Should we get rid of weaker universities?

UMIST had a funny status for most of its existence and the merger was rather seen as the finding of a long lost relative rather than a shotgun marriage which is perhaps why it worked.

But it SHOULD be. If we want a more educated society that moves forward socially and technologically wise.
I do hope you never get into a position of power. With you views society would go downhill.
Who says someone with CCC hasn't worked hard? (I did better than that at A level before anyone suggests anything) that's their achievement for their academic level. They should be able to go on to do what they please, because you know we should have the freedom to better ourselves in this country.
The world would be a bit more boring without games and designs. There is a place for almost every subject. David Beckham studies is something else.
I can see a problem with the 'solution' you are providing if polys are cheaper. Those from poorer backgrounds will likely be forced to go there rather than a higher ranking uni which is what they are fully capable of due to what the family can afford. This could make it harder for them to break the poverty cycle. Haven't thought about that have you.






In order to advance the world's society it certainly should be. Be bright and think forward.

But it SHOULD be. If we want a more educated society that moves forward socially and technologically wise.
I do hope you never get into a position of power. With you views society would go downhill.
Who says someone with CCC hasn't worked hard? (I did better than that at A level before anyone suggests anything) that's their achievement for their academic level. They should be able to go on to do what they please, because you know we should have the freedom to better ourselves in this country.
The world would be a bit more boring without games and designs. There is a place for almost every subject. David Beckham studies is something else.
I can see a problem with the 'solution' you are providing if polys are cheaper. Those from poorer backgrounds will likely be forced to go there rather than a higher ranking uni which is what they are fully capable of due to what the family can afford. This could make it harder for them to break the poverty cycle. Haven't thought about that have you.






In order to advance the world's society it certainly should be. Be bright and think forward.

We seem to be going round in circles here. I have not said that education should not be a human right or should be. Their are some that have been pulled into this strawman.

I think education should be something that we fund, and a right for those that are serious and working hard for education. What I am disputing is institutions that do not provide value for money and do not hold students to a high standard. If a university can hold students to a high standard and provide value for money then I am all for that.

However a lot of polytechnics do not achieve this. Note because people like been pedantic Yes I am sure there will be a few poly Technics that achieve this or offer subjects where this applies. I am fully aware of that. However there are a lot more that do not and this is a real problem.

Yeah exactly, one of the worst practices (imo) is posting videos and lectures online afterwards. Students dont even have to go to the bloody uni!

This can be highly useful though? While you may attend lectures and make superb notes it may be listening back to the lecture that truly helps it sink in. Sure there will be some that completely abuse the practice by just not attending but they're *hopefully* a minority?

I found a minority did this at the start of the year but as time goes on more and more people don't turn up. It is a great facilty but i think if you want the lecture online you should have attended originally or go to the lecturer and justify your absence. More like a full time job with mutual obligation as someone else suggested on this thread.

I think you have to look at the value of the specific course you are doing.

Shipping and Port Managment @ Solent Uni is listed on a post here as one of the top 10 joke degrees in the country. Trouble is only 3 uni's in the country run this degree, Plymouth, Solent and Liverpool.

When I did my research though I found this degree has an excellent employment rate and the average student earns more than the lecturer in less than three years after leaving.
Ironically the degree at Solent is regarded as better than plymouth!

This is because some of the smaller uni's which were 'technical colleges' have built incredible strong links with industry over time, the government has introduced maritime apprentiships over the last couple of years because maritime services are leaving the country rapidly. This is despite the fact that only 4 students on my course at Solent were British and about 6 at Plymouth.

Personally I think of you were to only keep the top 50 Unis you would seriously loose out on some really valuable courses that just couldnt be emulated over night by the big guys. Im at Plymouth currently and they cringe when you say 'Solent', because as a uni its embarrasing for them but they consistantly do everything they can to emulate what goes on there. Its going to take them another 10 years to get there though.

My classmates at Solent were sons (and a couple of daughters) of CEOs, Admirals and even a blatent Georgian gangster. Russians, greeks, norweigens, georgians, khazakstanis, Syrians, etc etc etc. And these guys choose Solent over Plymouth, they walk around in their £1000 pair of shoes in a **** uni because the value of the course there far exceeds the competiton.

A better idea would be to do what the Chinese do and offer young people courses that will benefit them and employers (synergy!), train people in skills that are needed. Get rid of the 500 guys at solent doing football studies and invest in the good courses, you have to sort the wheat from the chaff on a very basic level or you'll be activly damaging world renown services that this country offers.

If anyone is thinking about a business degree you cant go wrong with this one it's GOLD, and the calibre of people you study with is incredible.

SAVE THE **** UNI'S! They may not be the wasters you think they are.

In my opinion, the best solution would be to increase interest rates according to your university. No interest-free loans for students attending a university outside the top 50 (or whatever your arbitrary number is). As the ranking of the uni goes down and down, the interest rate goes higher. And the student pays the interest and the loan, not the university or the taxpayers. This will certainly make the student think twice about going to these second rate unis like you call them, and also force the university to raise their standards; they know that unis in the top 50 or whatever will be better placed to attract more students, now that there are more financial incentives for the students. If the student just wants a piece of paper for a degree, he/she is going to have to pay a lot more which is going to reduce its worth.

I specifically said there will be exceptions. General studies is an A level you can get with general knowledge or just due to been good at blagging/essay writing. You can get it with little to no work. universities that accept it are basically saying we want to look like we are good and have grade requirements but we don't really so put that their to make it easier to get the grades.

in the past some Russel group universities have accepted General studies, though the vast majority will not. This is why I said it as a general rule and specifically acknowledged there would be exceptions.

I think it depends what your range of other factors is. Been close to home/ further away from home is fine because some students want to be with their family others want independence and that is an acceptable choice.

Choosing a university based the course or course content is also a very important factor.

So is the actual city area etc I get that.

When I apply I am not getting funding it will be fully self funded so I have to consider price points. Cambridge charge college fees, I really think with my academic past that it is highly unlikely anyway but because there are just so many things right with it I would have to find a way of making it work.

However a few London universities become more of a choice because I have to take into account that London is significantly more expensive. London has its advantages though with so many things around the city.

If I chose to go to a slightly lower caliber university rather than one of the London ones due to costs than that is not such bad reasoning. If however I chose to go to a slightly lower caliber London university for the advantages of London that too would be okay.

The thing is though by slightly lower caliber I mean just that slightly lower not abysmal. Not way lower.

I think that higher education should be a full time Job. Such that individuals with an IQ of 115-130 would need to work 30+ hours a week to get a 2:1. If some individuals who have an IQ below 115 are determined and are willing to put 50+ hours a week to get there then I am for that.
What should not be happening is individuals with an IQ of 90 been able to scrape by on 20 or less hours a week and individuals with an IQ of 120 ish been able to get away with less than 10.

obviously you sometimes get those with an IQ of 150+ at this point you have an actual genius and I guess their is the possibility that they could get away with part time hours when their peers in the range of 115-130 are putting in full time hours. In that situation it is not because the course lacks depth or challenge it is just because they are brilliant.

just things have value based on how hard they are to obtain. If a degree is something that can be attained by the average Joe putting in little to no effort than guess what it is not worth that much.

If it is your own money and you are fully aware that you are going to a university that has very poor standards and are happy with that then who am i or anyone else to judge that?

The problem is though that a lot of time those points do not apply. It is not your money often it is the taxpayers and if you think it is okay for the tax payer to pay for you to basically take the piss at university then that is absurd. You only pay it back if you earn over a certain amount. If you end up earning that salary and paying it back but were poorly served by the degree, then you are paying back a massive loan for something that was of little value to hardly fair. If you do not know what little value the university offers in terms of value and find yourself in such debt that is hardly a fair scenario.

As for getting jobs etc actually Degrees from Russel group universities do give you a higher probability of employment, with higher average life time earnings.

You've got a point wrt specialisms... but those internationals are probably going to end up being the minister of shipping because of their family connections aren't they? Doesn't follow that it'll be as beneficial for UK students.

May I ask what you think about more non-traditional degrees like nursing?

You can no longer qualify as a nurse without obtaining a degree. Let me be clear, I will be attending a Russel Group University to study nursing this year (which has a 100% employment or further study rate after graduation) and looked at several universities before doing so and I agree with you. The older, previously polytechnic Unis have poor teaching standards for even these degrees, and many people consider nursing to not be a "proper" degree.

I actually feel as though this is dangerous because I will do significantly more hours of study with significantly more scientific underpinning than many other unis. I feel this would be detrimental to patients- nurses with no detailed knowledge of anatomy, physiology and pharmacology is crazy to me. In short, my degree will get me professional accreditation with significantly more work than its counterparts at metropolitan and previously polytechnic unis.

The average grade offer for nursing is BBB I got AAA (chemistry, maths and English A-Levels +AS physics) does this irritate you that someone with good A-Levels in very academic subjects would pursue a more non-traditional degree like nursing?

Does it irritate you that most RG universities offer degrees in nursing, and does this add to the "god given right to go to uni" problem you explain in your OP?

May I ask what you think about more non-traditional degrees like nursing?

You can no longer qualify as a nurse without obtaining a degree. Let me be clear, I will be attending a Russel Group University to study nursing this year (which has a 100% employment or further study rate after graduation) and looked at several universities before doing so and I agree with you. The older, previously polytechnic Unis have poor teaching standards for even these degrees, and many people consider nursing to not be a "proper" degree.

I actually feel as though this is dangerous because I will do significantly more hours of study with significantly more scientific underpinning than many other unis. I feel this would be detrimental to patients- nurses with no detailed knowledge of anatomy, physiology and pharmacology is crazy to me. In short, my degree will get me professional accreditation with significantly more work than its counterparts at metropolitan and previously polytechnic unis.

The average grade offer for nursing is BBB I got AAA (chemistry, maths and English A-Levels +AS physics) does this irritate you that someone with good A-Levels in very academic subjects would pursue a more non-traditional degree like nursing?

Does it irritate you that most RG universities offer degrees in nursing, and does this add to the "god given right to go to uni" problem you explain in your OP?

Nowadays we just hand out degrees like leaflets in the streets. They've lost their value.

Just recently the top UK universities dropped down in ranking on the global top 100

You know..it's a good thing TSR isn't running the Department of Education



Right what do you mean 'lost value'? The top jobs all still require relevant degrees, the only degrees which have 'lost value' are those that never had much value in the first place. If anything degrees as a whole have increased in value because newer niche degrees have popped up everywhere.



Before using any international ranking system to decide that radical change is needed it is perhaps better to look at said ranking system and analyse the methodology of it (50% ********) and perhaps look at why we are falling (still hold a massive grip anyway, especially in the top 10).
The most popular international systems are QS and Times. Ranking is at least 50% based on how research intensive a university is and also how well known it is. Literally.

The majority of British universities are not research intensive, in fact it has always been the same 20 or so British unis that weigh high in any ranking system and guess what?..They're all research intensive and are still in the top 100 international rankings. Most of these are also old and 'prestigious' so get brownie points automatically.

These two factors should not form the basis of an opinion that judges how good a university is. Not to mention the fact that the 'top 50' universities in the world have somewhat an influence as to how these rankings are arranged.

Now that doesn't explain why British universities are falling, but it's pretty easy to see why:

2/5 of the Top 100 Rankings are made up by North American Universities, 1/5 are Asian. That leaves 40 spots for the universities in the whole of Europe, Africa, Oceania and Latin America. Asia is a massively developing continent which is why only recently the the rankings have been shaken up, every year a new Chinese institute enters the Top 100. We can't compete with universities which have the backing of an economy five times the size of ours. Same applies with the United States who have 36 universities in the Top 100, each state is richer than most European countries, just let that sink in. It should be pretty self explanatory.

It's not that our standards are dropping, but everyone else's are rising, the real competition has just begun and we're already trying to throw our toys out the pram!

Now I agree with one of your points, some universities shouldn't be allowed to charge £9000 and they're allowed to get away it. But be careful of taking a random video involving less than 10 unidentified people as 'proof' of a failing university.

Now having said all that, there is clearly a difference between OxBridge and metropolitan universities and also the graduates that come from them and perhaps a solution is needed. But we don't need a solution so that we can elevate our rankings in some phony ranking system, but rather to improve our society and bring out the best in it's co-habitants, which is why I don't believe that simply purging some universities and reallocating their funding is a good long term solution.

You know..it's a good thing TSR isn't running the Department of Education

Right what do you mean 'lost value'? The top jobs all still require relevant degrees, the only degrees which have 'lost value' are those that never had much value in the first place. If anything degrees as a whole have increased in value because newer niche degrees have popped up everywhere.

Before using any international ranking system to decide that radical change is needed it is perhaps better to look at said ranking system and analyse the methodology of it (50% ********) and perhaps look at why we are falling (still hold a massive grip anyway, especially in the top 10).The most popular international systems are QS and Times. Ranking is at least 50% based on how research intensive a university is and also how well known it is. Literally.The majority of British universities are not research intensive, in fact it has always been the same 20 or so British unis that weigh high in any ranking system and guess what?..They're all research intensive and are still in the top 100 international rankings. Most of these are also old and 'prestigious' so get brownie points automatically.These two factors should not form the basis of an opinion that judges how good a university is. Not to mention the fact that the 'top 50' universities in the world have somewhat an influence as to how these rankings are arranged.Now that doesn't explain why British universities are falling, but it's pretty easy to see why:2/5 of the Top 100 Rankings are made up by North American Universities, 1/5 are Asian. That leaves 40 spots for the universities in the whole of Europe, Africa, Oceania and Latin America. Asia is a massively developing continent which is why only recently the the rankings have been shaken up, every year a new Chinese institute enters the Top 100. We can't compete with universities which have the backing of an economy five times the size of ours. Same applies with the United States who have 36 universities in the Top 100, each state is richer than most European countries, just let that sink in. It should be pretty self explanatory.It's not that our standards are dropping, but everyone else's are rising, the real competition has just begun and we're already trying to throw our toys out the pram!

Now I agree with one of your points, some universities shouldn't be allowed to charge £9000 and they're allowed to get away it. But be careful of taking a random video involving less than 10 unidentified people as 'proof' of a failing university.Now having said all that, there is clearly a difference between OxBridge and metropolitan universities and also the graduates that come from them and perhaps a solution is needed. But we don't need a solution so that we can elevate our rankings in some phony ranking system, but rather to improve our society and bring out the best in it's co-habitants, which is why I don't believe that simply purging some universities and reallocating their funding is a good long term solution.