Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nfe wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If you need PGA membership and accreditation to get the job, and there is no requirement to have a degree, then the degree is not useful to a person trying to get that specific job.

Just to be clear, getting accredited by the PGA is not CHEAP. It usually requires 2 years at least of free full time internship. You usually have to demonstrate a serious background and dedication to golf prior to starting the process.

It is functionally useless as it absolutely is not required. If you are going to argue that spending £27k+ on top of achieving the above is a good investment just for the extra line on the CV that the degree will provide, then I really do not have anything more to say... The person will be more educated, but they won't be more capable to perform the job.

Just to add, one of the partial reasons I know about this is because I had a student that was investigating doing this degree who played golf at a fairly high level, but knew he wasn't going to get a career as a player. Travelling around the world playing, he asked the question a lot, all course managers said the degree wouldn't help they just want PGA accreditation... Anecdotal I admit, but it makes sense. It's a very practical job and learning process that is akin to an apprenticeship.

I'd argue personally if you were still intent on going to Uni as you wanted a degree on top, branch out into a related but different field, general sport science, sport therapy etc. Compliment your apprenticeship with additional learning, the gold management course just picks and chooses specific elements from the PGA accreditation that you will be taught through the apprenticeship anyway.

Not required is absolutely not synonymous with functionally useless. I feel you're getting really locked on this singular example and missing the main issue, however, so probably best to stop repeating a question about it.

Can we just get into what defines 'functionally useless'? If it's simply 'not a requirement for a given job' then that's the overwhelming majority of degrees. It may be your position that almost all degrees are functionally useless, but your posts don't feel like it.

If 'not required' isn't a sufficient definition of 'functionally useless' then what is? 'Not good value for money' seems similarly simplistic. 'Does not meet criteria it promises' might be closer but you're still going to learn things and I think you accept learning for it's own sake as valid? If we're to discourage students from pursuing useless and 'joke' degrees, how are we to identify them? You could make a case for a given degree being functionally useless to a particular person with specific goals, but that surely doesn't invalidate it for everyone, and we're in any case still left with the worthiness of all learning.

Okay, I will change my functionally useless statement, to inefficient (I'd argue 100% inefficient but I assume you will get hung up on me stating that also). I am in favour of education, I work in education. I am not an advocate of universities/education taking advantage of and exploiting students for the sole purpose of chasing funding, which they do by creating joke degrees.

This then perpetuates a line of thinking that universities and degrees are useless, because many students walk out of university and discover they actually didn't need a degree to fall into the job they end up getting, or finding out that saturation of degrees undervalue them as a whole. As I stated on the previous page right at the top of one of my comments. I have students that absolutely should be going to university as they are very capable students that can excel at university, scared because they don't want to get into debt for something that doesn't help them, I try to convince them that is not the case if you choose the correct course.

Just as bad are now training providers taking advantage of this fear culture, and selling them down the river, stating they do not need a degree to do certain jobs, they can learn in an apprenticeship format with them and be able to earn just as much as someone with a degree, however they are then locked out of the higher pay scales as they are not 'qualified' and are locked within the 'unqualified' pay scale... Maybe it's because I'm involved in sport so am very aware of the dodgy practices that go on and it is an issue fairly singular to sport, I would guess it is not just an issue in sport though... I also know of loopholes where learners can become primary school teachers without their GCSE's in Maths and/or English also but that is another conversation entirely... Well it isn't, it's a loop hole certain universities have created to help them inflate student numbers on certain teacher training courses.

Education must have integrity, I argue it does not in the UK currently.

Further thoughts on education - and a word that might instil fear in most of our regular membership - SPORTS. Or rather P.E. Physical Education.


I suspect its no shock that I was never a sporty person at school, in fact I'd wager its a more dominant theme in wargamer groups and online groups. Thing is looking back I realise now where the issues were in the system.

1) Rather like art, sports relies on "natural talent" and "personal interest" mixed with a touch of "making sure we have enough for the team".

2) Sports teachers don't get grades, they get trophies. Basically a sports teacher (or head of sports) "Value" is only in what their students can WIN for them. Throw out the ideas of good sportsmanship; they really only want as many wins as they can secure. Because at the end that's the only metric that sports classes collect. It's the only means by which the students are measured and, as a result, the staff as well.


This creates the wrong atmosphere. Students who excel "naturally" are pushed toward the teams to help win awards. As part of that they are often pressed into extra training to improve their sporting skills.
Meanwhile students who underperform are typically only given the official classes, are still trained in the basic sporting skills, but by and large are left out. They lack the natural talent/interest and its not abnormal to get staff drafted in from other departments who are not primarily sports teachers.



See the thing is, looking back, I realise now that this is a daft system that promotes unhealthy competitive spirit and also doesn't really "teach" students anything about their physical self. In fact its typically a torment for those who are not more inclined to activity outside of sports classes.






Changes I'd make:
1) I'd introduce the concept of personal improvement at the student level using multiple metrics. This means tracking a students personal performance at a more basic level. How long it takes them to run 100mm; 400; 800; the marathon. How much weight they can lift and with what muscles; etc... Alongside that basic hand-eye such as catching, passing, etc...

Basically a series of metrics that can be measured and assessed at the individual level. This allows a teacher and student to track a students physical development irrespective of if they are in a winning team or even a team at all.

2) I would put students against themselves not each other. Competing against each other will happen, if your'e all running someone is coming first and someone is coming last. However those who are always coming last if their only metric is competition against each other then there's little to enthuse them to progress. Instead I'd have students comparing their personal scores against themselves. Sure they'd compare against each other, but the teaching focus would be on personal comparison. It won't matter if you're always last, the core focus will be that between the start and end of the year, your personal position improves or at least maintains.

3) Underperforming students should get extra. If you're not all that fast or strong chances are you are in more need of exercise on more days of the week. Thus I'd say this group should be the focus of extra (eg afterschool) exercise. Again this is focusing on personal improvement.

4) Include sitdown lessons or combine with exercise periods. Basically teach students about their body. At present in the UK this doesn't really happen until you get to the optional GCSE/A-level selection to do "sports". Instead I think that sports teachers could easily adopt teaching like a good driving instructor and, alongside exercise (the activity) can impart understanding about basic details of the human body.
Teach students what muscles they are exercising; teach them good diet; teach them the fundamentals. Basically improve the students own ability to understand themselves.

5) Broader motivation toward other activities. Sports tends to focus on competing events - football, hockey etc.... I don't think you'll ever remove that, but at the same time I think you can work toward broadening student horizons as to what good physical health can unlock for them in life. This is about inspiring students more than anything. If you couple it to the multiple metric and personal improvement angles then it creates an atmosphere where even very out of shape and unfit students can see gradual improvement in themselves and can then see potential new things opening up for them in the future. Perhaps not jobs, but at least hobbies, interests etc...


I think "sports" has the wrong focus. It's far too keyed into the idea that a good head of sports will produce high performing sporting students keen for the competition. Instead I think it needs to instead stop looking at its top end and look at its bottom end. Especially when many 1st world nations are tackling obesity issues in adults and children.

If sports takes a much more active and inspirational role at the bottom end it will feed through to the top end naturally. I think shifting the focus for heads of sport off trophies and into student metrics you at least create options for schools that might not compete well, but which at least can show continual student personal improvement - which is basically what every other teacher has. No other class relies almost solely on award winning students to promote their department - sure its great to have, but its not the same as it is for the sports department.

 Overread wrote:
Further thoughts on education - and a word that might instil fear in most of our regular membership - SPORTS. Or rather P.E. Physical Education.


I suspect its no shock that I was never a sporty person at school, in fact I'd wager its a more dominant theme in wargamer groups and online groups. Thing is looking back I realise now where the issues were in the system.

1) Rather like art, sports relies on "natural talent" and "personal interest" mixed with a touch of "making sure we have enough for the team".

2) Sports teachers don't get grades, they get trophies. Basically a sports teacher (or head of sports) "Value" is only in what their students can WIN for them. Throw out the ideas of good sportsmanship; they really only want as many wins as they can secure. Because at the end that's the only metric that sports classes collect. It's the only means by which the students are measured and, as a result, the staff as well.


This creates the wrong atmosphere. Students who excel "naturally" are pushed toward the teams to help win awards. As part of that they are often pressed into extra training to improve their sporting skills.
Meanwhile students who underperform are typically only given the official classes, are still trained in the basic sporting skills, but by and large are left out. They lack the natural talent/interest and its not abnormal to get staff drafted in from other departments who are not primarily sports teachers.



See the thing is, looking back, I realise now that this is a daft system that promotes unhealthy competitive spirit and also doesn't really "teach" students anything about their physical self. In fact its typically a torment for those who are not more inclined to activity outside of sports classes.






Changes I'd make:
1) I'd introduce the concept of personal improvement at the student level using multiple metrics. This means tracking a students personal performance at a more basic level. How long it takes them to run 100mm; 400; 800; the marathon. How much weight they can lift and with what muscles; etc... Alongside that basic hand-eye such as catching, passing, etc...

Basically a series of metrics that can be measured and assessed at the individual level. This allows a teacher and student to track a students physical development irrespective of if they are in a winning team or even a team at all.

2) I would put students against themselves not each other. Competing against each other will happen, if your'e all running someone is coming first and someone is coming last. However those who are always coming last if their only metric is competition against each other then there's little to enthuse them to progress. Instead I'd have students comparing their personal scores against themselves. Sure they'd compare against each other, but the teaching focus would be on personal comparison. It won't matter if you're always last, the core focus will be that between the start and end of the year, your personal position improves or at least maintains.

3) Underperforming students should get extra. If you're not all that fast or strong chances are you are in more need of exercise on more days of the week. Thus I'd say this group should be the focus of extra (eg afterschool) exercise. Again this is focusing on personal improvement.

4) Include sitdown lessons or combine with exercise periods. Basically teach students about their body. At present in the UK this doesn't really happen until you get to the optional GCSE/A-level selection to do "sports". Instead I think that sports teachers could easily adopt teaching like a good driving instructor and, alongside exercise (the activity) can impart understanding about basic details of the human body.
Teach students what muscles they are exercising; teach them good diet; teach them the fundamentals. Basically improve the students own ability to understand themselves.

5) Broader motivation toward other activities. Sports tends to focus on competing events - football, hockey etc.... I don't think you'll ever remove that, but at the same time I think you can work toward broadening student horizons as to what good physical health can unlock for them in life. This is about inspiring students more than anything. If you couple it to the multiple metric and personal improvement angles then it creates an atmosphere where even very out of shape and unfit students can see gradual improvement in themselves and can then see potential new things opening up for them in the future. Perhaps not jobs, but at least hobbies, interests etc...


I think "sports" has the wrong focus. It's far too keyed into the idea that a good head of sports will produce high performing sporting students keen for the competition. Instead I think it needs to instead stop looking at its top end and look at its bottom end. Especially when many 1st world nations are tackling obesity issues in adults and children.

If sports takes a much more active and inspirational role at the bottom end it will feed through to the top end naturally. I think shifting the focus for heads of sport off trophies and into student metrics you at least create options for schools that might not compete well, but which at least can show continual student personal improvement - which is basically what every other teacher has. No other class relies almost solely on award winning students to promote their department - sure its great to have, but its not the same as it is for the sports department.

Pretty much all your recommendations now happen. PE is a very different beast to even 10 years ago, let alone 20 when I was at school. Just like any lessons they are diversified now also, and you are grouped on ability. No point the teachers coaching a kid that can already bowl a ball, to bowl a ball when many cannot, so the ones that need the coaching are placed in coaching groups whilst already competent kids go into game situations, in very large schools/departments the kids are in different locations so as to not impact on confidence and motivation by seeing some already achieving whilst they are struggling. There is also more diversity in lessons now, all students are taught dance for example (something I personally don't agree with, but I appreciate the logic behind it). However, PE has been pillaged, on a whole students get far less hours than they did historically. Which means, they have to do all of the above changes, but in less time. That does not work.

There are also other issues, where none olympic sports were removed from the PE A level and GCSE practical assessment. Meaning if you had a child that happened to be outstanding at a non olympic sport, squash for example, they no longer can be assessed completing skills in that sport (there's workarounds, but rules as written, it cannot happen). The logic being, how are teachers meant to be able to assess all sports and thus a persons competency within it. However, that is the case with most olympic sports, you won't find many PE teachers that can accurately assess competency in archery, or shooting, or equestrian for example...

Ahh that's a mix of good and bad to hear. I agree its been (counts) at least 20odd years since I was in education so yeah I'm not surprised to hear that there has been change. Though I agree it sounds daft to make such positive steps in one area, but then cut the hours. You can improve the teaching and focus, but the body needs time to develop muscles and improve itself - you can't get that without the hours.


Dance actually makes sense to me in being included. Most sports are crude in how your body moves and works; if you can throw the ball you can throw the ball. Dance is all about precision of motion and balance. Heck if you look at a fair few martial arts a good chunk of training is body motions done almost exactly like a dance.

My specific issue with dance is mainly because it is doubling up on gymnastics at the latter key stages which is also mandatory, and I'd argue gymnastics is more valuable due to the strength development mainly as well. This is from a pure development of physical skills point of view mind. I'm aware there's other factors like rhythm etc which are also developed in dance, but I'd then argue, kids should be learning that in music and performing arts anyway, there's no reason to clog up PE further.

Dance is just embedding basic functional movement patterns anyway from a pure PE standpoint (discounting the development of rhythm, timing etc), which is what you spend the majority of key stage 1 and most of key stage 2 learning to do anyway. Realistically, it is not required and takes up time that can be spent on other areas at key stage 3, yet is mandatory (EDIT: I said earlier it was also mandatory at stage 4, but it is not)... Then as stated above, gymnastics is mandatory at all key stages anyway so really it's not actually going to give much further benefit. If it was an option for students I'd be fine with it, but like I said, it is mandatory.

PE politics anyway, there's always disagreement about it's mandatory inclusion past KS 1 and 2.

In regards to the hours cut... It's frustrating, but it's what has happened to many areas, it's not as grim as what has happened to the subjects revolving around the arts at least anyway.

 Matt Swain wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
In America many people are citing a school to prison pipeline system that seems designed to funnel many kids, especially minority ones, from school to privately ran for profit prisons.

Some will ask "Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory thread?"

Nope. There's a lot of documentation that provides solid evidence to base this theory on. The wiki has this to say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline

Also the fact that kids have been deliberately put in for profit jails wrongfully solely to make money off them is a given in america. A young black girl was sentenced to such a facility by a judge for a unflattering social media post about a teacher, the judge was later convicted of taking kickbacks from the detention facility for sending as many kids as possible to it in exchange for bribes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

So hey, you may think your education systems have issues, but can you top this?

An aspect of the prison pipeline that even my activist friend's don't like to acknowledge is the gender discrepancy. You think being Black is bad? Try being male. White men are more likely to be effected by the school to prison pipeline than AA Women

Well, so what? Does it matter if males are being targeted more than females? And remember the black girl who got 4 months for a mean post on social media. But so what? White males drastically outnumber black females, of course they're going to get hit more with this. But even if males are being targeted more, so what? The fact it's being done TO ANY KIDS AT ALL makes it a terrible thing that should be stamped out immediately and brutally.

It's rate, not overall numbers. People tend to point out that the rate for AA individuals is higher, therefore it must be systemic discrimination. However, when it comes to systemic discrimination against men they tend to turn a blind eye.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

1) Rather like art, sports relies on "natural talent" and "personal interest" mixed with a touch of "making sure we have enough for the team".

2) Sports teachers don't get grades, they get trophies. Basically a sports teacher (or head of sports) "Value" is only in what their students can WIN for them. Throw out the ideas of good sportsmanship; they really only want as many wins as they can secure. Because at the end that's the only metric that sports classes collect. It's the only means by which the students are measured and, as a result, the staff as well.


This creates the wrong atmosphere. Students who excel "naturally" are pushed toward the teams to help win awards. As part of that they are often pressed into extra training to improve their sporting skills.
Meanwhile students who underperform are typically only given the official classes, are still trained in the basic sporting skills, but by and large are left out. They lack the natural talent/interest and its not abnormal to get staff drafted in from other departments who are not primarily sports teachers.

Pretty much all your recommendations now happen. PE is a very different beast to even 10 years ago, let alone 20 when I was at school. Just like any lessons they are diversified now also, and you are grouped on ability. No point the teachers coaching a kid that can already bowl a ball, to bowl a ball when many cannot, so the ones that need the coaching are placed in coaching groups whilst already competent kids go into game situations, in very large schools/departments the kids are in different locations so as to not impact on confidence and motivation by seeing some already achieving whilst they are struggling. There is also more diversity in lessons now, all students are taught dance for example (something I personally don't agree with, but I appreciate the logic behind it). However, PE has been pillaged, on a whole students get far less hours than they did historically. Which means, they have to do all of the above changes, but in less time. That does not work.

There are also other issues, where none olympic sports were removed from the PE A level and GCSE practical assessment. Meaning if you had a child that happened to be outstanding at a non olympic sport, squash for example, they no longer can be assessed completing skills in that sport (there's workarounds, but rules as written, it cannot happen). The logic being, how are teachers meant to be able to assess all sports and thus a persons competency within it. However, that is the case with most olympic sports, you won't find many PE teachers that can accurately assess competency in archery, or shooting, or equestrian for example...

Here in America-land things are a bit different.

PE has still been pillaged heavily, with reduced instruction time. Even by the time I left school (not college/uni) 15 years ago, the youngest grade levels were being taught by a part-time teacher (seriously, they'd have a teacher for a half day, or only 2 or 3 days a week. . . what resulted was that there are now fewer PE teachers because the few that are left have gamed the system where, in order to be FT, they work 2 schools). . And then, the obesity problem is such that we've now devolved "PE" to the point where WALKING is an entire fething class on its own. Seriously, people are so inactive that something as miniscule as walking is considered a physical education subject.

On the sports front you tend to have a bit of antagonistic dichotomy going on. Basically, school administrators who have a football (american style) team, or basketball or soccer or whatever team, want to win, but at the same time, they want to hire the next John Wooden. . . the "best" coaches are the ones who sell themselves as ones who coach character, and greater character (sportsmanship, life skills, etc) has the happy coincidental affect of producing wins.

But, on the flip side, some schools will tie a portion of a team's budget to their previous records. Oftentimes, this budget comes at the expense of (IMHO) more important educational facets. Fun story, in college, I was taking a political science course which required us to participate in some civic action. Mine was to attend a school board budget meeting which was open to public (I think I was one of maybe 5 people in the audience. It was pathetic), which I almost got thrown out of because all of us in the audience had access to the same budgetary paperwork as the board, and I was grilling them on why the library had received no new materials in 4 years, while the football team had resurfaced their astroturf field twice in the last 6 years, and why the football team got new helmets, new uniforms, new everything every year, while the part of the school which produces more college bound scholars was languishing with outdated and worn out material.


Most PE courses in public schools only cover track and field, and "american" sports (basketball, baseball, football, rarely soccer). . . You'll find that pretty much all of the other olympic sports, like equestrian, fencing, gymnastics, etc. are all consigned to private clubs, and some of those clubs are very much economically bound to certain tiers of society.

Yeah, baring in mind I am from the UK so I don't fully understand all the synergetic factors in the US PE system, but the collegiate recruitment process surely is the main factor for the athletic kids being the focus. Most of the teachers/coaches will ideally be looking to move up the system order/developmental pyramid, meaning team/athlete results is super important for their career, at the detriment of the other kids. For schools that do not have great progression rates, potentially due to socio-economic reasons, those sporty kids are a prime route in progressing kids onto further education also (via scholarships), meaning the school is invested in the sport teams doing well also as every kid who goes to college etc counts.

There's a hell of a lot I seriously admire about the sport pyramid in the US, including how effectively sport academies/development programs are embedded right within the education program, whereas in the UK it's professional teams that partner with education programs which causes strain, as it is effectively a money accruing exercise rather than an actual development program (I'm not talking about high calibre football clubs here btw, I'm talking 5th, 6th tier team development programs). However, as detailed above, the US program comes with its own issues as it is results orientated.

Funding seems to be a common issue, surprise surprise...

TBF, funding, and the impact on schooling is a massive issue, as seen where funding for Schooling programms has been cut, especially in regions with weak structures and that directly lead to an increase in people that are not even able to read.
It's also an oxymoron, imo, because whilest you "saved "cost by cutting funding , you basically created more cost now through external effects like crime and internal effects by having these regions becoming massive issues for wellfare overall for a society.

Changing the topic slightly, for those of you who have kids at school in the UK, specifically teenage kids at secondary school and higher, prepare yourselves for this year... Winter is coming.

It's going to be a rough one, even more so that with the faff of exam results we have just had. I'm hoping most rules in regards to covid are relaxed come January as there will be enough time to negate the negative effects of the potential (almost guaranteed) faff that will be the first school term. If schools are not fully reopened at full capacity or at least for students who are taking important exams (GCSE's, and A levels... SAT's shouldn't get the same priority) by January then I do not think exams will be able to be conducted the in May/June in good faith. There will not be enough time to effectively prepare the students.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Okay, I will change my functionally useless statement, to inefficient (I'd argue 100% inefficient but I assume you will get hung up on me stating that also).

I think this rather implies I was being pedantic about your specific phrasing. I was trying to get you to define an expression regarding your view of some degrees upon which your entire argument lay. Inefficient makes sense. I understand what you mean, now.

I am in favour of education, I work in education. I am not an advocate of universities/education taking advantage of and exploiting students for the sole purpose of chasing funding, which they do by creating joke degrees.

Universities sure do love to exploit people, including students, but by and large that's staff and grad students. Anyone working in a university will tell you that we are pushed, often aggressively, by administrators and policy makers to bend over backwards to ensure undergraduates wildest dreams are fulfilled wherever possible. And frequently where it's impossible.. Student experience and satisfaction are, by a huge distance, the main drivers in virtually all aspects of university practices and policies.

As such, beyond the notorious types of online institutions I mention above, and some false advertising to (usually foreign) students conducted by places like Anglia Ruskin (where adverts tend to be framed as 'Anglia Ruskin UNIVERSITY in CAMBRIDGE), I'm not sure how many examples of universities exploiting undergraduates in terms of money for little in return there really are, at least in the contrived way you suggest? You haven't demonstrated the golf one and your other example I know to be incorrect in at least some instances. There are certainly examples of universities misrepresenting the opportunities their courses provide (see Anglia Ruskin paying out £61k for being sued on this basis last year) but primarily, I believe (though happy to have clear examples presented to me), this is restricted to odd examples, mostly in business schools, and predatory online 'universities'.Definitely a problem, but not, for me, the main thing leading to...

This then perpetuates a line of thinking that universities and degrees are useless, because many students walk out of university and discover they actually didn't need a degree to fall into the job they end up getting, or finding out that saturation of degrees undervalue them as a whole.

I don't think either perceptions of degrees as useless or the oversaturation of degrees in the employment market are the fault of universities. Assuming we still mean inefficient when we say useless (and I think the vast majority of people who think any degree is truly useless have bought the well-trodden 'Mickey Mouse Degree' sneering that is directed at some courses, generally because they've fundamentally misunderstood what they are, then this really lies at the feet of government. Few degrees have severe cost/benefit mismatches until you're paying tuition fees.

Similarly, though oversaturation is unquestionably an issue of you want a degree purely as a market tool, but, again, is less the fault of universities and more the fault of the now longstanding 50% target. In and of itself this was a reasonable goal, but it is preposterous if married to the belief that a degree of a ticket to prosperity.

Education must have integrity, I argue it does not in the UK currently.

Potentially another semantic quagmire here I think this is very true in some areas, albeit I believeIt has more to with staff relations and and league tabling than with how education is delivered to learners.

I work in FE. I literally have to drag students through, giving them extensive 1 to 1 coaching on assessments towards the end of the year to ensure they pass, which lacks integrity, as they don't deserve to pass, I in some cases dictate to them what to write... I'm instructed to do this by my line manager, who is instructed to ensure the kids at least pass by their senior and it goes up the chain...

I thought universities didn't have the same delight as the above as funding was guaranteed whether a student passed or failed (though, it doesn't look great in the data for students to fail), I may be mistaken though with that, I'd like to know though.

The main issue at FE is, if the student fails, we don't get the funding for those students.... That can have a huge impact on the institution finances when each student is worth £4.5k per year, and evidently at such an amount, it's a problem the exponentially escalates the more that fail. Whole departments have disappeared over the summer when if their area (or worse, other areas) have had poor years...

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I work in FE. I literally have to drag students through, giving them extensive 1 to 1 coaching on assessments towards the end of the year to ensure they pass, which lacks integrity, as they don't deserve to pass, I in some cases dictate to them what to write... I'm instructed to do this by my line manager, who is instructed to ensure the kids at least pass by their senior and it goes up the chain...

I thought universities didn't have the same delight as the above as funding was guaranteed whether a student passed or failed (though, it doesn't look great in the data for students to fail), I may be mistaken though with that, I'd like to know though.

The main issue at FE is, if the student fails, we don't get the funding for those students.... That can have a huge impact on the institution finances when each student is worth £4.5k per year, and evidently at such an amount, it's a problem the exponentially escalates the more that fail. Whole departments have disappeared over the summer when if their area (or worse, other areas) have had poor years...

I'm a fairly brutal marker but marking schemes make it very difficult to fail a student. If you submit most coursework but put zero effort in, you can pretty much guarantee you'll come out with a 3rd even if you've next to no aptitude for the degree. This does not only apply to ex-polytechnics or institutions that people might have condescending ideas about. I teach at a Russel Group, my partner teaches at another one, she used to teach at Cambridge, and has just spent three years as an external examiner for an Oxford department maligning the grades awarded to mediocre submissions.

Some unis are hard for undergrads to get in to, but that uni will break its back* to make sure they stay and get out the other end as easily as possible and feel they've had their money's worth.

*in terms of participating in the strictly educational side, often the pastoral care and policies on diversity and equal opportunity can be dreadful.

To keep my contribution short?

I disagree with the UK’s Comprehensive System.

Put simply, when it comes to Education, one size does not fit all. And not should it.

Frankly, we can’t spend enough on education, because it’s young peeps very first part of life.

You want a healthy, stable economy and flexible workforce? Got to invest in it properly, and that starts with teaching kids useful stuff, in a way that suits them as much as possible.

How to implement that? Yeah....not my forte.

 BuFFo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I am advocating for mandatory classes in philosophy, not the deep stuff, but just logic.

Agreed. Schools need 10000% more Aristotle and Ayn Rand, and -100000% Plato and Kant.

We'd be colonizing Pluto in 10 years from now if we did this tomorrow.

Ayn Rand has done immeasurable damage to your education system through the policies that those who espouse her beliefs have enacted.

No school needs Ayn Rand. She was a mediocre author and a terrible human being who tried to justify her terribleness by claiming that greed is justified.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I am advocating for mandatory classes in philosophy, not the deep stuff, but just logic.

Agreed. Schools need 10000% more Aristotle and Ayn Rand, and -100000% Plato and Kant.

We'd be colonizing Pluto in 10 years from now if we did this tomorrow.

Ayn Rand has done immeasurable damage to your education system through the policies that those who espouse her beliefs have enacted.

No school needs Ayn Rand. She was a mediocre author and a terrible human being who tried to justify her terribleness by claiming that greed is justified.

I believe it isn't as black and white, but like with any radical ideology, (and libertarianism is radical) it attempts to reach an utopia, which is just another dystopia.

As for prefering her over kant... no, just no, not to mention plato,,,

Objectivism does have some positive aspects, but like any flawed philosophy, it takes them to the extreme without considering and compensating for human nature and reality.
Also, you can't really espouse Aristotle without Plato. The former being a student of the latter.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoiler:

 BuFFo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I am advocating for mandatory classes in philosophy, not the deep stuff, but just logic.

Agreed. Schools need 10000% more Aristotle and Ayn Rand, and -100000% Plato and Kant.

We'd be colonizing Pluto in 10 years from now if we did this tomorrow.

Ayn Rand has done immeasurable damage to your education system through the policies that those who espouse her beliefs have enacted.

No school needs Ayn Rand. She was a mediocre author and a terrible human being who tried to justify her terribleness by claiming that greed is justified.

Also: Her stuff's nowhere close to philosophy or of pedagogical worth.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I am advocating for mandatory classes in philosophy, not the deep stuff, but just logic.

Agreed. Schools need 10000% more Aristotle and Ayn Rand, and -100000% Plato and Kant.

We'd be colonizing Pluto in 10 years from now if we did this tomorrow.

Ayn Rand has done immeasurable damage to your education system through the policies that those who espouse her beliefs have enacted.

No school needs Ayn Rand. She was a mediocre author and a terrible human being who tried to justify her terribleness by claiming that greed is justified.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -John Rogers.

nfe wrote:
Few degrees have severe cost/benefit mismatches until you're paying tuition fees.

And here is where your misconception arises. Here in America you will be paying tuition for college education barring a full-ride scholarship - which is quite rare. It's quite likely you'll be paying multiple years of future income in tuition even IF you get a decent job.

EDIT: Reading all this makes me very glad I opted out of having kids. But now I'm quite worried about some of my younger friends.

 Vulcan wrote:

nfe wrote:
Few degrees have severe cost/benefit mismatches until you're paying tuition fees.

And here is where your misconception arises. Here in America you will be paying tuition for college education barring a full-ride scholarship - which is quite rare. It's quite likely you'll be paying multiple years of future income in tuition even IF you get a decent job.

Sorry, not following. Which misconception?

nfe wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

nfe wrote:
Few degrees have severe cost/benefit mismatches until you're paying tuition fees.

And here is where your misconception arises. Here in America you will be paying tuition for college education barring a full-ride scholarship - which is quite rare. It's quite likely you'll be paying multiple years of future income in tuition even IF you get a decent job.

Sorry, not following. Which misconception?

Basically, the tuition fees, make it so, that even if you find immediate job on top of beeing in a high earning bracket, still leaves you heavily indebted, makes it so, that even the best case scenario results in economic damage done to you.


or atleast that is how i interpret his point.

But considering the ammount of student debt accumulated in the US, and the marked increase between 2005-2012 not to mention the further snowballing, it will be a whole generation basically working debt away instead of actually contributing productively academically speaking.

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

nfe wrote:
Few degrees have severe cost/benefit mismatches until you're paying tuition fees.

And here is where your misconception arises. Here in America you will be paying tuition for college education barring a full-ride scholarship - which is quite rare. It's quite likely you'll be paying multiple years of future income in tuition even IF you get a decent job.

Sorry, not following. Which misconception?

Basically, the tuition fees, make it so, that even if you find immediate job on top of beeing in a high earning bracket, still leaves you heavily indebted, makes it so, that even the best case scenario results in economic damage done to you.

or atleast that is how i interpret his point.

Sure but we were talking about where the blame lies for UK perceptions of university as being inefficient and I was saying that it's largely the fault of government introducing tuition fees (in 1997). Where there are no or negligible tuition fees (e.g. the UK before the late 90s, Scotland today, lots of Europe) the coat/benefit equation is much more favourable.

But considering the ammount of student debt accumulated in the US, and the marked increase between 2005-2012 not to mention the further snowballing, it will be a whole generation basically working debt away instead of actually contributing productively academically speaking.

'Academically speaking' has confused me here. What do you mean?

Diversion.
Basically you won't work aswell when you have to fear that you can't pay rent at the end of the month.

As for the UK one, i guess that has to do with the whole Anglo-saxon sphere beeing thrown into one pot.
Fret not happens all the time with everybody else.

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

nfe wrote:
Few degrees have severe cost/benefit mismatches until you're paying tuition fees.

And here is where your misconception arises. Here in America you will be paying tuition for college education barring a full-ride scholarship - which is quite rare. It's quite likely you'll be paying multiple years of future income in tuition even IF you get a decent job.

Sorry, not following. Which misconception?

Basically, the tuition fees, make it so, that even if you find immediate job on top of beeing in a high earning bracket, still leaves you heavily indebted, makes it so, that even the best case scenario results in economic damage done to you.

or atleast that is how i interpret his point.

That may be true in the US, but for UK students studying in the UK, your student loan is probably the best loan you'll ever get in your life. It's not repayable until you're earning above a certain threshold, your repayments come out of your salary before tax, those repayments are worked out as a percentage of your earnings above that threshold and it doesn't actually get taken into account as debt when you apply for any other loans, such as a mortgage.

I agree the US system seems to have much higher potential to become an economic burden rather than bonus, depending on your degree and how much it actually helps you in your career. The commodification of education is a problem everywhere it occurs but it does seem the US has taken that to an extreme, at least from my relatively vague understanding of their system.

The us System is allready a burden, 1.3 trillion in debt.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Diversion.
Basically you won't work aswell when you have to fear that you can't pay rent at the end of the month.

Ok, gotcha. Yes for sure the impending debt burden is hardly conducive to peak performance.

As for the UK one, i guess that has to do with the whole Anglo-saxon sphere beeing thrown into one pot.
Fret not happens all the time with everybody else.

Yeah now I don't know you're getting at here

In the UK, the first and biggest benefit of our student loan system is that they do not impact on credit rating, and secondly you pay back 9% of your wages once you earn over a specific earning threshold (£1615 a month pre tax and deductions).

Whilst it does become quite a large payment when you are earning signification money, £175 per month on a salary of £50k for example (pre tax deduction though, so it's not all that bad), it isn't the most horrendous amount either. The other factor is, that it is written off after 30 years if you have not repaid it. Meaning if your degree does not provide you with any significant financial benefit through your life time, you haven't paid for it in full.

Whilst this sounds nice. The interest rates were hiked on the loan and they are now at anything from 2.6% to 5.6% APR depending on an array of circumstance (linked to RPI, as well as whether you are actively studying). Meaning you can see Thousands added to your balance each year if you are not currently repaying them.

They also removed many of the grants etc that use to be in place for poorer students also.

It's not an ideal system but it is nowhere near as bad as some countries have it.

I'm not actually opposed to tuition fees in some sense, they certainly have played a part in the growing places at university as they are arguably receiving more funding (contentious for some when your perform a thorough analysis), I do have a bitter taste in my mouth that policy makers who decided students should pay most certainly received their education completely free though...

Basically, you get lumped in with the US because you both speak english and english dominates a whole discurs on it's own. Regardless of local differences.

It's the same thing that happens to swiss academic discurse, in general often just lumped in with the "germans" ignoring the sizeable italian and french groups and systems in place. And other peculiarities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

I'm not actually opposed to tuition fees in some sense, they certainly have played a part in the growing places at university as they are arguably receiving more funding (contentious for some when your perform a thorough analysis), I do have a bitter taste in my mouth that policy makers who decided students should pay most certainly received their education completely free though...

seems indeed asinine, but is quite en vogue i guess.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Basically, you get lumped in with the US because you both speak english and english dominates a whole discurs on it's own. Regardless of local differences.

It's the same thing that happens to swiss academic discurse, in general often just lumped in with the "germans" ignoring the sizeable italian and french groups and systems in place. And other peculiarities.

I see. Anglo-Saxon doesn't get used very often to mean Anglophone. Well, outside white supremacist circles.

I think Vulcan just hasn't read all the posts and didn't realise we were talking about the UK, rather than assumed homogeneity.