Turn on thread page Beta

Is university really worth it? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Yes I know - I just wasn't prepared to fill it in for everyone and I wanted all the unis on the list so that people could see that the unis with the brilliant reputations arn't as good as some would lead you to beleave - for example Oxford being joint 8th for teaching.
    In my experience university lecturers are normally quite crap at lecturing so TQAs hardly reflect true student experience.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    However you have to remember that as entry grades rise the % of firsts should too so for example Warwick and Bath both have similar percentages of firsts but Baths' entry grades are lower by 0.9 points which would suggest that Warwick has the better teaching (note - this assuption is confirmed by the Times guide).
    Degree classifications awarded by different institutions are rarely directly comparable. The use of % of 1sts as a stat is pointless.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    In my experience university lecturers are normally quite crap at lecturing so TQAs hardly reflect true student experience.
    True. With one exception out of possibly dozens of lecturers i had when i was in uni they were pretty dire.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    True. With one exception out of possibly dozens of lecturers i had when i was in uni they were pretty dire.
    I did much sleeping in lectures
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sashh)
    It's not common to work your way up like that though.

    Yes building is a good trade to be in for the money, but do you still want to be on a building site when you are 60? At least a degree gives you a choice an the chance to change career.
    It isn’t? You can branch out into your own business, plumbing etc. I was simply pointing out that people in these industries can earn quite a bit more than some graduates.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    It isn’t? You can branch out into your own business, plumbing etc. I was simply pointing out that people in these industries can earn quite a bit more than some graduates.
    I wonder how many of these businesses end up as part of thw "Black Economy"? :eek:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    I did much sleeping in lectures
    I did most of mine out of them
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by shiny)
    Degree classifications awarded by different institutions are rarely directly comparable. The use of % of 1sts as a stat is pointless.
    Pretty graph showing the correlation between A level points on entry and %age 1sts and 2is on graduation 3 yrs later. Grouped to show the picture for each uni rather than broken down for each student/subject.

    As a measure of cohort quality the AL scores are a fairly accurate prediction as to how many 1sts and 2is will be awarded...on an individual basis there is no such correlation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Hence %Firsts is a useless statistic because it is merely restating the same information as entry grades.

    Now if there was no correlation then you'd have some useful information to examine
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by shiny)
    Hence %Firsts is a useless statistic because it is merely restating the same information as entry grades.

    Now if there was no correlation then you'd have some useful information to examine
    When you go down to a subject level the correlations become less well defined...competetive subjects like law, english, history, psychology etc show strong correlations....uncompetetive subjects (the sciences, engineering, social sciences etc) show weak to no correlation.

    Personally I just love the graph I just posted because of the position of Aston...now *thats* a uni who knows how to spot quality students regardless of A level scores AND is able to give them the support they need to excel :cool:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Personally I just love the graph I just posted because of the position of Aston...now *thats* a uni who knows how to spot quality students regardless of A level scores AND is able to give them the support they need to excel :cool:
    Either that or their quality controls mechanisms are suspect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    When you go down to a subject level the correlations become less well defined...competetive subjects like law, english, history, psychology etc show strong correlations....uncompetetive subjects (the sciences, engineering, social sciences etc) show weak to no correlation.

    Personally I just love the graph I just posted because of the position of Aston...now *thats* a uni who knows how to spot quality students regardless of A level scores AND is able to give them the support they need to excel :cool:

    what do you mean by competitive subjects, new term to me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    When you go down to a subject level the correlations become less well defined...competetive subjects like law, english, history, psychology etc show strong correlations....uncompetetive subjects (the sciences, engineering, social sciences etc) show weak to no correlation.

    Personally I just love the graph I just posted because of the position of Aston...now *thats* a uni who knows how to spot quality students regardless of A level scores AND is able to give them the support they need to excel :cool:

    what do you mean by competitive subjects, new term to me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    When you go down to a subject level the correlations become less well defined...competetive subjects like law, english, history, psychology etc show strong correlations....uncompetetive subjects (the sciences, engineering, social sciences etc) show weak to no correlation.

    Personally I just love the graph I just posted because of the position of Aston...now *thats* a uni who knows how to spot quality students regardless of A level scores AND is able to give them the support they need to excel :cool:

    what do you mean by competitive subjects, new term to me
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Vladek)
    what do you mean by competitive subjects, new term to me
    Subjects were demand outstrips supply - where the applications per place ratio is very high.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Subjects were demand outstrips supply - where the applications per place ratio is very high.
    ah right, sorry bout the multiple posts people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to try and take the discussion back a bit to what it was origionally: is going to university really worth it? Personally I get fed up with people talking purely about job prospects, or solely about having fun, I want to have both. More importantly universities should be about more than this, they should be about raising the level of thinking that a person can engage in. This is why many degrees, while seeming useless on their main thrust, are very easily transferable to other jobs. This is important because we live in a democratic, political society and there needs to be a critical mass of people well educated enough to make informed decisions.

    Someone is going to complain there that it isn't only university educated people who can make informed decisions, and I agree with them. There are many ways that people can improve their knowledge of the world but higher education is a surefire way of making sure that there are more well educated people.

    There have also been some interesting points about the 50% target for university educated population. I agree with some earlier posts that people should not be forced to go to University if it is not right for them, and I realise that places like Cambridge have large problems with parents just expecting their children to go to uni. However, I come from an ex mining community, and there are so many people I know who would benefit from a university education but will never go because their aspirations are set too low. I think that this is what the 50% target is set to achieve, it tells us that as a country too many people have too low aspirations and it gives something for education workers to aim at, though I'm willing to bet that not even the government take the target as some kind of quota that should be enforced.

    There were also people saying that university should be for an elite; that too many people going makes it harder to stand out in the crowd. Well frankly, there have always been lots of people going for less jobs, the only change is that it is now the educated classes who are finding it harder to stand out. Moreover it's important to remember that businesses will not really suffer from this; the fact that there are more people available to do jobs should mean that it becomes easier to run service industries which is where most MEDC ecoonomies (like ours) are headed.

    I have loads more points, but I'm sure you're all getting bored of my message by now, so I'll save 'em all up for some other time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    Moreover it's important to remember that businesses will not really suffer from this; the fact that there are more people available to do jobs should mean that it becomes easier
    the brain drain?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    However, I come from an ex mining community, and there are so many people I know who would benefit from a university education but will never go because their aspirations are set too low. I think that this is what the 50% target is set to achieve, it tells us that as a country too many people have too low aspirations and it gives something for education workers to aim at.

    The issue of funding dictates that universities cannot support 50% participation without a dilution of quality in education, is this an acceptable consequence of the 50% target?

    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    .
    Well frankly, there have always been lots of people going for less jobs, the only change is that it is now the educated classes who are finding it harder to stand out.

    I disagree. As participation in higher education increases employers will focus more on the rarity of a degree from an "elite" group of universities when selecting employees and disregard the rest, thus more and more graduates will end up unemployed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minor_Deity)
    There have also been some interesting points about the 50% target for university educated population. I agree with some earlier posts that people should not be forced to go to University if it is not right for them, and I realise that places like Cambridge have large problems with parents just expecting their children to go to uni. However, I come from an ex mining community, and there are so many people I know who would benefit from a university education but will never go because their aspirations are set too low. I think that this is what the 50% target is set to achieve, it tells us that as a country too many people have too low aspirations and it gives something for education workers to aim at, though I'm willing to bet that not even the government take the target as some kind of quota that should be enforced.

    There were also people saying that university should be for an elite; that too many people going makes it harder to stand out in the crowd. Well frankly, there have always been lots of people going for less jobs, the only change is that it is now the educated classes who are finding it harder to stand out. Moreover it's important to remember that businesses will not really suffer from this; the fact that there are more people available to do jobs should mean that it becomes easier to run service industries which is where most MEDC ecoonomies (like ours) are headed.
    Where the problem lies is not in the ideal of access for all, but in the nature of 50% as a figure itself. 50% is half, is average (on a normal distribution such as IQ). The 50% who don't go are below average, and therefor not an employers target. You need to spend vast amounts of money, either your own, your parents, or the governments, in proving to society that you are average. That is wrong.

    Even then the governments system now, and its plans from 2006 fail to really leave education open to all. I worked with somebody this year, who should be in HE. She is more intelligent than many people I know at Uni, but stands no hope of going in the near future. No qualifications post GCSE can be solved by foundation years etc, but there is the simple fact that £5,000 (maximum loan + HE grant) is not affordable to live off. She lives with her sister, so cannot move out otherwise her sister would be unable to meet the rent. She cannot afford to meet her share of the rent on £5,000pa either.

    Even if she could just meet the rent, it would force her to go to her nearest uni, and live at home. When you can't afford to run a car, thats impossible around here.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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.