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

    11
    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.
    Whilst I don't entirely agree with the OP's proposal I would contend with your argument here on the grounds that the 'graduate jobs market' in the UK is currently pretty saturated and an overabundance of graduates is actually exacerbating unemployment as they are 'too highly qualified' in the eyes of many employers to take more menial jobs and generally outcompete school leavers for jobs which should not require university level education.

    Furthermore the emphasis on receiving a university level education has exacerbated the bias in favour of the services vs industry in the UK which is certainly not helping our economy (look at Germany for a comparison).

    Edit: I would also contest that higher education is a privilege, not a right and that your argument concerning stranding everyone that achieved 'less than ABB' is flawed. It is utterly unfeasible to assume that we can send everyone to university and constantly telling children that they 'need to go to university' creates stress and damages self esteem in individuals that are not suited to academia or the professions but may have talents which could be utilized elsewhere. ABB or certainly BBB is not an impossibly high bar to set for A level results and considering how much it costs the taxpayer (many of whom will not benefit themselves from the education which they are funding) to send someone to university I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that you should have to prove that you have the ability to justify that investment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Popppppy)
    Going by the Guardian's league table this would result in closing down both universities in Northern Ireland, meaning those who don't want to/can't afford to travel across to England/Wales/Scotland cannot access higher education.

    Where would Northern Ireland get Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Engineers, any graduates for that matter?
    QUB is top 40 though? Right? I did my work experience there
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunarench95)
    Pretty sound argument, you'd be a real electorate pleaser if you ever get in to politics my friend
    erm no...Since the vast majority of the population would go to a lower ranked university than the top 40, therefore he would anger the electorate because then most of them and their children wouldn't be able to go to university.

    Also, the big flaw in the OP's argument is, what defines a Top 40 university? Or a Top 50,60, etc? It is pretty subjective.

    Obviously Imperial is better than London Met, but once you get to differences of 5 in places being the difference being shutting a university and keeping it open, it is pretty arbitrary and subjective.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    Amen to that! Education, even from a less-highly-ranked (which is arbitrary anyway) is still incredibly valuable!
    I don't think we should close down universities, but open up more vocational/practical opportunities. EDUCATION WOOH
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TobaccoSmoke)
    League tables. They're usually very accurate and respected by top employers.
    You know, sometimes a student from lower rated university can come with better results that the one who is, e.g. from university that is in 7th place in ratings. Don't underestimate students that come from not so popular universities. It's not about the university rating, it's all about how students actually work to achieve something. Lower rating universities are a perfect opportunity for students who have mid grades but that does not mean they are terrible students.

    Personally, I didn't go to top rated universities and you know what? I did quite well in my university which wasn't highly rated and I've managed to get very high mark for my dissertation whereas some students from top universities manage to get average marks.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh93)
    Whilst I don't entirely agree with the OP's proposal I would contend with your argument here on the grounds that the 'graduate jobs market' in the UK is currently pretty saturated and an overabundance of graduates is actually exacerbating unemployment as they are 'too highly qualified' in the eyes of many employers to take more menial jobs and generally outcompete school leavers for jobs which should not require university level education.

    Furthermore the emphasis on receiving a university level education has exacerbated the bias in favour of the services vs industry in the UK which is certainly not helping our economy (look at Germany for a comparison).

    Edit: I would also contest that higher education is a privilege, not a right and that your argument concerning stranding everyone that achieved 'less than ABB' is flawed. It is utterly unfeasible to assume that we can send everyone to university and constantly telling children that they 'need to go to university' creates stress and damages self esteem in individuals that are not suited to academia or the professions but may have talents which could be utilized elsewhere. ABB or certainly BBB is not an impossibly high bar to set for A level results and considering how much it costs the taxpayer (many of whom will not benefit themselves from the education which they are funding) to send someone to university I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that you should have to prove that you have the ability to justify that investment.
    You have things the wrong way round. The destruction of Britain's mixed economy in the 1980s, which should include heavy industry that employs lots of people not just specialist manufacturers, led to the imbalance in the service economy. The abundance of graduates is simply a symptom that has been a long time coming (i.e. increasing youth unemployment). It is not the problem itself.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Unemployment rates would increase even further, we would have more people claiming JSA and the crime rates would go up. Great plan.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    You have things the wrong way round. The destruction of Britain's mixed economy in the 1980s, which should include heavy industry that employs lots of people not just specialist manufacturers, led to the imbalance in the service economy. The abundance of graduates is simply a symptom that has been a long time coming (i.e. increasing youth unemployment). It is not the problem itself.
    Granted it is a symptom of an unbalanced economy but encouraging the trend only serves to exacerbate the problem. Promoting alternatives to university education/reducing the number of graduates competing for professional/academic careers is surely a prerequisite for any serious restructuring of the economy?

    Edit: I never suggested that the increase in graduates resulted in the imbalance seen in our economy - my argument was that an excess of graduates seeking 'graduate-careers' is not helping us as a nation to rectify the problem.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh93)
    Granted it is a symptom of an unbalanced economy but encouraging the trend only serves to exacerbate the problem. Promoting alternatives to university education/reducing the number of graduates competing for professional/academic careers is surely a prerequisite for any serious restructuring of the economy?

    Edit: I never suggested that the increase in graduates resulted in the imbalance seen in our economy - my argument was that an excess of graduates seeking 'graduate-careers' is not helping us as a nation to rectify the problem.
    The number of graduate careers is relative to the number of graduates. This is where grade inflation comes in. Proper graduate careers are largely unaffected, perhaps becoming even more competitive (e.g. engineering, law, medicine etc.). The remaining employers are simply adapting to the changing labour market, increasing demands exponentially out of sight of what the job actually requires (i.e. not a degree).

    Of course promoting alternatives to university is the solution. But the Conservatives caused the problem in the first place so they are the least equipped of anyone to try and solve the mess. In fact, given their record of outsourcing government contracts to non-British companies, I honestly think they could not give a ****.

    We definitely agree with one another. The point I am making is that the students themselves are not the problem; we should not be saying they cannot go to university, simply do not expect a graduate job at the end of it. (I cannot think of a better way to spend three years than studying a subject I love, for what it is worth!). Realistically if it is a choice between unemployment and university, and for many - especially based on their geographical location - it will be, then most will choose the latter, and I do not blame them.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    The number of graduate careers is relative to the number of graduates. This is where grade inflation comes in. Proper graduate careers are largely unaffected, perhaps becoming even more competitive (e.g. engineering, law, medicine etc.). The remaining employers are simply adapting to the changing labour market, increasing demands exponentially out of sight of what the job actually requires (i.e. not a degree).

    Of course promoting alternatives to university is the solution. But the Conservatives caused the problem in the first place so they are the least equipped of anyone to try and solve the mess. In fact, given their record of outsourcing government contracts to non-British companies, I honestly think they could not give a ****.

    We definitely agree with one another. The point I am making is that the students themselves are not the problem; we should not be saying they cannot go to university, simply do not expect a graduate job at the end of it. (I cannot think of a better way to spend three years than studying a subject I love, for what it is worth!). Realistically if it is a choice between unemployment and university, and for many - especially based on their geographical location - it will be, then most will choose the latter, and I do not blame them.
    We do seem to be pretty much in complete agreement, although you explained yourself better than I did
    Grade inflation is essentially what I was referring to when I said that increasing the number of graduates applying for careers which do not require a degree results in school-leavers being outcompeted for jobs which they are probably well suited for.

    We are also in agreement on the ability of the Tories to improve the situation - the only things that I think the Conservatives really care about are reducing labour costs and increasing profits for the wealthy elite.

    You make a very valid point, the only issue that I take with the 'let everyone go to uni as long as they don't expect a graduate career at the end of it' argument is that this experience whilst highly rewarding for the individual in question is also being at least part funded by the taxpayer and it is hard to justify that investment if you aren't producing a graduate with useful skills (which they did not have before and could not have got elsewhere) that are in demand. Educating half a generation into quite significant debt when half of them probably don't need to be also seems ill-advised to me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KayleighG)
    Yet people do this, because they get A's and into "top" University's. I don't want to go to University for fun, I genuinely want to learn more, but because I'm not as intelligent as other people who want to have fun I would be prevented if something such as this went ahead.
    Like who? :curious: Also if it is a viable degree that will make you money and you can do it, then go nuts. When it's "just for fun", then don't moan when you go to collect JSA for the next 20 years.
    Want to learn more? Buy a book. You can't afford to spend 3-4 years and £40k just to learn more.


    (Original post by Annuhlees)
    Bottom line is: degrees from RG are better and degrees from ex-polys/non-top universities are worth less. If people stopped gaining degrees from non-top universities and kept degrees for the cream of the crop students they would be more valued? Less unemployment for graduates?
    Yup.

    Surely that means that all graduate jobs would go to the top university students and not students from ex-polys. Your theory seems floored as employers are quite happy to employ graduates from the likes of Man Met/Portsmouth
    Why do so many people say this? I have yet to actually see this happen. Sure, you can get some easy, low paid job and no career. But want a good company and career? Then you need a good uni.

    My brother went Nottingham Trent part-time and now earns £120,000 a year and my sister went Man Met and works in New York in a top magazine. I can't wait to go Portsmouth in September
    How long ago did they go and in what subjects? Everyone I know who went to a poor uni now works in Costa, Asda, or claims JSA.



    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    People should be allowed to chose how they spend their time and money so long as it causes no harm to anybody else.
    On that logic all drugs should be legal :rolleyes: Sometimes people don't know what's best for them thus need to be helped. This is one of those times.


    No it doesn't! If you have a 2:1 from Oxford, nothing will change the fact that you have a 2:1 from Oxford, it will still be a 2:1 from Oxford! It's like the argument gay marriage devalues hetero marriage.
    But do many small employers know how much better that is compared to one from Leeds Met? Nope. They just think it's a bit fancier...when in fact one shows the signs of someone very bright, and the other of someone of poor academic skill.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    Which uni do you go to then?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I got all As at a level and didn't go to top ranking uni. I still have a decent job and earn a decent wage so I don't believe that the institution defines the level if success you can hope to achieve.

    Edit: before anyone asks my offer was BBC.

    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by upthegunners)
    QUB is top 40 though? Right? I did my work experience there
    Usually, but not this year, which highlights just another flaw in OP's wonderful plan haha.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr Pesto)
    Many people on this website need to wake the **** up. University rankings don't mean nearly as much as you think they do CAPICHE?
    I agree with what you say but very much dislike the arrogant way you ended your post.

    Thumbs down -7
    • Specialist Advisor
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Specialist Advisor
    I disagree. This would make it incredibly unfair
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are you being serious? No.
    So only super duper " smart" people will be able lets say doctors,lawers, vets etc. This will be a very small amount of people in the whole country. Everyone else would be " A level qualified" or equivalent at the most. only the most pretigious companies will be so strict as to take university education - only applicants. And that'd mean everyone that applies, then they'd be a tiny company in the end. And every other company will have less able applicants, because they didnt get the chance to go to uni because of your stupid policy, and everyone would suffer.
    Lets say you go to a hospital. Maybe one to five of the staff in the whole place will have gone to uni. Everyone else would just hope they are doing something right, and put the patient's life at risk by overdosing/ wrong drugs etc. It's not fair on society, or those " Alevel qualified" people who wanted to go uni in the first place.
    Also, if everyone's equal, we should all have that chance. Wether we take it or not isn't up to you. Even if we're not as book smart as the top unis, they may know more about life and do better in the long run.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatPerson)
    erm no...Since the vast majority of the population would go to a lower ranked university than the top 40, therefore he would anger the electorate because then most of them and their children wouldn't be able to go to university.

    Also, the big flaw in the OP's argument is, what defines a Top 40 university? Or a Top 50,60, etc? It is pretty subjective.

    Obviously Imperial is better than London Met, but once you get to differences of 5 in places being the difference being shutting a university and keeping it open, it is pretty arbitrary and subjective.
    I'm pretty certain the person you quoted was being sarcastic.

    As for the argument in question , i do agree on principle that some Uni's need to be shut down ( let's face it a degree from London Met won't get you a job anywhere that is worthwhile unless you do some seriously big amounts of work experience and/or have people on the inside to get you in )

    However the criteria the OP has suggested is poor for selection and wouldn't work as league tables differ greatly.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMonarchist)
    It would be better to shut down all these arts and humanities courses
    And what would those who wish to enter careers, in which having undergraduate (and postgraduate) arts degrees is necessary, do? Just because there may be a saturation of humanities graduates relative to the number of graduate level jobs but this doesn't mean there are no jobs at all.

    And I haven't even touched on the social utility that higher education (including academic research) can bring.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see a lot of employers employing school leavers with good grades (which they could probably do cheaper than employing a graduate - even though the school leaver has the same potential).

    That suggests to me employers see some value to the degree - no matter where the person studied.
 
 
 
  • 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.