Should ex-polytechnics be renamed or abolished?

I don't know what's more shameful, that I actually googled Carpet Studies, or that fact that it exists ...

But you didn't mention where it exists.

http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/staff/iw/jthompson.html

Putting in bold as people don't seem to realise this: -

David Beckham studies does not, and never did, exist as a degree.

If either of you can find me a David Beckham studies degree, or even a module in a degree called "David Beckham studies", I will retract this.

What you are likely referring to is a single 12 week module offered by Staffordshire university. It was offered to those studying sociology, media studies and sport science, and examined the rise of football from its beginnings to the major sport and the major place it now holds in modern British society. Being a major footballing icon of the late 90s and early 00s (the course was first announced in 2000) David Beckham was used as a case study, but so too were other footballers.

This is no more "mickey mouse" than a number of other modules I can name that are seen in humanities and social science at a range of universities, including some of our leading institutions.

Engineering? Surveying? Architecture? Law? Medicine? Town Planning? Nursing? Occupational Therapy? Speech and Language Therapy?

What vocational courses, and why shouldn't they be taught at universities?

Yes, but one does learn in a vocational degree. Vocational degrees have been offered since the Ancients. Some of the oldest universities in Europe were established to provide what was largely a vocational education.

I don't have a problem with people being given the opportunity to attend university, whatever their qualifications may have been at the time of entry. Employers know what they want; they know what the best universities in the country are and they also know the relative worth of 2:1 from Durham and a first from UWS.

If people want to read Carpet Studies, let them. I don't see the point but that's not for me to decide. Many of the degrees taught at universities (even the elite) aren't particularly arming you for work either, classical studies and humanities certainly broaden your mind but how these skills transfer to the work place is highly debatable. Universities are about more than just allowing people to apply for "graduate" jobs, they are about learning for the sake of learning. If you have a passion and you wish to follow it then you should be able to do so, whether that should be at the taxpayer's expense I don't know.

If you're worried about your degrees worth then you need to reconsider why you're going to university in the first place. Some degrees won't make you more employable and it shouldn't be expected that they should. If you want employability then pick a field with a high employment rate e.g. medicine, engineering or anything vocational.

I totally agree with everything you've said mate.


TBH, the more people that do Carpet Studies, the better off I am!

My source for that was uncited, and it appears that that is indeed what it was talking about. However, despite your explanation of what this module entails, for me, taxpayers' money should not be spent on funding such a course. Why do we need people to learn about footballers at university?

Law, medecine, engineering etc. are among the vocational courses that require an amount of academic study that warrants a dedicated degree course. Nursing does not, neither does hair dressing, and neither do many more vocational courses on offer at universities in the UK.

I totally agree with everything you've said mate.


TBH, the more people that do Carpet Studies, the better off I am!

Of course they should really do it at Harris Manchester College.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Harris,_Baron_Harris_of_Peckham

http://www.hmc.ox.ac.uk/pages/default.asp?id=1&sID=174&cP=343

Pretty much. I'm certainly not worried about competing with people who read Carpet Studies for 3 years.

It's good you aren't, as it doesn't exist either.

Why not?

It isn't "learning about footballers" as such, it is studying the social phenomenon that football has become, and is/was only a short module. It's an area of genuine academic research which is why the module was created in the first place. In my opinion it is no less deserving of academic attention than many other things studied in sociology degrees at leading universities, from Comte to Harry Potter.

Nursing has seen significant changes in the last generation and nurses are performing increasingly complex roles. Being part of a health care team, they can be involved in diagnosis and treatment management. They therefore require knowledge of areas such as pharmacology.

Would you therefore put Occupational Therapy, Speech and Language Therapy, or other subjects allied to medicine (that are vocational) alongside nursing and other subjects that are not "academic enough"?

Out of interest, why do you feel you are so knowledgeable about these courses and careers?

Why do we need people to learn about footballers at university?

Law, medecine, engineering etc. are among the vocational courses that require an amount of academic study that warrants a dedicated degree course. Nursing does not, neither does hair dressing, and neither do many more vocational courses on offer at universities in the UK.

I have no problem with institutions founded for the purpose of providing a vocational education. I think universities should not offer the less complex and academically demanding of them among their many courses. Let's have specific institutions that teach people the skills they need for less demanding (both intellectually and on resources).

For the sake of brevity I have been leaving out "in my opinion" at the start of each sentence – I would not claim to be knowledgeable about each of these courses in particular. I am assuming that there are vocational degrees that require less intensive study than medecine, law and engineering. Would you put these degrees associated with medecine on the same level as a medecine degree with regard to intensity of study? Cuts have to be made somewhere, and as I've said, for me, rather than putting costs up for everyone, we should encourage people who could possibly go elsewhere for the training they need to do so.

I agree that having technical institutions is better, but because we can achieve excellence in those areas not as, I suspect you think, some kind of gulag where we can separate the stupid lower class from the elite.

In my opinion, the government should... build better apprenticeship schemes that are more intensive and efficient for giving people the skills they need to go into the workplace.

Your point? My "bull**** worthless ex-poly degree" helped me bag a job with arguably the top company in my industry

Please define what you mean by 'intensity' of study.

No. This purist, elitist view as what qualifies as academia should be abolished, frankly. Ex-polys conduct a lot of research. What's devalued degrees is the notion that more and more people should go to university and do oversubscribed courses where the career prospects are very poor, not the fact that polytechnics were given university status.