From Snowflake:
"[T]he German post-war-miracle generation from 1945 to 1970 paid for their own education, while Brits of that same period got their education free but achieved less economically. When oppositions moan about the "burden Labour has put on students", perhaps they should think about that."
This is particularly interesting in the light of Labour's plan for 50% of the population to have degrees. Degrees in what, I wonder. Since not everyone has the same academic ability, for 50% to have degrees it will be necessary to reduce the academic standard required. The Times of 10 December 2003 reported the experiences of Alexander Anichikin, educated in the Soviet Union when 'targets' were set by the central planners in Moscow concerning how many people should receive higher education:
"... as the number of Soviet students, graduates, bachelors and doctors grew, there were fewer and fewer people to plough fields or fix pipes ... Since everyone was ‘educated’, education started being seen as something worthless – people started sneering at the educated. Academics and intellectuals became despised, whereas excessive respect and admiration was suddenly showered on anyone who could fix something – much as plumbers are becoming the new elite in today’s Britain."
From that failed experiment of the Soviet Union we might move to the Conservative government in Britain in the 1990s, which allowed polytechnics to rename themselves 'universities'. It was a move that made not one iota of difference to the quality of teaching and research at such institutions. Those who went to 'proper' universities felt their qualification devalued. So did those who had finished diplomas the year before, who were not permitted retrospectively to say they had degrees.
Could we expect better under Gordon Brown? I doubt it very much.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hey Pump (as I think I shall call you from now on), you have quite a skill for saying the things that liberals fear saying, without sounding like a complete tosser. How do you do it? I want to agree and disagree at the same time. I was lucky enough to go to a 'proper' university in the '80s on a full grant, without which I am sure I would never have even thought of a university education. It changed my life. I genuinely appreciated the chance to see the world from a different place and my eyes were opened to opportunities I wouldn't even have dreamt of without the encouragement of my tutors. I'm an upstart - thank God for that free education. (My parents would never have allowed me to go if it would've led to debt.) However, this was in the context of the welfare state that I grew up with, and that allowed working class youngsters to have aspirations beyond the limitations of their parents' experiences. I appreciate that we have probably experienced something of a paradigm shift since 1979 - with Thatcher's abandonment of consensus politics and New Labour taking up the mantle - and that it doesn't feel too regressive these days to ask students to pay a graduate tax for their education. But I think the shift has been gradual and I wouldn't attack the ideology of free higher education - it was essential in its historical context and has served a good and higher purpose.
Here's the bit where I agree with you, although I think you conflate the issues somewhat. If we encourage 50% to have degrees, what are those degrees worth? There is no question that the quality of a degree education has declined in the past 15 years, whatever the government says. I still believe passionately that people should have the opportunity to take up higher education, based on their ability to achieve not their ability to pay. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should have the right to study at degree level. Some people just aren't capable, and we shouldn't shift the parameters to allow them the 'opportunity'. This shouldn't be seen as an elitist argument, but for some reason it is.
Oh, and one more point...
[T]he German post-war-miracle generation from 1945 to 1970 paid for their own education, while Brits of that same period got their education free but achieved less economically. When oppositions moan about the "burden Labour has put on students", perhaps they should think about that.
Is the only reason we might support an individual's right to higher education the fact that it will make them economically more productive? Are there not higher reasons for educating our young people? Must we all be judged on our economic activity or contribution to capital? I hope there is more to life than this...
Melonchoholic (as PE once called you ....).
Agree strongly with comment 2. I put the Snowflake quote up more as an interesting point, rather than because I endorsed it, or endorsed it 100% anyway.
I'm glad you don't think I'm a complete tosser! Thing is, I fashion the Umpire as a bit of an old fogey, whereas the real me's a bit more liberal, hence the nice contradictions.
Will respond more tomorrow, suffice to say now I'm not a believer in either 100% grants or fees, but really do think too many graduates is not a good thing.
Thanks for very interesting comments, as ever.
Agree completely with both P-Ump and Ms Melancholy. In a tangential sort of way (I am good at that) it reminded me of a series of "That'll Teach Them" where unruly current secondary school children were subjected to the regime of a 1960's school (there were more series, but I recall this one in particular). Aside from the clear benefits of discipline rather than "understanding", it showed that in those days if you failed a particular exam (or more drastically - if the teachers wouldn't even let you take the exam) you were not allowed to go to University but were steered towards vocational training. I'm not saying that should necessarily be applied black & white nowadays, but there is a point to it. Basically, if you need Remedial English while at University it is not the right place for you at that point in time. I also think the decline in both the standards for degrees and the respect for vocational areas are a great loss to both sides.
omI think the 50% target for university students is just a soundbite - If the government really wanted to do this, they wouldn't have introduced tuition fees.
Tuition fees means that students (who are best placed to judge) will assess whether they will be better off in the long term doing a degree, or whether to get a job after A levels. A significant amount doing mickey-mouse degrees will be deterred now they are having to pay for it themselves (as they will gain no benefit from the degree).
As for those who go to university simply for the "university experience" and who don't study or make use of their degree - as they are spending their own money instead of taxpayers money, this is their prerrogative and it needn't bother the rest of us anymore.
"...allowed polytechnics to rename themselves 'universities'. It was a move that made not one iota of difference to the quality of teaching and research at such institutions. Those who went to 'proper' universities felt their qualification devalued. So did those who had finished diplomas the year before, who were not permitted retrospectively to say they had degrees."
I must admit I wasn't exactly aware of what was going on at the time it happened, but...
If those who had finished diplomas the year before felt their qualifications devalued, surely the implication is that those who received those new degrees felt them more valued than they would have otherwise. Is that not part of the point? Is there not also the idea that it it has allowed some of the institutions to grow greater and greater reputations? Which indeed some have...
Perhaps there was a problem for those who held the diplomas. But that's surely a problem with the implementation rather than the idea itself.
There are huge problems with the balance of post-16 education in this country as you say...but I'd say the biggest problem is the lack of respect for vocational education and training, rather than the government's desire to get as many people as want to into universities.
I'd also just like to challenge Mr/Miss Snowflake who says:
"Tuition fees means that students (who are best placed to judge) will assess whether they will be better off in the long term doing a degree, or whether to get a job after A levels. A significant amount doing mickey-mouse degrees will be deterred now they are having to pay for it themselves (as they will gain no benefit from the degree)."
Why are degrees that will not necessarily bring any economic gain 'mickey-mouse'?
Will students pick the pathway that benefits them in the long-term, or will they decide that the risk of taking on that debt are too much and decide to get a job that pays straight away?
Apologies for such a lengthy comment!!
Hello Alex, thanks for stopping by. No need to apologise for the length of your comment, the more feedback the better as far as I’m concerned.
You’ll notice I already made the point in the comments thread about the value of a degree not being judged purely in economic terms. Knowledge is valuable in its own right and I for one think a classics degree (which I don’t have), for example, is a genuine subject with real intellectual content.
But the fact is that, elitist though it may sound, 50% of the population are not capable of obtaining a degree at the standard which used to be required. Dumbing-down degrees to accommodate more and more people will just lead to education as a whole being devalued.
At the same time, the government’s efforts to meddle with the way universities are run and courses taught have been damaging in themselves. They totally disdain the notion of an education as such, and instead want to prescribe and control what is taught in the worst traditions of central planning. See for example the following two books:
Killing Thinking: The Death of the Universities by Mary Evans ISBN 0-
8264- 7312-1 (hardback); 0-8264- 7313-X (paperback); and
Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? Confronting 21st Century Philistinism by Frank
Furedi (Continuum 2004) ISBN 0-8264 - 6769-5 (hardback). Pp. 167 + viii.
Professor Evans cites the philistine Dearing Report (1997), which argued that the purpose of a
modern university is to be a significant force in the regional economy, support research and
consultancy, attract inward investment, provide new employment, meet labour market needs,and foster entrepreneurship among students and staff. Not a word about producing scholars,
or learning for its own sake. This is only going to get worse, I fear.
Those who went to 'proper' universities felt their qualification devalued. So did those who had finished diplomas the year before, who were not permitted retrospectively to say they had degrees.
Well, no, because they hadn't, since they'd read for diplomas. Those who'd successfully read for degrees, though, on degree courses validated by the Council for National Academic Awards, could say they had degrees, awarded by the CNAA.
That was always the case.
The problem, rather, was that turning everything into a university meant that the new universities were now in charge of their degrees and found themselves having to upgrade their diplomas into degrees. They didn't always do a very good job of it.
Furthermore, the combination of self-validation and financial pressure to attract students led to predictably depressing results.
Post a Comment