Should we get rid of weaker universities?

    Offline

    3
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Lol, what about those of us who are going to uni but don't have A-levels?
    No idea, ask the babylad person who posted it.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    No idea, ask the babylad person who posted it.
    I guess we're some kind of mutant outcasts. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:


    another video of a student exposing how these *****y universities con vulnerable students. it sickens me
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I guess we're some kind of mutant outcasts. :rolleyes:
    I hardly think you need to be worried. I just dislike elitists who dont mind denying others the opportunity they themselves enjoy and telling them wahts good for them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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:



    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.
    Sorry but I think this idea is full of flaws! not to mention very disrespectful to those 'weak' universities and the students who attend them.

    1. How do you define a 'weak' university?

    Some universities specialise in different fields and when it comes to subjects the university deemed to be lower does better than the higher university. Russell Groups may be old and prestigious but they aren't the best for every subject!
    All universities who are seen as 'weaker' do their best to provide the best like the top universities!

    2. According to what rankings would the top 50 be set at?

    There are so many, Good University Guide, Sunday Times, The Guardian and etc. The disparity of the rankings are immensely different. They have different methods of measuring in order to rank universities. One uni ranked at 20 could be 75 in another, so what one will you choose?

    PLUS WHAT ABOUT THE UNIS THAT ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE RANKINGS?!

    3. Entry requirements...does everyone make the grade? or do some get below and still welcomed in?

    Some people with who you claim have grades and they are in KFC might still have the privilege to go into a university because they want to progress themselves academically. Furthermore, you have no idea how they obtained what you view to be lower grades e.g. illness, issues at home, fatalities.
    Think anyone who wants attend university should be able to as long as they worked hard to be their, even if the grades aren't the best. Work ethic above anything should be recognised. yes they may of had CCEE but they had a passion for wanting to go...why stop them? There is a university who will accept that student!

    4. Do you know the real reason why that student chose to attend that university?

    Obviously not because you have no idea why. It could be because of distance, facilities, environment, employment opportunities, student satisfaction, personal situation at home...the list goes on.

    There are so many others to point out...but you haven't thought this idea through. Clearly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kattah96)
    Sorry but I think this idea is full of flaws! not to mention very disrespectful to those 'weak' universities and the students who attend them.

    1. How do you define a 'weak' university?

    Some universities specialise in different fields and when it comes to subjects the university deemed to be lower does better than the higher university. Russell Groups may be old and prestigious but they aren't the best for every subject!

    2. According to what rankings would the top 50 be set at?

    There are so many, Good University Guide, Sunday Times, The Guardian and etc. The disparity of the rankings are immensely different. They have different methods of measuring in order to rank universities. One uni ranked at 20 could be 75 in another, so what one will you choose?

    PLUS WHAT ABOUT THE UNIS THAT ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE RANKINGS?!

    3. Entry requirements...does everyone make the grade? or do some get below and still welcomed in?

    Some people with who you claim have grades and they are in KFC might still have the privilege to go into a university because they want to progress themselves academically. Furthermore, you have no idea how they obtained what you view to be lower grades e.g. illness, issues at home, fatalities.
    Think anyone who wants attend university should be able to as long as they worked hard to be their, even if the grades aren't the best. Work ethic above anything should be recognised. yes they may of had CCEE but they had a passion for wanting to go...why stop them? There is a university who will accept that student!

    4. Do you know the real reason why that student chose to attend that university?

    Obviously not because you have no idea why. It could be because of distance, facilities, environment, employment opportunities, student satisfaction, personal situation at home...the list goes on.

    There are so many others to point out...but you haven't thought this idea through. Clearly.
    Well I've already gone through these arguments so I'll be succinct.

    1. Merge their good departments with better universities in that area.
    2. Most of those rankings generally agree on what universities are the absolute worst like London Met. Alternatively the ministry of education could create a comprehensive measurement to test these universities to see if they're up to the standards we want them to be.
    3. Universities are a place of intellectual virtue. If you're studying Fashion design you can do that in a technical vocational college, which I think many of these 'universities' should be devolved to.
    4. If they can't do the distance or whatever, they can do an online learning course at the Open Uni instead of wasting their money to go do a degree at a place like Anglia Ruskin university, which is a scam and a shambles.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Re-allocate the funding going to bottom-feeding universities to trade schools which will actually set people up with actual qualifications to get actual careers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I guess we're some kind of mutant outcasts. :rolleyes:
    Pretty much.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Reading this thread has made me re-consider my decision to go back to university next year honestly. I have two years of SFE funding left and at present I'm stuck between going onto second year at somewhere like MMU or NTU or resitting A-levels, saving up £9000 and going to Manchester university working two jobs and using maintenance loan to help pay tuition fees
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DraculaMihawk)
    Well I've already gone through these arguments so I'll be succinct.

    1. Merge their good departments with better universities in that area.
    2. Most of those rankings generally agree on what universities are the absolute worst like London Met. Alternatively the ministry of education could create a comprehensive measurement to test these universities to see if they're up to the standards we want them to be.
    3. Universities are a place of intellectual virtue. If you're studying Fashion design you can do that in a technical vocational college, which I think many of these 'universities' should be devolved to.
    4. If they can't do the distance or whatever, they can do an online learning course at the Open Uni instead of wasting their money to go do a degree at a place like Anglia Ruskin university, which is a scam and a shambles.
    Thing is...it will not happen.

    Yes, some universities are consistent to be set lower in most rankings but they will still have people attend whether you like it or not. Some people will be happy to spend their £9000 at those universities, it's their choice!
    There is no way the Ministry of Education...you mean the Department for Education will not do this, like they listen to the voices of few!

    Who said vocational courses are not intellectual...a lot of theory and knowledge as been involved before proceeding in the practical activities involved in the vocation!

    Must say your last point...you have just cut out the other factors with ignorance to people's factors why they would like to attend that uni. Some people don't want to do an online course and very much want to be present in a lecture, there are just some things an online course can not offer properly...like help.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Reading this thread has made me re-consider my decision to go back to university next year honestly. I have two years of SFE funding left and at present I'm stuck between going onto second year at somewhere like MMU or NTU or resitting A-levels, saving up £9000 and going to Manchester university working two jobs and using maintenance loan to help pay tuition fees
    Did you try your absolutest hardest when you first did your A-levels? If so don't resit, MMU and NTU aren't that bad. You can always save up and do a Masters at a better ranking university anyway.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DraculaMihawk)
    Did you try your absolutest hardest when you first did your A-levels? If so don't resit, MMU and NTU aren't that bad. You can always save up and do a Masters at a better ranking university anyway.
    No, I pissed around a lot to be completely honest, still got A's and B's in some modules though. I don't really want to do a masters though, I want to do GEM. Also my mother went to Manchester and always takes the mick out of me for having gone to UCLan, even if it was to start a Chemistry degree
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DraculaMihawk)
    Of course those top universities still offer stellar degrees, that's not the point. The point is too many people are wasting tax payers money and diverting funding away from top institutions, studying stuff like Media at low-tier universities.



    My ranking:

    1. Keele
    2. Coventry
    3. DMU
    4. Oxford Brookes

    Go to Keele if they're your choices. It's a nice university.



    I'm not even elitist, I'm not going to Oxbridge and I'm a fairly average student with fairly average grades. I know my limits. For whatever reason you seem to have taken personal offence to my OP. Hmm I wonder why that might be?
    What about nottingham trent
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I got a better idea. How about we force unis to deal with student loans. If someone defaults on their loan (because their degree was worthless), then the uni has to pay the expenses. That'll snuff out the unis that dont teach anything.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by st*r)
    Even twenty five years ago the phrase was "bums on seats"
    I think this is even more true now.

    Eventually the students numbers will fall at the worst performing institutions.
    In turn they will have financial trouble and will become an annex of the more successful universities.

    In years to come you could have the Cambridge University (Chelmsford) campus, or the University of Southampton (Portsmouth) campus.

    Meanwhile prospective students need to be very careful where they spend their debt.
    You say that and I was saying that years ago but there is no sign of this so far

    Surrey and Roehampton split into their constituent parts

    The proposed merger between Liverpool and Lancaster never happened.

    The sharing of back office functions at Birmingham and Nottingham has bit the dust.

    The bid to reduce Wales to 6 HE institutions has resulted in 8.

    What about Arden University and the University of Suffolk?

    I have always said that Oxford and Reading should dismantle Brookes. Oxford should get the campus and expand its undergraduate provision (numbers have been static for 40 years and the last undergrad college to be created as an entirely new institution was St Peter's between the wars). Reading should get the courses and the staff. Reading is currently below a viable size for a research university in the south-east.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    I got a better idea. How about we force unis to deal with student loans. If someone defaults on their loan (because their degree was worthless), then the uni has to pay the expenses. That'll snuff out the unis that dont teach anything.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think the issue with that is that you won't know whether someone is going to have paid off their loan for sure until 30 years after graduation. That means that uni's administration will both not be inclined to take the effects immediately into account (classic policy myopia - they know that three decades will pass before their failure is made apparent, with no effect on the careers of the staff responsible). There's also the nagging issue that uni departments can improve and worsen over time, even when it comes to job prospects.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    Actually I am someone that has been affected by this and so I can comment and I have to come out in complete agreement with the OP. Whether I agree with cutting universities to 50 is more debatable. Briefly an arbitrary number is not the way to do it, we should insist universities are up to a certain standard and hold their students to a certain standard, if they are not they should not get funding or be allowed that title. If they are then their is no reason to limit how many can do that. Currently if they are been held to any sort of standard it is an abysmal one.

    A lot of universities and degree subjects offer very little in the way of value. Believe me they do the students that go their a very poor service.

    I got BBD at a level with a B in general studies for BBBD if that counts (it shouldn't good rule of thumb generally if a university accepts general studies they are not worth going to. There will be exceptions but generic rule)

    I dropped out of my first university and then went to a poly technic and got a 2:1 here is the thing I got that 2:1 with less then six hours of work a week outside of lectures and seminars of which i had 6-8 per week. I got a 2:1 with less then 14 hours total study time a week. Think about that.

    let that sink in I am nothing special here I spoke to someone that went to the same university today the university specialized in his subject so was more rigorous their. He spent long hours on his degree but he mentioned to me he noticed hardly anyone else put much work in at all on the other courses etc. So it wasn't just me.

    The fact is that I have myself to blame for screwing up my education, I am turning that round by studying for new A levels on top of a full time job, in the hopes of going to a decent Russel group university I had savings to begin with and am managing to put aside quite a bit.

    However Boy do i wish people had warned me strongly to get better A levels and to go to a proper university. Boy what a waste of time money and life.

    Here is the fact students who get CCC for the most part either did not work as hard as students who got AAA+ or they are just, not as bright. Sorry but it is true. In my case it was due to been lazy and I have paid for that and am putting it right. In other cases harsh but true they just are not as brainy.

    If you get into a university that ask for CCC guess what they know the majority of students on their course either are not that bright or simply do not work hard enough. They cannot have students failing so they have to adjust the course appropriately and thus you get a watered down version of a degree.

    I don't care if it sounds harsh if you have to work your ass off to get CCC then you are probably not as smart as someone who can get AAA. If so I don't think you are been well served by going to university. I think it would make sense for you to choose another path.

    If you are as smart then you clearly are not working hard enough so your not ready for university yet, you have the wrong attitude and you don't deserve to go/are been poorly served by going.

    There will be exceptions I accept some schools are better then others and some people get an easier ride then others. However this is not fixed by more abysmal education, how does getting £10s thousands in debt and spending 3/4 years gaining little if any skills whilst also missing out on valuable work experience help those who were previously disadvantaged? pardon my french but that is doing nothing but pissing on them when they are already down.

    You want to fix that set up foundation courses/access courses that will bring people up to speed set up out reach programs to give them other opportunities, make websites such as exam solutions. Improve the education system for disadvantaged students.

    I think everyone deserves further education if they are able and hard working. If they are not hard working then no they don't. If they are not able then lying to them and giving them a false substitute whilst charging them full whack for it does them no favors.

    Many of these degrees that are easier are fine, grad schemes have requirements of grades, not the difficulty or subjects even. what do you class as bad? Because Kent and Leicester accept General Studies and are fine, generally people go to uni for a range of factors, rather than just the quality. It's not even hard getting onto a Russel group after seeing people with BBC get in this year... People in 'lower' unis get this but don't go because they simply prefer another uni.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thank **** the terrible ideas expressed in this thread have little chance of actually being implemented.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blackdiamond97)
    Thank **** the terrible ideas expressed in this thread have little chance of actually being implemented.
    I know right? I go to UofT and while I'd be "safe" if such a policy was passed in Canada, I can't agree with cutting funding to the ones at the bottom tiered schools to better fund me. Those of us going to the top universities don't have to go to the brand names. We chose the more expensive schools. Why should those who choose more affordable schools have to subsidize those of us that choose go to the more expensive schools?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DraculaMihawk)
    Aww I can tell you're still in secondary school. It's very noble all of what you're proposing but the reality is such things can't happen. When tuition fees are a burden to the tax payers, many of whom who haven't gone to university, then it is a problem and it is unfair. I don't want to pay my taxes for someone who's unemployed, or working in Burger King, who has a degree in Media Studies from London Met, sorry.

    Many of our universities could do with more investments. Just compare the endowment rates of our UK universities compared to those of Asia and America. Our government invests lower percentages from our GDP than in Asia and America, and that's why Asian universities are in the rise in the top 100, and why American universities dominate. If we can get the investment from those low tier universities, whom often scam international students as my OP's video shows, our already well established universities can continue growing their facilities and compete globally, as well as raise their teaching quality.

    Education doesn't have to be in the form of a university degree. It can be through apprenticeships and technical colleges which we need to emphasise more. Many students feel going to university is the only way to gain success, which is why they go even if it's Sheffield Hallam, which it isn't.
    I really could have picked any comment to reply to, but I'll pick this one just because you were being rude.

    I don't like how you claim to care about "the tax payers, many of whom who haven't gone to university" when you obviously don't care about "someone who's unemployed, or working in Burger King, who has a degree in Media Studies from London Met". In the same way, why should any tax payer be paying to subsidize your education? Are you studying some revolutionary-cutting edge degree that's going to make a major change to the world and solve global poverty? Is your degree/education going to help all the tax-payers that you so proclaim to be helping? And don't sell me "but my degree is better/more potential" bs. You can easily graduate with a first-class honours degree and commit suicide from stress few years down the road.

    Your assumption is that by dumping money into higher tier universities, they would be able to provide better education for their students. "Our government invests lower percentages from our GDP than in Asia and America, and that's why Asian universities are in the rise in the top 100, and why American universities dominate." Correlation is not causation, sorry. Do you have a study showing that money is the sole reason why Asia/America do better. If you want to make this claim, please do provide evidence, seeing how it's a major point of your argument. If not, please don't make this assumption.

    Also, universities are places where independent learning occurs. It doesn't mean just because a university provides good resources and teaching quality, students will attend every lecture and become better. One doesn't translate to the other like magic. The number of confounders are countless.

    And even if I were to go with your argument, don't you see the irony in your statement? Let me ask you, what is the point in your magnificent Cambridge Law Degree Summa *** Laude if the university spoon feeds everything to you? Why don't you stop blaming your problems on others (oh, the university isn't giving me good enough teaching) and start working harder?

    I agree with you that education doesn't need to be in the form a degree and it isn't the only way to success. But the way you're presenting yourself, and your attitude, is just inconsiderate. Why don't you discuss how apprenticeships and technical colleges will be laid out? Tell me how will resources will be divided in your arrangement? Will they be equal? And don't give me the "oh because we're university, we'll get a little more". Sorry, like I said above, graduating from a university doesn't mean you'll solve world poverty. And to quote you, the same people who go to technical colleges can succeed too? Can't they? So why won't they get the same funding? And if they do get the same funding? Then what's the cost difference between going to a technical college and a university? You're back to square one.

    Please do enlighten me with your "post-secondary school" knowledge. I'm eager to hear your solution.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 27, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you prefer to be told about sex by your:
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

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.