....help cover the costs of helping students who had low entry qualifications....

Those students should not BE in higher education. They should not be funded from money that is taken away from "traditional" (i.e. proper) degrees.

Is Britain trying its best to transform former world class education into sub-average levels?

I totallly agree with n/a

In my opinion it is much better to have less people doing quality learning than a lot of people doing more basic stuff

I think broadly speaking that's hte Union policy/podsition as well.

The irony is unemployable Postdocs in my group are now leaving in droves to become electricians and the like. At least they get a good wage for it, whilst media studies graduates are filling the world with yet more inpenetrable mobile phone tariffs etc

Vote conservative, that's what I say.

do i detect a hint of intellectual snobbery here?

No, Basic economics

only up to a point; the economic argument says that people shouldn't undertake qualifications of no value to them or society. the bit about them not being "degrees" as such is pure hoity-toity-look-at-me-i-go-to-university-and-you-dont bollocks.

Before I came here I was told there was a shortage of people with engineering degrees so there must be economic value in them...

Is it me, or is Higher Education policy becoming increasingly insane?

Last week they were talking about a lottery to determine which people given offers get to actually start the course.

As for intelectual snobbery, I don't buy it. If you want to say that a degree is synonymous with qualifcation, fine.

On the other hand if you want to say there is clear difference between a qualification that involves, say, detailed knowledge of ancient history, and a qualification that involves detailed knowledge of how to get water into different parts of a house without it going soggy, then I think Degree/Vocational Qualification are necessary words.

Frankly, I think the snobbery here is the suggestion that anything that isn't called a degree is valueless, which is the attitude which has resulted in Britain loosing both it's skilled workers and increasingly it's accademics too. Do we really need to call something a Degree in order to give it value?

As an aside, when you ascend within the dizzying heights of Freemasonry, you are given bits of paper called degrees. To get a "degree" you have to study and be able to recite the ceremonies for that level of Freemasonry. You also get to learn the handshake appropriate for that grade. Someone i know has 3 "traditional" degrees, and 17 Masonic (or "vocational") degrees.

Which do you think gets him further?

Arguing the semantics of the definition of "Degree" is simply pointless. The government should distinguish between types of degree, institutions, etc. If you want a degree in Surfing Studies from the University of BumF**k, then you should be prepared to pay for it. If you want a "degree" that is actually useful (whether it's vocational or not) to society (HINT: advanced knowledge of wave formation and 27 different types of board wax is not useful to society) you should recieve an appropriate level of funding.

That's the problem, not whether we fund "degrees" in Plumbing or Economics (or both), it's who determine's the value of a degree, and how much funding is appropriate.

What about forcing parents to contribute to "College Funds" for their Children. Make those funds tax-deductible, and make the government add value to those funds as well.

Then charge whatever it costs for education.

That way those people who have no children don't have to fund others, the parents of those who chose a university education can see where their money goes, and can distribute the cost over 18 years rather than 3.

Now the problem is what happpens if your parents can't afford a College Fund??? well, that is what Scholarships are for - work hard, excel in your field and you will be rewarded. Waste your life, and society owes you nothing.

Almost the US model, but not quite.

A Masonic degree is not vocational. Does it give you a trade? No. Well, perhaps indirectly, but I'd guess the "old boys" networks from schools and universities are equally effective.

On the subject of whether a degree is to be the new word for qualification, or whether it should be reserved for the knind of qualification that denotes a particular intlectual/accademic exercise rather than a more practical nature (yes, I know there are several grey areas like Medicine and Engineering) Expereince suggests to never trust a polititian with any kind of ambiguity. They will either exploit it for their own ends or (as in this case) assume that the (merely mortal) electorate will be confused and so the politians hands are tied by the electoral cycle to play to an imaginary lowest common denominater.

If you call everything a degree, then while the employers will be quite capeable of seeing that a degree in swim studies from Budgetdegreefarm College (the type that will inevitably follow from a market in higher education combined with 50% targets) is different from Maths at Trinity College Cambridge, the Government of the day or a future one will eventually decide to exploit the ambiguity when it thinks it is necessary, or profiable to do so.

Basically, the problem we have at the moment is that everyone else differentiates between Maths from Trinity, and Swim Studies from nowhere, but the government maintains that they are in fact equally valuable, that a degree in swim studies is a useful economic investment for the country and the individual, and equally deserving fo government funding (or lack or it). The basis for this claim is that people with degrees in the 60's 70's and 80's have earnt more than people without them. Their conclusion is that the "non-traditional" degrees created in the 90's will be exactly the same because they are also called degrees. But they won't be exactly the same, because quite simply a degree in the 60's and 70's and even in the 80's marked the degree holder out as being someone in the top x% of the countries minds. The skills learnt and information imparted in the actual course were less relevant. Expand higher education and, as you say, it becomes not a question of if you have a degree but where it comes from. But muddled language has created muddled thinking and the funding is not being dealt with in a sensible way and poor advice is being given.

Legislation and policy should reflect common sense, but we should not leave legislation and policy to be interepreted correctly on the assmuption that it will be done so in a common sensical manner. This whole fiasco shows it will not.

So who determines the value of the degree? It used to be the universities. Now it is to be the market. The result will be an awful lot of graduates who will have wasted three or four years of their life, four years of potential promotions and raises, and acquired a large amount of debt.

I'd leave it to the Universities myself, which are not exactly the class obssessed bastions of workign class repression they are made out to be. At least any decision on what ammounted to quality would not be a decision taken by ever changing governments.

"What about forcing parents to contribute to "College Funds" for their Children. Make those funds tax-deductible, and make the government add value to those funds as well."

They take a long time to build up, and why should the parents be forced to pay for their children? Why should someones access to university depend on their parents income? On top of that, any sound financial decision would have to be funded on a semi-official understanding that x% of the incomming students has to have rich parents.

It just doesn't strike me a just.

"That way those people who have no children don't have to fund others,"

Right, but an educated workforce is essential for the economy. Who pays for the pensions? Why do the well have to pay for the sick?

"well, that is what Scholarships are for - work hard, excel in your field and you will be rewarded."

Again, the assumption is that the rich are gauranteed entry at some level (even if only a statistical level, in order that there be enough cash cows to fund thesystem) while the poor are gauranteed a place only if they can demonstrate they are exceptional.

The transition period would take ages. There isn't enough money in the system to provide the huge endowment funds needed to provide the financial buffers that the American system has, and certainly the Government doesn't have the cash to do it either, as it would mean underwriting a load of instiutions without having much controll over how it is spent.

As much as the American system works, I don't think it's really based on a particularly just idea, nor one that we could reaslisitcaly implement here in any reasonable time frame.

"Again, the assumption is that the rich are gauranteed entry at some level (even if only a statistical level, in order that there be enough cash cows to fund thesystem) while the poor are gauranteed a place only if they can demonstrate they are exceptional."

No. The Rich can buy an education simply because money talks. You can pay fees directly, you can endow a Chair or you can leave a large brown envelope of cash somewhere the admissions tutor will find it. If you are rich, you have access, and until the Government funds education properly, Universities will always be tempted to take the cash and run.

And the poor don't have to prove they are "Exceptional", they just have to prove that they are _good enough_ at something (Scholarships are not always purely academic) to warrant attention.

It's a sad fact that money can buy you almost everything, but it's generally true. With so many people scrabbling for the free places left, you must stand out from the crowd, or be trampled in the rush.

"No. The Rich can buy an education simply because money talks."

That wasn't what I meant. The proposed alternative system in the post I was replying to is reliant on parental contributions built up in college funds saved over the life time of the child, with scholarships for those that haven't had parents with forethought or parents with sufficiently high income to afford these funds.

That system would rely on a certain number of fee payers at any given time to provide the finance for the system, or sufficient endowment to provide for a very large number of scholarships (unlikely), or a Government willing to pay for a large number of scholarships (more or less what we have now). In one limit, you would have, essentialy, free education backed either by taxpayers, some or many of whom would then have to pay twice for their education: Once in taxes and once in fees, or backed by the stockmarket (Not so good, look at what can happen to private pensions).

The other limit is that the system relies on a strict quota of fee paying students in order to provide the money to pay for the scholarships out of each yearly income from fees (the only short term possibility as endowments don't come overnight and the Government can't even afford to fund universities properly now under their fee system). So under this system it doesn't matter who is more worthy than who: you have a population of would be students who have rich parents, and a given university will be forced by financial constraints to take x% of their intake from this population, and then the remaining places that can be funded on scholarships would be alloted to a population of poor people. Thus you would have x% of palces for the rich, and y% for the poor. This to me, seems worse than the current system in terms of equal access.

"they just have to prove that they are _good enough_ at something (Scholarships are not always purely academic) to warrant attention."

Good enough to warrant funding? Then how do you justify turning down equally good students.

I don't justify it, but it must happen. If you don't allow it, then you are saying that all candidates for job interviews who are equally suited for the job must get it. That cannot happen, but it does not bar someone from getting a job elsewhere.

In my utopian view of scholarships, there are enough for everyone who works hard enough to deserve one. You may not get the first one you apply for, but you will get one, eventually.

you're all talking complete bumfluff, presumably motivated by snobbery and an overestimation of your own importance, usefulness to society and general egomania. what is it with science undergrads that they invariably think that anyone who doesn't want to spend their professional life doing differential calculus is somehow a drain on those of us who do?

I AM AN ENGINEERING GRADUATE.

Why is it all Medics can't distiguish between vocational "degrees" such as *Science* and real degrees such as *Engineering*?

Incidentally, Medicine is one of the oldest vocational degrees ever, but useful to society. Law is another example of a vocational degree, and is almost completely useless to the greater good of the Earth.

Idris is right in that not all vocational qualifications are valueless, however Surfing is not, never has been, and never will be a subject worthy of the title "Degree" (even if you append the word "Foundation" at the beginning)

That's just your opinion Sam. The word 'Degree' is just a label. Like a sticker with a picture of mickey mouse on it. The words 'surfer' and 'engineer' are a lot more informative. I don't think I'd want an engineer to take my 15 year old out surfing anymore than I'd want a surfer to develop my mobile phone. (unless it was an engineering surfer or a surfing engineer anyway I digress).

There is a serious point to all of this. Higher Education needs more funding. Taking so called less good and exchanging the 'degree' sticker for a 'diploma' sticker won't create any more money to fill the black hole. So saying that there are too many degrees etc is a very simplistic argument that doesn't look at the whole picture.

If you want to argue that we should reserve the title 'degree' only for certain subjects in order that that is all that's represented by the word, then that's sort of a side argument.

Idris:

Charming. Actually I don't happen to think that at all. This is why science graduate accademics get paid 16k salleries and plumbers and so forth can get twice that in some areas. It's called the market, it decides whats valuable, and the market for physicists doing physics pays peanuts. Just so you know, I intend (marks permiting) to do a PhD with the intention of doing research.

Perhaps it's your degree in Medicine that leads you to believe that what you call the qualification is more important than the content? Afterall, I am given to understand (thought his may be hideously wrong, I haven't looked into it) that many doctors qualify in something more akin to a vocational qualification than a degree structure. Vocational qualification does not mean "useless piece of paper for thickies", although you might think so given that has been the prevailing attitude of about two decades of Governments.

The point is relevant when the Government is essentialy getting rid of vocational courses and replacing them with "degrees", (which is fine if you want degree to mean "a qualification above and beyone A-level"), but it is then going on to sugest a degree, *any* degree, will confer a huge advantage on the graduate. Who looses out then, in a system whereby employers are free to descrimnate, students are lead to believe all degrees confer higher saleries and better job prospects, and the student has to stump out three to four years of their life and a hefty five figure debt? Call it snobery if you like, but if that's the kind of con trick masquerading as higher education policy that people genuinely want, then all I can say is at least "I'm all right Jack". I'm free to look down my nose (as you seem to think I do) at the plumbers and electritians getting twice my pay packet thanks to the wonders supply and demand while I tinker happily in the lab with less debt than the the next generation of students, some of whom will have done the "right" degree as determined by the personal prejudice of personel directors across the country and some of whom will have done surfing and find themselves worse off than if they had just gone straight into the job market.

Sam:

Well, I still think that's a les desirable system than one where the cost of trade skills is met in part with the employer (say modern aprenticeships) and rigorous accademic courses* (as opposed to lax accademic courses) remain equally available for all those able to do them.

What we certainly shouldn't have is a system whereby what are supposed to be accademic degrees are used as a placeholder for other qualifications because their very existance can not be acknowledged lest it be seen as classist/elitset/intelectual snobery. No, we must all have accademic style degrees, and to strive for this white elephant we must try and window dress everything as a university course taught by proffessors etc. </rant>

*for the benefit of others: this does not mean accademics are in any way better or more desirable.

The reason there isn't enough money in higher education is the change of sticker leading to an increase in the number of students as a result. The need for more funding is because once something that used to be a polytechnic has been called a university, and it seems to be politicaly unacceptable to descriminate between universities and give certain universities more money for undergraduate education, so places like Russel Group uni's tend to make a loss on every undergrad they teach.

It seems to me (and this is just so you know where I'm comming from on this) that

the 50% target is a political aim in itself, and the rest of the higher edcuation policy follows from this. The belief seems to be something along the lines of "degrees are better than vocational qualifications or, indeed, anyting else, and anyone without a degree is an idiot. Because, in the past, graduates got paid more than non-graduates, and employers chose to offer jobs to graduates than non-gradautes, the degree is an example of the class system perpetuating itself. Because its ridiculous to sugest that 15%-30% of the country are clever and the rest are idiots, it's obvious that anyone can do a degree.

On top of that, if there are more graduates, there will be more people qualified to do "highly paid graduate" jobs, so there will obviosuly be a huge benefit as everyone with a degree will now be able to get a highly paid graduate job.

Therefore it is imperitive to get as many people with a degree as possible. Lets start with a target of 50%"

Converting the remaining vocational qualifications into foundation degrees is to find a way of meeting the target in the typical Blairite style: if we can't meet it, rename things untill we can clai we have met it.

This of couse, means a huge increase in funding is needed to expand the system by about 25%-30%. But of course, this can't be funded out of increased taxes, so instead they the aim is to try and hive off the universities into mass degree factories (where it is hoped there will be savings in efficiencies) and research institutions.

This is expressed in the idea of encouraging "teaching universities" and the support for "mergers across the sector"

Then, by allowing univeristies to charge differential top up fees, research universities will charge more, teaching universities less, and the funding problem will go away because the students will pay it instead.

However, the result is these big traching unviersities get funding by the student and have to meet their target number of students signed up each year (set by HEFCE), so they offer silly, easy and attractive course in surfing and so forth to get their quota in. Combined with the current guff put about by the Government by Hodge and her succesors "anyone with a degree earns £400,000 more than non degree holders", a degree is "investment", the first lot of students will sign up for these courses. Obviously, the whole thing is unsustainable. Employers are not going to find every qualificaton valuable, and in the end it's the employer that decides how valuable a qualification is, not the government or the voter and certainly not people talking on the internet. People are going to realise pretty quickly when the scare stories continue to hit the paper (as they are already doing) about graduates lumbered with five figure debt but with no increased employability and these degree factories will either have to close down or start to make their qualification more attractive. In the end, we will be back where we started in the 80's with polytechnics and universities, except we will call them all "universities", we will call all post A-Level qualifications "degrees", and the cost of education will have been passed on directly to those undertaking it, which will have access issues. On top of that there will be a bunch of people with large debts and poor qualifications.