When I was young hardly anyone took degrees. Only the privileged went to university. Now it has become a necessity and rite of passage. Unfortunately, in the UK, with changes to the attainment of university fees and rising costs, it is costing students far more and they are now entering adult life with huge debt. Universities continually increase their fees, or appear to. There has recently been some expressed concerns about teaching, especially in the traditional, older universities (Where I went to, and with which accusations I am in agreement . The best teacher there, stimulating and innovative, was Italian).
It seems to me that we need to re-look at first degrees, make them shorter and cheaper, with fewer holidays. Make sure there are far more ways open to students, those who want the qualification but can do without the experience, to study rather than say attending in this committed way to a single school/university. This is an extension of school life surely. Weekend study perhaps? As long as the standards are kept up, should there really be a problem?
Kingsley Amis, the British novelist, considered extending degrees to so much of the population a mistake as thereby degrees get diluted, but in the modern world it is essential for as many people as possible to obtain qualifications. Need they be degrees? Amis himself was the product of university life being extended in the UK to the Middle and Lower MIddle-Class (British obsessions of the time), now the poor can can as long as they get into debt. Degrees function after all as a way of influencing and ensuring social mobility.
In Amis' day professional work and jobs in general gave day to day training (TV, journalism), but usually there was little for young entrants to learn compared to today and competition now is fiercer. Amis taught at many of the New Universities of the times (such as Wales) but never acquired a PhD (not generally popular then) nor a BLitt, the equivalent of a Masters. How times have changed!
Hello Stanley,
I think that those who are technically talented maybe would be at an advantage to take the various non-academic qualifications; I spoke to a man who was qualified as an electrician, gas fitter, plumber and probably has other skills. He is never without work, and very well thought of.
When I left school, I became a registered nurse, and took more academic qualifications when I was older, largely studying while I worked as a nurse, although I had 2 years as I finished PhD when I was not working as a nurse (but went back after these 2 years). I think my experience of years in nursing helped me in the more academic work that I then carried out.
It will be interesting to read the thoughts of others.
Very best wishes,
Mary
Hello Stanley,
I think that those who are technically talented maybe would be at an advantage to take the various non-academic qualifications; I spoke to a man who was qualified as an electrician, gas fitter, plumber and probably has other skills. He is never without work, and very well thought of.
When I left school, I became a registered nurse, and took more academic qualifications when I was older, largely studying while I worked as a nurse, although I had 2 years as I finished PhD when I was not working as a nurse (but went back after these 2 years). I think my experience of years in nursing helped me in the more academic work that I then carried out.
It will be interesting to read the thoughts of others.
Very best wishes,
Mary
I do believe the gentleman you refer to has the right to the same respect as a university lecturer or researcher as his expertise, although apparently without abstract areas, covers considerable ground. The separation of intelligence is, for me, wholly artificial. So a socially impressive qualification attached to his name would be right and proper!
I agree; and he is very well thought of. I think his good reputation is as valuable to him as a string of letters after his name would be.
Yes, of course, but in a sense I was alluding to the social primacy of 'letters'and the connection between claims of intelligence and social claims. And how artificial it actually all is. When I was teaching Health and Social Care a few years ago I was somewhat upstaged by this marvellous woman who had few qualifications but who knew more than I did about the practical nature of care. Even though her English was lacking, at least to the accepted level, I insisted on giving her the highest marks.
I fully agree with you. Importance of possessing of Degrees needs to be downgraded, & professional competence given equal value. The course curriculum in degrees needs to be constantly upgraded to reflect current realities & skill requirements.
Quality of life is in the eye of the individual as he or she views self and others. One individual's dreams are not necessarily shared by others.
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
A Greek politician in the 1960's introduced free secondary education in Greece and this fashion later spread to Europe and the UK. Of course, costs have risen since and fees are charged in the UK, but in Greece is still free whether university or technical college, etc (while the country is almost broke).
In Canada, education is free for native students.
I think anyone who can do well in secondary education should be supported by the state.
No, degree is not the only way forward. But in most cases, government policies point out that without degree, individual may be irrelevant. Employers, either in private or in public sector pay based on certificate not expertise. Some political offices require degree as minimum qualifications. Until some policies are change, people will continue running after degree and there will be increase in the number of university in the UK and every other places.
Although I did not get free higher education but worked throughout my degrees, I accept the social changes that higher education available to all has brought. But interestingly, most UK politicians have only a first degree, which is fairly negligible in this day and age. I have a point here: the social consequences of degree taking may still be limited.
Do you think degrees are the only way forward?
Academic degrees alone are not the way forward. The way forward needs the skills and knowledge :-))
You might find this book review, and the original book, interesting:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/academic-armageddon-an-irish-requiem-for-higher-education-by-mary-gallagher/2002606.article
Fionnula, while I agree that in some ways degrees have been diluted, I'm not completely convinced as in the UK in the past degrees were an element of privilege and the greater concentration of universities on humanities reflected that, Then, going to university meant becoming one of the country's natural leaders (sic) with a largely unobstructed pathway to wealth and power. It then became a way for middle class boys, like ex-PM Blair (ghastly man that he is) to rise to the top. They provided and provide a mechanism of social change.
Higher education is now part of business and wealth production? Is there really anything wrong with that and does that abrogate its educative drives? Surely, it changes them; but always for the worse?
There is no doubt that the rating given paper qualification over skills is not justifiable and is not driving societal development right. Technical skills are needed but they are not properly rated. This is the case in many developing countries. The rating given university education also drives the demand for that education higher than technical and technological education. Even where technological education is recognised, the paper side is sometimes stressed over the skill and.competence side. Universities are also considered prestigious and this has down graded other institutions the way formal education has rubbished non-formal education. There is a need for balance and.the creation of a fairer means.of assessment and promotion of skills. Also, countries have no business converting non university institutions like polytechnics into universities as it tilts the balance further into the abyss.
My take is that the UK has leveraged on their competitive advantage over other societies in curriculum planning to enhance their edu-tourism strategy. Consider the population of foreign students in the UK, and you will come to realize that the inflow of foreign exchange generated over the years through edu-tourism is enough to strengthen the UK's economy.
Imagine the prices of softwares produced for skills development. Why are they so expensive? Why can't these softwares be offered for free upon graduation to enhance skills development? I think the philosophy of the UK education system is edu-tourism based just to generate capital, which does no go beyond same emphasis on paper qualification.
There has definitely been a qualification inflation.
I see so many people over-qualified for the work they do, and unhappy with that state of affairs. Jobs that used accept school-leavers at 18 with school completion certificate, now require a degree on entry.
The drive to ensure everyone possible has a degree continues: 25% of 20-25 year olds have a primary degree; 32% of 25-29 year olds have a primary degree and 15% of them have a post-grad qualification. (https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp10esil/p10esil/le/ - these are Irish figures, rather than UK.)
Without extra funding or staffing, the universities are bursting at the seams, with an unsustainable workload placed on staff. It also means that it's not necessarily the brightest who go to study, but those who can afford it.
The point of a university education is NOT to replicate school education.
The point is to educate students to think for themselves. To have the time to think and understand and debate. To shrink that into a time as you suggest - 2 years, fewer and shorter breaks - does the opposite. It denies thinking time. It also denies the opportunity to work during breaks and earn fees. We used all go to work in factories and hotels on the continent or in the US to earn our fees. A salutory experience, and certainly one which informed our thinking on return. Most primary degree students are young, and the university is there to help them mature as thinking adults.
But maybe I have an old-fashioned approach to university. Maybe we should be through-putting the students in a sausage factory approach, the quicker the better, and get through the exams and assignments without thinking critically.
Apologies if I haven't understood your original post properly.
I agree with your criticism of my 2 year suggestion, but again this was in effect part of my assertion that degrees or our understanding of them should be changed. Degrees as you and I understand them should perhaps be considered differently, although brightest and dullest are not within my remit, as I believe such ideas need also to be examined. Although on many levels I profoundly agree with you, some of the brightest would be aided by a 2 year period, able still to pursue their lives, and only some students require an intensive form of study-these are not necessarily the brightest.
I have known someone go from media studies (acquired when many were not thought much of) to a PhD in Classics, a labourer get a first degree in Classics, and many who started of as care workers or nurses become PhD holders. Under the old system, which we passed through, none probably would have done. This is not because of dilution but opportunity.When I as a mature student acquired my first degree, many of the much younger students I studied with were simply writing essays to get 2.,1 but displayed no genuine understanding nor could any remember any of the subject-matter afterwards. They wanted good jobs, learned how to write essays to the requisite formula and did well.
This is the global scenario. In India every year a great number of new universities are being established. It is very easy to get any degree if you have money. All this has decreased the value of higher education.
Can I be slightly controversial here, Jagmohan, and bear in mind my information is anecdotal and only hearsay: one woman I worked with had gone to a major university in India, and she claimed to have high qualifications (a Doctorate) in child psychology but never spoke about it even when pressed. She never recognised any psychology terms I used. She had a directors role in a college I ran. I was told exactly the same thing about her university as you suggest above and that, as a member of a rich family, she had merely drifted through.
Edwin, unfortunately I agree with you-but not entirely. Its more complex than that. A great number of private colleges were used, and probably still are, as conduits for easy immigration. One UK university I know of was doing the same thing-much to everyone's horror. And-you're hearing it here first, but I cannot go into detail-others were complicit.
The top universities are still providing value for money. None, from my knowledge, have diluted their courses to take on foreign, money-laden, students, but I hold my tongue concerning other less admired places of learning. But, don't forget, USA colleges often do the same, and many universities in less favoured parts of Europe. I do not believe many dilute courses or make them more compliant to wealthy students but certainly it is an important part of national revenue. The outrages happen lower down and the UK government has never done enough policing in this regard.
Today everything has become a business and imparting education is the biggest one.
Is not it?
Yes, Syed, the West has been successful because of its education system, or in part. Its rejection of religion as a proper source of knowledge, I'm afraid for all you believers, occasioned the dominance of the Western form of education based upon provable notions of truth-analysis and experimentation- and the refusal to see knowledge as fixed and with a dominant form based upon ancient scripts. There are other reasons of course-the professionalisation of teaching and the efficacy of curriculum.
Nevertheless, let's not forget that university education began in India, no matter the present performance of its institutions, and that the West merely borrowed the form (if improved it, surely?) as it did most other things!
Adewale, yes, we must give equal respect to skills. Abstract thinking is essential but is not the only form of intelligence, no matter what many professors believe. Always doubt any group which has an investment in a way of thinking and believing.
In academics, Quality is more important than Quantity.
Regards,
Emad
Emad, I agree with you but surely we also need to know what we mean by quality. Passing exams? Writing great essays? Remembering your degree course one year later (quite a number of students cannot). Surely skills learnt over many years are due equal recognition and also surely academic learning is just another skill?
Getting a degree is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for succeeding against all odds in life.Notably, a university degree can be helpful to a certain extent, but your success in life much depends on your ability in making your work unique in a creative way. While many assume that we should study to the highest degree, some contend that nothing like passion can drive success more than a degree since passion without a degree creates a thirst forcing you to learn your trade at a speed of light.
Hi
There are many reasons to increase the number of universities there for a scientific purpose, including for an economist, but certainly good education is not dependent on many, but quality.
Khulood, of course you are right but who determines quality and how? Many celebrated people for example did not go to university. What is it for? Status, careers, a rite of passage? There are more subjects taught than science.
I think Arben that perhaps the systems need to be broken, reflecting not only educative needs but (horror of horror) merchandising needs as well-that is courses should reflect user/customer requirements, career requirements, etc. Striving for higher academic or scientific attainment, etc. It should be more realistically and practically based.
One example of a current reality: If a person wants an MBA that will lead to a decent, productive career they may choose Harvard for example. If they want an ordinary but productive career they go to a lesser university. Now, thought must equally go into pricing, so that the elite do not continue to benefit-
Another example of a current reality: Although most education workers tend to deny it, in the UK it is easier to get a degree in a minor university than a good one. Students know this, but those in charge refuse to admit it. It is hard to do well in Oxford, etc, or the Russell group but relatively easy in most other UK universities. These differences need to admitted and rationalised.
Good one, Arben. But mainly I was talking about the UK, and believe me that is the case. There are some universities there (I now live in Portugal) where getting even an MA from some universities is equivalent to getting a BA/BSc from one of the top ones. (I will not name names). I worked along side someone who had an MA from one of these universities but who asked me how to write an essay! That bad!!! I admit this is mainly done through the horrific practice, begun under a Socialist government but not rectified by later governments, of franchising by the new universities. Several of these came very close to being shut down. I will definitely not name names.
HI. IF we think idealistically, we require both theory and practice to run a successful life. as state, priorities are changing drastically; many people prefer to get a university degree. there are more and more opportunities because of the growing demands for getting university degrees. however, skills and competencies are the practical requirements of our complicated lives; we need them to facilitate peaceful life. we can acquire them by being trained or through experiencing and discovering. best regards
when I engaged in my university study, there was just 10 medical colleges in my country. and we were about 50 students. now there is about 30 colleges, with about 150 students per year, with same facilities, this explosion, pull the education down.
As well the number of those with master and doctorate, was very little, now they are more than those with primary school graduated, at that time.
Yes, aren't PhD's becoming diluted? Many people now don't bother to record the accomplishment.
No, university degree is not the only forward but as an educated fellow you can be better informed in life.
Olu, I was for years an autodidact and happy to be so, but the world changed and decided knowledge could be achieved in only one way-other ways were suddenly invalid. Therefore I achieved academic qualifications to keep pace. I am not convinced that doing so made me better informed, just that people assumed I was.
Of course, certificates have a big role in the development of countries
I came across an item on linkedin which said that 4 USA universities could lose accreditation. Too many universities now, and too many underperforming.
I agree with some researchers that many colleges sometimes reduce the value of the certificate and exist of this kind
Recent news from UK suggests a serious drop in university applications. Too costly, and no certainty of a good job at the end of the course.
In the West, we need other kinds of qualifications and more flexibility of study.
And also some universities give a certificate of ink on paper, as the student does not have any scientific and very in the jurisdiction and this is due to lack of interest in universities and their ranks
I think the higher the number of universities I mean in terms of number less the value of the certificate
Some universities should eliminate the weakness of scientific graduates to intensify the lessons and increase the hours of practical application
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Teacher Education
- School