Come to think of it, I fear that this thread will turn to sh*t tomorrow so I'll probably unsubscribe at some point. Please quote if you are addressing me.
It's a shame that the media couldn't discuss the positive reasons for increased pass rates, such as better teacher training, or experiened teachers learning how best to teach students in order to pass exams, or universities improving the quality of lecturing and tutoring as a consequence of quality assurance schemes, peer review, internal training etc etc.
For many years education providers in the UK have tried to improve the quality of education delivery. Surely, this has had SOME impact?
I'd imagine electronic academic databases being very helpful also.
I guess we both draw from our own experiences and have seen different things. My social science background, and the specialisms I've been exposed to, have allowed me to learn about things which most courses simply don't teach. There is a dearth in knowledge generally in this area, so getting on a course which provides such specialism gives me a one up in the job market where this knowledge is essential. Further, it just so happens that what is taught is empirically-based insofar as knowledge comes from research, and the lecturers are those doing the research. I fully understand where you are coming from though. One of the main things for me is that research degrees are not teaching degrees, and research academics are not necessarily good teachers, so consequently nothing is set in stone. This could be why new universities sometimes do very well (sometimes better) than older universities in teaching assessments, since courses at these universities are perhaps taught more by senior academics who may not be trained teachers, but have accumulated enough experience and skills to teach effectively.
Edit: to cite the last (albiet out-of-date) teaching scores, Oxford Brookes was deemed to be "excellent" in 20 out of 24 subjects (or there abouts). Teaching quality was not an issue, and hasn't been an issue for many new universities for a while (if the older teaching scores are anything to go by).
Whatever, they just can't accept that we're better because in their days they still thought the Earth was flat or something so they failed.
If we all start improving the economy in ten years' time it'll be 'JOBS ARE GETTING EASIER.'
If Linford Christie was born ten years later he'd have better equipment and training techniques to further increase his previous record? Is the 100m race becoming easier?