The Student Room Group

All unis should be closed except Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE, UCL, St Andrews, Durham +8

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Anagogic
Agree, more importantly Universities should be reserved for professionals, vocational careers and those going into research.


I don't think we're on the same page really. Universities should be academic and offer academic courses - what graduates do after is really on how well employers perceive the skills/life experience graduates pick up by way of doing their degrees.

There should be universities offering degrees (Maths, History, English, CS, Engineering, Medicine etc), specialist schools (offering design, media, photography, art courses for e.g.) and vocational institutions (e.g. providing travel and tourism, business studies, etc courses).

That way employers can tap into the raw horse power of people from the academic institutions and take on kids who may have not had the chops for academia but went to a specialist or vocational institute instead. Would make far more sense than just having a bunch of universities.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Always find these threads depressing because they are always about gaining more funding for courses and institutions the supporter happen to attend at the expense of the rest of the population. Intellectual snobbery and elitism.
Original post by √√√√
Lol, even from LSE, Warwick et al.
Accountancy also has a few sponsored degree programs such as PwC flying start and a KPMG which I cant quite remember the name.

I doubt those above are a 'joke'


I don't see the point if you want to be a chartered accountant is what I meant, joke was somewhat harsh. Sure some people might want the university experience, or maybe there are some excellent placement opportunities available to students from LSE. That said a grad from LSE or Warwick, if they want to be a chartered accountant, still has to do their ACA exams. Why go to university for 3 years THEN start working for your ACAs. Why not start working on your ACAs at 18. I don't get it but then I never wanted to be an accountant lol.
Original post by Princepieman
I don't think we're on the same page really. Universities should be academic and offer academic courses - what graduates do after is really on how well employers perceive the skills/life experience graduates pick up by way of doing their degrees.

There should be universities offering degrees (Maths, History, English, CS, Engineering, Medicine etc), specialist schools (offering design, media, photography, art courses for e.g.) and vocational institutions (e.g. providing travel and tourism, business studies, etc courses).

That way employers can tap into the raw horse power of people from the academic institutions and take on kids who may have not had the chops for academia but went to a specialist or vocational institute instead. Would make far more sense than just having a bunch of universities.



Posted from TSR Mobile


Those streams should exist but I'm talking about the traditional representation of University. A degree isn't a degree it completely depends on the course and content which is taught.
Original post by 999tigger
Always find these threads depressing because they are always about gaining more funding for courses and institutions the supporter happen to attend at the expense of the rest of the population. Intellectual snobbery and elitism.


Indeed, I think the issue is that a degree isn't a necessity and many people would benefit by going down alternative paths.
Original post by J-SP
That really wouldn't work. Most people don't choose their career path before they have started studying. Such an approach basically means people need to determine their career by the time they are filling in their UCAS form.


Ideally people shouldn't go to University unless it serves a purpose, going just for the sake of it is stupid.
Original post by jestersnow
I don't see the point if you want to be a chartered accountant is what I meant, joke was somewhat harsh. Sure some people might want the university experience, or maybe there are some excellent placement opportunities available to students from LSE. That said a grad from LSE or Warwick, if they want to be a chartered accountant, still has to do their ACA exams. Why go to university for 3 years THEN start working for your ACAs. Why not start working on your ACAs at 18. I don't get it but then I never wanted to be an accountant lol.


Apprenticeships aren't available across the country especially for those in rural areas E.g East of England and the South West. Plus the university experience is a valuable one.
Original post by Anagogic
Ideally people shouldn't go to University unless it serves a purpose, going just for the sake of it is stupid.


I went to university for the intellectual challenge. I chose the hardest degree (from what other people said) and I just wanted to prove myself. No harm in that.

I come from a low HE participation area -- no one went to uni, so to be competitive in the job market did not require a degree, and most everyone who did go to uni went to the local ex-poly/New unis. I had a job and I knew I could excel without a degree, but it just wasn't my concern. And I wanted to go an "elite" uni (from my peers' POV), so I did.

I don't quite understand why reading Cicero and appreciating highly abstract arguments should be only related to employment and squarely unrelated to pleasure, enjoyment and personal satisfaction. Lastly now I have graduated I am in fact more employable in the industry I was previously in; got decent job offers which were only open to grads. Haha, turned them down to do another degree! Again, this degree is solely because I find it interesting and if it helps me out in the future, well I'll be a happy camper. But it's not my concern.
Original post by J-SP
People go with the purpose of knowing it will develop their skills and help them secure graduate level employment, should that be something they want to do. Many jobs need a level 6 or above qualification, so there is a reason someone goes. The vast majority just don’t know what that graduate level employment they will go into, or whether they could go into something completely different.

University opens far more many doors both in the U.K. and abroad. Restricting access to university to those who make career decisions at the age of 17 would destroy graduate recruitment for most industries and would severely impact the countries productivity.


I'm not saying you should restrict entry just that it isn't ideal to go when it isn't necessary. I guarantee that those who come out with poor classifications have just gone for the sake of going.
I completely disagree with this. I'm from Scotland, and I am going on to study chemistry next year. Having looked around at apprenticeships for what I am wanting to do and the only ones that are related to chemistry that I have found are in the south of England. How am I supposed to get the skills that I am needing to work in that industry without going to university, and considering that I am almost 20 and coming from college, all of the universities that have been mentioned wouldn't even take a chance on me just because I am not a straight A student coming from High School. The smaller universities are more willing to accept more students with a more diverse background which is exactly what university is really for, the discussions of important topics and sharing of ideas. If you don't have this diversity of backgrounds, you lose what makes the university experience so great, and you would also only have like-minded people altogether, which would prevent the advancement of our knowledge and understanding of what we are studying. Universities should be an experience that is open to all that have the ambition to pursue it and not limited to the select few. You would also likely have a situation where only the rich would get to send their kids to university.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by tyson69
Then what should people with AAB and not AAA do, an aprenticeship 🤔. Also, I have heard Manchester is in the same league as Glasgow.


Most people with AAB get into Russell groups...

i Got AAB i go to Nottingham
Original post by Notoriety
I went to university for the intellectual challenge. I chose the hardest degree (from what other people said) and I just wanted to prove myself. No harm in that.

I come from a low HE participation area -- no one went to uni, so to be competitive in the job market did not require a degree, and most everyone who did go to uni went to the local ex-poly/New unis. I had a job and I knew I could excel without a degree, but it just wasn't my concern. And I wanted to go an "elite" uni (from my peers' POV), so I did.

I don't quite understand why reading Cicero and appreciating highly abstract arguments should be only related to employment and squarely unrelated to pleasure, enjoyment and personal satisfaction. Lastly now I have graduated I am in fact more employable in the industry I was previously in; got decent job offers which were only open to grads. Haha, turned them down to do another degree! Again, this degree is solely because I find it interesting and if it helps me out in the future, well I'll be a happy camper. But it's not my concern.


So you did have a purpose, intellectual challenge and self improvement. But this isn't most people they just follow the herd and either pick a mickey mouse degree or pick something off a whim. Leading to poor classifications, high drop out rates and undesirable skills. Unversity fits a purpose but this purpose isn't suited to most people.
Original post by Realitysreflexx
Most people with AAB get into Russell groups...

i Got AAB i go to Nottingham


I know, i have offers from Russel groups with similar grades, it was just an exageration as CollectiveSoul was saying we should get rid of Glasgow's non vocational degrees when they usually require AAB
Original post by CollectiveSoul
is where you to go practice Marxism


Don't agree with the thread but I thought you at least had some element of insightfulness going on.

Looks like I was wrong.
Reply 34
Hahahahahaha
I would maybe have understood this if you said only Russell Group universities (pretty much all have historical significance to us in some way and all are held in high regards) but that would be stretching it. Apprenticeships offer a short term reward, and is a good option for many people though excluding many universities from the current system would be insane. I’m all for universities acting completely independently from the state, but this would be a bizarre compromise which most people won’t like or agree to, nor will it work well in my opinion
Original post by CollectiveSoul
All unis should banned from teaching non-vocational deegres on the taxypayer, except Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE, UCL, St Andrews, Durham, Warwick, Bath, Bristol, Exeter, KCL, Edinburgh, Manchester and Nottingham.

I think university is a joke really. So, so, so many people i meet say things like "I got an apprenticeship at IBM and now I'm earning 30k".

Somewhere down the line, university (where you learn about the academic world of research and theses rather than employability-skills like client management) have managed to trick students into thinking that they have something to do with vocation.

James Dyson leads the way. Either apprenticeships or vocational degrees at specialist colleges like his which lead directly into a job should be for most people.

Let's not shut down 200+ universities, but lets privatise their inefficient schemes (non-vocational Undergraduate courses) and keep them as purely seats of academia.

We should only entirely fund our the top 15 unis as they are 'national treasures'.

Agree with privatisation. I'd say Oxbridge should be, too, so they can have complete control over their admissions process and they would also have absolutely no issue securing funding on a private basis. You can add Glasgow, Birmingham and York to the above, they're competitive with those unis. The rest? Either swim or sink.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by J-SP
This is the most ridiculous theory I have ever seen. We would screw our economy in many different ways if we took this really narrow view.

As a recruiter, I wouldn’t be able to recruit for my graduate programmes if I was only able to recruit people 14 different unis. Having worked at a Big 4 accountancy firm, a major FMCG company, international law firms, a telecoms company, for consultancy, finance, investment and the public sector, all of those companies/organisations would be screwed if they couldn’t recruit graduates from outside of those 14 unis (most of their roles never required a vocational degree). Saying they should all switch to apprenticeships is completely unrealistic. It’s bad enough not having enough grads that are ready for the work place and many of the jobs here roles are for are not appropriate for someone who hasn’t completed a level 6 qualification.

They’d all have to recruit from abroad if such a restriction was put in place.


I fail to see why the pool of applicants the universities the OP mentioned would not suffice. It isn't the taxpayers' job to subsidise training for the sake of employers, who of their own admission do not think many grads are up to the caliber they require. If they think otherwise, tough. Remove the prospect of banning other universities from providing the courses, but also have it so that they have to offer the courses on a profitable basis, and I don't see the issue.

Ultimately this "it'll hurt the economy" crap is trotted out whenever a subsidised entity - i.e. one hogging resources otherwise there for private sector use - is threatened with the prospect competing with other firms for consumer funds. I am sure some employers despise the notion of having to pay for training out of their own pockets.

Oh well.
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 38
35 years ago all universities were acceptable.
Original post by J-SP
The numbers just don’t add up. How many people do you think are graduating from these 14 universities a year?

The U.K. HE sector is a vital part of this economy. It creates about 400,000 jobs directly, and about 650,000 indirectly. It generates £95 billion to the U.K. economy. Such a crazy restriction would be damaging to the sector and the wider economy.


I agree that banning private entities from competing to offer this training would be a bad move. What I am having trouble here is seeing how those figures make much sense. When you say it "generates" that much income, where is this figure taken from? When you say it "creates" these jobs, how so? Because it goes without saying that spending by the government will count as economic activity, but it doesn't mean it is productive in any sense, especially a value-added sense.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending