Should ex-polytechnics be renamed or abolished?
Scroll to see replies
Some degrees are purely academic and are read because the person has an interest and wishes to extend their knowledge/understanding of that subject ... an employer will consider these degrees as useful only as an indicator of further study
Some degrees are vocational and are read because of an interest in the subject matter and/or because the student is looking for employment in that area ... an employer will be more interested in the subject content
When we actually had to choose Universities on the Green form and Polytechnics on the Pink form those of us looking at academic degrees (in my case Mathematics) found it easier to find courses for the Green form ... I did not apply to any Polytechnics for this reason. People wanting to study vocational courses (my boyfriend wanted to study Computer Science) had the reverse issue where they could find far more interesting/useful courses at the Polytechnics
Things were easier when different institutions offered different courses ... that is not to say that one is/was better than the other ... just that we knew where we stood
Then edges got blurred ... Universities started to offer vocational courses and Polytechnics started to offer more traditional courses ... the blurring made the edges so soft that having different names became pointless ... and here we are
At the same time, rising unemployment, combined with changes in the education system that focussed on "achievement for all" meant that more people were seeing continued education as a way of postponing the inevitable ... combine this with government policies designed to blur the employment figures ... demand for more places means a further growth in university places ... I live in a town where the new University was not even a Polytechnic
So here we are ... more people with degrees ... some of them traditional and academic ... some of them "traditional" and vocational ... some of them new ... with a varying level of academic rigour involved
These are studied at a variety of institutions ... some with a demanding academic profile ... others less so
So what is the problem
It is not about competition for places ... demand grows to meet need ... I rarely see a student unable to start a degree once they have completed Sixth Form
It is not about cost to the tax payer ... why is it better to provide unemployment benefit and other welfare payments rather than a loan/grant
Is it about the suitability of the provision ... perhaps in some cases an apprenticeship would be better ... if they were given equal status and the provision were more closely monitored then I would agree ... but that could be addressed by ensuring that the degrees improve their provision
Or is it just that we don't want less-academic people having the same letters after their name as we, the "clever" people have ... if that is so then we need to get over ourselves!
Some degrees are vocational and are read because of an interest in the subject matter and/or because the student is looking for employment in that area ... an employer will be more interested in the subject content
When we actually had to choose Universities on the Green form and Polytechnics on the Pink form those of us looking at academic degrees (in my case Mathematics) found it easier to find courses for the Green form ... I did not apply to any Polytechnics for this reason. People wanting to study vocational courses (my boyfriend wanted to study Computer Science) had the reverse issue where they could find far more interesting/useful courses at the Polytechnics
Things were easier when different institutions offered different courses ... that is not to say that one is/was better than the other ... just that we knew where we stood
Then edges got blurred ... Universities started to offer vocational courses and Polytechnics started to offer more traditional courses ... the blurring made the edges so soft that having different names became pointless ... and here we are
At the same time, rising unemployment, combined with changes in the education system that focussed on "achievement for all" meant that more people were seeing continued education as a way of postponing the inevitable ... combine this with government policies designed to blur the employment figures ... demand for more places means a further growth in university places ... I live in a town where the new University was not even a Polytechnic
So here we are ... more people with degrees ... some of them traditional and academic ... some of them "traditional" and vocational ... some of them new ... with a varying level of academic rigour involved
These are studied at a variety of institutions ... some with a demanding academic profile ... others less so
So what is the problem
It is not about competition for places ... demand grows to meet need ... I rarely see a student unable to start a degree once they have completed Sixth Form
It is not about cost to the tax payer ... why is it better to provide unemployment benefit and other welfare payments rather than a loan/grant
Is it about the suitability of the provision ... perhaps in some cases an apprenticeship would be better ... if they were given equal status and the provision were more closely monitored then I would agree ... but that could be addressed by ensuring that the degrees improve their provision
Or is it just that we don't want less-academic people having the same letters after their name as we, the "clever" people have ... if that is so then we need to get over ourselves!
(edited 11 years ago)
I don't agree with some stupid degrees but there's plenty of ex-polytechnics which have industry focused degrees.
Original post by Blake-inator
The way I see it is that too many people are going to University, so there are three ways of stopping this:
1) Get rid of ex-polytechnics
2) Get rid of non-academic degrees
3) Raise tuition fees considerably
1) Get rid of ex-polytechnics
2) Get rid of non-academic degrees
3) Raise tuition fees considerably
1) Why ex-polys specifically? Not all so-called "lesser" universities are ex-polytechnics, why should they stay over some arguably better ex-polys, and where would it end? If you're going by league tables, your argument is already flawed. Lots of ex-polys have strong industry links and have much less funding than RG universities, so it's hardly surprising they aren't producing groundbreaking discoveries - they just don't have the money.
2) Depends on what you mean by non-academic - nursing, architecture and engineering are vocational, as is medicine - should universities cut these courses? I don't think that would work.
3) And make university for the rich and leave those from working class backgrounds out? Plenty of people are intelligent but don't have the funds to afford to go to university without support, and it's not like it's easy to just get a low paid job and save up.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by SpicyStrawberry
1) Why ex-polys specifically? Not all so-called "lesser" universities are ex-polytechnics, why should they stay over some arguably better ex-polys, and where would it end? If you're going by league tables, your argument is already flawed. Lots of ex-polys have strong industry links and have much less funding than RG universities, so it's hardly surprising they aren't producing groundbreaking discoveries - they just don't have the money.
2) Depends on what you mean by non-academic - nursing is vocational, as is medicine - should universities cut these courses? I don't think that would work.
3) And make university for the rich and leave those from working class backgrounds out? Plenty of people are intelligent but don't have the funds to afford to go to university without support, and it's not like it's easy to just get a low paid job and save up.
2) Depends on what you mean by non-academic - nursing is vocational, as is medicine - should universities cut these courses? I don't think that would work.
3) And make university for the rich and leave those from working class backgrounds out? Plenty of people are intelligent but don't have the funds to afford to go to university without support, and it's not like it's easy to just get a low paid job and save up.
1) If they don't have enough money, they should give what little they do have to the better Universities.
2) Yes, i think they should cut these courses. They should be done elsewhere, and not in universities. And by saying this, it does not mean that i think they are worthless (arguably they have more value), but they shouldnt be at universities. And if you are poor, then you would really have to decide if you think it's right for you.
3) Such a thing as a student loan? But you should be forced into paying earlier if you don't get a high paid job, or do a job for free set by the Government.
Obviously I know that these options aren't amazing, but we have to do something. Any other alternatives are welcome...
Original post by Blake-inator
1) If they don't have enough money, they should give what little they do have to the better Universities.
2) Yes, i think they should cut these courses. They should be done elsewhere, and not in universities. And by saying this, it does not mean that i think they are worthless (arguably they have more value), but they shouldnt be at universities. And if you are poor, then you would really have to decide if you think it's right for you.
3) Such a thing as a student loan? But you should be forced into paying earlier if you don't get a high paid job, or do a job for free set by the Government.
Obviously I know that these options aren't amazing, but we have to do something. Any other alternatives are welcome...
2) Yes, i think they should cut these courses. They should be done elsewhere, and not in universities. And by saying this, it does not mean that i think they are worthless (arguably they have more value), but they shouldnt be at universities. And if you are poor, then you would really have to decide if you think it's right for you.
3) Such a thing as a student loan? But you should be forced into paying earlier if you don't get a high paid job, or do a job for free set by the Government.
Obviously I know that these options aren't amazing, but we have to do something. Any other alternatives are welcome...
You think medicine and nursing and other subjects allied to medicine as well as professional engineering courses shouldn't be taught at university? Where do you suggest they will get the equipment and resources required to be taught properly, the local sixth form college? You can't let first year medical students loose on a ward with no training, so I don't know how you expect to work around that.
Ex-polys have adequate funding, just not for research. Why should they give money to other universities that are already rolling in it?
Raising tuition fees won't solve the problem then if you're just going to go down the student loan route, I thought you were implying that by raising the fees people would have to find the money themselves. The rates of repayment are so low I doubt it would put many more off once they think it through, they will just need to consider how worthwhile the course is to them a little more. I don't think enough support is provided to students thinking about university, it's just assumed that you will go after college and you're forced into setting up a UCAS account - this needs to change, but closing down ex-polys and raising tuition fees even more isn't the answer.
I don't know that they should be renamed except given their old names back. And I wonder why they didn't hold onto them in the first place, changing the name when allowed to was a de facto admitting of perceived lower status. But some of those names were magnificent: The Royal Polytechnic Institute.
Some of the very best European universities are styled as Polytechnics. But there is in their countries a better regard for the subjects polytechnics were designed to teach.
Some of the very best European universities are styled as Polytechnics. But there is in their countries a better regard for the subjects polytechnics were designed to teach.
Original post by SpicyStrawberry
Ex-polys have adequate funding, just not for research. Why should they give money to other universities that are already rolling in it?
Ex-polys have adequate funding, just not for research. Why should they give money to other universities that are already rolling in it?
They might as well give it to other universities considering they won't need it when they are closed down....
Original post by Blake-inator
They might as well give it to other universities considering they won't need it when they are closed down....
There are no plans to close them down, doing that would ruin the economy. You have no idea what you're talking about, sorry to break it to you.
Original post by SpicyStrawberry
There are no plans to close them down, doing that would ruin the economy. You have no idea what you're talking about, sorry to break it to you.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but i do.....
I know more than you think
Original post by Blake-inator
I'm sorry to break it to you, but i do.....
I know more than you think
I know more than you think
You're 15 years old, so I'll reiterate: you have no idea what you're talking about.
Original post by SpicyStrawberry
You're 15 years old, so I'll reiterate: you have no idea what you're talking about.
Age is no guarantee of wisdom...
Original post by Blake-inator
Age is no guarantee of wisdom...
At least you know not to hold your breath :P
i feel that many of us who have the honour of studying at traditional universities fear the fierce competition some of the ex-poly universities provide. your university is not indicative of your level of intelligence, and even less so concerning your work ethic. a motivated, hard-working student from an ex-poly university may be more attractive for a certain employer than a run-of-the-mill Russell Group university graduate. and if it's rankings or research you're considering, just look at institutions like Oxford Brookes University that have developed to compete and often outplay the traditional giants in some fields.
(edited 9 years ago)
The university I'm going to has only been a 'university' since 2005.
I'm going to study primary education and train to be a teacher. It has been a teaching college since the 1830s, so I'm not fussed about it's past name. To be a teacher, you need a degree, which you earn through a university.
I'm going to study primary education and train to be a teacher. It has been a teaching college since the 1830s, so I'm not fussed about it's past name. To be a teacher, you need a degree, which you earn through a university.
Personally I think a more valuable step would be the creation of national degree standards to stop the term being devalued. As it is, the vast majority of people come out with one of three or four grades at the end of their degree, which are named the same no matter what subject or institution they've studied for/at. This creates the impression of equal value between all 2:1s, for example, when in reality different levels of skill, effort and aptitude may be required in different places. This then limits the usefulness of a classification as opposed to a pass/fail system (like in Medicine) - the point of this is surely to provide employers with some suggestion as to the competency of a job applicant.
Obviously it'd cost a lot of money, but I think it would be worth it in the long run to establish some kind of central exam board/evaluation body for university courses. It might not be feasible to have the same exams taught everywhere (as unis often pride themselves on the specific content of their course) but I imagine it would certainly be possible to have some form of evaluatory system to better reflect the value of a particular degree. For example, if the number of possible classifications were to be extended to eight, you could say that (what would previously have been) a First in Law from Oxford would be equivalent to a '1' classification, but the best you can achieve from a law course at Bolton would be a '3' (or something like that).
Obviously at first this would be controversial, and doubtless institutions would complain about the grading of their courses, but I think in the long run it would both a) make degree results more useful to employers, and b) encourage universities to improve their standard of teaching so that their exam standards can be raised.
Obviously it'd cost a lot of money, but I think it would be worth it in the long run to establish some kind of central exam board/evaluation body for university courses. It might not be feasible to have the same exams taught everywhere (as unis often pride themselves on the specific content of their course) but I imagine it would certainly be possible to have some form of evaluatory system to better reflect the value of a particular degree. For example, if the number of possible classifications were to be extended to eight, you could say that (what would previously have been) a First in Law from Oxford would be equivalent to a '1' classification, but the best you can achieve from a law course at Bolton would be a '3' (or something like that).
Obviously at first this would be controversial, and doubtless institutions would complain about the grading of their courses, but I think in the long run it would both a) make degree results more useful to employers, and b) encourage universities to improve their standard of teaching so that their exam standards can be raised.
No they shouldn't, most of the degrees offered aren't worthless.
Original post by tjf8
Not quite:
Apprenticeships are not the same as high level vocational training. You can't learn everything on day release.
Original post by tjf8
How much you need to learn.
Quantity over quality, eh? Is how much you have to cram your head full of information the key measure of how good an academic subject is?
Original post by Theflyingbarney
Personally I think a more valuable step would be the creation of national degree standards to stop the term being devalued. As it is, the vast majority of people come out with one of three or four grades at the end of their degree, which are named the same no matter what subject or institution they've studied for/at. This creates the impression of equal value between all 2:1s, for example, when in reality different levels of skill, effort and aptitude may be required in different places. This then limits the usefulness of a classification as opposed to a pass/fail system (like in Medicine) - the point of this is surely to provide employers with some suggestion as to the competency of a job applicant.
Obviously it'd cost a lot of money, but I think it would be worth it in the long run to establish some kind of central exam board/evaluation body for university courses. It might not be feasible to have the same exams taught everywhere (as unis often pride themselves on the specific content of their course) but I imagine it would certainly be possible to have some form of evaluatory system to better reflect the value of a particular degree. For example, if the number of possible classifications were to be extended to eight, you could say that (what would previously have been) a First in Law from Oxford would be equivalent to a '1' classification, but the best you can achieve from a law course at Bolton would be a '3' (or something like that).
Obviously at first this would be controversial, and doubtless institutions would complain about the grading of their courses, but I think in the long run it would both a) make degree results more useful to employers, and b) encourage universities to improve their standard of teaching so that their exam standards can be raised.
Obviously it'd cost a lot of money, but I think it would be worth it in the long run to establish some kind of central exam board/evaluation body for university courses. It might not be feasible to have the same exams taught everywhere (as unis often pride themselves on the specific content of their course) but I imagine it would certainly be possible to have some form of evaluatory system to better reflect the value of a particular degree. For example, if the number of possible classifications were to be extended to eight, you could say that (what would previously have been) a First in Law from Oxford would be equivalent to a '1' classification, but the best you can achieve from a law course at Bolton would be a '3' (or something like that).
Obviously at first this would be controversial, and doubtless institutions would complain about the grading of their courses, but I think in the long run it would both a) make degree results more useful to employers, and b) encourage universities to improve their standard of teaching so that their exam standards can be raised.
What is amazing is that many subjects studied in polytechnics had nationalised standards monitored through professional bodies. All of which was pretty much abolished through successive Tory education reforms.
An example I know of well was the Royal Institute of Chemistry (now part of the RSC) graduateship exams. Anyone studying chemistry at a polytechnic would have to sit these exams to get their degree (actually a graduateship of the RIC) and they were renowned throughout the world for their rigour and difficulty ensuring a very high standard of vocationally trained chemists for industry. Of course this all came to an end in the early 90's as polytechnics no longer required the external validation and were allowed to apply their own standards. The same is true across many fields.
tl;dr: We used to have all this for vocational education and it was abolished by previous governments.
Original post by bestofyou
Just to point out, the university of Hull was never a polytechnic - it was established in 1927. You may be confusing it with Humberside polytechnic which used to occupy the site next to Hull University but was actually part of what is now Lincoln University.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Are any London Universities ex-polys?
- Why are polytechnic universitys seen as bad?
- Oxford Brookes vs. Anglia Ruskin Uni
- which unis to apply to
- Why is it still looked down upon to attend an ex polytechnic university
- Is leicester a good uni?
- University of Hertfordshire vs University of Greenwich?
- Manchest Met Uni or Oxford brooks
- Durham or St Andrews?
- Unethical American Surveillance Recently,
- Is reading university good for law
- Confused about uni for employability
- Sheffield Hallam or Sheffield University
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- How is Brunel for physiotherapy?
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Fire Work
- Surrey Vs Reading
- Should the royal family exist?
- Do they make lower offers if they really want you?
- Error carried forward (ecf)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
