Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMonarchist)
    It would be better to shut down all these arts and humanities courses
    most sensible thing on this thread tbh
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    But I go to a university outside the top 40......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMonarchist)
    It would be better to shut down all these arts and humanities courses
    Rubbish. The humanities degrees allow us to have a good understanding of societies and helps us think critically. After all, we still need lawyers, teachers, politicians, charity organizers, museum staff, professors, policy makers etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Pretty sound argument, you'd be a real electorate pleaser if you ever get in to politics my friend
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Many people on this website need to wake the **** up. University rankings don't mean nearly as much as you think they do CAPICHE?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    As much as I'm against the concept of the thread, the above is no argument. The jobs market is messed up partly because there are so many graduates. There are many jobs now you have to be a graduate to get, but for no reason.
    How many graduates out there go into jobs not even remotely aligned with their degrees? There are jobs out there which don't require specialist training, don't require pre-employment knowledge and don't require you to be an expert in the field. Yet they do require you to be a graduate. Why?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    As much as I'm against the concept of the thread, the above is no argument. The jobs market is messed up partly because there are so many graduates. There are many jobs now you have to be a graduate to get, but for no reason.
    How many graduates out there go into jobs not even remotely aligned with their degrees? There are jobs out there which don't require specialist training, don't require pre-employment knowledge and don't require you to be an expert in the field. Yet they do require you to be a graduate. Why?
    I'm not saying it's a good thing. But I already explained this reasoning in another post - as long as there are lots of people with degrees in the jobs market the requirement for a degree will remain, so for however long that takes you'll have a load of perfectly capable people ruled out of jobs that they could potentially do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You speak the truth brother. Infact, I think there should only be the TOP TEN universities i.e.
    Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE and then a few other ones which are not as good but still better than, say, London Met.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I really disagree with you! I'm have applied to study Primary Education and the best courses for this are often provided by universities way below the top 40! If you got rid of all of these universities, future teachers wouldn't receive the best possible training which would put children at a major disadvantage!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that there are too many universities in this country, but closing down about two thirds of them based on (highly variable) league tables is a ludicrous idea. A more plausible idea would be to limit/withdraw funding from universities which fail to meet a minimum standard in terms of certain criteria, such as graduate employment rate, student satisfaction, upper class degree percentage etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The cost problem would more easily be solved if universities stopped offering pointless and fatuous degree courses. Strip it back to the core subjects, accept the cream of the applicants, and university will stop being the norm and resume its status as the option for people who want to learn.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TooIntelligent)
    You speak the truth brother. Infact, I think there should only be the TOP TEN universities i.e.
    Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE and then a few other ones which are not as good but still better than, say, London Met.
    I think you should be gotten rid of tbh.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is, as others have pointed out, what league tables. Also when. There are many different league tables and whilst most are broadly similar, there will be differences that will make a difference to which are in and aren't in the top 40.

    Also, league tables change over time. A University might for some reason drop out the top 40 having been in there for a long time, wheras another might slip in, and in both cases it might be just for one year.

    Ok, both could be helped by averaging positions across a number of tables and over a certain time. Even that's not perfect. Tables use different things and different weightings to come up with rankings. A University might be just out of the top 40 on average across a number of tables, but the one table that puts it just in the top 40 (perhaps even at 40th place) is somewhat more respected than the others. Averaging over time leads to issues where a University is rising or falling. If done over 10 years for example, one might on average be just inside the top 40, but it's been falling throughout the 10 years and has spent the last few years below the top 40 and falling. On the other hand another might on average be in 41st place, but have been gradually climbing and consistantly in the top 40 for the last few years. There are also subjective issues such as if history or current performance are most important. Bear in mind there are Russel Groups who are in the 30s and former Polytechnics in the 40s, and the Plate Glass Unis are spread quite well throughout the rankings.

    There is also the issue that Universities might rank poorly overall but excel in certain fields.

    Another issue is choice. It's already been pointed out that certain parts of the country would loose more Universities than others. Other places might have only very high ranking and competative Universities. Not everyone goes to the highest ranked University that will take them. This could have a big impact on those who wished to stay closer to home for whatever reason.

    Also, how would closures take place. What about students already on courses? If you stopped new applications and then closed down after the last students had graduated, how would you handle the fact that towards the end the University would have less than 1/4 of it's students, yet would still need the same staff and facilities to provide the level of education they signed up for? Or would you just close down there and then, write off their student loans and tell them to get a job as they are clearly not good enough for further education (and if they think they are, they can apply again at the 40 open Unis).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No you clearly can't implement this. Although it is absolutely scandalous how some of these old poly-technics offer piss-poor quality courses in prosperous career-orientated degrees such as Law and Banking, regardless of the fact that any student who went there wouldn't have a hope of entering into those professions giving them a false hope. These so called universities do this so they can rake in the cash to fund their useless institutions.

    I think there should defintely be some regulation or maybe some kind of Ofsted style inspection so some of these rubbish places have an incentive to either improve or be closed down.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Why do people assume that if you go to a low-ranking university, you're automatically doomed to a life of unemployment and struggle? :rolleyes:

    I'm pretty sure I've heard of people graduating from Oxford and ending up unemployed or working in a shop. Yes they went to an excellent university, but they lack social and workplace skills and experience which many people who go to lower-ranking universities possess.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'd agree with shutting some unis down, not everything under top 40 though. And definitely get rid of pointless degrees.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Although I agree that something like this should be done there are quite a few limitations with this kind of idea.

    Firstly, how do you define the top 40? They vary depending on subject, and although you will have Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL et al constantly in that top 40 there are other universities which are very good for some degrees but less reputable for others.

    I will illustrate the second point using an example. My father went to Birmingham Poly, but got a 1st in law and is now head of legal in a large company. Birmingham Poly was no where near the top 40 but he still got a 1st and is very clever. A-levels it would therefore seem are not the be-all-or-end-all when it comes to deciding intelligence. This point is somewhat limited by the fact that my father is, most likely, an anomaly.

    So what I think should be done instead of culling a lot of the universities is to have a table for every subject. And the top, say 20, of those universities can continue that course. If the university does not fit that criteria then it closes that course. The top universities then have the government resources freed to have some more places but it is still ultimately the case that the top students for that subject go on to read it.

    Although Labour, and other left wing groups and thinkers will probably hate that idea it does not necessarily mean that only the grammar school and public school students can go up to university. It simply means that the best students go up to university. And so we stop undervaluing degrees.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMonarchist)
    It would be better to shut down all these arts and humanities courses
    Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be arts and humanities?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    First point: there are Oxbridge graduates out there, who are unemployed.
    Secondly: not everyone gets a 2:1 or a first in a Russell Group university. Effectively, you could argue by your thesis that they shouldn't have gone to University?
    Thirdly: If you want to decrease tuition costs, then simply reduce how much universities can give away in grants. Anglia Ruskin students receive something like £300 a semester/year and I've been lead to believe that, this wasn't based on household earnings, etc (however, I am not 100% certain on this).
    A friend of mine currently goes to Leeds Met and he receives £800 a semester, simply because his mum is a single parent. Even though, his father pays for 50% of all household expenditure and my friend budgets well on his maintenance grant/loan from student finance, thus not receiving a single penny from his family.
    That £800, might I just add is to go to America for a month for work experience during the summer.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm an ABB student and I have no other choice but to go to a uni that isn't in the top 40 because they dont do my course. The Russell group unis don't do the in demand vocational courses which today are very much appreciated by employers. You often see threads on here where people from 'good' universities cannot get jobs. It disgusts me how people look down on people who go to universities which aren't in the top 40.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.