Should universities offer more vocational courses?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Rather than dictating that more vocational courses should be offered by these independent institutions, the university funding system should those courses that produce the more employable graduates.

That way the incentive is to offer more places on good courses that teach what employers (and the economy) really need. So-called Mc Degree courses would necessarilty be more expensive for the students and courses that are currently failing students will have the incentive to reform.

It will be in the interests of institutons to support their students after they graduate and ensure that they get relevant work in a timely manner.

How could this be measured? How about using statistics from the payment deferal applications for student loans?

What - you mean vocational qualification - like the ones Polytechnics and Technical Colleges used to offer before Thatcher started interfering with the system ?

Mmmm

Yes and no. There should be many more vocational courses, but they shouldn't be at Universities. The conventional University approach is not suitable for vocational training. You end up with an institution which combines the weaknesses of both universities and vocational training colleges, and has the strengths of neither.

No! Universities should be offering academic courses; training people to think logically and coherently, and teaching research skills. Vocational courses are the domain of technical colleges (remember them?)

Yes they should The old polytechnics, regarded as inferior to universities, often did. Im sure in todays volenteer society employers would probably welcome a free student for so many months, but the placement would need to be well supervised by the university to prevent exploitation. After all many courses have a vocational element eg medicine, teaching, vets etc so why not others. To an extent though we will have to change snobish attitudes eg History, English lit, PPE considered good BUT degrees such Golf management, Computer games design (Britain having a leading position in the world in computetr gaming) as Micky mouse. This would encourage schools to advise on vocational courses as an option for their students rather than suggesting they opt for a course that looks good on the school university entry statistics |

'Should Universities offer more vocational courses'?

It is disappointing to learn how 'OUT OF TOUCH' is Mr Digby-Jones?
More worrying is that he fails to mention that many local colleges have been aligned to universities in the last 10yrs? Of more concern is that his 'unsubstantiated' opinions may be used by ConDem Gov?

Students attending a local college have been offered the opportunity to further their vocational training and skills via university links.

What Digby Jones fails to research, and celebrate, is that ALL college and university students form bonds of life-long mutual interest and business aspirations and ideas?

The majority of students attending further/higher education will often build important networks and invariably start a business - long before graduation? I would suggest that ConDem government Ministers and highly paid 'yappers' are on a 'cut everything' payroll by those who traveled quite a different path to their position to decide on policy for the 'great un-washed'??

Maybe the former Trade Minister could persuade his friends in industry to stop out-sourcing and start paying a living wage rather than sticking to the lowest legal wage?
Then we'd all have more money and so the economy would grow. All apart from the CEOs and entrepreneurs/profiteers that is.

Vocational training is better done by employers or specialised colleges, because by its nature it is often very specialised. The universities can contribute most effectively by teaching knowledge of general applicability such as mathematics, languages and science. This was the traditional approach of universities, with exceptions in the cases of law and medicine, which tend to operate as separate schools anyway, with a lot of on the job training.

Digby Jones's remarks are hardly original, back in the early 1980's Keith Joseph as Mrs Thatcher's education secretary of state, forced the universities to move in the direction that Digby Jones is advocating. This distracted universities from their special role in scholarship and research. It may not be a coincidence that the decline of the UK from the leading position it previously had in the traditional fields accelerated from that time on.

Division of labour in as important in education as it is elsewhere. Let the universities revert to their traditional role, and set up training colleges, or whatever, for the specialised skills required by industry.

This is total nonsense. first of all many universities are already vocational in their outlook, with very few traditional courses now on offer to large numbers of students - depriving humanity of basic knowledge and skills. This is also nonsense because a university is a place of learning with facilities for this, the only way to learn a vocation properly is to practice the real thing in situ, which requires an industrial placement or apprenticeship. This is simply a case of ministers bending over backwards to a phenomenal degree in order to please the fat-cats of industry who want people trained for their own purposes without paying a single penny. Thus, graduates will have to pay for their own 'privileged' education just to become a tool of industry - utter twiddle-twaddle! Employers will then continue to grumble, as they endlessly do, that graduates lack basic skills - meaning they lack skills basic to their specific job requirements, which of course should be taught by the employer through proper training. Hence graduates trained at university lack these job-specific skills, well, what a surprise! The way government bends over backwards thrice-fold or more to kiss industry has already ruined the universities who are now stuck with pseudo-vocational non-academic courses that are allegedly pretty useless all round. As for those who wish to carry on the beacon of human understanding of the real world around us, for its own sake and for humanity's sake, can't, because such knowledge has already been lost and is gushing away since nobody does proper academic courses anymore. Conclusion: industry and its government foot-stool have ruined the future prospects of our civilisation, setting us back centuries. Oh, what a fine job Whitehall and Westminster have done!

Perhaps if the universities that were formerly colleges reverted to what they originally were then yes.

This however should start in schools, pupils should be streamed according to individual strengths, academic or practical just as it was before Harold Wilson dismantled a system that worked for all pupils.

Further to first comment, vocational courses could be sponsored by employers both private and public sectors.

They used to be called polytechnics and filled gap between pure academia and the poly which offered less academic, more practical but equally valued qualifications.

For the most part you went to your local poly, lived at home, had to do practical (sandwich courses) stints of work in the real world, and paid towards your course (tools, books, clothing as appropriate). Courses were rarely longer than 2 years, and links to industry meant jobs were waiting when you qualified, certainly for the most able students.

And the HND/HNC end would qualify to uni if that was where you might go next. Bring back the polytechnic - it worked.

The purpose of education is not to produce little work units ready for employment. Education is about opening up the mind and letting in light.
If employers want more vocational courses then they should provide the funding themselves. The have a good base for the funds,simply cut out the excessive payments made to the boardroom fat cats.
University education should provide us with people who are capable of learning any job. It is not the purpose of education to provide job training. The companies should accept this responsibility and not expect the tax-payer to do it for them.

Why not bring back polytechnics for vocational courses & leave universities for academic courses. It used to work well.

In the 60’s we had a very workable system of higher education

University or Polytechnics or Technical collage.

University for academic subjects and you needed to be good to get in

Polytechnics for vocational subjects you needed to work hard


The Problem

Polytechnics should never has been allowed to become universities

University entrance should be for the top 25%, free and judged on ability

When you start changing the education system for political reasons, no mater which side of the fence you sit, you get the mess we have today

No. Universities should offer academic courses only; they were never set up to be anything other than centres of academic excellence. The current problems being experienced by Universities have happened because they are trying to be all things to all people.

Vocational courses should be offered at local day colleges on the same basis as the old Polytechnics (which all call themselves Universities these days!)

What a shame Digby-Jones seems so out of touch. If he doesn't have anything sensible to say he'd be better off keeping quiet

AT first sight this sounds the sort of suggestion that makes sense. However, a few concerns spring to mind.

Firstly, we need institutions that teach academic subjects to the highest level. If our universities lose the reputation for scholarship and academic excellence that some of them have, then we will not get the students and teachers from abroad that we need.

Secondly, as many have pointed out, we used to have institutions that specialised in vocational education - they were called polytechnics.

Thirdly, vocational courses must not become too focussed on delivering courses that allow people to come out of university into a particular job employing particular skills. We live in a rapidly changing working environment, and last year's necessary skills can quickly become obsolete.

Fourthly, is it just me, or is it the same people who are demanding more vocational degrees that are ready to denounce degrees like golf course management?

Many Asian countries have universities sponsored almost entirely by corporations such as Petronas as a prime example. They have been doing this for years and what it means to the student is that he/she is more or less guaranteed a job in their chosen speciality by the sponsor whether it be accountancy, research, geotechnics, exploration or fundamental engineering. It means continuity of employees for the sponsor and security from the start for the student. Many companies share sponsorship, especially in the non-engineering sectors but the results show that this has been a success for all and should be seriously considered as a way forward.

No. That is not the purpose of universities, which is academic/research-based work.

It's long past time for "Lord" Digby Jones and his greedy fat-cat mates in the CBI to realise that the world is not here for the benefit of "business" and that there are many other things in the world. Not everything can or should be run along business lines. Nowadays we seem to relate everything to these people - how often do we see nonsensical headlines such as "Bad weather could cost businesses up to £xbillion, says....."? It seems that whatever happens in the world will "cost" businesses something and that anything that does not directly benefit businesses is somehow bad. Let's move away from this silly notion.

There are people who would be better off in the world of academia and there are others who need to undertake proper, qualified jobs in the real world. There is room for both in life, but only the first group need a University education. We should return to having technical colleges and the like to teach people who want to work in non-academic fields, but please, let's not revert to those silly apprenticeships so beloved of a minority of correspondents. Three years going to school at night and being treated like a moron or a slave during the day. There are better ways to learn a trade.

It just goes to show how to touch people at the top are universities should aspire to excellence in acedemia and there should be other options for vocational options.

And no i was a bit to dim to go to university :)

Lets see - the Thatcher Government said academic degrees were more important than practical teaching
The CBI said they need more graduates.
Polytechincs were encouraged to become universities
Business will no longer supports education establishments teaching practical courses to the same degree
Business and the Gov. now offer few day release courses which allow academic knowledge to be combined with practical experience
Business wants the educational sector to provide a workforce experienced in what they need without defining what they need.
Vocational courses / apprenticeships, like becoming an electrician, require a work experience placement NOT provided by the educator in many cases before qualification is possible.
etc etc etc.
The simple fact is that many businesses are unwilling to invest in training their workforce, demanding experience before you can get the job which you can't getuntil you get the job. In other words business wants someone else to do the work for them.
I was lucky, in the days when I started work day release was provided first for ONC, then HNC then specialist examinations which allowed me to progress and have both practical and academic knowledge relevant to my job. Now you need a degree before you can start in a relative menial position with the possibility of progress. That degree, though theoretically relevant, provides absolutely no practical experience of the actual job. Those lucky enough to enter without a degree have a glass ceiling imposed as they cannot get the relevant academic qualifications necessary for progress whilst inpost.
The simple fact is that obtaining a degree for things like theatre management, psychology, and even nursing are no guarantee of the practical excellence of the student within that area. Taking some people into high academic qualifications is necessary for a progressive economy but so it getting relevant practical qualifications. This is usually best obtained by on the job training supported by academic information i.e. day or block release. CBI and businesses should stop moaning about the educational establishments and start providing that training themselves. If they provided the basis for that training they could take on inexperienced canddates, train them in what they want them to know and reap the benefits. Business know what they want so they have only themselves to blame that they have opted out on providing that relevant practical training so that they can produce short term cost savings. Of course there will always be businesses who will poach people trained by other people but that is not the fault of the universities that it down to business wanted something for nothing as usual.

Considering that our economy is predominantly a services based one, or so Ive been told, I think many graduates do have the right skills. Most graduates feel ready for work however most employers seem to value experience more than a degree which creates something of a quagmire. Indeed how are graduates supposed to gain any form of experience if employers wont employ them through lack of it.

Although the opinions of employers should be welcomed as at least useful, it should not be down to universities to teach more vocational courses because it will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on resources that should be allocated to academic subjects, I dont see what the harm is in reintroducing the old polytechnics (or incorporate them at college level) that are tied in with companies that offer placements.

Moreover I agree with the point made in comment 10, that universities are already vocational in their outlook.

'Should universities offer more vocational courses'? Wake up, Digby, they damn well do, in collaboration with colleges, for the last 10 years.

The most disturbing aspect of this whole news report linked to Lord Digby-Jones, former Trade Minister under Labour is, apart from his 'ignorance and lack of research' is:

1) Conservatives are intent on 'breaking' and 'remaking' a working education wheel, ( constantly suffered under Labour) instead of improving 'failing' areas and providing a 'fallow period' for others to regroup and improve?

2) Turning all, basic, good, stable and efficient aspects of Society' upside-down' does not a good government, or a good society make?

3) What the Prime Minister, David Cameron and the whole of Conservative Government Departments fail to even consider, never mind understand, is that the UK., and it's population and business needs, is a period of calm and considered inter-action to ensure that the people, the Conservatives purport to represent, are not just another statistic that the 'Nasty party' scatter-gunned, EVERYONE, the last time around?

Politicians, government departments do a great deal of harm to the people who elected a government and a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister?

Is it not time that the Prime Minister, David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister just STOPPED the juggernaut that is destroying jobs and families who work. Keep building decent schools for decent citizens in all our futures?

Too much to say, sorry. Labour government wasted too much money on pointless initiatives too? However, the danger under ConDems is that they feel 'COMPELLED' to re-invent every wheel - without any consideration of the impact - just like Labour did too?

The COMPLAINTS of business is OFTEN that STILL MANY job applicants DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE or even USEABLE English language skills, or other BASIC skills.

The UK system for providing vocational skills and qualification is via APPRENTICESHIPS, which take place in combined state learning centres and also in the RELEVENT business which requires those skills.

Presently a MAJOR problem, is that MANY of those who leave secondary education or even college and take on apprenticeships, a HIGH number just do NOT have the BASIC English or maths skills/knowledge to COMPETANTLY complete apprenticships.

I remeber years ago, under Thatcher, when education/CSE/GCSE etc was changed.

I remember Fords in 1980s, who had their own college, went their own way at their OWN expense at the time refusing to accept state education money, because of ENDEMIC failure of the modernised state education system to provide the BASICS. It was NOT fit for purpose so why should Ford put its HARD cash into a system which because of some state cash, was being forced to accept a system that TOTALLY FAILED its needs and trainee needs, present and future.

If you have NO understanding of the basics then it is MASSIVELY and EXCESSIVELY hard to further understand or adapt/change to CONSTANT NEED to advance with new technology.

There are so many vocational courses of EXTREMELY POOR quality.

Its all very well providing MASSIVE numbers of those being able to bang nails into bits of wood or splosh paint on a wall but these courses are NOT what industry wants or NEEDS, and even these cources do NOT provide BASIC English and maths skills to carry out functions as demanded and needed by employers.

The "CHALLENGES" of today, are NOT really challenges, they are FAILURES of a watered down education system which provides PURELY for quantity in preference to QUALITY or economic NEED.

The LAST THING universities need is to be turned into some further low level youth training scheme.

"The ex-director general of the CBI says degrees do have value but that they are not the best option for all students."

This statement is common knowledge.

I would say that it is NOT "best option" to provide excessive amounts of a particular subject/course which are so MASSIVELY far far beyond the economic/social need/requirement, while those areas of GREATEST economic/social IMPORTANCE and NEED are so NEGLIGENTLY NEGLECTED by the WHOLE education system from start to finish, primary education to university graduation.


There is just so much talk of many people unnecessarily going to university.

CHINA doesnt have this stance, NOR India, nor ANY other developing country.

The reaon being is that they direct students into areas/courses/education of GREATEST economic need/future need while in the UK we just have so many of overprescribed NON relevent courses which have grown out of the WHOLE way our DISFUNCTIONAL education and university systems function.

Colleges and universitys are paid a LARGE chunk of their income for courses/subjects which students pass. Hence its MUCH MUCH easier and profitable for colleges/universitys to provide EASIER subjects/courses which provide them with GREATER numbers of passes at MINIMIM cost outlay, as Engineering and technologies have MUCH greater expense than media studies. Hence the return/profitability on less intense and complicated subjects is much greater than return on technical subjects.

For each student that fails, the college/university is DENIED FUNDING, so, what would you do, as a business or whatever, put your funding/income at risk, or take the EASY OPTION.

The problems in our UK education systems are MUCH more than just a difference between vocational courses or others.

Hence in my opinion Lord Digby Jones is a complete MUPPET for NOT addressing the ENDEMIC faults/problems with our education, and instead takes the EASY OPTION.

Hence for such MEDIOCRE reasoning, I TOTALLY dispute the COMPETANCE of Lord Digby Jones OWN credentials and educational/knowledge standards, as he just misses out so much in preference for simplified mediocre reasoning.

This nations education does NOT need RADICAL change, it MAINLY just needs greater COMPETANCE of APPLICATION, responsibility, and constant competant mechanical fine tuning, just as ANY F1 car or business needs to compete in a highly competitive world, from TOP of government all the way down to front line providers.

Basically, the MAIN fault of our UK education system is that it is basically an MFI or Woolworths in that it is failing endemically to provide many of the RIGHT products demanded by the markets and economic NECESSITY of UK economy.

Its NONSENSICAL to just build new, or tart up the old with a fresh facade, when the ENDEMIC problems/failures are continued to be ignored.

It is SOOOOOOO easy to set up a system MORE relevent to our national needs and future needs, AND, you do NOT NEED a DEGREE qualification to do it or be qualified to do it.

One other thing.

Our present education system is also as a result of many graduates of previous decades who have made continueous changes, whether in government or "experts", Hence the failures and problems of today are in great/huge part DUE to them. Also does this NOT also reflect further failure of previous educational decades because it just has NOT provided our nation with those who are truely competant at/in governing/implementing national policy across the whole spectrum of society.

Basically, our education system can ONLY be as good/bad, as those who hold position of power to implement policy.

If its in a negative/poor state today it is PURELY reflective of MANY of the changes implemeted during and since Thatchers government of 1980s.

Many of which are good/positive and right, but which endemically fail to allow/provide basic servicing/maintenance and HI TUNING as and when needed.

I'm assuming that Mr Digby Jones is referring to the English tertiary education system - so the reference to UK Universities is misleading BBC! Perhaps people might benefit from reading about the EU's Bologna and Copenhagen processes - which aims to integrate education systems so that students can accumulate recognised qualifications that are transferrable across Europe. In Scotland, the qualification system allows (supposedly) seamless transitions from school to college and University. The big problem is that elitist universities are poor at offering articulation from college HND to final year of degree programmes - forcing many students to start from first year again! Total waste of resources and mainly because they are not flexible enough to arrange their provision to take in more students at final year stage.
Mr Digby Jones should come see the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence - which is designed to allow every child to fulfil their potential. Some kids achieve more using vocational training methods - so optimal experience for them might be school to college to HND level, then University - but our experience is that the final year of univerity would be better arranged in another EU country - Ireland is particularly appealing. The University sector needs to change and seriouly needs to reduce the resource inefficiencies. It would be wrong to undermine the very effective college sector by cushioning the blow for universities by suggesting they could take up vocational programmes instead.

Yes, of course more vocational courses should be offered by our higher education system, but universities are places of academic study and research, so we'd have to think of a new name for the institutions offering vocational subjects.
I've got it! Let's call them "Polytechnics".

14. At 11:26am on 24 Jul 2010, Terry Lee wrote:
The purpose of education is not to produce little work units ready for employment. Education is about opening up the mind and letting in light.

..........................................................

We can't afford that anymore . We want people coming out of education that we can employ.

The simple truth is that capitalist businesses don't want to pay to train new employees. Capitalism is like evolution- brutal, uncaring but logical.
If I pay to train my employees, that cost must go into my product somewhere making it more expensive. My competitors then simply 'poach' my employees once their trained and without the cost of training sell their product cheaper than mine.

In times gone by, many jobs trained you how to do them from a basic education level. The closest now are the elusive Apprenticeships.

Now employers want fully trained potential employees without paying for it.

Crying for Universities (so University students) to make this payment is the logical outcome.

Unfortunately I don't have the answer as both employers and new potential employees have legitimate reasons to cry foul.

As someone else has commented here, Thatcher's tinkering with education - something she knew nothing about, by the way - removed some excellent alternatives to the university system.

I don't doubt that many students would prefer to skip university and go straight into the job market, but, as things stand today, a young person can't just go to an employer and say they want a job, or, rather, they can, but this is what will happen:
When the employer asks, "What are your qualifications?", and the applicant answers, "None", then the employer will either ask, "What are you doing here, then?", or, even worse, say, "Well, I can certainly find a job for you, but your pay will be below the statutory minimum wage."

Education is a philosophy and today's governments don't like philosophy, because it doesn't produce instant profits.
The job market is something else entirely - it is a market, where anybody who isn't a businessman is marginalized. An absolute scandal, given our educational excellence in the past.

I agree with the posts 3 and 13 above - we used to have Polytechnics - the practical alternative to the traditional academic degree. I am proud to have been at a "poly" - Portsmouth Polytechnic, as was. A pioneer on the Area Studies approach to Languages - now a standard for most universities.
As to the claim 50% should go to University, courtesy the previous govt. there need to be reality check on the courses offered - those "hard courses" should be made more attractive with lower fees/bonus awards. Hamster stroking degrees - where there is no prospect of a related job -should be charged out at £50k+.
Finally, most state secondary schools offer a 30+ subject range for GCSE which inevitably drives out the "hard" subjects in favour of higher grades on maninglesss subjects - but which shoot the school up the League Tables. (Independent schools do not have this problem)

Prioritise - put our meagre resources where it really matters and separate, positively, the academic from the vocational - from secondary school level onwards. In this way the state school sector can compete more effectively with the independent school sector - which is largely untroubled by these issues.

Lord Jones would do well to watch lectures by Sir Ken Robinson, who correctly identifies that we need to encourage and unleash creative thought in order to meet the challenges of tomorrow, not those of today. This is only aided by keeping the blinkers off learning, not tramlining thought throughout education. The challenges of today are here already, by definition, therefore we need to educate to meet those of tomorrow. Look back at many of the great breakthroughs, they arent formulaic, predetermined actions, but the result of true creativity aided by basic skills in turning them into practical solutions. This way of viewing education is regressive. Yes, we do need to review education but not to create fixed dimension thinking.

Why ask the public? That's why we have politicians - to make decisions for us and they should be made fully accountable.

My son started a Degree course at the local Uni, but because of his dyslexia eventually graduated with an HND, effectively the practical part of the degree. He currently works in the construction industry and earns much more than several of his co-students who obtained degrees in less necessary disciplines.
My brother did not even get the essential 'O' level in English Language, he use his innate ability to rise to a position where he earns more than most of his school friends who had degrees.
I was nearly the only one from my school class that did not go to Uni. I was the only one to retire at 50.
My comments are not to undermine the value of a Good Degree, I worked with many degree holders who were very good at their work, it is simply to point out that the World needs relevant skills not necessarily degrees. Lord Digby Jones points out the danger of unfocused Degrees, and the simple fact that there are more skills in the world than those obtained from a University.
As John Harvey Jones, a previous head of ICI, once put it. If in a company both the MD and the Toilet cleaner go sick on the same day, it will be the toilet cleaner that is missed first.

28. At 12:04pm on 24 Jul 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
14. At 11:26am on 24 Jul 2010, Terry Lee wrote:
The purpose of education is not to produce little work units ready for employment. Education is about opening up the mind and letting in light.

..........................................................

We can't afford that anymore . We want people coming out of education that we can employ.
////////////////////


Is this the royal we? Who are you to tell me what I need? Perhaps you just meant you? What you really meant to say is that you don't want intelligent people so you can exploit them without them realising.

There is a problem with highly vocational courses as there has to be some element of knowledge for knowledges sake and a recognition of transferable skills by industry. If you can lead a multimedia base powerpoint presentation at college you will able to do it in todays presentation obsesed workplace. Also if you are loud and forceful in the college bar to argue your pointeven if wrong, you will probably have learned the skills to push your companies product over anothers || But take the idea further what about in schools why bother learning history for example what use to the workplace? Why know when the USA entered the War Opps unless you become PM of course.

35. At 12:27pm on 24 Jul 2010, The Ace Face wrote:
28. At 12:04pm on 24 Jul 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
14. At 11:26am on 24 Jul 2010, Terry Lee wrote:
The purpose of education is not to produce little work units ready for employment. Education is about opening up the mind and letting in light.

..........................................................

We can't afford that anymore . We want people coming out of education that we can employ.
////////////////////


Is this the royal we? Who are you to tell me what I need? Perhaps you just meant you? What you really meant to say is that you don't want intelligent people so you can exploit them without them realising


.........................................................

Most of the intelligent young people we employ have never had further education we train them.

I feel sorry at the plight of young not able to obtain university admission and those who graduated unable to find jobs. The perennial debate about university and school standards dictated by commerce and political concerns never seems to lead anywhere. The old image of the university was once of the ivory tower untouched by anything so grubby as the pursuit of profits. This was paid back handsomely by their very success in transforming the world as we new it. This idea of the university can only apply to a few elite institutions. The re-classification of technical institutions as universities did not do them any favours. There mission should be to award degrees and diplomas in technical and vocational subjects. Funding priorities has seen them shift to the liberal arts. This process will be accelerated by further cuts. There is certainly room for savings but across the board cuts will be the worst way of doing it. Jobs in todays world require a technically able workforce. The gold standard of the three year university degree would be better served by a two degree course. The market would then be better placed to make the comparison between the 3 year and 2 year degree course.

How about schools doing their job instead of rolling this to universities ?Universities are for HIGHER education not teaching those who were to lazy at school how to their shoe laces.

How much has Lord Digby Jones been paid by Conservative government to contribute to an area of education he obviously has no idea about, but is comfortable and 'independent' in the House of Lords?

Yes, indeed, Lord Digby Jones, you are in need of work? However, you might want to improve your education, before you critisise professionals while being paid by current administration? Obviously, talk is not as cheap as ordinary people were led to believe?

In fact, David Davies MP., is having an equally prolific time right now?

If fees reflected costs, students would demand more vocational courses.

Very sick of all the arguments about quality of degrees. Of course academic degrees are important -not everything can be vocational and some students do not know which career they want early in their university life. They move into all areas of work later on and use the high levels of they research and written work done on humanities, science or other degress. Every single degree discipline should be valued - none of all this rubbish about scientific degrees being best and medicine. This country needs its historians, its geographers who have incredibly diverse skills and wide thinking, it needs sociologists, artists just as much as scientists. Historians often become top judges and lawyers, geographers have the best skills for political careers, government research and statitistics climate and environmental jobs, social research. Geographers become town planners, transport executives - all skills vital to the economy. Every single degree is valuable. What is the matter with a country that cannot value intellect of any kind. Vocational study is right if you are sure you know what you want to do, but there are so many career fields that the skills you pick up along the way are all important. Everyone should stop "knocking" certain degrees and value our young people.

I would like to know what 'academic' and 'vocational' will mean as applied to the next 100 years? I haven't read what he said but i'm so expectant of vague communication from these media huggers that i mostly don't listen either.

16. At 11:28am on 24 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:
In the 60’s we had a very workable system of higher education

University or Polytechnics or Technical collage.

University for academic subjects and you needed to be good to get in

Polytechnics for vocational subjects you needed to work hard


The Problem

Polytechnics should never has been allowed to become universities

University entrance should be for the top 25%, free and judged on ability

When you start changing the education system for political reasons, no mater which side of the fence you sit, you get the mess we have today
========================================================================

I completely agree with you.

If all of you comments were so well balanced and objective and you dropped that totally SUBJECTIVE user name, we'd get along fine.

I don't know whether I agree or not.For a long time graduation has been the 'be all and end all'.Unfortunately that has meant a large number of young people have felt, if they didn't go to university,therefore they are second class.
Whilst Digby Jones has a point qualifications are important. It's not necessarily a degree that is required.
Maybe I'am wrong, I just don't feel that so many young people should be let down by an inadequate education system.

It seems obvious that there should be more vocational courses - but why need they be taught at universities and artificially elevated to degree courses? Why not return some of the universities to their status of polytechnics and allow them to focus on non-degree vocational courses?

They shouldn't be universities and degrees should only refer to a particular approach to education. We used to have apprenticeships, day release, etc, poly's doing vocational courses and local tech's too. Now we have this blanket notion of university and degree and it means nothing to anyone. Of course we need vocational education and of course business should be contributing to its funding but to deliver that variety we have to break the current nonsense set up and accept that different people need differing approaches and that the system should accommodate that.

Should universities offer more vocational courses? Absolutely not – it’s the last thing they should be doing. A lot of the confusion and uncertainty about the role of universities and the value of qualifications has come about because we cannot decide what universities are for?

For centuries universities provided a high standard of academic education to the most academically gifted. The idea that universities are job training institutions is relatively new and is motivated by the modern desire for egalitarianism. The social engineers think like this – if there are degrees in plumbing as well as philosophy – a plumber will have the same social stranding as a professor - so “equality” is achieved. In reality instead of the graduate in plumbing’s social rank being raised that of the professor is diminished.
We need to separate job training from academic learning. Job training qualifications should not be called degrees and should not be acquired at universities. We need to return to the old system of National Diplomas for job training and degrees for academic learning, we need to bring back the old technical colleges and polytechnics.
If society regards people with certain qualifications as better than others so be it – it isn’t the job of the professors and job trainers to cure the world of snobbery.

'Should Universities offer more vocational courses'?

No. That is the realm of the employers to offer through in-the-job training.

The mess we are in now is all part of Blair's hiedeous legacy, which has spawned a wealth of mediocre degree courses tailored around a population that does not have the acedemic skills to deal with the real thing.

Of course there should me more vocational training but you don't need a university to do that. Keep things local and simple.

Half the Universities we have could be scrapped.

Once again, sympathetic bleating from those who cannot or will not understand that the most cost effective way of getting a degree is with the Open University. Many of those kids who were conned into wasting their time doing degrees in 'media stidies' or 'entertainment management' at some former south coast polytechnic, masquerading as a university, now find themselves with no job and a joke qualification.

Who advised them to do this? Why, the academic staff who have most to gain by peddling bogus degrees is non subjects. It keeps them in work, so they would deny the existence of the OU, wouldn't they?

Should universities offer more vocational courses?
I don't think so; rather more work needs to be done on streaming students towards demand occupations. There is a prestige attached to university education that ends on the dole. Universities should prepare professionals in demand e.g. doctors, lawyers, financial experts.
Vocational schools should prepare vocational students e.g. carpenters, plumbers, mechanics. There is a lack of prestige attached to vocational schools. This attitude need changing because most of these vocationally-trained students will not end up on the dole. They may even end up better paid than university professionals.
What value is a degree is there is no demand for the occupation e.g. philosophy. Neither universities nor vocational schools should offer courses for which there is no occupational demand; therefore, courses that are being offered must shift economic need.
The key statement is this: "UK universities are attracting record applications but firms often complain graduates do not have the right skills." To me, that says streaming is critically needed; aptitude assessment is needed and demand occupational lists MUST be utilized.
Lord Jones is correct: courses need to deal with "the challenges of today", only I would write this statement as: courses need to deal with "the occupations that are in demand today".

Such training should not be held at universities. That's not in their brief. Establish vocational training centers like exist in Europe. They turn out very skilled workers.

Should universities offer more vocational courses? If such courses are of benefit to this nation and help create the skilled, competent workforce we so desperately need, than yes this makes sense. What we don't want or need are more worthless courses which do not lead to job and wealth creation for the nation.

Whilst vocational based courses might help to make someone more employable the unescapable fact is that its still not what you know its who you know in class orientated Britain. Our own PM probably only got where he is today through family contacts when he left university. If you are working class taking a Law degree will thre be a placement for you or the judges son?
Also I dont hear Digby Jones calling for the setting up of industry sponsered internships with a grant of money from industry to cover a students expenses whilst working in their vocational modules.

The way it used to work in Scotland in the sixties was as follows - A company would take on boys (sometimes girls too)straight from school, after a basic entrance exam. These young people would be known as apprentices, and would receive on the job training for five(later reduced to four years) During this time, the apprentices would attend night school, or in some companies day release for one day a week,to study for ONC/HNC or City & Guilds qualifications. On completion of the apprenticship, the young person would become a tradesman and be able to work at their trade, or sometimes to carry on with the educational side of it at collage or university.
The system worked well, was flexible, and produced a generation of skilled people to keep British industry up with the world leaders. Being a time served person was something to be proud of, opened the door to good wages, and gave the young person a way to advance to the top levels of industry. Nowadays, unless you have been to university, you are considered a failure, and somehow unworthy. I served my apprenticeship in the early sixties, spent a lifetime in the engineering industry, mainly working with the tools, but also had spells in supervision, production planning etc. A good life, and I earned enough to give myself a decent retirement.
I know that we can't turn the clock back, and that industry in this country is but a shadow of its former self, but the old methods worked well, and we could do a lot worse than to revive some form of them.

· 44. At 1:22pm on 24 Jul 2010, John_Bull wrote:
16. At 11:28am on 24 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:

#####################

I completely agree with you.

If all of you comments were so well balanced and objective and you dropped that totally SUBJECTIVE user name, we'd get along fine.

##################

All my comments are well balanced and objective, you only have to look at my username

16. At 11:28am on 24 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:-
"In the 60’s we had a very workable system of higher education
University or Polytechnics or Technical collage." etc.

Thatcher was then followed by a Labour government who exacerbated the problem by encouraging every mother to believe that her offspring merited a university education and diluted the standards for university places accordingly.

A university degree - whatever the discipline - ought to empower the student to not just 'learn' their subject but be able to use their knowledge in innovative and creative ways to solve problems not only within that subject but beyond. Critical analysis, research skills, the ability to form your own links between disparate bits of data... this is what the holder of a degree should be able to do.

Employers, with specific needs, ought to be investing in delivering industry-specific training to meet those needs - rather than whining about the fact that other institutions are not turning out people ready to slot into the corporate machine without further training.

Consider some very traditional 'degree' subjects: medicine and law. If you take a degree in either of those, it is recognised that further 'industry-based' training is required, hence newly-minted medics heading off for a couple of years of house jobs (and then further training in their chosen specialty) and new lawyers undertaking pupillage to become a barrister or attending further courses to qualify as a solicitor.

Even potential academics don't settle with their initial degree: they take a masters, learn to research with a doctorate and often do further 'post-doc' work before getting a lecturer position; while teachers study the craft of imparting knowledge and get supervised 'hands on' classroom practise before they can qualify to take their place in school.

Naturally, the 'entry' to this vocational training will not always be a university degree... as the skills imparted by one are not always relevant to the further training or ultimate career goals of the student, or to the needs of potential employers. Craft skills - such as construction trades, catering, hairdressing, vehicle mechanics, electrical installation - are better served by appreticeship and day-release training.

Back in the good old days of Thatcher, you could leave school with O Levels, yes that was O Levels, secure a position with a firm who would provide practical training, send you to college where you would study for a professional qualification, based on education and training. When you qualify, there is no debt, there is something to put on your CV and as far as jobs are concerned, you are at the front of the queue. So much better than Labour's idea of getting a degree in football or cheerleading.

The best university in the world is the University of Life!!

The Universities are for academic qualifications. Unstitues of Technology are for vocational qualifications. This sounds like the employers seeking to get all their training on the state. After all, they got away with pensions, didn't they?

"8. At 10:59am on 24 Jul 2010, mark_2002 wrote:

Maybe the former Trade Minister could persuade his friends in industry to stop out-sourcing and start paying a living wage rather than sticking to the lowest legal wage?
Then we'd all have more money and so the economy would grow. All apart from the CEOs and entrepreneurs/profiteers that is. "

Well said, mark_2002. Unfortunately, this makes far too much sense.

Some "universities" should provide education for what are now regarded as menial jobs, like working in manufacturing. For years we have produced graduates who (perhaps owing to massive student debt) need to be on higher salaries.

Profit margins come under threat, out-sourcing / off-shoring gets brought in to bring down costs, and graduates need to seek lower paid jobs. Those at the lower end (without degrees?) get pushed out further.

Once the entire population has degrees and no jobs, we'll finally reach melt-down, and the government and opposition will have to pay massives taxes to keep us all in benefits.

What we need in the economy is more jobs filled with (I'm sorry if this appears nationalistic, anti-european or anti anything else) British workers AT ALL LEVELS.

Maggi Thatcher once said "Unemployment is a price worth paying". How wrong can you be?

· 58. At 2:05pm on 24 Jul 2010, Orangputeh wrote:
16. At 11:28am on 24 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:-
"In the 60’s we had a very workable system of higher education
University or Polytechnics or Technical collage." etc.

Thatcher was then followed by a Labour government who exacerbated the problem by encouraging every mother to believe that her offspring merited a university education and diluted the standards for university places accordingly.
#################

That is why I said

University entrance should be for the top 25%, free and judged on ability

and

When you start changing the education system for political reasons, no mater which side of the fence you sit, you get the mess we have today

You mean BSc (Hons) Plumbing with qualified push-fit status ?

That will impress the French.

One could be a doctor of bricklaying but until you get cement on a trowel there is no way of knowing if you can build a wall.

google nptelhrd. The UK has been ruined by a lack of decent education. Go to India if you want to get on in life.

Now all the technical colleges have been sold off to developers its a little late crying over the horse bolting after the door has been left open for so many years.

What the CBI says publicly should be taken with a pinch of salt, seriously these are the same people that hail the influx of cheap foreign labour as being sucessful in keeping the uk wage cost to business down. They were also the people responsible for stating that a minimum wage would destroy business's and cost jobs.

"This is going backwards to the Factory and mine owners time, dark satanic mills or underground slaves'Just let the poor working class, have just enough education, so they can allwork in fast food cafes' or supermarkets or do low skill jobs !!! like in the past. Only the very rich will be able to afford any real worth-while Education.

The development of knowledge through science and technology is very often serendipitous where major breakthroughs are not predictable course outcomes but occur in the presence of a prepared mind. Universities should see it as their task to prepare minds to take advantage of new directions in all sorts of unusual ways. People acquire this by learning how to do research, not preparing for a career. It is easy to see why this government and HYS commentators will prefer vocational courses - they prepare people to stay within the system.

Now figure this out. It is the 18th century and we set the best minds to discover improved methods of illumination. They will make better candles, better quality wax, bigger wicks and insert magnifying glass around the flame.
The guy who is interested in the twitching of a frog's leg, in animal magnetism, in why various chemical components create a tingling sensation when you dip a wire in the solution, will be dismissed as a waste of time. But his direction - despite errors - is going to lead to electricity.

So come on universities, prepare our young people for the unexpected. Who knows the person who might save this planet will have a degree in media studies, or a PhD in Have Your Say analysis.

I used to work in a Polytechnic and focused on teaching vocational courses. Then we were changed to a University and the prime focus changed from teaching students and training for employment to research, getting in foreign students who pay more, reduce student contact, and earn prestige, because that was where the money was.

Year on year I fought to save my vocational course until eventually tired of the fight and lack of value perceived as being given by the course to the University's mission and being given insufficient resources (for example being told that 300+ hours actual work per year on a type of activity on this course was worth only 50 hours pay) I gave up.

Who cares what the CBI says or thinks? Their agenda is profit, and what they want from education is cannon fodder for their profit-making enterprises.

Education should never, under any circumstances, concern itself in conniving with enslaving people in the machinery of profit.

Davidethics...I'd vote for you!

Looks almost like a call for Polytechnics! Which should never have been done away with and always were vocationally biased institutions, under local control! One of the reasons for the 'University Stampede' was the opportunities for senior managers to boost their earnings, indeed the amount spent on Senior Management in HE is staggeringDeans, Associate Deans, Programme Leaders etc. abound, the resources left for the sharp end, student interface, are diminished. Students are seen as units of resource and HE has become the HE Industry with the 'E' of much less importance than the 'Industry'. Courses are marketed like commodities to Customers-not students.

57. At 2:01pm on 24 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:
· 44. At 1:22pm on 24 Jul 2010, John_Bull wrote:
16. At 11:28am on 24 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:

#####################

I completely agree with you.

If all of you comments were so well balanced and objective and you dropped that totally SUBJECTIVE user name, we'd get along fine.

##################

All my comments are well balanced and objective, you only have to look at my username

=====================================================

Very good!

Hopefully we will find a subject we disagree on very soon

· 69. At 2:58pm on 24 Jul 2010, Lewis Fitzroy wrote:
"This is going backwards to the Factory and mine owners time, dark satanic mills or underground slaves'Just let the poor working class, have just enough education, so they can allwork in fast food cafes' or supermarkets or do low skill jobs !!! like in the past. Only the very rich will be able to afford any real worth-while Education.

############################

Nobody is suggesting that education is a bad thing or that it should only be the rich that can have it

However there is no point at all in telling people to spend three years and a lot a money get a degree only to find that the only available job has 200 people after it. That is not a “worthwhile education”

Education is not just a piece of paper as far as low paid jobs go, have you any idea how much a plumber or electrician or plasterer can command. For many people That is an education worth their time

It maybe that society should change its attitude to education with it being seen as OK to be educated till the age of 21. Attitudes of society in the early 20th century saw it as reasonable to educate to 13 then straight down the mine or into the factory. Whilst vocationalism could be easily incorporated into some courses how does one find directly relevant employment to and English Literature degree? and would some staff at colleges want to supervise an industrial placement? These links were in place at the old Polytechnics I know Ive been in a uni and a poly but society perceived a poly qualification as less value than a University degree so until entrenched attitudes change in society the miss-mash of higher education as it stands will continue.

Perhaps all engineering and other trades courses which have been ignored for almost 25 years will once again become important as they should always have been. My husband has just retired and his place is being taken people in their 20/30s there is such a large gap of trained people. My husbands age group served 5 rear apprenticeships and went to college on day release and night school and those who wanted to go on to degree level did so later many again on day release and a lot of studying. Practical experience was of ultimate importance plus they were also lerning how to make their money last instead of borrowing and generally about life. Nursing is another case where standards have gone down since degrees have been required as they personal and human element has gone from the service.

I'm against it, City and Guilds, to name one vocational body for the building trade and plumbing, have a reputation dating back nearly a century and it has already been damaged once before with the previous Government's addiction to licensing systems as a means of raising tax, charging qualified people thousands so that their name badge now reads Gas Safe and not Corgi.

If people want a vocational course, let them seek it out, plenty of colleges offer two year courses and you can find a private one if you want to train more quickly. The younger people get into any trade the better they will do and the more they can progress - but since you need to raise the money for the fees and anything else, part of the course is getting a job and raising the money.

12. At 11:11am on 24 Jul 2010, Lynn from Sussex wrote:
"Further to first comment, vocational courses could be sponsored by employers both private and public sectors."
----------
"are" not "could be".

I was barely born when polytechnics became universities, yet i am now at uni. To those suggesting that this chance be reversed, how is it fair on those at the old polytechnics? It's been years and years since the change and certainly some new unis have developed and evolved too well to change back..

Many students are proud of their acedemic achievements at the new universities, to have some revert back to polytechnics would suddenly devalue the degrees of those at new unis..

There are already hundreds of thousands of vocational placements at universities. Typically at ex-polys so that they don't compete in the same spheres as the more established universities that they often share a town or city with.

The trick to making British degrees more valuable is by forcing companies in the UK to invest in graduates. At the moment they expect the state and the students to pick up 100% of the bill, despite the fact that it is companies who benefit the most from a highly educated graduate workforce. Forcing companies to invest in our major universities whilst being given some input over teaching (not research) directions to better focus courses is a fair option that improves the useability of degrees.

My son is currently studying a 4 year Masters and the 3rd year is an industry placement. Great we all think, except that last year out of the 100 students needing placements on the various related courses, only 15, yes 15, got a placement. If Digby is serious about vocational training in universities, he needs to speak to his friends in industry to offer more places to students needing placements as part of their courses.

Also if industry [in its widest possible sense] needs specific skills and courses, then they should part-fund the courses with a commitment from the student that they will work in their company for a set time after graduating. If you want employees with specific skills, then they should help to pay for the training.

Well it appears to me our nation requires the correctly educated population to compete in a global context! Both China and India are in the business of expanding their post graduate population! China alone is producing millions of very highly qualified graduates every year! India is by far the place to go for IT Graduates! And we also have to compete with USA graduates and Europe too!

Digby Jones, the rest of the CBI buffoons, and all so called business leaders in the UK, without a doubt have been completely wrong in their 'demands' for what they believe our businesses require, for the past forty year! They are all in possession of a belief system which makes them assume it is possible they can eat all the biggest of cakes, without the necessity of baking cakes, or even having possession of the knowledge necessary to bake a cake or build the ovens required for the task! They demand that 'somehow' every employee has all the skills and abilities necessary to fulfil any job they desire to fill! But they demand that their desires and wishes are fulfilled on a whim! That it is possible to define what it is they want from education - but fail to acknowledge that which is missing. They deny it because they fear it! What they want is trained monkeys without intelligence - what they fear is the intelligence of others - Those that may grasp the nature of the con, the trick, the stupidity of our business leaders! This group of leading citizens have singularly been responsible for destroying our economy over the last thirty years! They do not know what they are doing, they posses no knowledge, no skills or abilities themselves, but think by merely demanding that we (as employees) possess such mystic knowledge - somehow by some miracle their businesses will prosper again!

Well Digby Jones - look around your nation, it is broke! We face the future looking in the direction of Asia - THEY know how to free human creativity and let people create businesses - Your kind merely seek to destroy competition, employ cronyism and nepotism to maintain your profits - and when it all starts falling apart you seek miracles - if only we could educate people to magic up solutions to our economic decline Hay?

I agree that we need more vocational courses. I am just not sure that universities are the right places to deliver these courses.

I am of the opinion that universities are the places for academic excellence. That's what separates them from other educational institutes.
University academics that are involved in academic research and development are rarely equipped with the experience to teach hands-on subjects in vocational courses.

I think these courses should be set up and run by experienced technicians without extra pressure to conduct academic research.

Can't beleive so many people care what Digby Jones has to say about anything.......

Digby Jones is spot on. Very many of these so called universities are second rate. They were much better has Polytechnics, where a range of trades and other practical courses with qualifications such as City and Guilds and National Diplomas, which from there can lead to degrees in the chosen subject after some work experience. I see no point in keeping a local of lecturers in cushy, long holidayed jobs giving tuition to some students of no more than 10 hours a week. Keep the A league of universities for our best students. The rest should revert to day release and night classes. It didn't do me any harm.

28. At 12:04pm on 24 Jul 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
14. At 11:26am on 24 Jul 2010, Terry Lee wrote:
The purpose of education is not to produce little work units ready for employment. Education is about opening up the mind and letting in light.

..........................................................

We can't afford that anymore . We want people coming out of education that we can employ.
---------

Right, but the set of skills needed in a candidate to be emloyable right away changes very fast.
Instead, we need to educate students so that they can pick up and learn new subjects (preferably by themselves) after graduation.
That's why we teach loads of mathematics in engineering. Equipped with a sound mathematical background our graduates can learn and understand any new topic in engineering.

60. At 2:16pm on 24 Jul 2010, Confuciousfred wrote:
Back in the good old days of Thatcher, you could leave school with O Levels, yes that was O Levels, secure a position with a firm who would provide practical training, send you to college where you would study for a professional qualification, based on education and training. When you qualify, there is no debt, there is something to put on your CV and as far as jobs are concerned, you are at the front of the queue. So much better than Labour's idea of getting a degree in football or cheerleading.

The best university in the world is the University of Life!!

--

Yeah, right.
Go ahead and devise a space station with a degree from University of Life.
Essential problem is that so many people don't understand the nature of education provided at universities.

5. At 10:52am on 24 Jul 2010, Tony Dixon wrote:
No! Universities should be offering academic courses; training people to think logically and coherently, and teaching research skills. Vocational courses are the domain of technical colleges (remember them?)

--------

I am glad majority of the comments support this opinion so far.

37. At 12:55pm on 24 Jul 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
35. At 12:27pm on 24 Jul 2010, The Ace Face wrote:
28. At 12:04pm on 24 Jul 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:
14. At 11:26am on 24 Jul 2010, Terry Lee wrote:
The purpose of education is not to produce little work units ready for employment. Education is about opening up the mind and letting in light.

..........................................................

We can't afford that anymore . We want people coming out of education that we can employ.
////////////////////


Is this the royal we? Who are you to tell me what I need? Perhaps you just meant you? What you really meant to say is that you don't want intelligent people so you can exploit them without them realising


.........................................................

Most of the intelligent young people we employ have never had further education we train them.

///////////////////////////////////////

This is about higher education and not further education.

Train them? What do you think the universities do? They prepare people so you don't have to train them and they are usually trained to the latest technological skill sets. What you mean, is you want to pay them less while you train them (but they still do work that benefits the business)and you want to make them do what the business has always done it its only particular way, which may or not be the best way of doing things.

BTW, how much do you pay them?

44. At 1:22pm on 24 Jul 2010, John_Bull wrote:
16. At 11:28am on 24 Jul 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:
In the 60’s we had a very workable system of higher education

University or Polytechnics or Technical collage.

University for academic subjects and you needed to be good to get in

Polytechnics for vocational subjects you needed to work hard


The Problem

Polytechnics should never has been allowed to become universities

University entrance should be for the top 25%, free and judged on ability

When you start changing the education system for political reasons, no mater which side of the fence you sit, you get the mess we have today
========================================================================

I completely agree with you.

-----------

It seems most people share the common sense opinion on this matter.
I just don't understand why politicians (Labour or Conservative - in UK, or USA, or Turkey) don't see it.
They must have a hidden political motive.

53. At 1:58pm on 24 Jul 2010, 3rensho wrote:
Such training should not be held at universities. That's not in their brief. Establish vocational training centers like exist in Europe. They turn out very skilled workers.
//////////////////////////////

What are these skilled workers going to do since the scope for employment in the UK is very limited at the moment and it's about to get much worse? currently the unemployment level is about 2.4 million but I can see it easily passing 4 million in a very short time.

Any graduate with a bit of common sense will surely be considering employment abroad at the moment.

There's a freeze on hiring for the civil service. What are we going to do with the present crop of "generally" educated young people, those who have been indulged with a tax-sponsored degree in, say, history or philosophy?

We shouldn't expect universities to stick to teaching the same old academic subjects. They already teach vocational subjects like law and medicine; of course they should run courses in modern vocational disciplines. Value can be (indeed it is) added to these courses in the form of wider research and thinking skills, while there's a greater chance of a job at the end of the course.

A new class warfare is being stirred up between the different groups of universities, in their rarely understood categories - Oxbridge, redbrick, Russell Group, plate glass, post-1992, etc. The contempt in which students at the newer institutions are held by those at more established universities is unpleasant, aggressive, arrogant and divisive. I have a hardworking daughter with a handful of top A level grades who chooses to study a vocational course at a respected ex-poly university because she is passionate about the subject (and needs a degree qualification to get a good job in the field). She gets called a moron and worse by rahs reading art history at an older uni, without the hope of a job, who somehow see themselves as her superior.

If you want to prune newer courses from classification as degrees, it must be time to cut away some of the older deadwood, too.

The first 100 universities to offer vocational courses and put vocational courses their curricula, without needing to look back in at least another 50 years, will then be called the best on earth.

Degrees aren't just enough! They are not even the lifetime meal tickets that a Chinese don once called them. The face of the earth has changed, and so it ought to change along every dimension. Hiekki Ropponen, of the Finnish Artisanship Guild, once said, "We can not rely on producing masters of sciences and doctors of arts alone." I take that from him hook, line and sinker!

91. At 4:18pm on 24 Jul 2010, Mustafa Yorumcu wrote:
"They must have a hidden political motive."
-----
Politicians are secretly trying to get people educated to keep post-industrial Britain prosperous.

Universities should stick to academic qualifications and leave vocational courses to technical colleges and trade schools. A university degree is not the right choice for everyone, sadly many young people are pushed into a university education in the belief that this is the only way to get a decent job. Four years of hard work and a lot of money later they realize that their degree is almost useless in many cases. It's time we acknowledge the value of skilled trades people, get back to providing apprenticeships and hands on training, encourage those who would do well in these areas and then just maybe Britain could get back on it's feet and have some pride in our workforce. A university cannot be a catch all for everyone, we need to have different educational options for our students and those institutions need to be the best at what they do, if we expect universities to take on all roles they will simply be the jack of all trades and master of none.

Way back in the 1970s, the UK was a world-leading pioneer in alternative methods of delivering Higher Education - namely with the Open Univeristy.

Why, in this age of the Internet, do we still believe that herding hundreds of students into a lecture theatre, as happened 500 years ago, with perhaps a couple of hours of tutorials per week, is the best way to deliver higher education?

Now is the time forradical bold thinking, for different forms of education, some of which, like the OU, could be undertaken alongside employment and experience of the real world.

No, absolutely not. Degrees are for academic paths. For the vocational side: use colleges and industry.

Im not sure that vocasionalism of university courses will lead to fairness of employment in higher paid areas. Who will get the banking job a person from a former poly from a vocasional economics and banking course or the public school history of art oxbridge student whos father uses his contacts to secure his offspring a job. Snobbery and classism still prevail in Britain and things will get worse as the eton establishment re establish themselves in what they see as their rightfull position of ruling the rest of us.

Mustafa Yorumcu, you were right to mock the university of Life.

The other day we had a very odd post from someone saying that historians knew nothing compared to someone who watches the History Channel on TV.