The Student Room Group

Should we get rid of weaker universities?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by DraculaMihawk

I aspire to join the civil service fast stream and work in the department of education actually. If I had my way I would immediately blow up the universities outside the top 50.


Yeah that's not the kind of people they're looking for, but good luck.

Original post by DraculaMihawk
When so many people have degrees jobs that otherwise did not require a degree, now require a degree just to get over the first hurdle. If you don't see that degrees have lost their values then you're deluded. We have a tsunami of people being thrown into higher education because of lack of other options. Apprenticeships and vocational colleges need to be emphasised more.


What are these jobs? What time periods are you referencing? I'd be very surprised if a lot of certain jobs didn't require degrees as compared to before, the world hasn't been stagnant and jobs do evolve, more responsibilities and newer technology has meant that a certain level of knowledge is required to do those jobs. Requiring a more qualified person /=/ devalued degree. That's an error in logic on your behalf.

Original post by DraculaMihawk
The research capacity of our universities can grow if we take the funds and investments put into our low tier universities, into our top 50 universities.


Research capacity /=/ a better university, only a better ranking. If your goals is to just increase research capacity then your method is sound, in fact we may as well shut all but OxBridge, imagine how much research we can churn out if all the funds are directed there? Just like the good old days.

Original post by DraculaMihawk
MANY students, not just those in the videos, have regretted their decision to go to university and it's often those same people who went to institutions like that


Good thing we don't make rash decisions based on anecdotes.

Original post by DraculaMihawk
I'm not really fan of all this yogurt knitting nonsense you're talking about. We need to elevate our standing in the world and university is a key chess piece that allows that. Rankings do matter and it's important we raise our standards and channel people into vocational careers like hairdressing, plumbing and construction if they are not academically capable. Your solution is to continue giving students useless degrees with mountains of debts and I find that cruel in all honesty.


Just to clarify I haven't given a solution but have instead criticised yours, I agree that there is another way of doing things with certain people but not this 'one extreme to other'. Until you can prove that higher rankings will definitely improve things for everyone there is no merit here whatsoever.
Original post by redplant
Yeah that's not the kind of people they're looking for, but good luck.



What are these jobs? What time periods are you referencing? I'd be very surprised if a lot of certain jobs didn't require degrees as compared to before, the world hasn't been stagnant and jobs do evolve, more responsibilities and newer technology has meant that a certain level of knowledge is required to do those jobs. Requiring a more qualified person /=/ devalued degree. That's an error in logic on your behalf.



Research capacity /=/ a better university, only a better ranking. If your goals is to just increase research capacity then your method is sound, in fact we may as well shut all but OxBridge, imagine how much research we can churn out if all the funds are directed there? Just like the good old days.



Good thing we don't make rash decisions based on anecdotes.



Just to clarify I haven't given a solution but have instead criticised yours, I agree that there is another way of doing things with certain people but not this 'one extreme to other'. Until you can prove that higher rankings will definitely improve things for everyone there is no merit here whatsoever.


Well obviously I know what I'm saying is controversial but it's something that needs to be done. It's quite an obvious injustice.

Any of your typical corporate job. A 2:1 is almost a necessity to even put your foot through the door.

Research needs to expand across the gamut. The more universities we have in the top 100, the better. We're slowly losing our position in the world and it's because we have a huge tranche of *****y universities holding us back.

Yet those anecdotes are becoming more and more apparent.

Then what is your solution? Are you just here to complain and attack mine when you have don't have one either? It's a glaring problem in education right now and need to be tough about these things. Like I said yogurt knitting is not the way forward. We need to be direct and harsh to solve these issues.
(edited 7 years ago)
Worst idea I've seen in a while. Universities provide not only provide an important boost to local economies, but many of the lesser known ones have developed specially to cater to certain industries. Bournemouth is not high ranking, but it has one of the best VFX and Film related degrees in the country. Plymouth is a big player in marine degrees. Abertay is the best uni in Europe for video game design, yet mires in the 2nd half of league tables.

Defining what a constitutes a good university is near impossible. If people pay 9k a year for London Met and hate it, well they clearly didn't do their research. There are tonnes of resources to prevent people from going to unis they will hate.

And just because a uni has low requirements doesnt mean it will lead nowhere. I know about 3 people that went to Teesside to do some Chemistry related degree, and they were all incredibly happy and found a job decently soon after. Teesside consistently scores higher on the Student Experience Survey than e.g QMUL. Clearly the university is doing something right and providing its students with lots of service and support.
Original post by KardasDragon
Worst idea I've seen in a while. Universities provide not only provide an important boost to local economies, but many of the lesser known ones have developed specially to cater to certain industries. Bournemouth is not high ranking, but it has one of the best VFX and Film related degrees in the country. Plymouth is a big player in marine degrees. Abertay is the best uni in Europe for video game design, yet mires in the 2nd half of league tables.

Defining what a constitutes a good university is near impossible. If people pay 9k a year for London Met and hate it, well they clearly didn't do their research. There are tonnes of resources to prevent people from going to unis they will hate.

And just because a uni has low requirements doesnt mean it will lead nowhere. I know about 3 people that went to Teesside to do some Chemistry related degree, and they were all incredibly happy and found a job decently soon after. Teesside consistently scores higher on the Student Experience Survey than e.g QMUL. Clearly the university is doing something right and providing its students with lots of service and support.


I recognise that some of these institutions have specialties. Thus I recommend them being devolved into separate institutions solely for those departments. Technical colleges need to return, many of these 'universities' essentially are colleges like a prostitute wearing an ugly dress and charging you rocket-high prices for their service.

The fact that it's legally allowed for London Met to charge £9k a year is a crime. And I'm sure there are some exceptions in every poor university, but the majority do degrees in stuff like David Beckham studies and are unemployed or working jobs they could've done without a degree. It's not fair on tax payers to pay for these layabouts.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 144
Original post by DraculaMihawk
I have never understood why suddenly it's everyone's God given right to go to university, I don't believe it is. I believe if you reach a certain standard of academic excellence, then you get to go to university, so a university degree is still something we aspire to. 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. To solve this we could get rid of all the universities outside of the top 50 and invest that money into our top 50 universities. Boosting the standards of those said universities.

Anglia Ruskin, London Met and the likes are appalling institutions and are basically conning their students off £9000 a year. When videos like these are made by students:

[video="youtube;cV_Wqcdt1YM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV_Wqcdt1YM[/video]

You know there is an issue.

I say we should cull a huge tranche of the universities at the bottom, that are not meeting the standards and invest the money from that into our top 50 universities. Some of these universities are better off being vocational technical colleges and should be free or have lower tuition fees.


What uni and course are you doing?
Reply 145
Original post by yudothis
Apprenticeships and the job market. Oh wait. The government has peddled the university agenda for ages and not created viable alternatives.


Yeah well they can kiss my ass. I haven't worked my butt off for 4 years to get an apprenticeship in the end.
Original post by Fadel
Yeah well they can kiss my ass. I haven't worked my butt off for 4 years to get an apprenticeship in the end.


This is why attitudes about apprenticeships need to change. They need to be made more competitive so it's a viable option for school leavers to take. Funny isn't it, 30 years ago Apprenticeships were a lot more normal and accepted.
Original post by 999tigger
Too many . Not a god given right and just the best students from the best schools could go. It would make a degree rarer and worth having. It would also make sure the top 5 were adequately funded. Top 50 way too common. MIght even be better if we went back to just Oxbridge. Imperical could be a technical college and LSE just be able to teach economics to the Chinese.

Everyone who wasnt able to get in should know their place and be made to do apprentichships or work in a shop.

You're clearly so far stuck up your own ass and think you are better than everyone else for saying that.
What's funny is you spelt apprenticeships wrong while trying to be a smartass...
Are you on a phone right now? Who designed it? Who designed the layout of this website? Who cuts your hair? Who built your house? Stop being so ****ing obnoxious towards people that aren't up their ass with the oxford boys
Original post by Llaurenwilsonn
You're clearly so far stuck up your own ass and think you are better than everyone else for saying that.
What's funny is you spelt apprenticeships wrong while trying to be a smartass...
Are you on a phone right now? Who designed it? Who designed the layout of this website? Who cuts your hair? Who built your house? Stop being so ****ing obnoxious towards people that aren't up their ass with the oxford boys


If you bother to read the thread then you will see I was taking the peas and following the idea top its natural conclusion. People seem to want to get rid of things as long as it doesnt affect them. Go and read the thread.
Original post by DraculaMihawk
Well obviously I know what I'm saying is controversial but it's something that needs to be done. It's quite an obvious injustice.

Any of your typical corporate job. A 2:1 is almost a necessity to even put your foot through the door.

Research needs to expand across the gamut. The more universities we have in the top 100, the better. We're slowly losing our position in the world and it's because we have a huge tranche of *****y universities holding us back.

Yet those anecdotes are becoming more and more apparent.

Then what is your solution? Are you just here to complain and attack mine when you have don't have one either? It's a glaring problem in education right now and need to be tough about these things. Like I said yogurt knitting is not the way forward. We need to be direct and harsh to solve these issues.


Bearing in mind the title of this thread wasn't 'What is your solution?' but rather 'Should we' , nonetheless I will engage.

But to preface, I see not a shred evidence to prove that we need more universities in the top 100 and that this requires the dismantling of the lesser ones, so first off my 'solution' would not be centred around obsessing with rankings.
Now it's been mentioned many times in this thread that a lot of these lesser universities have some sort of specialisation or links to nearby industry, as they did before the 1992 act. What happened to these colleges was necessary and in fact one of the best things for social mobility, but maybe it was just a one stop solution.
Besides these yoghurt knitting and david beckham studies courses you keep referring taught and taken up by a laughably small number of people.

If we absolutely had to squeeze out the excess fat as soon as possible then..:I would go ahead with your recommendation elsewhere in the thread of reducing the status of these universities to a similar state to polytechnics and capping the fees, I think this would be useful, instead of just STEM a wider vocational skill set could be employed. This would only apply to universities that already have some kind of specialisation within the region or have ties with industry. Now for the rest of the universities which don't fit this model would be incorporated into the Open University, very popular and useful amongst those studying at their own pace or are purely studying for their own reasons (leisure, interest, soft skills) and not to become another unemployed statistic.

A merger of all apprenticeship schemes and avenues into polytechnic colleges and a ground up restructuring of Britain's attitudes to manufacturing, using these polytechnics to work hand in hand with industry every step of the way, cue the German model but less intensive as they combine vocational and academic at the top level(Finance industry over there follows the same route as well, but we don't need that, universities are well equipped enough here anyway).

Now where we further diverge is that any savings made would not be dumped into top 50 universities but instead fully poured into the schemes I outlined above. It is necessary to maintain a good geographical spread of both vocational and academic places so none of this would require new construction and conversion would be limited.

Regardless of how many conversions occur I would keep at least 70 degree-awarding institutes to remain.
Original post by Fadel
Yeah well they can kiss my ass. I haven't worked my butt off for 4 years to get an apprenticeship in the end.


4 years? GCSEs and A Levels?

Lulz.
Reply 151
Original post by DraculaMihawk
I recognise that some of these institutions have specialties. Thus I recommend them being devolved into separate institutions solely for those departments. Technical colleges need to return, many of these 'universities' essentially are colleges like a prostitute wearing an ugly dress and charging you rocket-high prices for their service.

The fact that it's legally allowed for London Met to charge £9k a year is a crime. And I'm sure there are some exceptions in every poor university, but the majority do degrees in stuff like David Beckham studies and are unemployed or working jobs they could've done without a degree. It's not fair on tax payers to pay for these layabouts.


Did you read anyone elses posts?

You can't just transplant a course, it takes years to network and build relationships with people.
I don't think you've taken into account the other activities that technical universities provide,
Let's say you blow up Solent, you also lose Warsash Maritime Academy which trains ALL of the UKs merchant seamen. What is the value of that to the tax payer? Think about the companies created by universities, Plymouth started a company last year that makes e-learning videos for Sailors, it's ultra successful as there is no competition.

You really show youre naievety commenting as you do, before uni I was a Prison officer and I worked 90 hour weeks in domicile care over the summer, my life experience tells me you are young and disconnected.

It doesn't matter which uni you go to, the basic thought process you are supposed to grasp is:

Facts - Analysis - Conclusion - Recommendation

Your facts are lacking so your analysis is poor and your conclusion and recommendation even worse!

I'm not surprised you want to remain as anonymous as possible.
Reply 152
Original post by DraculaMihawk
This is why attitudes about apprenticeships need to change. They need to be made more competitive so it's a viable option for school leavers to take. Funny isn't it, 30 years ago Apprenticeships were a lot more normal and accepted.


It's not the 'attitutde' its the money, some of these apprentices earn £3 an hour as they are training. Who can live on that? Especially when you take into account that before the apprenticeship existed the company just paid and trained people.
Original post by redplant
Bearing in mind the title of this thread wasn't 'What is your solution?' but rather 'Should we' , nonetheless I will engage.

But to preface, I see not a shred evidence to prove that we need more universities in the top 100 and that this requires the dismantling of the lesser ones, so first off my 'solution' would not be centred around obsessing with rankings.
Now it's been mentioned many times in this thread that a lot of these lesser universities have some sort of specialisation or links to nearby industry, as they did before the 1992 act. What happened to these colleges was necessary and in fact one of the best things for social mobility, but maybe it was just a one stop solution.
Besides these yoghurt knitting and david beckham studies courses you keep referring taught and taken up by a laughably small number of people.

If we absolutely had to squeeze out the excess fat as soon as possible then..:I would go ahead with your recommendation elsewhere in the thread of reducing the status of these universities to a similar state to polytechnics and capping the fees, I think this would be useful, instead of just STEM a wider vocational skill set could be employed. This would only apply to universities that already have some kind of specialisation within the region or have ties with industry. Now for the rest of the universities which don't fit this model would be incorporated into the Open University, very popular and useful amongst those studying at their own pace or are purely studying for their own reasons (leisure, interest, soft skills) and not to become another unemployed statistic.

A merger of all apprenticeship schemes and avenues into polytechnic colleges and a ground up restructuring of Britain's attitudes to manufacturing, using these polytechnics to work hand in hand with industry every step of the way, cue the German model but less intensive as they combine vocational and academic at the top level(Finance industry over there follows the same route as well, but we don't need that, universities are well equipped enough here anyway).

Now where we further diverge is that any savings made would not be dumped into top 50 universities but instead fully poured into the schemes I outlined above. It is necessary to maintain a good geographical spread of both vocational and academic places so none of this would require new construction and conversion would be limited.

Regardless of how many conversions occur I would keep at least 70 degree-awarding institutes to remain.


So we're in agreement, excellent. Blow up the lessor universities, like Canada did to their hospitals, and use the fundings they received to fund other access schemes and universities. Brilliant.
Original post by r4dly
Did you read anyone elses posts?

You can't just transplant a course, it takes years to network and build relationships with people.
I don't think you've taken into account the other activities that technical universities provide,
Let's say you blow up Solent, you also lose Warsash Maritime Academy which trains ALL of the UKs merchant seamen. What is the value of that to the tax payer? Think about the companies created by universities, Plymouth started a company last year that makes e-learning videos for Sailors, it's ultra successful as there is no competition.

You really show youre naievety commenting as you do, before uni I was a Prison officer and I worked 90 hour weeks in domicile care over the summer, my life experience tells me you are young and disconnected.

It doesn't matter which uni you go to, the basic thought process you are supposed to grasp is:

Facts - Analysis - Conclusion - Recommendation

Your facts are lacking so your analysis is poor and your conclusion and recommendation even worse!

I'm not surprised you want to remain as anonymous as possible.


Yes those departments can be transplanted if they are merged with already well established universities. If not keep them as vocational colleges and not universities and bring the fees down for courses like Media and Television studies. Like I said we keep alive the specialist departments that are useful and get rid of the useless courses if we have to.

*Your *Naivety, and cool you were a prison officer, I've been in education my whole life and even tutored fellow students. I know what's it like to be at both sides of the spectrum and I'm going to work in the department of education when I finish university. I will 100% vouch for these ideas to be implemented and fight tooth and nail for it. Too many students feel trapped and are being deceived by these shambolic so called 'universities' with incredible amounts of debt.

Original post by r4dly
It's not the 'attitutde' its the money, some of these apprentices earn £3 an hour as they are training. Who can live on that? Especially when you take into account that before the apprenticeship existed the company just paid and trained people.

Attitude does play a key role. Yes serious reforms need to be made but our government is doing good so far. Law/Accountancy/Civil service apprenticeships are amazing.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 155
Original post by DraculaMihawk
This is why attitudes about apprenticeships need to change. They need to be made more competitive so it's a viable option for school leavers to take. Funny isn't it, 30 years ago Apprenticeships were a lot more normal and accepted.


I'm an international student. I'm not coming to the UK for an apprenticeship. I come to get a proper university degree and start working in the field that I like, in the UK, outside, wherever it is. The only thing holding be back into the Russell group unis are their tution fees. That's why I have to admit into the *****y ones, simply because they're cheaper. I have no other choice. If you can eliminate the backend unis, and make the good ones larger while decreasing the fees to match the *****y ones. But this will never happen.
Reply 156
Original post by yudothis
4 years? GCSEs and A Levels?

Lulz.


Yeah, what's funny? Going to a bloody English private school for 12 years and paying a crapload of money for it.
Original post by DraculaMihawk
This is why attitudes about apprenticeships need to change. They need to be made more competitive so it's a viable option for school leavers to take. Funny isn't it, 30 years ago Apprenticeships were a lot more normal and accepted.


30 years ago. 1986.

Apprenticeships were all but non existent. The 80s were the time of the YTS.

You need to go a LOT further back to a time when apprenticeships were common - and they weren't government subsidised. Private industry cut training I'm not following your logic that cutting opportunities for university based education will somehow revive that route. The current apprenticeship schemes with government subsidies are being used by private businesses to justify crap wages for basic training that they used to provide while paying minimum wage.

If you want UK universities to get into the international top 100 then offering incentives for private business to invest in university based R&D (not massively attractive atm - either businesses don't get to keep the findings to themselves for a competitive advantage or the university doesn't get the publications and credit), increase QR funding substantially and lift international student and academic visas out of the immigration caps.

Shutting down dozens of universities is NOT going to increase the international reputation of UK HE :indiff:
Original post by yudothis
Reduce number of students and you can afford to make university free again.

There are approximately 250,000 students in Scotland, and only 15 universities. This is about 16,500 students per university.

England has about 530,000 students, yet has 108 universities. This equals about 5000 students per university.

And yet Scottish universities are free for Scottish students, and English universities are not.

This is especially disappointing when you consider how much richer England is than Scotland.
Original post by Fadel
I'm an international student. I'm not coming to the UK for an apprenticeship. I come to get a proper university degree and start working in the field that I like, in the UK, outside, wherever it is. The only thing holding be back into the Russell group unis are their tution fees. That's why I have to admit into the *****y ones, simply because they're cheaper. I have no other choice. If you can eliminate the backend unis, and make the good ones larger while decreasing the fees to match the *****y ones. But this will never happen.


Which universities are cheaper? I know there's the very tiny college like institutes which award degrees and are cheaper but the vast majority charge £9000, that includes Russell Group, Redbrick and the ones op wants to take a fat steamy **** on

Quick Reply

Latest