It's Nothing To Do With Money

You may recognise this man but I doubt if you know what he's doing these days.

In case you don't know I'll put you out of your misery - or perhaps intensify it.  

He's the former Labour minister Alan Milburn and he now chairman of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.  This is a set-up which monitors the government. I thought we paid for the House of Lords to do that.

Anyway, Mr Milburn was in Glasgow yesterday giving a speech to Springburn Academy in Glasgow. He said Scotland's universities must 'redouble their efforts on widening access'. Another quote is 'there is a long way to go before higher education was representative of wider society'.

According to Mr Milburn:

“Today, the most advantaged 20 per cent of young people are still seven times more likely to attend university as the 40 per cent most disadvantaged.

Why do politicians always blame universities?  If I remember correctly politicians were fundamental is destroying a solid provision of further education colleges which offered a wide range of subjects.  Now all that's available for young people are full-time courses, unless they are fortunate enough to be on a recognised apprenticeship.  

Not all young people are capable of studying full-time or even have the desire to do so.  For some further education just means a continuation of their school days and they want to leave these days far behind.

Of course youngsters from more financially sound families will have easier 'access' to a university. The greatest cost is accommodation and food and if parents can't afford to help then the young person's choice of university is very limited. I know a couple of now 30-somethings who still feel guilty about having complained about having to live with their parents while they studied at a local university. They now realise the sacrifices their parents made by having them live there for another 4 years without contributing to the household income.

So is it the fault of universities that those from less well off backgrounds are not taking up places?  No.  As far as I'm aware most universities offer bursaries to those with ability.  It's up to schools to ensure that their able pupils have the necessary information.

What about those who don't want to attend full-time courses? 

We should reintroduce vocational colleges which offer part-time study. Too often we hear employers complaining about the basic standards of literacy and numeracy in school leavers today, so vocational colleges could provide tuition in the basic subjects but associated with a subject which is of interest to the young person. 

Unfortunately, in the past 20 years, we have developed a 'degree' culture and this further divides society. Most of the young people I know say their degree subject is of little or no use in their work, but think the fact they had a degree got them their job.

I'm a great supporter of further education - in fact I think it should last a lifetime - but we have to stop accusing those who don't attend university as being inferior to those who do.  That's where the problem lies as it has done since I was born (and long before too).

In Scotland university tuition fees are paid for by the taxpayer and this should ensure any person who has the ability to go on to university does so. If we built quality vocational colleges which offered practical courses in most areas of engineering, building, specific sciences etc., then we may just be able to retain skills which are rapidly disappearing.

The biggest challenge of all is to gain the interest of the young person and instil a sense of self-discipline and self-belief into them. Too many leave school without these and that's why they feel unable/unwilling to go on to further education. It's nothing to do with money.

Tweet

Scotland's Degree Courses

Universities are big business in the UK and globally. Selling the dream that an education will bring financial rewards beyond belief is a skill commonly shown by university PR departments and thousands of people fall for it.  The 'big' names have little need to advertise because their histories do the talking, but new universities have little or no history and require a more innovative marketing ploy.

Telford College in Edinburgh, founded in 1968 and not to be confused with Telford College, Oakengates, Shropshire, is offering cut-price honours degree courses.  Students who take a two year vocational HND qualification can upgrade to an honours degree after completing just one further year of study.

The course are also cheaper because the cost of an HND us much lower than a degree course, so students only have to pay higher fees for the final year of study.

Telford College will be tying up with Northumbria and Cumbria universities which would see courses developed in events and hospitality management, travel and tourism, creative industries and early learning. The shorter courses have been made possible under these partnerships with English universities - where a degree takes three years instead of four in Scotland.

Some years ago those who studied for an HND were either students who hadn't quite achieved good enough higher results to be admitted directly onto a degree course or those who had decided they preferred to enter the workplace and study for an HND in their own time.  Now HNDs are to be offered to all as they are cheaper.

This addresses an issue which should have been resolved some years ago.  Not all degree courses require full-time student attendance for four years. Some courses could quite easily be studied in three or even two years, but the higher education authorities refuse to debate this - possibly because they see their income radically reducing.  In England too their must be courses which could easily be condensed into two years rather than three.

I would like to think this system would be beneficial students, universities and the Scottish taxpayer but I am concerned about the value of the degree when its delivery appears to involve a fair amount of input from the English university system. It could be argued that is of no consequence because, for example, a degree in medicine from Dundee University can involve a period of on-job training in English hospitals.

Alastair Sim, director of Universities Scotland, which represents university principals, says 'already nearly one in 10 entrants to Scottish universities skip the first or second year having successfully completed an HND' so Telford College is not the first to provide 3 year degree courses but they are the first to associate them with English universities.

Will the achievement of a degree through the HND system be the way forward? Given the cost of a standard degree at an English university for a Scot, it could well be the answer. Will it encourage English students here?

I'm all for flexible learning and if this also keeps costs sensible it should be a winner, but our universities do need to face up to the fact that not only these few courses, but many others, could easily be reduced to three years. It's ludicrous that the likes of tourism and hospitality courses are currently programmed for the same length of study as the sciences and engineering - to name but a few.

If Switzerland can offer a globally recognised qualification in tourism and hospitality - through its excellent hotel schools - for one year of study, surely we should be looking to achieve such excellence for similar course and within a similar time frame.

source

Tweet

Leave Universities Alone Mr Clegg

When it was reported that Nick Clegg is demanding that England's top universities stop favouring children from private schools and must take more pupils from state schools - admitting them on lower A-level grades - I was exasperated. (Mr Clegg is a product of Westminster school then Cambridge.)  He describes the present system as 'social segregation'.

Nick Clegg was the cause of the national student unrest in the past few months with his support of raising university tuition fees and now he's decided to attack the institutions.  When he left Westminster school in 1985, if he'd been told that his place at Robinson College, Cambridge, had been given to someone with worse grades than him - whatever their background - he would have been outraged at the unfairness.  It shows the character of the man that he is prepared to inflict that unfairness on those who come after him.

We all know private schools produce children with a higher level of education.  It's not only the children of the rich who attend fee-paying schools - many parents with average earnings sacrifice a great deal to ensure their children receive a better quality education than is provided in the majority of state schools.

If Mr Clegg wants to involve himself in education, he should be calling for total reform of state education and not asking universities to water down entry requirements.  The gap between England's (and Scotland's) best and worst schools is indefensible.

Fortunately in Scotland, 'education snobbery' isn't as prevalent as in England, but we too have the problem of bright children not achieving their potential in some of our schools, yet we spend more per head in education than many other countries.  Teachers have a responsibility to instill confidence into their pupils and ensure they understand that hard work does pay. By labelling young people from poorer backgrounds as less intelligent than others is insulting and will damage their confidence.  I certainly wouldn't have liked to have gone to university knowing I was there just because of my background and not my abilities.  That would have been demoralising.

The LibDems are lurching from one crisis to another. David Cameron appears to be quite happy to let them.  Possibly part of his hidden agenda.

Tweet

Scotland, The Cheap Option?

How education has changed in the past 30 years.  In my youth there were no school proms with bonny lassies wearing evening dresses and laddies in their first evening suit and arriving at expensive hotels in stretch limos.  Even children as young as seven are in on the action.  Back then the only graduation ceremonies which took place were for those who had successfully completed a university degree course but nowadays ceremonies are held for a mix of higher education courses.

There has been much talk about university fees in recent months and Scotland has come in for criticism because the government insists upon no tuition fees at Scottish universities.  Little is said about the same ruling applying to further education colleges and there are more colleges in Scotland than universities.

Scotland attracts many EU students who can claim for payment of their tuition fees from the Student Awards Agency for Scotland.  Claims can be made for non-degree studies such as HNC/HND courses as long as the student meets eligibility requirements.

The number of EU students studying in Scotland increased by 17% between 2008/9 and 2009/10.  In contrast the number of EU students attending English institutions increased by only 6% during the same period.  European law means that the Scottish Government is obliged to pay the fees of students living in non-UK EU countries - at a cost of more than £75 million a year in 2009/10.

That figure could increase drastically now that Germany is about to shorten its schooling from 13 to 12 years.  The change will result in two high school streams graduating in the same year, putting unprecedented strain on the country's university admissions system.  Where are all these pupils going to go?

Neil Mitchison, head of the European Commission's Office in Scotland said:  "German universities may struggle to accommodation the massive number of expected applications, forcing many students to seek education abroad.  Scotland's free education system makes it a very attractive option." (my emphasis)

What may happen in Germany is that German universities chose those with the highest school qualifications for courses, leaving those with lesser grades to look elsewhere.

Do we really want our higher education system to be renowned for being free rather than top quality?  Last week Mike Russell, the education secretary, suddenly decided Scotland couldn't afford to fund students who come from EU countries to study, at either a university or a college, so he intends to tackle this 'anomaly' when he visits Brussels next month.

The EU states that if countries charge their own students then EU students must pay in the same way.  In England they pay tuition fees while in Scotland they used to pay the £2,300 Graduate Endowment.  The SNP government scrapped the endowment in 2007 with the approval of parliament but this would now appear to be a badly thought out policy.  Blaming EU legislation isn't good enough.  The Scottish government must have realised that abolishing fees would result in an influx of EU students keen to gain free education.

Will Mr Russell's problem be sympathetically received in Brussels or will the officials say it is of his government's own making?  We'll find out next month but in the meantime the £75 million worth of free education to EU students last year is sure to be higher in 2011.

Tweet

University Funding

Yesterday, Mike Russell publish his green paper on the Future of Higher Education and its funding.  It didn't contain solutions but options, which included increased support from business and more philanthropic giving.

Giving the stooshie over tuition fees in England, and the proximity of next year's Holyrood elections, all the parties in the Scottish Parliament are manoeuvring round the issue rather than tackling it head on, but Mike Russell did make some interesting remarks during his round of media interviews.

A couple caught my attention but unfortunately they weren't expanded. "... the ability to learn and not the ability to pay," and "... we need to cast an eye over the number of universities we have in Scotland".  Both remarks are related because, before a long term funding solution is found, we have to question the necessity for 50% of our school leavers to become undergraduates and also the quality of some of the courses on offer.  Is it necessary that many courses are of a 4 year duration?

University attendance is seen to be glamorous whereas college is thought to be for those less able.  I know from my own experience this isn't true but to avoid this division many excellent colleges changed to calling themselves universities and are now no longer places of excellence.  Of course they didn't change solely for that reason - they receive more money having university status - but it certainly was one of the factors which was taken into account.

Some years ago now I questioned the head of one Scottish university about the need for courses to last 4 years.  His answer was simple.  If Scottish schools provided a better quality and choice of 6th form studies then more pupils would stay on at school.  Scottish youngsters are often only 16 when they enter the university system and the first year is spent settling them into 'the system' with a minimum amount of time spent on their chosen subject.

Maybe it is time to consider restructuring the whole further education system.  Very recently I was given information about modern apprenticeships which are nothing more than training or retraining courses which do not recognise the excellent standards of City of Guilds and other top quality qualifications. They are nothing less than a suitable description made to entice learners, at the same time ignoring those who do undertake 'old fashioned' apprenticeships.  Not many years ago apprentices were respected because those wishing to learn a trade usually had to spend 3, 4 or 5 years learning from their employer and supported by day or evening college attendance.  Businesses preferred to choose their own apprentices because there was a good possibility, once the apprenticeship was complete, that the person who continue with the company.  With modern apprenticeships that is seldom the case.  The apprentice is not an employee of the company but of the government.

Before more money is handed to further education, a change in its structure is required.  Universities won't want courses to be shortened.  That reduces their funding.  But we should be aiming to provide the best quality of higher education possible for anyone who has the interest and ability to learn and not be concentrating on the number of people we can push through the system.  Nobody wins in that situation except university coffers.

The ability to learn must be the priority.  Those who fit that criteria deserve the help of taxpayers.  Should we be 'pricing' each individual course rather than a flat fee?  Just a thought.

Tweet

Scottish University Bosses Awarded Huge Pay Increases

Scottish university bosses have seen their wages soar despite warnings that hundreds of lecturers and staff may be about to lose their jobs. The average salary of a university principal in the last financial year was £222,000, up 10% on the previous year.

The highest paid principal was Sir Muir Russell, the former civil servant who presided over the Scottish Parliament building fiasco. In his role as head of Glasgow University (pictured above), he received an annual wage of £249,000, a grace-and-favour home and £35,000 towards his pension.

His counterpart in Edinburgh Sit Timothy O'Shea, was paid £228,000 and also receives a rent-free house, chauffeur-driven car and £47,000 in pension benefits.

The biggest pay rise went to Heriot-Watt university principal Anton Muscatelli, who is due to replace Sir Muir at Glasgow in October. His annual salary rocketed by almost 19% last year to £194,727.

Although universities are run as independent charities at least half of their funding comes from taxpayers.

Laura Laws, convenor of the Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland said, "We have to accept that the principals of our universities do an excellent job for less money than they would be earning in the private sector."

There's that old chestnut again, these worthies would receive so much more in the private sector. Are we expected to believe that? I don't believe it for a minute because, if it was true, they'd be off like a shot. Let's be honest, who, in private business, would employ Muir Russell after the absolute mess he made of the Scottish Parliament building project.

Don't forget the salaries are only part of the deal. I know the property in which the last principal of Dundee university lived and it's possibly worth well over £750,000 and, as you can imagine, situated in a rather select part of the city. I couldn't hazard a guess at how much it would cost a month to rent.

It is not my intention to imply all university principals are greedy, but it certainly looks that way. After all aren't they just run-of-the-mill accountants these days?

Source: Sunday Post

Tweet

Tell Us Something We Don't Know

Thanks to the courageous 600 academics who answered an anonymous survey about the quality of Scottish degrees and the integrity of some of the country's higher education institutions.

Like many of you I wasn't surprised to read the Times article and find our higher education system standards are slipping.  Some quotes:

'Students who have failed modules or exams being repeatedly presented to boost pass rates.'

'Difficult modules being made "non-compulsory" to cut failures and poor grades.'

'Lecturers being given unofficial minimum pass rates and being told that failing too many was unacceptable.'

'Universities awarding substandard students better degrees on appeal because they fear complaints from push parents.'

A senior lecturer at Glasgow University said the failure margin was just 10%.

"Scotland is in real danger of losing its competitive advantage of being top class in university education of these practices are allowed to continue," said Liz Smith, the education spokeswoman for the Scottish Conservatives. "There are clearly students in universities who don't want to be there, but there are few other opportunities open to them."

What about work Liz?  That's an opportunity open to everyone.  Why are Scottish universities putting their reputations at stake by accepting people who do not have the abilities for degree studies?  

I expect the answer is money.  Back in my youth a university education was beyond the income of many households and young people left school and entered the world of work.  Many studied at subsidised night classes to further their education and did well.  Dundee Technical College (now Abertay University) had an excellent reputation in vocational skills and students travelled from far and wide to attend.  That was in the 60s when there was a lot less money around but institutions like Dundee Tech survived and continually improved their standards.

University degrees are now so 'fashionable' that not to have one is tantamount to being without a mobile phone. Many 'new' universities have ridden on the back of the fact that Scotland had some of the best universities in the world.  That is no longer the case. Until universities decide to return to being places of educational excellence and not mediocrity, their standards and reputations will keep falling.  The choice is theirs.  

Tweet

A CHANCE TOO GOOD TO MISS

In today's Times there's an article by Joan McAlpine in which she discusses the Universities Scotland report, compiled by economists led by Anton Muscatelli.

The gist of the report is that Scotland needs to diversify into high grade jobs and therefore requires high grade qualifications.  I agree with every word.  Far too many young people attend university because it's the 'done thing these days'.  Many don't even know what they want to study when they apply.  Also there are too many universities rewarding students for less than a recognised degree.  Last summer I was quite embarrassed to attend a 'graduation' and lunch for a friend's grandson who had completed an HNC in IT.  The reason I attended is because my friend is important to me and I kept my thoughts to myself.  He had the whole works, the ceremony, the gown the hired kilt outfit.  By my thinking an HNS is half way to an acceptable degree; call me old-fashioned.

If we provide more lessons in the sciences and maths for our primary children then we may have success in the areas the Universities Scotland report mentions.  During my years in Germany, children around 7 were doing chemistry experiments which weren't on the curriculum here until they attended secondary school.  Which country produces more science graduates?  

We must use the present financial mess to refocus on teaching the correct subjects and encouraging young people not to take the easy options but stretch themselves further. Our commercial R & D figures are shameful - we are rated 16th out of 19 developed countries.  Of course the universities will shout for more money, they always do, but it should not cost much more to produce more graduates who are fit to work in such areas as biotechnology or nanotechnology.  

In England it seems applications for universities has increased by 8% this year and this may happen here too as more and more people become redundant and require to retrain. Universities, with a bigger pool of applicants, ought to be able to select more students interested in gaining high-end jobs.

Note: The SNP government has just invested £3m in Abertay university, Dundee, to make it the centre of excellence for computer games technology.  More of the same please, much more.

Tweet