The cuts look horrific. I mean we're always going to be bothered by them cos we potentially have a stake in HE for our own employment. But I struggle to see how anyone is able to swallow the sheer size of the cuts. I read teaching funding will be down from 3.9 Billion to 700 Million? That's not just a case of belt tightening...Universities will go to wall. Especially the smaller ones.

I'm thinking more and more about working abroad but I'd need to find a country that my partner could work in as well. She's lucky though, the area she'll end up working in once her course has finished has had it's funding ring fenced.

I completely agree. There have already been rounds of redundancies at my university, but these cuts are going to prove incredibly devastating. And for those, in any walk of life who may soon find themselves redundant, there's going to be no way they can re-train because the training opportunities just won't be there. I just can't understand the reasoning behind it. We're going to be living in a very different country a year or so from now.

I think that there are a lot of people going to university who shouldn't be.  This whole 50% target is nonsense.  Also, there are a lot of subjects which people just can't expect the taxpayer to fund, because they seem to have no real revenue-generating ability, except in terms of the transferable skills they provide.  I don't believe that education is "a right, not a privilege" beyond that needed for everyday life, i.e. GCSE or A-Level.  On the other hand, if jobs are being cut too, I can't really see where people can go.

It seems to me like we're going to see a big split, with the top universities being even more research-biased, but only available for teaching for the exceptionally bright or rich.  The lower rank universities will become mainly teaching establishments, with little by way of world-class research.

I'm not necessarily opposed to cuts for university teaching, depending on where the cuts are made (although the mooted figure does seem huge).  However, what I AM opposed to is the impact this will have on university research, which seems to be taken for granted by those in power.  In my field, I shall end up doing a postdoc or two abroad I think, and then returning here.  If, as promised, the financial penalties have been paid off in five years, maybe the situation will have improved.  If not, I'll get a job with a drug/chemical/biotech company. In a way I'd prefer to stay in academia, but at least I don't have to agonise over a choice if one option is removed...

(up) I agree with that. And a lot of your post really. The target was always wrong. The aim should have been to provide affordable education for those who were able and interested, not trying to get 50% of school leavers into University regardless. It's not helped matters in the slightest.

What irks me is when people say educations shouldn't be elitist. Sorry, but at university level, it should be. It's just that it's always the academically able but financially unable who lose out - we either get rich thick kids going to university as may well happen now, or degrees which are ten a penny and which mean nothing.

You're right about lower ranking universities quite probably becoming teaching-only institutions and it's a real shame. Some of the best research papers that I've read (high impact if you like) have come from post-1992 universities. Some of the best research centres are based at the 'lower-ranked' institutions. Many of the best researchers in the country are based at them.
Here's what I think will happen. There's always going to be a demand for a degree, just not at the price established universities will be asking, for most people. Universities will be completely private institutions in the future and they will be reduced in number. People who attend these institutions will be, in the main, rather wealthy. For others, a lot of degrees will be done on line from home. There will be an increase in the number of fragmented private companies that offer cut-price degrees in specialist subjects, like accountancy and law. I think we may even see more colleges offering degrees that aren't expensive to deliver.

But how will a degree from home work? For example, I can envisage it for an English Lit degree, but engineering? Biochemistry? I belive that, in terms of top universities, the sciences will be open to more people than the arts.

As for research from "post-1992" universities, I can honestly say that in my field (medicine/biochem/molecular biology etc), I have only once or twice come across a paper from a university which I wouldn't think of as being very good all round.

In my field the best research comes from post-1992. Hardly any comes from russell group unis, probably because only about 1 offers the MSc that is required in order to qualify in our field. Although maybe this is because my field is very applied.

It all sounds horrific. Maybe, if the tories are so intent on privatising HE, then we should start the PGF university?

Sneaks! You took the words right out of my mouth - to quote Meat Loaf - especially if much of the future is with online degrees... We are a ready made uni in waiting.

I wonder what you have to do to become a uni? are LSBF technically a uni? if so then I'm sure I could set one up, no problem.

I'll be in charge of the office for procrastination.

The OU has taught degrees from home for decades. The OU science degrees included required summer schools which students had to attend, to pick up the necessary lab skills and experience.

Unfortunately ... the summer schools are increasingly being scrapped, along with the named science degrees. Due to funding cuts if I remember correctly. So even this option is vanishing for the practical sciences.

Aaargh I have real mixed feelings about this one.

Firstly, I was a mature student, and I entered uni through a rather crappy access course at my local college. If access to universities was given only to those who had really strong academic performance at school/college, I may not have been given a place (depending, of course, on the number of places available). I graduated top of my department. I also know many non-mature students who came out of uni with results that were inconsistent with their A levels.

Secondly, I don't think academic brilliance is the most important attribute for certain career paths. Take teaching - it (quite rightly) requires a degree. But the best teachers are not necessarily the ones who got the best results at degree level. Of course, I don't want stupid teachers, but there's so much more to teaching than academic performance. I know some great teachers- a couple of which came out of uni with 2.2s. I also don't like the idea of telling someone they can't follow their ideal career if they're passionate, and could possibly be great at, based on their A level results. I suppose it all depends on how elitist we're talking.

Some say that uni has wrongly become some sort of rite of passage. Well, I don't like the idea of students progressing to uni as though it is the natural thing to do with no particular passion for the subject, but, on the other hand, uni is such a beneficial experience in so many ways and I hate the thought of denying lots of people who genuinely want higher education the opportunity to widen their horizons and better their prospects because they're not considered smart enough.

Personally, I have a half-baked notion that it would be an extremely good idea not to let anyone progress straight from school to uni. Make everyone take a gap year. They'll get work experience, and those who are serious about attending uni will do so, and it will cut the numbers of those who are doing it because it is the easiest option and because it prevents the need for getting a job (unless of course they're still unemployed after a year out of school, which, in today's climate, is a strong possibility). I also think too many students regret their degree choice - a bit more time to reflect on their career prospects whilst in the real world could be helpful.

Sounds like a plan. I think our uni should be called...PGF Centre for Academic Excellence

Mission statement:

"Friendly avatars bringing worldwide expertise and education to the masses at low, low prices because every little helps [might get us sued from Asda and Tesco], respectively. For a degree or MSc, you need only GCSEs A to C, a computer and a pad of paper, so sign on the dotted line and log in later!"

I want to be the Director of the Centre for Improbable Research.
(up)

======= Date Modified 15 Oct 2010 19:57:35 =======
Ok, first, I see where you're coming from, completely. There will always be people who miss out on uni the first time for whatever reason, and then excel later. However, when a company interviews for staff, they don't go for someone down the rankings at the time of interview, purely in case they prove themselves to be more able than the others. All they have to go on is exam and school performance up to that point. Otherwise, you would have no way of discriminating between people. Should Oxbridge take candidatesd with Ds and Es at A-Level, in case those results were just a result of poor teaching at school, or other issues?

I do agree with you about university being an important part of growing up. However, a hell of a lot of students go to university, drink their way through it, barely attend lectures or seminars, spend their remaining money on designer clothes and iphones, and then complain that a student loan isn't enough for them. You don't need to attend university to live away from home, and while there obviously is a social network there for those that wish to benefit from it, this appears to manifest itself all too often as a drinking society.

Next, careers. I'm passionate about football and love playing. But Manchester United won't let me play. Even FC United of Manchester wouldn't! Yes, being academically amazing isn't necessarily important, and I often met highly academic teachers who were so "head in the clouds" that they couldn't explain anything to children. However, there is such a dearth of teachers in some areas, such as physics, that we are having teachers with no qualifications, and even some who appear to be almost illiterate.

As for your final idea - this is excellent, and one I have often remarked about to friends and colleagues. It could be something along the lines of national service, but non-military. They do something like this in Germany, for those who don't want to join the army. You omitted to mention that it would mean that students wouldn't have to apply for university until they had their A-Level results, thus avoiding the usual excitation and misery of results day, and clearing, which surely suits no-one.

We mostly agree then :-) . Just a few points:

No, Oxbridge shouldn't, and I didn't indicate otherwise. My point is that I'm not sure that only the best should be allowed to go to uni- not that people who have performed badly should be able to go to Oxbridge.



I agree completely with this. I specifically said "I hate the thought of denying lots of people who genuinely want higher education the opportunity to widen their horizons and better their prospects because they're not considered smart enough". Not only do I believe that being elitist will have this consequence, I doubt very much that it will prevent the type of students you've described (though I admit it will inevitably decrease the numbers, and likely decrease the proportion too).



I said: "I also don't like the idea of telling someone they can't follow their ideal career if they're passionate, and COULD POSSIBLY BE GREAT AT, based on their A level results. I suppose it all depends on how elitist we're talking". Perhaps you even could possibly be great at football given the opportunity. However, I don't think preventing you from becoming one of the very few professional footballers is fairly comparable to preventing people with mediocre A Level grades from having any chance of any job requiring a degree.



And the solution to this is less students? Are you implying that if we get rid of dumbass teachers, brilliant individuals will automatically fill that gap (bearing in mind also that there is less competition for other graduate jobs)? I don't disagree with what you're saying, I just don't understand your argument here.



Hmmm, I have mixed feelings about the national service. In principle it's a great idea, but in reality it depends on the implementation of such a scheme. When the Tories proposed the idea pre-election, I had a lot of issues with the ins and outs of it. It didn't go far enough in a number of ways, and I really feel the people who would be taking part in this national service are those who get involved in other already existing projects.