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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FTstudies)
    However, University shouldn't be completely cut off to those that don't want to do purely academic qualifications.
    I agree with most of your points - could I just ask for your reasoning behind this statement? It seems to me that an university degree is indeed a purely academic qualification almost by definition.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    So why don't we just implement a minimum grade threshold for people going to university? Less than 240 UCAS points from a minimum of 3 A-Levels, not taking points from any other source, and a maximum of five A-Levels (if you have more, take your five highest grades and add up the points)

    How many people are getting poor A-Levels, going to a poor university and studying a mickey mouse course and ending up with an entry level job because their degree is worthless? How much is that costing the government each year?

    So much to the point where it's having a detrimental effect on students getting high grades who have career aspirations, not just going to uni for the hell of it because you can study f*cking sport management with abuse studies and get paid for doing it.
    Hmmm that seems another cheap hit at "mickey mouse degrees"

    In the general sense you cant always say when someone leaves school with low or average grades they are automatically going to do a lower quality degree, nor does someone with high grades mean they will go to a better university or so a degree like say law.

    I knew quite a few people who left school either before exams and got no qualifications or left with bad ones and been the smartest and brightest people I know since school wasnt for them for various reasons, family, money, bullying whatever and after they went to college or uni part time for example been getting A's!

    And the biggest """" I have known at uni have been the ones doing things like law degree's, getting drunk a few nights a week, having little respect and basically causing mayhem.

    And to say you need to use A levels for minimum entry is bad enough in the current system, before I went to uni I had already done a NC, ND and NQ in my subject and was rejected from the 2 unis I wanted as I didnt have A level English despite being 25 when the course started and having actual experience in a local newspaper, articles printed, worked in a radio station and done editing and presenting and I got turned away for people who left school with a minor interest in the field but has A levels?! No way!

    Anyway if people want rid of "Mickey Mouse" degrees a better idea is to try and let you mix and match within reason degrees i.e I wanted to do a general film and television degree but mixed with some history and maybe even business at a major stretch but you cant mix the two! Or maybe even stuff like Ecomomics, History, English Lit and maybe finally radio or television.

    The systems messed up enough as is.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vintage_007)
    Whilst I agree that people with less that 240 UCAS points shouldn't be on academic courses at university, there's nothing to say they're underqualified for vocational subjects such as midwifery, nursing, etc. Also, if people could achieve 240 points using 5 A Levels, then technically they could get the equivalent of DDDEE in, say, Media Studies, Film Studies, General Studies, Critical Thinking and Communication and Culture (assuming these are 'mickey mouse' studies) and still be deserving of a university place...
    Yes, very good point. I hadn't considered that. Unfortunately for vocational subjects, there is very little parity of esteem, and I'll admit to it, very often people make light of vocational courses. Well, I don't think it's actually the courses, but more along the lines of how easy they are to get on one and the kind of student they attract. I go to a college where about 50 students are AS/A2, the remaining 150-200 or so FT students are either Access to HE mature students or BTEC Level 1, 2 or 3s. The college is honest to god full of chavs. I can only presume that a lot of FE colleges need the funding so just take on all comers, which devalues the vocational route into HE for a lot of students, who end up taking A-Levels, doing poorly, and taking a poor degree at a poor uni.

    BTECs should be of equal value to students, sadly (up here at least) that is not the case.

    I also see what you mean about getting DDEEE to get the 240. Maybe have a minimum of 3 Cs in addition to 240 points? It's complicated and someone a lot more knowledgeable than I am should be doing this :P
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Just close down the ex poly's, done, problem solved.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drbluebox)
    Hmmm that seems another cheap hit at "mickey mouse degrees"

    In the general sense you cant always say when someone leaves school with low or average grades they are automatically going to do a lower quality degree, nor does someone with high grades mean they will go to a better university or so a degree like say law.

    I knew quite a few people who left school either before exams and got no qualifications or left with bad ones and been the smartest and brightest people I know since school wasnt for them for various reasons, family, money, bullying whatever and after they went to college or uni part time for example been getting A's!

    And the biggest """" I have known at uni have been the ones doing things like law degree's, getting drunk a few nights a week, having little respect and basically causing mayhem.


    And to say you need to use A levels for minimum entry is bad enough in the current system, before I went to uni I had already done a NC, ND and NQ in my subject and was rejected from the 2 unis I wanted as I didnt have A level English despite being 25 when the course started and having actual experience in a local newspaper, articles printed, worked in a radio station and done editing and presenting and I got turned away for people who left school with a minor interest in the field but has A levels?! No way!

    Anyway if people want rid of "Mickey Mouse" degrees a better idea is to try and let you mix and match within reason degrees i.e I wanted to do a general film and television degree but mixed with some history and maybe even business at a major stretch but you cant mix the two! Or maybe even stuff like Ecomomics, History, English Lit and maybe finally radio or television.

    The systems messed up enough as is.
    A cheap hit - maybe. I'll be honest and I think that a lot of degrees do seem pretty worthless. I'm sure someone will quote me and say sociology is just as rubbish as sports management. I, of course won't agree, but how worthwhile a degree is is of course open to interpretation.

    Point 1 - Most of the time getting poor grades leads to entry to a poor university to do a poor degree. Not always but a lot of the time.

    Point 2 - Not everyone gets it right first time. However there has to be some form of admissions to university that is based on grades. Resit if you must, but unis shouldn't have to take those with poor grades on the premise they're actually clever...if they're that clever, prove it.

    Point 3 - So? If people want to **** around like that at uni, let them do it. If they fail a year more than once, get rid of them. If you party hard - work hard. I'm all for second chances, but if you get a second chance by hell you should take it. Real world remember.

    Point 4 - I see what you mean, yes, my fault. When I said no other subjects I was thinking in my head that people would bump it up to 240 with stuff like level 8 music and british horse association points, key skills and all that other crap that gets you 10 or 20 UCAS points. BTECs, A-Levels and other equivalents I guess. Good call.

    Point 5 - Some of those degrees have to go. Some of them really are ridiculous. Abuse studies for gods sake. They should be a smaller part of a 'proper degree', I agree.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cynthialf)
    I agree with most of your points - could I just ask for your reasoning behind this statement? It seems to me that an university degree is indeed a purely academic qualification almost by definition.
    Depends on the context. We all have to admit that University has changed, whilst it is still thought of as a pure academic area (most of the time), there are many subjects going at the moment which are leading to people to other career paths. I myself am doing English Language & Television at Reading University, I wanted the Television part, as I want to work in that industry (with the practical/production side of the course).

    Also those doing Film Production, or Television Production, they will go on to be the ones creating our future TV shows, feature films and Theatre shows. As you can tell I am a defender of Film/TV/Journalism/(And SOME, not all media degrees). As long as your degree leads into some sort of job or career path, then it should be taught at University-level. That being said, there are some that I think are a little odd (Women Studies for example). But each to their own.

    There just needs to be a certain standard maintained at University I agree as I mentioned before really.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    how worthwhile a degree is is of course open to interpretation.

    Point 1 - Most of the time getting poor grades leads to entry to a poor university to do a poor degree. Not always but a lot of the time.

    Point 2 - Not everyone gets it right first time. However there has to be some form of admissions to university that is based on grades. Resit if you must, but unis shouldn't have to take those with poor grades on the premise they're actually clever...if they're that clever, prove it.
    Since so many people are going to university now yes degrees are worth less I agree with the basic idea of that but maybe not the bigger idea that things like media are useless, like anything its about where you live and the uni you go to.

    I.e I am from a small town that does media degrees that are popular, most graduates from my small local college get jobs generally in the local tv station, one of the local radio stations, or a local newspaper so in essence maybe thats not working for a major paper but its still a good job for someone from a small town.

    Its all about personal standards, personally I never did highers or A levels since I pretty much came from a small town and didnt know life outside it in ANY way, most people from school didnt try as they planned to go to college then get a job or go into the army and it was only the middle class kids that stayed on at school and went to uni, I knew that things called degree's existed and that they were far harder than a college course and more specialised but as far as I was concerned they were just for say getting a job in a place like London and/or in a big name company and if I could get a job in local place like a local paper I would be happy for life.

    It wasnt my fault the school gave me zero guidance and careers advice, I think my test in my 3rd year said my ideal job was in something like systems analyst or computer programming yet I was only interested in doing a media course.

    Sorry I meant more than this but lost my train of thought(sorry its late and been away from home a few days)

    I wasnt really saying that admissions shouldnt be based on grades, however that if you just do it in terms of basing entry to university on a few exams at school you dont give the person a chance to shine with their real skills, so I am trying to get at if someone could be excellent at university but doesnt put the work in at school due to mis/undereducation and therefore get lower grades and/or even if they actually do get good grades but decide to do a worthless degree should they be thought of as less intelligent or hard working?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FTstudies)
    Depends on the context. We all have to admit that University has changed, whilst it is still thought of as a pure academic area (most of the time), there are many subjects going at the moment which are leading to people to other career paths. I myself am doing English Language & Television at Reading University, I wanted the Television part, as I want to work in that industry (with the practical/production side of the course).

    Also those doing Film Production, or Television Production, they will go on to be the ones creating our future TV shows, feature films and Theatre shows. As you can tell I am a defender of Film/TV/Journalism/(And SOME, not all media degrees). As long as your degree leads into some sort of job or career path, then it should be taught at University-level. That being said, there are some that I think are a little odd (Women Studies for example). But each to their own.

    There just needs to be a certain standard maintained at University I agree as I mentioned before really.

    The problem is numbers. The much maligned golf course management doesn't present this issue. Supply of jobs more or less equals demand.

    However, we have a raft of vocational subjects which produce far more graduates than the vocation can absorb. Unless those degrees are perceived as having enough general academic merit and transferable skills (and that means by recruiters not tutors or students) that they serve as useful generic degrees, then they simply produce large numbers of unemployable graduates. In some cases, and forensic science is the leading example, what is marketed as a vocational degree is looked down upon by the vocation it allegedly serves.

    How many media studies graduates can realistically expect to get jobs in the media? Of the rest, how is their degree perceived by general graduate recruiters say compared with a degree in classics?

    The problem with most floated solutions, is that they are market led in circumstances where the customers, i.e. the students, have a very imperfect knowledge of the market and the salesmen, the universities, are downright misleading. Again the classic example of this if this is media studies but the course for the bar isn't very far behind.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    A cheap hit - maybe. I'll be honest and I think that a lot of degrees do seem pretty worthless. I'm sure someone will quote me and say sociology is just as rubbish as sports management. I, of course won't agree, but how worthwhile a degree is is of course open to interpretation.

    Point 1 - Most of the time getting poor grades leads to entry to a poor university to do a poor degree. Not always but a lot of the time.

    Point 2 - Not everyone gets it right first time. However there has to be some form of admissions to university that is based on grades. Resit if you must, but unis shouldn't have to take those with poor grades on the premise they're actually clever...if they're that clever, prove it.

    Point 3 - So? If people want to **** around like that at uni, let them do it. If they fail a year more than once, get rid of them. If you party hard - work hard. I'm all for second chances, but if you get a second chance by hell you should take it. Real world remember.

    Point 4 - I see what you mean, yes, my fault. When I said no other subjects I was thinking in my head that people would bump it up to 240 with stuff like level 8 music and british horse association points, key skills and all that other crap that gets you 10 or 20 UCAS points. BTECs, A-Levels and other equivalents I guess. Good call.

    Point 5 - Some of those degrees have to go. Some of them really are ridiculous. Abuse studies for gods sake. They should be a smaller part of a 'proper degree', I agree.
    Whilst I totally agree with you in regards to raising minimum entry levels (university should be about the brightest students, not the ones most able to pay) I think getting rid of "mickey mouse" degrees is something that people just say without thinking it through. What makes something like Media less valuable or useful than my subject (Classics)? The only reason that Classics is seen as more academic is because it's really old, whereas a lot of the so-called eymouse degrees deal with modern things, like technology, communications, media, etc. Take abuse studies, which seems to be getting a lot of flak on this thread- surely studying abuse, a very real problem, is more useful than studying Latin or literature or history or anthropology. When you start judging some degrees as worth more than others, you pretty much open the door to all arts and humanities (with the exception of stuff like economics) being scrapped.

    Anyway, what I want to know is if the fees rise, WHEN they will rise. Fingers crossed my year will be the last to get a bargain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny Luk)
    Idiot...international students shouldn't be banned, they are the main source of income for most Universities...
    I think what they were getting at, is that UK students should pay equal to the foreign students so that universities aren't biased in making their decisions on which students to choose, i.e. picking an international student because they pay more. And saying, failing that, that foreign students should be banned. At least, that's what I took from the post.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riotgrrl)
    Whilst I totally agree with you in regards to raising minimum entry levels (university should be about the brightest students, not the ones most able to pay) I think getting rid of "mickey mouse" degrees is something that people just say without thinking it through. What makes something like Media less valuable or useful than my subject (Classics)? The only reason that Classics is seen as more academic is because it's really old, whereas a lot of the so-called eymouse degrees deal with modern things, like technology, communications, media, etc. Take abuse studies, which seems to be getting a lot of flak on this thread- surely studying abuse, a very real problem, is more useful than studying Latin or literature or history or anthropology. When you start judging some degrees as worth more than others, you pretty much open the door to all arts and humanities (with the exception of stuff like economics) being scrapped.

    Anyway, what I want to know is if the fees rise, WHEN they will rise. Fingers crossed my year will be the last to get a bargain.
    True. If Classics was a quite new degree, I think it is possible that it would be getting more abuse than Media Studies :dontknow:.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This may well happen. If you look at some of the other nasty things that the new government has done then it is a real possibility.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So glad I finished this year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    we should raise fees for those students whose parents earn alot. for instance they may pay up to 20 grand a year for private school and yet they still pay the same as people who come from single parent familes or earn less. therefore increasing fees for riche students and reducing fees for poorer students.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The conservatives love students rioting. They just wanna give them a reason to riot. Here we are raising tuition fees. Well that would mean me as an international student paying the same amount of money

    Well conservatives gotta be ready for some rioting :P
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hussain101)
    we should raise fees for those students whose parents earn alot. for instance they may pay up to 20 grand a year for private school and yet they still pay the same as people who come from single parent familes or earn less. therefore increasing fees for riche students and reducing fees for poorer students.
    The rich already pay more in income tax, corp tax etc. They also pay proportionately more in terms of education. Again, if this system were put into place, youd still damage the majority of students who go to university, who fall into the squeezed middle class bracket.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hussain101)
    we should raise fees for those students whose parents earn alot. for instance they may pay up to 20 grand a year for private school and yet they still pay the same as people who come from single parent familes or earn less. therefore increasing fees for riche students and reducing fees for poorer students.
    But then children are (1). under 18, so parents are responsible for them,
    and (2). there is another option - state schools.

    Once someone is 19/20/21/22, is it really fair to make their parents pay for them? My parents have spent 19 years paying for me so far, I think it's time for me to take some responsibility, get my own student loan and let them spend money on something they want!

    Also, what if they haven't paid for private education, and spend their money on other things - mortgage, other children, their own interests? Just because someone has a household income above a certain level, it doesn't mean they have huge amounts of disposable income.

    To make someone with a 20 year old child pay £10,000 a year for a university place is completely unfair on the parent, as there wouldn't be any other options (no "state universities" in the same way that there are state schools).

    There has to be a cutoff point where we stop seeing people as "poorer children" and "poorer students" based on their PARENTS' income, and start seeing them as independent adults. Otherwise, parents won't be able to actually have their own lives until they are about 50!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'll just let my friend Tony explain my views on this....

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krakatoa)
    Pretty relevant to this topic I suppose, David Blancflower put forward the case for higher tuition fees in the New Statesman a few months ago.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/...ties-dartmouth

    Thoughts on what he is saying anyone on here not vibing raising fees?
    Ignorant article from an ignorant commentator.

    He says:
    "The most recent pay data from the Labour Force Survey, for the fourth quarter of 2009, indicates that a degree is worth roughly half a million pounds in higher earnings compared to someone with only A-levels or equivalent. Most of those benefits accrue to the individual, so it is hard to fathom why society should pay, rather than individuals"

    It doesn't take a university degree to work out that if, on average, graduates earn an extra £500,000 over a lifetime, that amounts to an extra £200,000 in tax revenues for the treasury @ 40% - far surpassing the cost of a degree. So his claim that "most of these benefits accrue to the individual" is shown to be blatantly false by anyone who takes 5 minutes to examine it in any more detail.

    The fundamental reason why I don't believe in increased tuition fees is very simple - graduates already pay for their degrees in higher tax contributions on future earnings.

    As an aside: According to David Blanchflower's wikipedia page, he obtained 3 degrees from 3 different UK universities. How much do you think he contributed towards the cost of his degree(s)? Hint: About the same amount as all the politicians now advocating a rise in tuition fees or a new graduate tax. ie. not a penny
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougieG)
    What everybody is missing here is that the current generation in power, the baby boomers, had everything fully paid for. Now they are in a situation where they ought to be paying for our education, on the understanding that we pay for the next generation and so on and so forth. It's a much fairer, more reliable and financially sound system because you get the money upfront and people pay what they can afford because they already do through tax. Graduates with good degrees pay more because they get better jobs.

    What is actually happening here, and it has been going on for years, is generational theft. The generation of our parents, and in some cases grandparents, had all of their education paid for by the generation before. Now that they have got that financial and intellectual benefit as a generation, they are saying '**** you lot' and pulling the ladder up, breaking the social contract that they became a part of when they went to university. It's theft to the tune of the £17,000 or so of debt that the average student ends up with and we're paying the price already. We're effectively starting adult life £17,000 worse off than the generation before us through absolutely no fault of our own.

    Something for the conservatives among us to bear in mind. Cameron isn't helping you. He's exploiting you. Daddy paid for his Bullingdon uniform, and through taxes he paid for his tuition fees. If Cameron, and every single one of the Tories and a lot of Labour, didn't pay their parents back the full cost of their tuition then they're hypocrites.
    Great post, rep for you sir.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    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

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