
Edited by Ion Cannon!, 15 March 2010 - 15:37.

Ion Cannon!, on 15 Mar 2010, 15:36, said:

Now you're just being silly, the point is you don't learn sport management, marketing, sales, public relations, business studies, financial reporting and Analysis, macroeconomics and microeconomics, business law, organizational Leadership, research methods in sport management, sport marketing & media, sport law and finance & economics of sport by being a 20-year old with no professional education on a golf course.
Edited by Golan, 15 March 2010 - 17:01.

Golan, on 15 Mar 2010, 17:00, said:

Do you need a degree to be a medical doctor - Yes
Do you need a degree to be a biochemist - Yes
Do you need a degree to be a theoretical physicist - Yes
Do you need a degree to work on a golf course - No

Aside from being a medical doctor (well, depending on the country you live in), that's entirely a decision of your employer. I wouldn't be surprised if there actually are some management jobs on high class golf courses that DO require a degree now that it's possible to get one.
Edited by Golan, 15 March 2010 - 17:18.

Golan, on 15 Mar 2010, 17:15, said:

Umm, quantum mechanics IS theoretical physics, isn't it?

It would be strange for mathematicians to look down on physicists though. I know people in both camps, and the maths in quantum mechanics did not strike me as being any simpler than anything mathematicians have. I did quantum chemistry 1 and 2 which are basically easy quantum mechanics on a more tangible level of reality and there are only two molecules in existence that are simple enough to quantum calculate on before you start needing supercomputers (hydrogen and helium - and those need some heavy approximations, too).

Quote

Heh, I never said it mattered how difficult your course is. Hell it's not as if society could run successfully for one day without people who don't have any higher education at all .

Quote

Hmmm, I've noticed this tends to fluctuate. Some highly schooled scientists have an extreme amount of common sense and worldly knowledge, while others are practically nutjobs.

(I'm probably more in the latter category than the former but whatever )