Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Should we get rid of weaker universities? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    The question would be: What is a top 50 university?

    Universities right now play a game - In order to finish higher in the rankings, they give offers of(say) A* A* A*, then accept C C C. This games the system and gives them a higher ranking than would be otherwise suggested. The University of Nottingham has a very good YouTube video on this very thing. Some universities that don't play that game would end up being axed despite being clearly better.
    Queen marys and Kings in a nutshell. Both have ABB coursres. A guy in my school got accepted with BCDE. Not even kidding
    Online

    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
    Similar skin-in-the-game ideas are gaining traction in the US which has some comparable problems wrt excessive quantities of highly priced educational services being purchased with borrowed money.

    I think we'll probably end up with something similar
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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.
    Sometimes it works. Manchester used to be about 3 different universities. It merged and now it's 29th in the world according to QS rankings.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    And where do students that can't afford studying in "Top unis", or don't pass their skyrocketing entry requirements go?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I've heard that the government are wanting to create more universities..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stereoashhh)
    Sometimes it works. Manchester used to be about 3 different universities. It merged and now it's 29th in the world according to QS rankings.
    UMIST had a funny status for most of its existence and the merger was rather seen as the finding of a long lost relative rather than a shotgun marriage which is perhaps why it worked.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fadel)
    And where do students that can't afford studying in "Top unis", or don't pass their skyrocketing entry requirements go?
    Get an apprenticeship, learn a skill like plumbing / building (which btw can be just as well paid as any graduate job)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Get an apprenticeship, learn a skill like plumbing / building (which btw can be just as well paid as any graduate job)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What type of plumbing, apprenticeship will be able to pay good enough for me to sustain with the 23k pound tution fees? And will plumbing get me an A*AA?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexp98)
    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.
    I specifically said there will be exceptions. General studies is an A level you can get with general knowledge or just due to been good at blagging/essay writing. You can get it with little to no work. universities that accept it are basically saying we want to look like we are good and have grade requirements but we don't really so put that their to make it easier to get the grades.

    in the past some Russel group universities have accepted General studies, though the vast majority will not. This is why I said it as a general rule and specifically acknowledged there would be exceptions.

    I think it depends what your range of other factors is. Been close to home/ further away from home is fine because some students want to be with their family others want independence and that is an acceptable choice.

    Choosing a university based the course or course content is also a very important factor.

    So is the actual city area etc I get that.

    When I apply I am not getting funding it will be fully self funded so I have to consider price points. Cambridge charge college fees, I really think with my academic past that it is highly unlikely anyway but because there are just so many things right with it I would have to find a way of making it work.

    However a few London universities become more of a choice because I have to take into account that London is significantly more expensive. London has its advantages though with so many things around the city.

    If I chose to go to a slightly lower caliber university rather than one of the London ones due to costs than that is not such bad reasoning. If however I chose to go to a slightly lower caliber London university for the advantages of London that too would be okay.

    The thing is though by slightly lower caliber I mean just that slightly lower not abysmal. Not way lower.

    I think that higher education should be a full time Job. Such that individuals with an IQ of 115-130 would need to work 30+ hours a week to get a 2:1. If some individuals who have an IQ below 115 are determined and are willing to put 50+ hours a week to get there then I am for that.
    What should not be happening is individuals with an IQ of 90 been able to scrape by on 20 or less hours a week and individuals with an IQ of 120 ish been able to get away with less than 10.

    obviously you sometimes get those with an IQ of 150+ at this point you have an actual genius and I guess their is the possibility that they could get away with part time hours when their peers in the range of 115-130 are putting in full time hours. In that situation it is not because the course lacks depth or challenge it is just because they are brilliant.

    just things have value based on how hard they are to obtain. If a degree is something that can be attained by the average Joe putting in little to no effort than guess what it is not worth that much.

    If it is your own money and you are fully aware that you are going to a university that has very poor standards and are happy with that then who am i or anyone else to judge that?

    The problem is though that a lot of time those points do not apply. It is not your money often it is the taxpayers and if you think it is okay for the tax payer to pay for you to basically take the piss at university then that is absurd. You only pay it back if you earn over a certain amount. If you end up earning that salary and paying it back but were poorly served by the degree, then you are paying back a massive loan for something that was of little value to hardly fair. If you do not know what little value the university offers in terms of value and find yourself in such debt that is hardly a fair scenario.

    As for getting jobs etc actually Degrees from Russel group universities do give you a higher probability of employment, with higher average life time earnings.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    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.
    Well that is a major straw man. I dont want to take opportunity away from anyone. I think that everyone who is hard working and able should have that opportunity. I just think that we should not be spending large sums on those that are able but prefer to just party. Or those that are hard working but do not know better.

    I have not seen anywhere in this thread that someone has said someone from a poor background achieving great results who wants to work hard should not go to university. If they have I outright Disagree with that sentiment.

    What people are saying is that less able hard working students should not be ripped off with cheap substitutes that offer little value for money, and that Taxpayers should not be straddled with paying for students that do know better but just want three years of partying on borrowed money they will likely never repay.

    I don't want to deny people an opportunity I just think people should have to work hard of that opportunity otherwise it is not worth much.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BabyLadDarren)
    My Mother went to an awful university, but boy she was so happy when she got that certificate lmfao.
    I assume she went at a time of no or little fees.

    But what if she went now, would she still be so happy a few years down the line with high debts? Is she working at all, and if so is a job that her "certificate" makes her better at?

    The problem with university is that it started out as an academic, intellectual endeavor. And sorry, but that is an endeavor that is not for half the population. But now it has been abused by companies as a signal. It is an easy way for them to judge applicants. In addition, it is touted as teaching you "valuable skills", complete rubbish if you ask me. What you do at university and what you do at work, are miles apart in vast majority of cases.
    And the UK is even worse in this regard. You can study history or chemistry and yet go into banking. What a ridiculous waste of time and resources. The bottom line is there are just too many university places. The government has wholly failed to provide alternatives and even promoted this societal view that getting a degree is a must because a grad job is all the matters.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zainyyyyy)
    ok, lets to save money lets burn down every single bad university. It doesnt matter what bad means but because this user says we should i think we should......

    also entry to london met is like CCC. To get this at A level is hard and just because you dont agree it doesnt mean ****..

    Also what does top 50 mean? cant a university just pay its way also as student satisfaction is how they judge why dont they just rig the surveys

    you sir are retarded
    Hmmmmmm
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jessyjellytot14)
    I've heard that the government are wanting to create more universities..
    The Cameron government wanted to create more universities. I don't think anyone can assume that anything that was Cameron government policy is still government policy.

    The Cameron government had a completely different mindset to TSR. They wanted to encourage new providers into the market Degree awarding powers would be easily available to anyone who could show the requisite quality and would be time-limited.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...y-for-students

    Contrast this with the TSR mindset of ranking lists and prestige.

    I do not agree with the TSR mentality, but the problem with the government's approach is that it sees a degree as a route into a first job, not as a worldwide, lifelong status. Are students content to attend the "University of Here Today Gone Tomorrow" What impact is there of attending a defunct university?

    There is clear continuity between some institutions. If you attended Leicester Polytechnic in the 1970s, I am assume you have no difficulty in saying "that's now De Montfort University". You feel comfortable that one is the successor to the other.

    But what about Humberside Polytechnic? Legally it is now the University of Lincoln, but it has no presence in Hull at all. How does a Humberside graduate feel affinity with an institution in a different city, with an unrelated name, where there was no campus when they attended. Aren't they more likely to say "it doesn't exist any more".

    A lot of young graduates go into HR. How do they react seeing a 40-something job applicant offering a degree from London Guildhall University? Do they assume the applicant read music? Do they think this is something from a dodgy diploma mill where you pay £100 and they send you a degree certificate by return? How many realise that this was better half of the merger that created London Met but was then strangled out of existence by the management team from the former North London University.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sorani)
    Create alternatives or accept the fact that some people stay in education for the enjoyment of education.
    Fair point. But in that case should they be funded? I personally think that student numbers should be cut, and so should fees. Only reason fees keep going up is because numbers have exploded.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strawberry68)
    How disgusting and backward thinking. You want to deny thousands of people further education. Last time I checked education was a human right. Your idea will lower the UK average of how many have higher education as thousands more people won't be able to obtain a degree. This will make the UK look so much worse of a country.

    A lot of people don't even go to university in the first place.
    Education maybe. Higher education? No. Saying that, I am for free university education, but I just don't think this many people should attend university.

    And why would it make the UK look bad? I think what is much worse is that 20% of the population have a degree, but anyone from another country talking to them and thinking "what the hell kind of 'university' education was this, is much worse. Something handed out like candy doesn't really give international prestige.

    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Education in itself is a positive thing, and education and personal development should be available to all who want it. If they want to go to uni, they should be able to, even if they're not at the top of the class. It's not like they're depriving you of your ability to go to Cambridge by them going to London Met.

    Your idea of taking the money away from the bottom universities and reallocating it to the top ones isn't well thought-out, because simply throwing money at universities will not make them better. These universities already have very large endowments anyway.

    Your Cambridge degree will not lose its value just because there are more people getting degrees from Anglia Ruskin and the like. The best and most qualified will naturally rise to the top in our meritocratic society. Or is your only reason for wanting a university degree the prestige from being one of the few to actually have a degree? You can still get the prestige by going to the top unis.

    Education should be available to everyone as an end in itself.
    I disagree. Education yes, higher education no. It is an academic pursuit. Reduce number of students and you can afford to make university free again. The problem is that the government for decades has not provided alternatives to a degree. A grad job is the be all end all. And that is the problem.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)

    The problem with university is that it started out as an academic, intellectual endeavor.
    No it didn't. It started out in 1088 as a training school for canon lawyers in Bologna. By the 17th century, in England, it had become a training school for Anglican priests (over 90% of graduates took holy orders) and remained so until the mid 19th century. Thereafter it became a training school for the administrators of an empire. The first modern research degrees in this country were not awarded, copying Germany, until 1914 in Oxford.

    By 1914 most Oxford students took degrees. It was only at the end of WWII that most of them took honours degrees.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For those of you thinking education is a privilege instead of a human right? UNESCO disagrees. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/right2education

    It doesn't specify to what level either, merely that education is something that everyone should have access to regardless of age or country of origin.

    For example, the university I graduated from barely makes it inside your suggested Top 50, and yet I work for one of the top 3. Where I work, ironically none of this elitism is given the time of day, because its such a fickle ideal.

    Then in the grand scheme of things, in World rankings, only 7 UK universities make it into the Top 50 worldwide, so this entire argument is immediately flawed by that alone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No it didn't. It started out in 1088 as a training school for canon lawyers in Bologna. By the 17th century, in England, it had become a training school for Anglican priests (over 90% of graduates took holy orders) and remained so until the mid 19th century. Thereafter it became a training school for the administrators of an empire. The first modern research degrees in this country were not awarded, copying Germany, until 1914 in Oxford.

    By 1914 most Oxford students took degrees. It was only at the end of WWII that most of them took honours degrees.
    Did I say intellectual endeavor or research?

    And you just proved my point. There were jobs that needed people with a certain knowledge. What is it now? Everyone and his dog going to uni and there is no actual need for them. University is being abused as a signal.
    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.
    I agree with you in a way but I think it is more down to there being so many useless degrees on offer and people are studying them. Your employment prospects are not good if you do the likes of sociology, art or music but something like electrical engineering everyone gets a well paid job when they graduate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fadel)
    And where do students that can't afford studying in "Top unis", or don't pass their skyrocketing entry requirements go?
    Apprenticeships and the job market. Oh wait. The government has peddled the university agenda for ages and not created viable alternatives.
 
 
 
Poll
Still A Remainer Or A Brexiteer?
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.