Do you really need a degree?

[InKursion]

Teaching Assisistent. That's the job title. Probably has the word teaching in, because it involves teaching...

In fact it is how oxford is structured, they have very small tutor groups of 1 or 2 people with staff. Real teaching is like old philosophers used to do, is probably more like teaching than standing in front of a lecture hall. However oxford tutors tend to be post-docs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutorial_system

All Oxford tutors are at least full readers/doctors and Professors. No precocious MA student will be sitting down in a tutorial

 

[UK-AL05]

All Oxford tutors are at least full readers/doctors and Professors. No precocious MA student will be sitting down in a tutorial

Yeah that's what I said in the post. However just because I teach a small group, does not mean i'm not teaching.

 

[InKursion]

Oh by the way inKursion, stuff like english literature requires people to obtain masters degrees because the government designates such little funding towards it. Thus it is highly competitive for Ph.D programs.

Do an engineering degree, maths degree, cs degree and you don't need to, even at universities like cambridge and oxford. Masters degree is an option.

That's why.


Such a shame because I like philosophy, and classics. I would study philosophy because it underpins mathematics and logic(One of my favourite subjects) thus most technical subjects rely on it in someway because of their use of logic and maths. English lit not so much.

I've even become quite good at latin, and ancient greek just to read non-translations.

English lit combines classics, ancient greek/latin, philosophy, history, politics, sociology, psychology, linguistics etc. It's a syncretic course - the texts themselves are just starting points. I'd say about 80% of postgraduate higher-end EngLit is philosophy and theory based. You have to have a pretty broad understanding of just about every discipline: in one piece of research you can be roping in Lacanian psychology with postmodern epistemology and semiotics. That's why it's considered so highly in the traditional academic hierarchy - it's totally cross-disciplinary.

Also to your earlier comment, you can quite easily go from BA to PhD in English as well. You just have to have a good proposal and to demonstrate you are capable of the research methods outlined (...and to win the funding lottery of course). That was part of my point about RG/94 group institutions equipping their undergrads with more serious academic skills. There is nothing new that I have acquired in my MA in terms of research method or level of intellectual engagement. It's just another qualification. I only took my MA because I won a full scholarship so it greatly increased my chances of gaining AHRC funding for my PhD. I would have gone straight to PhD otherwise (I gained a double-starred first at undergrad).

 

[InKursion]

Yeah that's what I said in the post. However just because I teach a small group, does not mean i'm not teaching.

I'd say it's a pretty imaginative leap to compare you being given charge of some students as part of delegation to the Oxbridge tutorial system. They are rigorous sessions that assume responsibility for the core part of all undergrads' teaching. They are the most important element of an undergrad course there. Technically more important and demanding than the module-seminars that are given to new post-docs at other RG/94 group institutions. ergo: not comparable at all.

 

[Amp34]

My point is that skills and methods of research are instructed to first-year undergrads in RG/94 group universities to prepare them for this type of independent work. I took a whole module in my first year that was on research methods and core theory - what benefit did this have to the rest of my first year reading? Nothing. It was simply to make sure that my essay writing style was suitable for research publication. And it has been invaluable to me, really (I start a PhD this fall). Judging from my friend's work output in their final year of study at a Polytechnic, they were never given this instruction and hard discipline in the first place. The educational cultures are extremely different.

Also it's not that uncommon for a high-quality graduate from a RG/94 to go straight into a PhD, with no MA (in the humanities, anyway). Surely this is testament to the style and education of the undergrad experience? How many undergrads from an ex-Poly are ready for PhD study?

So let me get this straight, you are effectively arguing that employers should bypass Russell/1994 group universities and hire from the ex Polys as they are more industry focussed...?

As for the rest, I did a very similar sounding module at my ex poly undergrad too. It's fairly common AFAIK.. As for the latter my Masters was at a 1994 group university and several of the new PhD students were 1st students from ex Polys without a masters. I also have friends from my undergrad who are doing PhD's in places like Leeds and Stavanger (Norway) straight from undergrad.

EDIT: As for Doctors and Professors. I was only taught by one person who wasn't a Dr currently either researching or working in Industry (or both) at both universities. As for Professorship, you do realise that is just a job title don't you? It means little other than the university saying they are a Professor, just like being called a Manager. At most universities it means they are probably doing significantly less research and significantly more admin and day to day running of courses and departments.

 

[UK-AL05]

greatly increased my chances of gaining AHRC funding for

All i'm saying is that, that's why so many people do a masters degree before pursing a Ph.D in the arts. Sure there probably are exceptions who can get in without an MA but the Engineering Council(Funds Maths, Science, Engineers, and CS) is funded much more liberally than the arts council, so it is not as competitive.

 

[InKursion]

So let me get this straight, you are effectively arguing that employers should bypass Russell/1994 group universities and hire from the ex Polys as they are more industry focussed...?

As for the rest, I did a very similar sounding module at my ex poly undergrad too. It's fairly common AFAIK.. As for the latter my Masters was at a 1994 group university and several of the new PhD students were 1st students from ex Polys without a masters. I also have friends from my undergrad who are doing PhD's in places like Leeds and Stavanger (Norway) straight from undergrad.

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying Polys don't try to compete in the research game so much, so consequently they focus more on careers and contacts in business, etc. (look at the Million+ group, which is the best example of Polys gathering together to form a RG/94 equivalent; it's basically a business-courting lobby group). In fact because of intense competition nowadays the university you went to means more and more (sadly...), so the RG/94 group's prestige probably carries people further on grad scheme applications. My comment was just to say that the Polys are kind of on another tier when it comes to research quality and government funding.

And yep, you can get a mixed bag of people on postgraduate courses. Of course no university-brand or whatever is going to be a definitive box that you are fixed to for the rest of your life; the individual application is always the most important thing. I'm just generalizing about the academic environment at the two types of institution - historically and in today's higher-ed system. However one thing I will hazard is that people from 'weaker' or rather 'less prestigious' academic backgrounds may struggle at post-viva career advancement. Academia is just as competitive as normal private-sector graduate work nowadays, and there are far more people taking PhD's than there are posts at universities (in the UK, anyway, foreign universities are still crazy for English grads afaik). So of course you want to make sure you went to the best schools possible and can get the best results record and references out of the faculties there.

 

[UK-AL05]

I'd say it's a pretty imaginative leap to compare you being given charge of some students as part of delegation to the Oxbridge tutorial system. They are rigorous sessions that assume responsibility for the core part of all undergrads' teaching. They are the most important element of an undergrad course there. Technically more important and demanding than the module-seminars that are given to new post-docs at other RG/94 group institutions. ergo: not comparable at all.

All i'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with teaching small groups in general, which I did.

 

[InKursion]

All i'm saying is that, that's why so many people do a masters degree before pursing a Ph.D in the arts. Sure there probably are exceptions who can get in without an MA but the Engineering Council(Funds Maths, Science, Engineers, and CS) is funded much liberally than the arts council, so it is not as competitive.

One thing I think you're missing as well is that in humanities you really have to have a grasp of the whole field. That's a vital part of demonstration that postgrads have to do in order to graduate with high-honours and be accepted to PhD study. 'Demonstrate a grasp of the contemporary field' or some such. In science and maths a person can specialize down into a niche and then a micro-niche for their PhD and they don't (and possibly can't) know about stuff happening in other branches of the science. That doesn't work in the humanities so much; you can't specialize deeply at the sacrifice of everything else. For many people - particularly those with weaker undergrad degrees - the MA is a great chance to take a year or two to properly do your reading and get up to scratch with where scholarship is today, for e.g. the history of the field, important contemporary debates, an understanding of all the major theoretical approaches, etc. It takes a huge amount of time. It has taken me 4 years of intensive bookwormishness to get a grasp of 1850-present in terms of history, politics, philosophy, literature, theory, etc. These are things you really need to know; one can't be a myopic PhD student. You're expected to be familiar with all the major philosophy and theory - it can be called upon like a vast intellectual toolkit in research. In science you tend to focus much more intensely on your area of interest; other branches are often like different languages altogether.

Just something that is important to add, I think.

& I do totally agree that funding is much easier to get in the sciences (perhaps rightfully so). Another added insult to the poor humanities scholar is that failing to find any University reader posts after viva'ing will possibly be the end of your life. Science/Math PhD's have a whole world of industry to go into, whereas the arts/humanities PhD scholar can't use their qualification for **** in private sector employment (except in some niche think-tanks and such like). It's a giant chain around their neck

 

[Amp34]

Out of interest where did you do your MA? You did you undergrad at Oxford, and now your PhD at Oxford?

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying Polys don't try to compete in the research game so much, so consequently they focus more on careers and contacts in business, etc. (look at the Million+ group, which is the best example of Polys gathering together to form a RG/94 equivalent; it's basically a business-courting lobby group). In fact because of intense competition nowadays the university you went to means more and more (sadly...), so the RG/94 group's prestige probably carries people further on grad scheme applications. My comment was just to say that the Polys are kind of on another tier when it comes to research quality and government funding.

And yep, you can get a mixed bag of people on postgraduate courses. Of course no university-brand or whatever is going to be a definitive box that you are fixed to for the rest of your life; the individual application is always the most important thing. I'm just generalizing about the academic environment at the two types of institution - historically and in today's higher-ed system. However one thing I will hazard is that people from 'weaker' or rather 'less prestigious' academic backgrounds may struggle at post-viva career advancement. Academia is just as competitive as normal private-sector graduate work nowadays, and there are far more people taking PhD's than there are posts at universities (in the UK, anyway, foreign universities are still crazy for English grads afaik). So of course you want to make sure you went to the best schools possible and can get the best results record and references out of the faculties there.

So now you are moving the goalposts as I can show significant numbers of ex poly students going straight on to fairly competitive PhDs at good universities?

EDIT: As I said before, the whole university name picking should be getting less and less, it all depends on who is the other side of the coin, reading the CV's. If they went to a Poly they will unlikely have the same closed view than someone who went to a Russell group had about them, especially if they went to the same university. It is however becoming more and more about the specific course. Companies are getting more and more picky about what courses suit their company and will choose people off those over people off similar courses in more "reputable" universities if the course does not suit the job/company as much. This is probably significantly less so in the arts but in the technical/science side of things it is becoming significantly more important. It is indeed where the Million+ universities can excel as they can tailor their courses to suit what businesses actually want, while still holding up their standards.

When you say government funding what do you mean? Research or overall? On the teaching side of things, which we are really looking at here as that is what makes a student a good grad, every university gets exactly the same peers student... Research, not so much I agree, however as I said in an earlier post I still have not heard a good argument for why a good researcher is a good teacher (at undergrad at least, post grad is a whole different ball game in both research and career orientations).

 

[UK-AL05]

One thing I think you're missing as well is that in humanities you really have to have a grasp of the whole field. That's a vital part of demonstration that postgrads have to do in order to graduate with high-honours and be accepted to PhD study. 'Demonstrate a grasp of the contemporary field' or some such. In science and maths a person can specialize down into a niche and then a micro-niche for their PhD and they don't (and possibly can't) know about stuff happening in other branches of the science. That doesn't work in the humanities so much; you can't specialize deeply at the sacrifice of everything else. For many people - particularly those with weaker undergrad degrees - the MA is a great chance to take a year or two to properly do your reading and get up to scratch with where scholarship is today, for e.g. the history of the field, important contemporary debates, an understanding of all the major theoretical approaches, etc. It takes a huge amount of time. It has taken me 4 years of intensive bookwormishness to get a grasp of 1850-present in terms of history, politics, philosophy, literature, theory, etc. These are things you really need to know; one can't be a myopic PhD student. You're expected to be familiar with all the major philosophy and theory - it can be called upon like a vast intellectual toolkit in research. In science you tend to focus much more intensely on your area of interest; other branches are often like different languages altogether.

Just something that is important to add, I think.

I think you might have point about specialisation, we tend to prefer a broad base, then a specialisation in something.

However I think 800 Million GBP(Engineering Council) vs 100 Million GBP(Arts Council) may have something to do with why they're so competitive for an arts Ph.D.

 

[InKursion]

I'm not moving the goalposts at all! My only point has been that courses at 'research-intensive' universities tends to be structured on the assumption that every graduate is going on to postgraduate education - that's the way it's set-up. At Polys there isn't so much of a stress on it. My point about teaching quality being different and incomparable is a fairly obvious one, really: research-intensive universities have largely Oxbridge or equivalent top-tier academics teaching at them and leading all of the undergraduate courses. You are being taught by a different tier of lecturer, really, as well as having your work marked by far more judicious folk. Granted not every star-academic researcher will be the best teacher (or even care much for their teaching duties), but that just stresses all the more importance at these places on individual study - all the better, in my opinion. Furthermore I must say that every single don I have been taught by has been incredibly supportive and really top-rate. So I'm not sure how much truth there is in the image of top-academic researchers letting their teaching duties fall by the wayside to Poly-like levels of comparison.

I don't know what you mean by "every university gets exactly the same peers student", can you clarify?

My MA was from London, becomes its modern literature and the departments surpass Oxford for that teaching. The only reason I'm going back to Oxon for PhD is because in the current research climate they are by far the most generous / highest probability of success from AHRC funding (5x more than Cambridge, in fact). The only other alternative for cash-handouts is Durham, which has a large private fund. Miserable funding situation for everyone in the arts and humanities today, really.

 

[Amp34]

I think you might have point about specialisation, we tend to prefer a broad base, then a specialisation in something.

However I think 800 Million GBP(Engineering Council) vs 100 Million GBP(Arts Council) may have something to do with why they're so competitive for an arts Ph.D.

And then there is the Millions more in industry funding that the sciences and technical postgrads get that the Arts are unlikely to be able to match.

EDIT: I also added a bit more with regards to picking universities in my previous post if you're interested!

 

[UK-AL05]

I'm not moving the goalposts at all! My only point has been that courses at 'research-intensive' universities tends to be structured on the assumption that every graduate is going on to postgraduate education - that's the way it's set-up. At Polys there isn't so much of a stress on it. My point about teaching quality being different and incomparable is a fairly obvious one, really: research-intensive universities have largely Oxbridge or equivalent top-tier academics teaching at them and leading all of the undergraduate courses. You are being taught by a different tier of lecturer, really, as well as having your work marked by far more judicious folk. Granted not every star-academic researcher will be the best teacher (or even care much for their teaching duties), but that just stresses all the more focus at these places on individual study - all the better, in my opinion.

I don't know what you mean by "every university gets exactly the same peers student", can you clarify?

My MA was from London, becomes its modern literature and the departments surpass Oxford for that teaching. The only reason I'm going back to Oxon for PhD is because in the current research climate they are by far the most generous / highest probability of success from AHRC funding (5x more than Cambridge, in fact). The only other alternative for cash-handouts is Durham, which has a large private fund. Miserable funding situation for everyone in the arts and humanities today, really.

Acutally I was lucky, I had a cambridge alumni at my ex-poly.

 

[InKursion]

EDIT: As I said before, the whole university name picking should be getting less and less, it all depends on who is the other side of the coin, reading the CV's. If they went to a Poly they will unlikely have the same closed view than someone who went to a Russell group had about them, especially if they went to the same university. It is however becoming more and more about the specific course. Companies are getting more and more picky about what courses suit their company and will choose people off those over people off similar courses in more "reputable" universities if the course does not suit the job/company as much. This is probably significantly less so in the arts but in the technical/science side of things it is becoming significantly more important. It is indeed where the Million+ universities can excel as they can tailor their courses to suit what businesses actually want, while still holding up their standards.

This is a good point - especially about the million+ association. However I don't really believe university should be 3-year training programme for corporate oblivion. Something about courses 'tailored' to suit the needs of business and the market makes my skin crawl. I'm an idealist and a humanist when it comes to education and I think we should use our prestigious universities to educate young minds with lofty ideas, etc.etc you get the point. I'm a big believer that education is a hugely civilizing and culturing force - beyond its 'wots it worth' value to the graduate jobmarket. I'm more into Aristotle's thoughts on education than Alan Sugar's, shall we say.

Of course there's a certain amount of elitism in this statement, but that's necessarily so. The reason I see the division between traditional unis (i.e. RG/94) and ex-Polys is because there is a growing disparity over this issue. Traditional unis carry on with their research and high-minded goals of providing a liberal-humanist education that, frankly, they could give a damn or not whether it applies to the real world of men and business. These universities however are small in size and number and tend to be reserved for the top % of school-leavers (which is open to lots of critique because of systemic flaws in the nation's pre-university education system, I agree... and not to mention the huge influx of international students as well, now that our top-tier universities command global prestige). Because of this there has been a social and political push to get the average child into universities - and here the ex-Polys come in and play their best hand. But they are undeniably geared less towards 'traditional' aims of classical education/research/academia and more towards cosying up to business and getting their graduates into middle-class, white-collar work. The 'Poly push' is more about promising the perceived quality of life that a University education (used to) bring, and less about wanting to get every working-class kid reading Derrida and Heidegger.

 

[UK-AL05]

This is a good point - especially about the million+ association. However I don't really believe university should be 3-year training programme for corporate oblivion. Something about courses 'tailored' to suit the needs of business and the market makes my skin crawl. I'm an idealist and a humanist when it comes to education and I think we should use our prestigious universities to educate young minds with lofty ideas, etc.etc you get the point. I'm a big believer that education is a hugely civilizing and culturing force - beyond its 'wots it worth' value to the graduate jobmarket. I'm more into Aristotle's thoughts on education than Alan Sugar's, shall we say.

Of course there's a certain amount of elitism in this statement, but that's necessarily so. The reason I see the division between traditional unis (i.e. RG/94) and ex-Polys is because there is a growing disparity over this issue. Traditional unis carry on with their research and high-minded goals of providing a liberal-humanist education that, frankly, they could give a damn or not whether it applies to the real world of men and business. These universities however are small in size and number and tend to be reserved for the top % of school-leavers (which is open to lots of critique because of systemic flaws in the nation's pre-university education system, I agree... and not to mention the huge influx of international students as well, now that our top-tier universities command global prestige). Because of this there has been a social and political push to get the average child into universities - and here the ex-Polys come in and play their best hand. But they are undeniably geared less towards 'traditional' aims of classical education/research/academia and more towards cosying up to business and getting their graduates into middle-class, white-collar work. The 'Poly push' is more about promising the perceived quality of life that a University education (used to) bring, and less about wanting to get every working-class kid reading Derrida and Heidegger.

Acutally sort of agree with you there. Universities should not aim for the needs busineses. This also applies to vocational degrees like medicine and enginering, they should stay up to the standard of the proffesion not businsses. Businesses often want to bypass proffesional standards for cost reasons.

I have noticed this in apprenticed software developers, they are essentially java/.net monkeys because business set the cirrculum. They have no sense of our culture -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(programmer_subculture) University CS department are surrounded in that culture normally. Yes CS has a academic culture.

Even my polytechnic taught relatively academic languages like prolog which is a Programming language based on logic such as predicate logic. They gave you a 'hacker' outlook on life.

These apprentices essentially only know enterprise programming and windows, which is a massive waste. Being generally educated(Even self educated) in computing makes you a better programmer. I have to introduce them to it. Normally the self educated programmers, normally find that academic culture for themselves on the web on IRC channels and the like.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The standards really aren't comparable. For several reasons: one, top Russell/1994 group universities are primarily focused on academic research and their faculties and courses reflect this through-and-through. Polytechnics don't really compete in the research game (which is the real metric of academic quality, really) so they focus on career prospects and more practical skills. The courses are geared completely differently from the ground up: a traditional university (i.e. RG/1994) basically structures its courses as if every single student was going to go into academia as a career path. Ex-polys and lower ranking institutions tend to structure their courses a little differently. This is the start of the divergence in quality - one is held to academic-research standards, normally marked by Professors and faculty from world-class institutions (all my Profs were Oxbridge and marked to their personal Oxbridge standards); the other is geared more casually towards people of all abilities that probably aren't realistically going to go on and become post-docs.

The standards must be comparable to some degree, for professionally accredited courses there is a minimum standard that must be met. You can argue that at the top end of the learning you might be better off at certain universities but once a professional body has accredited a university to provide a course it must continue to meet that standard. As far as I'm aware professional bodies don't tend to have differing standards of accreditation or say to people "well, they're nominally all accredited by us but actually unless they're in this group of ten universities the degree isn't worth a damn...".

As Moses very common-sensically pointed out above: how can their marking standards be equivalent when their entry-grades are so wildly different? There's a huge difference in candidate between a person getting AAA/AAB at A-level (the average entry tariff for RG/1994 Group academic courses) and someone that got CDD at A-Level. They are often worlds apart - not just in grade, but in the courses they did, as well. People getting into RG/1994 unis must have A-levels in 'hard' academic subjects, e.g. maths, sciences, history, literature, philosophy, etc. They turn down kids that get 'soft' A-levels in stuff like business, media, psychology, sociology etc. - the stuff, in fact, that is more popular at the ex-Polys and lower-ranking institutions. This is the start of a huge gap in student quality and in institutional focus.

So the argument is not that they could potentially be of a similar quality but that you don't believe they will be.

Is there any reason why an ex-polytechnic could not increase their entry requirements over time as their cachet grows and they attract both more able lecturers and students? They might or might not wish to pursue this route but I'm asking whether it's theoretically possible or not.

Another factor to consider is the 'gaming the system' involved in degree classifications. Every university wants to a) retain as many of its students as possible, to keep their drop-out rate officially low, but also b) to graduate as many 2:1 or higher students as possible from their class. This is a delicate balancing act, and it's a pressure imposed by external post-New Labour education bodies (it decides university funding, not to mention those capricious league tables that collate this information to crudely 'rate' the university). The result? Many ex-Polys and lower-rank universities bounce up the number of 2:1's they get - students that just slip over the 60% mark, with a helping nudge - so that it looks as if the university is performing well. There's plenty of this going on, if the reports and review articles are anything to go by. This is all made far worse by the recent culture in newspaper rankings that has cropped up in the last 5-6 years or so, with them gaining a disproportionate amount of focus and influence (check their methodologies, they are often pretty pointless). Institutions in the majority outside of the top25 are all inflating grades and doing everything they can to shift up 5 ranks or so each academic year: an 'increase' by newspaper standards (read: not really any standards at all) = better publicity for them, and hence more students, and hence more money. This may be why you see grades as being somehow 'equivalent', in terms of how many 1:1's and 2:1's are awarded.

Students at top universities are basically shaped to become serious academic research writers: their writing standards, methods of research, argumentation/rhetoric, research quality etc. are all held up to the standards of serious and intending academic research. Ex-polys don't really give a damn about the higher echelons of academia or the ivory towers - their focus is on turning out good graduates for the graduate workplace. They are different worlds, imo. As much as you want to say "the standards are equal", there is simply no way a 2:1 from London Met or Liverpool John Moore's is worth as much as a 2:1 from Oxbridge or any other top25 institution (i.e. Britain's world class universities that compete on a global scale, and are hence held to that standard).

Again, why would an external body wish to give their approval to an institution if the students coming out of it did not meet the relevant minimum standards for the external body? That would hurt their professional reputation and bring into question the whole value of membership of those bodies.

We're getting way off the original topic but I think it's probably fair to say that a degree isn't vital depending on what you want to do in life.

 

[DiscoDave]

Do the majority of us need degrees? Probably not.

Are we expected to have them to get a job? Yes. My degree was an expensive foot in the door.

 

[Amp34]

I'm not moving the goalposts at all! My only point has been that courses at 'research-intensive' universities tends to be structured on the assumption that every graduate is going on to postgraduate education - that's the way it's set-up. At Polys there isn't so much of a stress on it. My point about teaching quality being different and incomparable is a fairly obvious one, really: research-intensive universities have largely Oxbridge or equivalent top-tier academics teaching at them and leading all of the undergraduate courses. You are being taught by a different tier of lecturer, really, as well as having your work marked by far more judicious folk. Granted not every star-academic researcher will be the best teacher (or even care much for their teaching duties), but that just stresses all the more importance at these places on individual study - all the better, in my opinion. Furthermore I must say that every single don I have been taught by has been incredibly supportive and really top-rate. So I'm not sure how much truth there is in the image of top-academic researchers letting their teaching duties fall by the wayside to Poly-like levels of comparison.

Perhaps we're not really debating the university system itself but the division between Arts and Sciences? There is a lot less manoeuvrability in an accredited science course, in fact it's very odd when you meet and study with other students form other universities how similar you all are. I did Geology at undergrad and if you went on an accredited course it meant you had to do a minimum of four weeks independent mapping, a certain number of field trips a year and modules teaching specific theories and ideas. There is obviously some wiggle room for each university to specialise, for example my old uni specialised in Palaeontology, Climate proxies and minerals but the entire system is essentially a loose national curriculum. This may not be the case in the arts but the whole system is very similar in the Engineering Disciplines and other science areas as well.

So no I don't believe there really is that distinction between research intensive unis and the way they teach (having gone to both there appeared to be little difference in undergrad teaching in my discipline). Oxbridge is probably very different however (to the rest of the Russell group and the rest of the universities), and the Arts in general may be very different.

My Ex poly had several Academics at the top of their field as well, several of whom had researched at Oxbridge at some point in their life. It's probably the old fashioned view that the ploys don't do research and haven't got that flow of people.

I think having never actually studied at a Poly you don't really understand the minor differences there are between the teaching staff, it really isn't like the difference that is banded around in the news and by some rather snooty older folk that still feel Polys shouldn't be universities. In my experience anyway, like everything else, all ploys aren't the same and my ex poly is one of the best (ex polys) in the country. Maybe it's different if you went to the London Met of something.

I don't know what you mean by "every university gets exactly the same peers student", can you clarify?

Sorry, combination of mistype and auto spell check... That was meant to be "every university gets exactly the same per student".

This is a good point - especially about the million+ association. However I don't really believe university should be 3-year training programme for corporate oblivion. Something about courses 'tailored' to suit the needs of business and the market makes my skin crawl. I'm an idealist and a humanist when it comes to education and I think we should use our prestigious universities to educate young minds with lofty ideas, etc.etc you get the point. I'm a big believer that education is a hugely civilizing and culturing force - beyond its 'wots it worth' value to the graduate jobmarket. I'm more into Aristotle's thoughts on education than Alan Sugar's, shall we say.

Of course there's a certain amount of elitism in this statement, but that's necessarily so. The reason I see the division between traditional unis (i.e. RG/94) and ex-Polys is because there is a growing disparity over this issue. Traditional unis carry on with their research and high-minded goals of providing a liberal-humanist education that, frankly, they could give a damn or not whether it applies to the real world of men and business. These universities however are small in size and number and tend to be reserved for the top % of school-leavers (which is open to lots of critique because of systemic flaws in the nation's pre-university education system, I agree... and not to mention the huge influx of international students as well, now that our top-tier universities command global prestige). Because of this there has been a social and political push to get the average child into universities - and here the ex-Polys come in and play their best hand. But they are undeniably geared less towards 'traditional' aims of classical education/research/academia and more towards cosying up to business and getting their graduates into middle-class, white-collar work. The 'Poly push' is more about promising the perceived quality of life that a University education (used to) bring, and less about wanting to get every working-class kid reading Derrida and Heidegger.

I see your point to a degree, however considering the thread you are in it may not be too agreeable. You can tailor parts of your course to make your students more employable whilst still having a research oriented course, although again in the sciences the definition is probably a bit looser as a huge amount of academic research is paid for by industry, be that oil companies, tech companies of organisations like Nasa and ESA. We should certainly still research in the less business oriented courses (such as the arts) but I do think that more industry focus can be a good thing, especially now we have undergraduate masters which are designed to get people into research.

Whilst I agree with some of your latter statements again it will really depend on the university and the course. The sciences go much more hand in hand with industry than the Arts, for example there are very few job titles with "English" in than "geologist", "Engineer" or "Physicist". The sciences naturally lend themselves far more towards direct industry translation than something like an English degree, which is more general. English degrees are probably far more variable, much like accounting and Ecomomics, they will rely a lot on the university you go to as to whether they are very research focussed or really basic, designed to get you a job as a local reporter. Economics probably has the biggest gap of many, is it basically a maths course with a little bit about business, or is it business studies with another name?

It's why I stated about specific courses being far more useful than just what group your university was in. In the sciences the Poly push as you call it is lessened by the fact most science grads end up in a directly relevant career which needs a specific degree qualification.

 

[Amp34]

Acutally sort of agree with you there. Universities should not aim for the needs busineses. This also applies to vocational degrees like medicine and enginering, they should stay up to the standard of the proffesion not businsses. Businesses often want to bypass proffesional standards for cost reasons.

I have noticed this in apprenticed software developers, they are essentially java/.net monkeys because business set the cirrculum. They have no sense of our culture -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(programmer_subculture) University CS department are surrounded in that culture normally. Yes CS has a academic culture.

Even my polytechnic taught relatively academic languages like prolog which is a Programming language based on logic such as predicate logic. They gave you a 'hacker' outlook on life.

These apprentices essentially only know enterprise programming and windows, which is a massive waste. Being generally educated(Even self educated) in computing makes you a better programmer. I have to introduce them to it. Normally the self educated programmers, normally find that academic culture for themselves on the web on IRC channels and the like.

I certainly don't believe universities should teach only what businesses want, however tailoring the course slightly towards what todays industry wants is a very good idea for employability of your grads. You will always need to know the theory and history behind it and an accredited course will almost certainly have those as must haves (considering the accrediting organisations are also unusually in charge of professional standards).