This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

All universities below the top 40 should be shut

Surely the costs would increase anyway, if there were less universities, less money for the government so they up the fees..

Reply 81

Selym95

15

How would one go about distinguishing the top 40? Surely, at a certain point, one would find a plateau where the remaining universities are very, very similar.

Reply 82

ilickbatteries

15

Original post by Emre944

May I ask what degree you have?

Sociology.

It has no use. I was duped into thinking university would be a path to a more prosperous life, because that's what we were told all the time at school and at college. Go to university, graduates earn more money and have good jobs.

That is to a certain extent, true. If you do a degree that has use in the job market, or a degree that leads to a professional qualification, like medicine, law, pharmacy, engineering, architecture, etc.

People who don't go to university are, IMO, looked upon as failures by some. University is not the be all and end all, nor should it be. It should be a career route for the seriously academically gifted, not for every Tom, Dick and Harry who scrapes together 260 UCAS points because even though academics just isn't their thing, they have to go to university.

Reply 83

AspiringGenius

15

Original post by TheGuy117

UCL needs to be shut down, the godless scum across the river!!!!! It's a disgrace that they are allowed to remain open.

lol what uni do you go ot?

Reply 84

ilickbatteries

15

Original post by Albino

Surely the costs would increase anyway, if there were less universities, less money for the government so they up the fees..

Excuse my ignorance, but I don't follow.

The government seriously props up a lot of universities with grants.

What money does the government make from having universities? Tax income from students?

No. Simply

Original post by JOR2010

Well your grades are clearly awful. Must be the worst of the Russell group universities..

Posted from TSR Mobile

Im sorry but where do you go? Or have you not finished your gcses yet?

Reply 87

sophiech

This is such a stupid thread.

I think it's great that the UK has so many universities - no, not all of them are regarded as "great" and some are lower down in the league tables, but quite often the metropolitan universities and former polytechnics specialise in industry subjects which are ridiculously important in society and for our economy. Just because these universities may not be as good at teaching more academic subjects such as Law, Medicine etc. as Oxbridge/Russell Group unis does not mean they are useless.

Reply 88

Jack93o

15

looks like someone forgot to check their privilege

Reply 89

evantej

18

Original post by TobaccoSmoke

If only the top 40 best universities remained open that means only the most academically able applicants would ever get a place and the cost to the tax payer would be far less to run the universities.

Also, with far less universities, the UK might be able to reinstate free tuition.

The government spends barely anything on universities (less than 2% of its annual budget) so the taxpayer argument is almost irrelevant. Likewise, it was a political choice to introduce variable tuition fees, not a financial one. There are lots of countries which have a larger percentage of students in higher education, yet charge no or less tuitions to their students.

I would love to see you create a metric to establish the best 40 universities. Of course, real life does not work like that. For starters. you have specialist research institutes which are world leading (e.g. Institute of Education). You would struggle to include all them plus all the other general universities which I imagine you would want to include. Then you have to factor in that not all prestigious universities actually teach useful courses. For example, with the exception of doctors, the majority of other healthcare professionals are taught in less prestigious universities. The same goes for social workers and teachers.

Heck, even academic life does not work like. There are lots of prestigious universities which are not actually that great when you put things down on paper. Durham's English department is worse than Newcastle's. But the former has higher entry requirements.

Reply 90

Hanshen

8

What an absolute load of *******s. I agree the educational goals set down in 1997 (ie. 50% of school leavers in higher education) were unrealistic in light of the recession but the logic behind such a drive for education is entirely justifiable. Not only for reasons of social enlightenment, but also because at the time the knowledge economy was the driving force of the UK economy. The tertiary and quaternary sectors still provide a great deal of growth in the skilled jobs market, and maintain a high demand for graduates.

As an organisational analyst i would advocate the introduction of a graduate tax. From a behavioural economics perspective that would be the best way to both encourage social mobility whilst putting pressure on universities to compete for those students who still wish to attend university. Realistically if we close universities there will be a significant impact upon social mobility, and if you do that 'you're gonna have a bad time'.

Oh, and before people start whining that I obviously went to a subjectively 'lower tier' university. I've attended 3 of the world's best universities, including 2 in the top 10 globally, so guess again. I'm just not a complete ******** who believes that we should close the opportunity of higher education to those who have lower levels of educational attainment (which in itself is typically a byproduct of lower social capital that can only really be improved by promoting education and getting people the jobs they deserve!).

A simplified response, but meh.

Reply 91

scrotgrot

16

Original post by Theflyingbarney

Just because somebody earns a degree from a less reputable institution it doesn't mean that what they've learnt is of no value, just that it's less impressive than that from a more reputable one. By closing all unis except the top 40 you'll be stranding everybody with less than roughly ABB at A-level with no option to gain any higher qualification than that, and no opportunity to do any specialised course. Plus, it'd be disastrous for the graduate jobs market, and massively increase unemployment. Yes, university costs a lot for the country to run but it's a lot cheaper than having a shortage of graduates and loads of extra unemployed/underemployed people sitting around.

Oh, do come on, as soon as it happened the same businesses that hire university students from outside the top 40 would start hiring A-level students. Do you really think businesses think academia teaches students essential skills for the world of work? If anything, capitalists probably see universities as dangerous places of self-expression and would rather poach the kids young and mould them into subservient workers.

Reply 92

im so academic

15

Original post by TobaccoSmoke

If only the top 40 best universities remained open that means only the most academically able applicants would ever get a place and the cost to the tax payer would be far less to run the universities.

Also, with far less universities, the UK might be able to reinstate free tuition.

Yep. Let's be honest, the most crap "universities" of the country are just gateways for unwanted immigration e.g. London Met. Good call.

Reply 93

im so academic

15

Original post by Popppppy

I know you're trolling but

a) Why should people be forced to study in another country (ROI)?
b) What about people who can't afford the ferry? Or have unwell family members they need to care for? Or simply don't want to live away from home?
c) Northern Irish hospitals would have no trainee doctors or nurses, how would they cope?

Queen's Belfast should be kept imo.

Reply 94

Black Cat

20

League tables are completely inaccurate most of the "Top Universities" are solely on the list because of popularity. If you check unistat you could actually determine the success of each university and their course because a survey is given each year to graduates. These graduates are directly accessed from the gov unistat student satisfactory survey which basically asks them what they find good about the uni and their course. At the end these surveys display the actual success rates given by students.

Some of the best courses are available to lower ranking universities should they be removed just because of the fact they are less than the top 40 on the league table? No that would be absurd. Former polytechnic universities were popular because of their vocational courses and technical approach they still do to this day provide some of the best teaching available at any given university. I am proud of myself of being able to go university it was a life long goal of mine nobody would be able to make me feel bad solely because im attending a university which isn't so called prestigious or part of russell group.

I would highly recommend anyone to read this article
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/University_League_Tables_-_A_Users_Guide

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 95

Sgany

12

Original post by Popppppy

Going by the Guardian's league table this would result in closing down both universities in Northern Ireland, meaning those who don't want to/can't afford to travel across to England/Wales/Scotland cannot access higher education.

Where would Northern Ireland get Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Engineers, any graduates for that matter?

Queens would be in the top 40, no? Ulster I am not too sure of its position.

Stupid idea, would not work.

Reply 96

Jordan.G

2

Original post by TobaccoSmoke

If only the top 40 best universities remained open that means only the most academically able applicants would ever get a place and the cost to the tax payer would be far less to run the universities.

Also, with far less universities, the UK might be able to reinstate free tuition.

Probably the most ignorant viewpoint on this website.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 97

evantej

18

Original post by ilickbatteries

Excuse my ignorance, but I don't follow.

The government seriously props up a lot of universities with grants.

What money does the government make from having universities? Tax income from students?

I believe economists call it the multiplier effect. The government invests x amount and gets x+y in return (to put it simply). In the case of universities, they immediately see money returned through income tax and national insurance from staff. They get better staff working for them which reduces expenditure and increases income. They also increase the productivity in the private sector through better staff and opening up new areas of investment. For instance, it was the Soviet government which put the first satellite into space. But now private companies can afford to do it. If they were left to their own devices the advance would never have been made on a cost-benefit analysis.

Your vocational idea above is a perfect example of the problem. Yes, the individual plumber might have a good salary. But their multiplier effect is weak. The plumber does not actually generate any positive effect from their work. They are simply returning things to an equilibrium. A university-educated engineer, on the other hand, might create a more efficient central heating system which will save everyone across the planet money. Plus they create demand for semi-skilled plumbers who merely learn how to fix a small part of the system.

For what it is worth, the government does not 'seriously prop up a lot of universities with grants'. (See my comment above for starters). On a very basic level, they merely act as a creditor to allow students to study in the first place (i.e. they loan students money to pay universities), and of course they make interest on these loans that are repaid so they are hardly selfless.

Reply 98

fipapst

Original post by TobaccoSmoke

If only the top 40 best universities remained open that means only the most academically able applicants would ever get a place and the cost to the tax payer would be far less to run the universities.

Also, with far less universities, the UK might be able to reinstate free tuition.

Utopia it's a great place actually.

Reply 99

username306617

14

Original post by Sgany

Queens would be in the top 40, no? Ulster I am not too sure of its position.

Stupid idea, would not work.

It's normally in the mid 30s but this year the Guardian has it in 50th place.

Ulster is mid 60s according to the Guardian.

Not that I give much weight to newspaper league tables, Queens is clearly a very good university, and Ulster has its strengths too.

All universities below the top 40 should be shut

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you