Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 19 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 618 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

University in need of repair

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/09/15/rebuilding-british-higher-educations-most-unusual-institution



Rebuilding British higher education’s most unusual institution .


  • 0
    Hi Roy,


    Ok, got you now, I'd slightly misread your post...yes, that does seem unlikely.


    I was amused when I was taking my two around choosing universities a year or two back that every university we went to claimed to be the top in the country (which they probably were for something if you shut one eye and squinted sideways at the figures). I noticed a week or two back that some UK universities are getting into severe trouble for some of their more spurious claims.


    I agree, this one seems right up Tim Harford's street! 


    Hi Moshe,


    I am SO glad I don't recruit any more! Don't get me wrong, it's a great concept. I've changed direction in my career many times over the year, and getting individual degree-standard modules in particular subjects would have been really useful. As a passionate advocate of CPD I'm all for it.


    BUT, how does the poor employer know what standard such modules demonstrate?  OK, degrees are already pretty varied in standards but this is a whole new ball game again. For most engineering managers recruitment is a contingency process, you ignore it until somebody leaves and then you run around trying to get someone in as quickly as possible, there's no spare time to keep up to date with what various qualifications mean. 


    Now this would be a really useful accreditation service for the IET to offer if only it had the time and resource...


     

    Cheers, Andy
  • 0
    As an employer’s Training Manager I was an early adopter of the “Foundation Degree” model in the early noughties. I was operating a four-year training programme with a college partner which involved trainees attending college on a “block-release” basis, typically for 12 weeks each year. The terminal qualification was an Higher National Diploma. This model was reasonably common from the late 1940s to 1980s but had become rare and almost forgotten. In fact my employer had sponsored a national specialist college in the post-war period, now part of London South Bank University.  Our problem was that able recruits were beginning to believe that anything less than a degree just “didn’t cut it”. So they just didn’t apply, or worse still accepted our job offer as a “fall-back”, but then welched at the last minute, “because their exam scores were better than expected”.  UK University fees at the time were less than £1000 PA.


    The solution was to seek a third partner, a university.  Between us we created a new model involving a National Certificate, Foundation Degree and ultimately Bachelors Degree in the same timeframe.  The programme was very demanding of participants, but we attracted people of strong potential, with either a strong work ethic or able to gain one quickly, they got paid, got a good degree and have all gone on to excellent careers. What I find slightly ironic is that it seems that if I was in the US that I could have just called my earlier iteration some form of “lite” degree. In the UK, we would have attracted opprobrium if not prosecution for using the word “degree” in connection with our 1990s model, which was in practice easily the equal and more of many bachelors programmes. I suppose that we have to put “Module” and “Nanodegree” alongside  “Tomaato” and “Tomaeto” wink       

    PS I’m not criticising any valid learning, whatever we want to call it and I'm totally supportive of academic equivalence credit being given for vocational learning. But as Andy says, in a UK context the first job candidate to go on about their “Nanodegree” may elicit laughter, rather than respect. 


    PS for Andy,We do of course have the new IET Academy proposition.                 

  • 0

    Roy Bowdler:
    OU educates nearly one-third (31%) of the U.K.’s university-going individuals under 25.

    “34% of new OU undergraduates are under 25” (source OU website). Whilst I haven’t taken the time to research the numbers further, for the OU to have nearly one-third of undergraduates under 25, seems unlikely to me?



    I have done a bit of research. If the OU have 34% under 25 (out of 173,927) that equates to  59,135 students under 25. If this is 31% of the UK's university going individuals under 25 then this means there are 190,759 students under 25 (not strictly true as I have ignored post-grad students, but bear with me). Therefore out of 1,727,895 UK undergraduate students (source https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/facts-and-stats/data-and-analysis/Documents/facts-and-figures-2016.pdf) only 11% are under 25......

    There is definitely something wrong with these figures.

    Alasdair
  • 0

    Roy Bowdler:
    PS for Andy,We do of course have the new IET Academy proposition.             




    Yeeeeeees....I'm still struggling with whether it's ethical to charge £1647 for an online course on engineering ethics wink 


    And I think we have to be very careful about being both a education provider and providing education accreditation. It's a difficult one this - the IET's role is to develop engineering expertise and professionalism itself and to support and encourage others in providing that development. As soon as IET training provision becomes a serious business stream this gets very difficult - if I was a competing training provider I would be concerned.


    Hopefully everyone involved in the IET has paid £1647 and taken that course so they can correctly manage the ethics of this situation laugh (Sorry, ethics is very much in my field, and is a subject I think is hugely important for all engineers. I think the IET should be providing probably the majority of the material in this course to every member for free. And, to be fair, the prices for the other courses in the Academy tend to be far more reasonable - although probably still out of reach for many without their employer's support.)


    Cheers, Andy


  • 0
    Hi Alasdair, Roy,


    It might be to do with the wording "new" undergraduates? Although actually that seems to make it worse...


    The trouble is, I do rather have a soft spot for the OU! Not that I've ever used them myself, but I know many people who have achieved degrees through there who would not have had the time to do otherwise. Plus nostalgic memories of strange B&W programmes on BBC2 on all sots of interesting and arcane subjects.


    Cheers, Andy


  • 0
    Andy,

    Re the soft spot, I fully agree, though I have never used them either. I have friends who have and recognise the opportunity they have given to many who would otherwise be outside the education system looking in. However that is no excuse for figures that just don't add up (or is that why they are in need of repair? wink)

    The OU shouldn't need to try to justify through numbers of students, but rather just show their record for providing a university education to those from more deprived backgrounds. What grieves me is that they are being forced to justify through numbers of students rather than being allowed to show the difference they actually make.

    Alasdair

    ps I have memories of the arcane subjects in black and white (and at odd times of day) from my youth also.
  • 0
    As I was driving to work yesterday there was a report on the radio stating that “at least three UK Universities were at risk of bankruptcy”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46059457 . It didn’t seem that the OU was one of these, but It seems that there is a pattern, where more highly ranked universities are competing for students by accepting 18 year olds with lower A level examination results than previously, responding to a demographic decline in that age group and restrictions on overseas students. Others seen as less “prestigious” or in less attractive locations, or located close to a stronger competitor, are struggling to compete and losing income. 

    A potential solution, especially for long-established former Polytechnics is to do what many of them always did extremely well, support the needs of employers in their region or as a specialist centres of excellence in particular industries. A large proportion of this market is part-time, often supported by employers, or full-time students who weren’t so successful in the school system, but subsequently gather momentum perhaps through college, often showing good potential once they find a pathway and developing successful careers. A good proportion of Engineers and Technicians fall into this category and the majority were prepared through college and pre-1992 Polytechnics, now Universities.

    Unfortunately it seems that the current fees regime has choked-off much of the part-time market.

    As any regular reader of these forums will understand, the apprenticeship model is very close to my heart. Absolutely essential to that is the provision of technical knowledge and vocational skills by colleges and universities. Government policy seeking to revitalise apprenticeships provides financial incentives for employers , although most of that incentive will typically be “spent” in college and university services  https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/  Employers and individuals self-funding have to make return-on-investment appraisals. For employers this inevitably includes the cost of red-tape associated with government initiatives. Clearly self-funded students such as those drawn towards the OU, have been hugely deterred by tuition fee hikes.  If I consider the Degree Apprenticeship that I led some years ago, probably the only way to gain positive ROI, would have been to cut trainee salaries, with the risk of other employers hovering with better offers once the trainee becomes productive.  An apprentice cannot be “bound to serve their master” as was historically the case, nor in practice restrained in any other way, although most will wish to complete their training.   

    This isn’t the best place for a public policy debate about higher education generally, although it has become in recent decades one of our most important “industries”. However, in the context of developing Engineers and Technicians, any further diminution of part-time vocational programmes, closely linked to employment skills could be catastrophic.  A market favouring those universities who are most successful in attracting 18 year old full-time undergraduate students , may seem to be  a rational one. However, if this means that an employed person cannot readily access appropriate higher education, at a price that offers a likely positive return on investment, then there are many potentially damaging consequences.    
          
    I received last week (not for the first time) a “begging letter” from the OU, because I’m on their MBA alumni list. I couldn’t make a useful difference in that respect and have higher priorities for my charitable contributions, but I do want our profession to make a very strong case to government about in-career learning.  I’m confident that the IET will seek do that; but is there unity of purpose across the profession (as defined by Engineering Council affiliation)? Many among us are only interested in a model that attracts a fraction of the most mathematical 18 years old students onto Chartered Engineer accredited full-time undergraduate courses. Some wouldn’t be interested in the loss of a “less prestigious" university unless it was in their backyard.  Therefore, “the engineering establishment” consisting only of the highest status chartered engineers, may not see the issue as overly important. Hopefully, employers and  their representatives will keep banging the door of government  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/07/one-year-infrastructure-levy-working-yet/

  • 0

    Roy Bowdler:
    As I was driving to work yesterday there was a report on the radio stating that “at least three UK Universities were at risk of bankruptcy”. ....
          
    ...Many among us are only interested in a model that attracts a fraction of the most mathematical 18 years old students onto Chartered Engineer accredited full-time undergraduate courses. Some wouldn’t be interested in the loss of a “less prestigious" university unless it was in their backyard.  Therefore, “the engineering establishment” consisting only of the highest status chartered engineers, may not see the issue as overly important.




    Roy,

    Dispiriting news. As someone who went through college to get an engineering OND and then some years later went to university for a Degree, I am with you on this one. We can't have a profession where we only have Chartered Engineers as we need the full range of capabilities from Technician all the way through to CEng. Limit the education to CEng-worthy candidates and soon the Chartered Engineers only interested in CEng accredited courses will be stuck doing EngTech work and wondering where it all went wrong.

    Alasdair

  • 0

    Roy Bowdler:
    As I was driving to work yesterday there was a report on the radio stating that “at least three UK Universities were at risk of bankruptcy”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46059457 . It didn’t seem that the OU was one of these, but It seems that there is a pattern, where more highly ranked universities are competing for students by accepting 18 year olds with lower A level examination results than previously, responding to a demographic decline in that age group and restrictions on overseas students. Others seen as less “prestigious” or in less attractive locations, or located close to a stronger competitor, are struggling to compete and losing income. 




    It's called market saturation. In many businesses initially there are a limited number of players but when demand exceeds supply then more players jump on the bandwagon to the point where every man and his dog wants a piece of the pie. This results in market saturation where supply exceeds demand so weaker players are often driven out of business or taken over.





    A potential solution, especially for long-established former Polytechnics is to do what many of them always did extremely well, support the needs of employers in their region or as a specialist centres of excellence in particular industries. A large proportion of this market is part-time, often supported by employers, or full-time students who weren’t so successful in the school system, but subsequently gather momentum perhaps through college, often showing good potential once they find a pathway and developing successful careers. A good proportion of Engineers and Technicians fall into this category and the majority were prepared through college and pre-1992 Polytechnics, now Universities.




    The problem with this is that former polytechnics have moved away from traditional subjects towards soft subjects and popular subjects. A polytechnic that centres on degree courses like social work, psychology, or law for students that don't have GCSEs and A Levels isn't likely to invest in facilities for engineering unless there is a clear return on that investment.




    This isn’t the best place for a public policy debate about higher education generally, although it has become in recent decades one of our most important “industries”. However, in the context of developing Engineers and Technicians, any further diminution of part-time vocational programmes, closely linked to employment skills could be catastrophic.  A market favouring those universities who are most successful in attracting 18 year old full-time undergraduate students , may seem to be  a rational one. However, if this means that an employed person cannot readily access appropriate higher education, at a price that offers a likely positive return on investment, then there are many potentially damaging consequences.

    Take into account that a high proportion of students studying engineering at the more prestigious universities are overseas students as these are what brings in the money. In contrast, a high proportion of students studying soft and popular subjects at former polytechnics are home students. There could be much truth that the HE setup for engineering in Britain is for overseas students and home students come second. Therefore if polytechnics start offering part time vocational courses, often supported by employers, then these will be almost exclusively for home students. I think that the shift away from home students to overseas students in engineering at HE over the past few decades is a factor that nobody who wishes to formulate future policy and strategies in STEM education can afford to ignore.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines