Is it too easy to get admitted into a university?

Scroll to see replies

'i don’t think it’s far to say someone can’t get the job they want'

I am not too sure. I could not say.

*fair

you know certain jobs require a degree in order to get said job, yes?

if someone cannot go to university because they’re not “the cream of the crop” they cannot get the job they want.

a lot of jobs require degrees nowadays. not allowing people to go to university because they didnt get A*A*A* limits their opportunities.

Reply 21

Other_Owl

Original post by User135792468

As you are paying £9,250 per year the least they can do is accept you

Going to an EU university avoids the inflated fees.

Reply 22

LaPregunta

Original post by bubblecat

Degrees have become so common (and easier to access) that is why so many ask for it.

If you cannot reach the minimum standard, then you should not be in that profession. I may want to be a basketball player, but if I cannot reach the minimum standard should I be able to play, perhaps in a lower league, basketball because it is a desire of mine? Or should I receive a letter of "You did not make the team because you did not display the relevant competencies"?

Reply 23

winterscoming

Original post by LaPregunta

If you cannot reach the minimum standard, then you should not be in that profession.

How is someone supposed to reach the minimum standard for a job if they are denied the opportunity to get on to a course where they can learn and meet that standard?

Reply 24

bubblecat

Original post by LaPregunta

yes but to get to university you have to do multiple subjects, whereas at university you specialise and especially in a job. if i’m wanting to go into a a job in economics but failed my art A level and missed my uni spot does that mean i’m incompetent at economics?

Reply 25

LaPregunta

Original post by winterscoming

How is someone supposed to reach the minimum standard for a job if they are denied the opportunity to get on to a course where they can learn and meet that standard?

They are supposed to reach the minimum standard of the course first. If they cannot reach the minimum standard of the course, they will hardly reach that of the job which directly corresponds ie Medicine=Doctor. It should not be based on wants, but capabilities.

Reply 26

winterscoming

Original post by LaPregunta

The current system already works this way - but the particular courses which people study at A-Level tends not to be particularly important anyway. What you are talking about is not only greatly increasing the minimum standard for getting onto those courses to put them out-of-reach, but also drastically reducing the number of places available. effectively denying most people the opportunity to get onto them.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 27

LaPregunta

Original post by bubblecat

I like this point.

I think the point is that (art) it is totally unrelated (to economics). Why should failure in this unrelated course ruin ones prospectives? If so:

Of course not. That is not the point. The point is academic commitment and subsequent achievement. We cannot discard Art just because it is unrelated to economics. Their A* or D shows a level of dedication.

Reply 28

winterscoming

Original post by LaPregunta

These are orthogonal concepts. Academic achievement is not a prerequisite for being good at a job, and is not at all necessary or important for finding employment or becoming exceptional at a particular career..

It's extremely common for people who are very weak academically to become experts in their chosen profession because professional success and academic success rely on completely different things. The skills which people gain through academic study frequently do not translate very well into a career because jobs are based on practical application and skills/understanding gained through first-hand experience far more than theoretical knowledge.

As to your point "we cannot discard art just because it is unrelated to economics" -- this is simply incorrect. We most certainly can ignore an art grade, for the reason that it is unrelated to economics, and because their level of dedication to Art is wholly irrelevant to their potential at economics. .

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 29

LaPregunta

Original post by winterscoming

You have understood me. I'm not too sure if you are disputin the benefits of this, but as I have a slight inclination to believe others are opposed to my view, I will ask you, therefore, to tell me what you find to be contentious.

Reply 30

LaPregunta

Original post by winterscoming

You have misunderstood me.

I want it to be less necessary to go to university for the sake of jobs. Of course, a university education does not mean you will be good at your job - look no further than your teachers.

Still, I can not agree with your art comment.

Reply 31

-Imperator-

I think it's nice (and potentially beneficial to our country as a whole) that a university education is more accessible now. Obviously (in the UK) the better universities are more selective (geared towards your "elite intellectuals"), and the old polytechnics have been re-categorised.

Reply 32

User135792468

Original post by Other_Owl

Going to an EU university avoids the inflated fees.

Most top universities in Europe are in the UK, you can’t get student loans from UK government if you study abroad and most people don’t know the language of the host country so will not be able to find a job

Reply 33

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by LaPregunta

Yes.

Yes.

Well that well reasoned and articulate argument has convinced me :indiff:

Reply 34

LaPregunta

Original post by PQ

Well that well reasoned and articulate argument has convinced me :indiff:

You asked me questions, I answered.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 35

maah001

Original post by barnetlad

My concern is that if it is seen as the only option of any value post 18, we lose the valuable skills and trades this country needs. If we are to develop more green technology and install the renewable sources of energy we need, there will be apprenticeships needed in greater numbers, for example.

I also object to tuition fees and loans and would prefer a graduate tax scheme.

Effectively the current tuition fee / loans arrangement is, to all intents and purposes, a graduate tax scheme. You pay a fixed percentage of your earnings over a certain threshold in the same way as Income tax / National Insurance works, with the added benefit that you stop paying after 30 years. If you don't earn enough, you don't pay.

It was framed this way by the government at the time, as they didn't want to be seen to increase taxation, and it pushed back the write off of the unpaid balances into the long grass (although the NAO has recently got wise to this).

Reply 36

winterscoming

Original post by LaPregunta

I agree with the premise of it needing to be 'less necessary' to go to university for the sake of getting certain jobs, but there are also a lot of jobs out there which do require skills far above and beyond those which someone would learn at A-Level, but where there's no need to have an exceptional academic background to learn those skills (Many STEM jobs for example).

Ex-polytechnic universities are generally doing a good job of helping less-academically-minded people into high-skilled careers with courses that are more vocational, skills-based, coursework-assessed, and often designed in partnership with a lot of large employers. (including events for undergrads, networking, industrial placements, graduate jobseeking support, etc).

My disagreement is with the method that I think you are suggesting of introducing much higher barriers for getting into courses which are currently being successful in training people with lot of those skills, despite many of them probably not having a particularly strong academic background, mediocre GCSEs and A-Level results, etc.

I'll use Computer Science and Software Engineering as an example since that's my background:

On one hand, Software Engineering is exactly the kind of career that anyone can self-teach from the internet and go grab a job, but self-teaching is harder than university. Most employers will offer "graduate" software engineering jobs to self-taught programmers without a degree if their skills are up-to-scratch, and are increasingly looking towards degree-apprenticeships to fill entry-level jobs, yet Computer Science degrees are extremely popular among students for getting into those jobs for a whole range of reasons

•

Far too few degree-apprenticeship placements available relative to the number of people who'd be interested in them.

•

Not everyone at 18 is ready to commit themselves to a specific career path and jump on an apprenticeship scheme

•

Even less-academic universities still give students a broad spectrum of skills which keeps their options open (higher apprenticeship schemes are excellent, but they sacrifice breadth to focus on career-specific skills)

•

The amount of work which degree-apprenticeships involve is actually quite high - 30hrs/week at work, 1 day a week in lectures, coursework at weekends - it's much more intense than a 3-year degree from an ex-polytechnic.

•

Computer Science skills are widely applicable to a lot of jobs and demand for those skills are growing even in jobs which you might think of as traditional Computing jobs - some people will want to study computer science to gain those skills but not specifically to get an IT job.

•

While university may not be the most cost-effective nor time-efficient way to learn those skills, universities themselves are experts in education, so they are ideally placed to train people in vocational skills, not just in academic study/research.

•

Universities have good/safe learning environments, experienced staff who know how to teach students, good facilities, strong links with employers, strong support networks, and in many cases are really successful at getting students from all kinds of backgrounds into good careers. It's difficult and expensive to replicate a lot of these sort of things elsewhere.

Back to the point about methods - if there were 'better' ways for students leaving 6th-form to get the skills they need for the future than going to university, a lot of them would already take those options due to the student debts -- the problem generally is that the alternative options are either less-accessible (For example, degree-apprenticeship schemes are quite competitive - there just aren't enough placements for everyone),. or they involve a lot of disadvantages (For example, self-teaching a subject like computer science on your own is a lot harder than studying it at university with a lecturer, working with other students, structured learning, etc.).

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 37

Other_Owl

Original post by User135792468

10 EU Universities offer 10,000 courses in English. This is coming from someone who is studying abroad with the degree in English.

Reply 38

AlwaysBroke.

Original post by LaPregunta

I am well aware of that fact - tuition fees discourage.

Bein admitted to a university is easy; there exist foundation years, community universities, universities with low or no entry requirements, contextual offers, self-imposed quotas, and whatever else I am unaware if or bothered not to mention.

All medicine, dental and oxbrdige students disagree :frown:

Reply 39

rcmotorboy

Very tough, because I was almost untouched during college, it was almost easy. I remember just feeling lost when I was at college. College really pushed me to get into university. It's tough because 2nd year is challenging and they don't want quitters, so I think they want good students with great grades. Hope there's university that just accept students with bare passes out there. I worked hard for my merits during college.