Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    1. Many courses at universities are vocational like computer science and fashion design which I think should and could be learned on the job and would in many cases be better. I think too many UK companies have lumbered the universities with teaching things that they should be doing in the first few years of employment of school leavers. But they have very shrewdly made "clever" people stump up £9000 plus living costs to learn these things before entering their business.

    2. A lot of stuff taught at university follow the jug and mug model of remembering a lot of facts and reproducing them in exams. This information is readily avialable in paper and electronic form for anyone to read and understand so why bother having a TA stand in front of a lot of undergrads telling them what they can find out for themselves.

    I think the role of universities should be changed drastically to more like an organisation to set standards, syllabuses, set and mark exams and grade results.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Where else would you put the unemployed?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Your first point, I think, is reasonable. However, employers don't often have the time or resources to provide a detailed, in-depth education to a new employee, over the course of a few years - particularly when, during that time, they're not a productive member of the company. Similarly, no company could educate with the variety a degree offers.

    Your second point, in my opinion, is ridiculous. :p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    1. Many courses at universities are vocational like computer science and fashion design.
    No they are not

    Law, physics, philosophy, politics, classics, Ancient History, Chemistry, Agriculture, Criminology, Sociology, Archaeology....

    Computer Science isn't what I'd really describe as being "vocational".

    Architecture, Town planning, medicine, nursing, surveying, engineering....all vocational degrees, to some extent, but graduates are expected to have far greater knowledge and are required to have a greater level of competence than, say, a generation or two ago. It's not really possible to "learn this on the job" in the same way that the generation above could (and didn't at all in subjects like medicine).

    I think the relevant professional bodies (say RTPI) know more about what's needed to be a certain professional (planner) than you do.

    (Original post by Maker)
    I think the role of universities should be changed drastically to more like an organisation to set standards, syllabuses, set and mark exams and grade results.
    Pardon?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You blatantly have not attended university.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There's no way I could have learned physics on the job.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vander Beth)
    You blatantly have not attended university.
    i second this :yes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I actually think that the vocational aspects of universities are the way forward in the modern era of university education. Many careers do value the traditional types of education from universities (e.g. history or philosophy) but in truth (outside of the proof that you can learn and remember complex things with levels of reasoning) they don't provide you with any actual skills you'll need in the work place.

    Courses such as Computer Science, The Sciences, Medicine, Design, Theatre etc (although ranging in levels of academia) all offer skills and advanced skills that are desirable in the workplace (assuming you know what you want to do before university) that many workplaces cannot afford (whether financially, in resources or time) to teach workers (specifically new ones)

    Note:
    My comment about History and Philosophy is assuming you are not studying them to become teachers in that area or want to become career historians or philosophers because then clearly they do teach the skills required in those workplaces (but many who take these subjects do not intend to be in these careers)
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think a lot of current courses that are vocational or with a strong vocational content used to be learned on the job and not at university. Accountancy and nursing for example never used to be degree subjects and people generally went into them after O or A levels. Medicine is really an apprenticeship rather than an academic subject.

    I think subjects like English Lit and biology have a place at university because they teach people to question, think and understand in ways that could not be done elsewhere for most people.

    I can understand why the universities would want a wide range of courses to appeal to the widest audience but it does seem to dilute what they should be doing which is not to fix the inadequacies of empolyers.

    I have been to university by the way.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    1. Many courses at universities are vocational like computer science
    Which job would teach you comp sci?

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I think a lot of current courses that are vocational or with a strong vocational content used to be learned on the job and not at university. Accountancy and nursing for example never used to be degree subjects and people generally went into them after O or A levels. Medicine is really an apprenticeship rather than an academic subject.

    I think subjects like English Lit and biology have a place at university because they teach people to question, think and understand in ways that could not be done elsewhere for most people.

    I can understand why the universities would want a wide range of courses to appeal to the widest audience but it does seem to dilute what they should be doing which is not to fix the inadequacies of empolyers.

    I have been to university by the way.
    All university subjects teach people to question and think; and the reason that subjects once taught on the job are now being taught in universities is because they have, for the most part, advanced so far that teaching everything on the job is no longer possible.
    Employers don't have the time or resources to employ someone without skills or education and spend multiple years teaching them from scratch.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I think a lot of current courses that are vocational or with a strong vocational content used to be learned on the job and not at university. Accountancy and nursing for example never used to be degree subjects and people generally went into them after O or A levels. Medicine is really an apprenticeship rather than an academic subject.

    I think subjects like English Lit and biology have a place at university because they teach people to question, think and understand in ways that could not be done elsewhere for most people.

    I can understand why the universities would want a wide range of courses to appeal to the widest audience but it does seem to dilute what they should be doing which is not to fix the inadequacies of empolyers.

    I have been to university by the way.
    You sure about that?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    1. Many courses at universities are vocational like computer science and fashion design which I think should and could be learned on the job and would in many cases be better. I think too many UK companies have lumbered the universities with teaching things that they should be doing in the first few years of employment of school leavers. But they have very shrewdly made "clever" people stump up £9000 plus living costs to learn these things before entering their business.

    2. A lot of stuff taught at university follow the jug and mug model of remembering a lot of facts and reproducing them in exams. This information is readily avialable in paper and electronic form for anyone to read and understand so why bother having a TA stand in front of a lot of undergrads telling them what they can find out for themselves.

    I think the role of universities should be changed drastically to more like an organisation to set standards, syllabuses, set and mark exams and grade results.
    1. That plan doesn't achieve anything. If anything it just makes employing an inexperienced worker an even less attractive prospect as it shifts the financial liability onto the company rather than the candidate. If you imagine the cost to the employer, it just wouldn't be practical or economically viable.

    2. No it really isn't. Exams are 1 method of assessment. Producing coursework to a high standard requires a lot of additional knowledge that you have to go away and find out for yourself. My lecturers make a point of teaching us enough to get 40%. If we want higher marks, we have to go to the library and read around the subject. The lecturers cover the foundations and are there to impart knowledge if you ask the questions.

    So no. I don't think that the whole system is that simple.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Well, y'know, if I just went off to practice medicine without going to uni, I'd... y'know... kill people. So I guess I'm pro universities...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    a lot of things i've learnt at uni is just reading a bloody book! wot a waste of over 3k a year!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zap Brannigan)
    Where else would you put the unemployed?
    Ouch!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KinkyBear)
    a lot of things i've learnt at uni is just reading a bloody book! wot a waste of over 3k a year!
    So you wish you hadn't done a degree/are dropping out?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KinkyBear)
    a lot of things i've learnt at uni is just reading a bloody book! wot a waste of over 3k a year!
    Well at least you know you're competent at that. Every cloud, silver lining..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ^ having a degree is useful tho
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I think the role of universities should be changed drastically to more like an organisation to set standards, syllabuses, set and mark exams and grade results.
    You mean like the old polytechnics? That is part of what a modern university does, but it isn't anywhere near all of it. What about research, for example?
 
 
 
  • 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 like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    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

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