No. Over the past decade or more, Universities have been funded to take more students (and penalised financially if they don't) as a part of a deliberate government policy to raise the percentage of 18 year olds entering university.Originally Posted by Viking
Does this not mean that students who are getting into university now would not have done so
in the eg 60's? If that is the case then it follows that standards have dropped, exams have been made easier or pass marks have been lowered--or all three. I am not referring to the capacity of universities. I am talking about the standard of qualifications required to be accepted for a degree course. That is what has changed and that is what is of concern.
When you've had fresher A-grade A-level Latin students who don't know what an adjective is, and Greek A-level students who can't do what used to be a common entrants Greek exam for 13-year-olds thirty years ago, then I think you can assume standards have dropped.
Yes, that is the case. It is easier to get into university than it has ever been, so the average standard of student ability has dropped.
Of course, it isn't as simple as that. The top-rated universities have been able to maintain their standards far better than low-rated ones. It also varies with the subject. Really popular courses, like medicine or law, have maintained their entry standards. The least popular courses - e.g. physics, chemistry and foreign languages - have much lower entry requirements even at top universities.
It does make me wonder about those government calculations that graduates will earn so many hundreds of thousands of pounds more than non-graduates over their lifetime, so can afford to pay more. That used to be true when being a graduate was a rare distinction, but nowadays?
One solution for any young person wondering whether it's worth going to university may be to try to get a sponsored part-time course. I recall many years ago hearing of one organised by a university at the request of a big company (I forget which). Students were interviewed by the company for trainee management roles and if appointed were expected to work part-time for the company (for which they were paid a salary) and for the rest of the time work on a four-year part-time course. Very hard work, but at the end of it the students had a degree, no debt (in fact cash in the bank) plus four years of employment experience to offer - priceless. The company had four years in which to evaluate the students and could then offer jobs to the good ones with confidence. I don't know if such courses are still running, though - I've been out of touch for a few years. Also, they are obviously really only for those who have already decided that they want that kind of management career.
That bothers me too. If nearly half the population goes into teritary education, then degrees are no longer a sign of excellence but just of being 'above average'. Why should employers pay someone more for that? To get higher pay I suspect you now need to have gone to the 'right' university and done the 'right' degree! That would seem unfair on the others who still have to pay back their loan, assuming they ever get to earn enough.
Tony, that seems to me to be as near to a perfect solution for at least some of the problems as we're ever likely to get nowadays. It wouldn't work, as you say, for all but it's better than the present situation. I hadn't heard of that scheme.
As for the unfair aspects, life is unfair and, short of some unthinkable genetic engineering, it will remain so. Children are not born equal as far as ability is concerned but that doesn't mean that those with less abilities and talents should not be catered for with as much enthusiasm and diligence as the "high achievers". I think what is unfortunate is that a university education is still looked upon as being the ultimate goal for all. It is for some, but others would be
better advised to look elsewhere for success in what they are able to achieve.
It was bogus reasoning right from the start when they were trying to suggest it was a case of the university actually adding all that extra value to someone's earning potential.
At a time when about 10% of the population could go to university, even allowing for unfairness in admissions when it comes to disadvantaged children, the people actually getting to university were much brighter than the average person, and would have been likely to do relatively well even in the absence of universities.
Even when it came to a degree being a passport to a job, when the job wasn't related to the degree subject, a degree was at least generally a fair signal that someone was reasonably bright. Now it doesn't necessarily mean more than "not below average".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks