How degree standards fell
Robert Henderson
Note: The rot in standards set in when Thatcher abolished the
University Grants Committee in the late 1980s - which used to allocate
money to universities as a block grant - and instead attached the money
to the student. This gave the universities a vested interest in dropping
standards, because the way to keep the income stream flowing was to
ensure the students finished their courses. Degree inflation got out of
control as the universities vied with one another to attract students
by granting ever greater numbers of firsts and upper seconds.
When the expansion of the universities in the 1950 and 1960s took place
the newer universities were deliberately parsimonious with firsts and
upper seconds, especially firsts, to give them credibility as having
rigorous standards. Many of the new universities then would give less
than 4% of firsts each , while across the then universities, upper
seconds and first comprised around a thirds of degrees granted compared
with two thirds of degrees today. The severity of the marking even for
the best students today is much less than it was. RH
Telegraph
The university professor who stood up against dumbing down of degrees
Paul Buckland refused to pass students who didn't understand the basics
of archaeology - and he's just one of many academics under pressure to
raise the marks of undeserving students. So will Buckland's legal
victory halt the destruction of standards in some universities, asks
Julie Henry
�
By Julie Henry
Published: 7:00AM GMT 28 Feb 2010
Comments 76 | Comment on this article
Paul Buckland at his home in Sheffield Photo: RII SCHROER When Professor
Paul Buckland settled down in his garden one summer's evening to mark
exam papers from his second-year archaeology students, he was expecting
the usual range of responses. But it soon became clear that the scripts
had plummeted to new depths of ignorance. In one paper, the decline of
elm trees was attributed to diseases passed on by dogs. Next, a student
explained that the volcanic eruption in Pompeii had "changed the pattern
of human evolution". By the time he read that farming caused smaller
jaws in humans, his head was practically in his hands.
�The professor failed 18 out of the 60 papers he marked. And that was
where his problems began. For three years, the academic has been
embroiled in a conflict with Bournemouth University over its decision to
overule his professional judgment on the standard of his students' work
and increase their scores.
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
True Blue
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2O$cN$CW5Ql...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
> Note: The rot in standards set in when Thatcher
Christ Robert, you'll have to be a bit more subtle than that.
Robert Henderson
<t...@yahoo.com> writes
Shaun
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Note: The rot in standards set in when Thatcher abolished the
>University Grants Committee in the late 1980s - which used to allocate
>money to universities as a block grant - and instead attached the money
>to the student. This gave the universities a vested interest in dropping
>standards, because the way to keep the income stream flowing was to
>ensure the students finished their courses. Degree inflation got out of
>control as the universities vied with one another to attract students
>by granting ever greater numbers of firsts and upper seconds.
>
>When the expansion of the universities in the 1950 and 1960s took place
>the newer universities were deliberately parsimonious with firsts and
>upper seconds, especially firsts, to give them credibility as having
>rigorous standards. Many of the new universities then would give less
>than 4% of firsts each , while across the then universities, upper
>seconds and first comprised around a thirds of degrees granted compared
>with two thirds of degrees today. The severity of the marking even for
>the best students today is much less than it was. RH
>
The rot set in when the Government found out university was a
brilliant way to get 18-21 year olds to willingly pay for their own
unemployment. Hence anybody can now go.
abelard
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Note: The rot in standards set in when Thatcher abolished the
>University Grants Committee in the late 1980s - which used to allocate
>money to universities as a block grant - and instead attached the money
>to the student. This gave the universities a vested interest in dropping
>standards, because the way to keep the income stream flowing was to
>ensure the students finished their courses. Degree inflation got out of
>control as the universities vied with one another to attract students
>by granting ever greater numbers of firsts and upper seconds.
isnae fair whinges rabbie the hatstand...
in the good old days i could be real 'special' with a degree....
now any person can get a degree....
it isnae fair he droned ever onward
regards you silly old tart!
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Henderson
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
>
>>
>>Note: The rot in standards set in when Thatcher abolished the
>>University Grants Committee in the late 1980s - which used to allocate
>>money to universities as a block grant - and instead attached the money
>>to the student. This gave the universities a vested interest in dropping
>>standards, because the way to keep the income stream flowing was to
>>ensure the students finished their courses. Degree inflation got out of
>>control as the universities vied with one another to attract students
>>by granting ever greater numbers of firsts and upper seconds.
>
>isnae fair whinges rabbie the hatstand...
>
>in the good old days i could be real 'special' with a degree....
The concept of a degree is of course beyond the Bonkers 9000 series with
it tiny memory and pitifully slow processing.... RH
Robert Henderson
<shaun.ja...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>The rot set in when the Government found out university was a brilliant
>way to get 18-21 year olds to willingly pay for their own
>unemployment. Hence anybody can now go.
Actually the argument doesn't work. It still costs the taxpayer a good
deal to keep a student at university because their tuition fees are
still largely paid by the taxpayer and they get loans on very generous
terms. RH
Andy Walker
> Note: The rot in standards set in when Thatcher abolished the
> University Grants Committee in the late 1980s - which used to allocate
> money to universities as a block grant - and instead attached the money
> to the student. This gave the universities a vested interest in dropping
> standards, because the way to keep the income stream flowing was to
> ensure the students finished their courses.
Well, that at least is cobblers, Class 1, Grade A. Until
recently, the DfES [or whatever it's called this month] told us all
what our quota was for each course, meaning that the income stream
depended not on students finishing but on warm bodies in place on the
census date. Then they started to allow us to vire bodies between
related courses, and then within bands. But there are still no blank
cheques. The way for universities to keep their heads above water
-- which is all many of them manage -- is, and always has been, to
attract exactly the approved number of HEU students, and to maximise
the number of OS students. Contrary to ...,
> Degree inflation got out of
> control as the universities vied with one another to attract students
> by granting ever greater numbers of firsts and upper seconds.
..., the way to attract students, esp OS students, is not to
lower standards but to raise them. Top universities get many more
applicants -- and many more *good* applicants -- than bottom ones.
Yes, some bottom universities, and some commentators, don't
understand these fundamental facts, and that's why you are able to
pounce on the occasional scandal.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
Robert Henderson
<ne...@cuboid.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>> Note: The rot in standards set in when Thatcher abolished the
>> University Grants Committee in the late 1980s - which used to
>>allocate money to universities as a block grant - and instead attached
>>the money to the student. This gave the universities a vested
>>interest in dropping standards, because the way to keep the income
>>stream flowing was to ensure the students finished their courses.
>
> Well, that at least is cobblers, Class 1, Grade A. Until
>recently, the DfES [or whatever it's called this month] told us all
>what our quota was for each course, meaning that the income stream
>depended not on students finishing but on warm bodies in place on the
>census date.
So, you claiming that if a student on a three, four or even five and six
year course (eg medicine) drops out in the first year, the government
keeps paying for the rest of their course? ROTFL!
It is worth adding that getting the warm bodies at the beginning of the
course is also an incentive to drop standards, especially in the case
of students from outside their EU who pay full tuition fees. There is
also the commercialisation of the relationship between the teachers and
the taught by the removal of grants and the use of tuition fees to
consider. This means students think thya have a right to a good degree
classification. RH
>Then they started to allow us to vire bodies between
>related courses, and then within bands.
Irrelevant to the point because the universities still compete for
students to fill all their courses. RH
>But there are still no blank
>cheques.
I never said there were. RH
> The way for universities to keep their heads above water
>-- which is all many of them manage -- is, and always has been, to
>attract exactly the approved number of HEU students, and to maximise
>the number of OS students. Contrary to ...,
>
>> Degree inflation got out
>>of control as the universities vied with one another to attract
>>students by granting ever greater numbers of firsts and upper seconds.
>
> ..., the way to attract students, esp OS students, is not to
>lower standards but to raise them.
Classic bounded mind naivety. Most students simply want to know they
will probably get a first or upper second. They will follow the grades.
RH
> Top universities get many more
>applicants
But not for all courses. RH
>-- and many more *good* applicants -- than bottom ones.
WE are talking about the universities as a whole not just the better
ones. The more good students the better universities cream off the more
incentive for the poorer universities to drop standards. RH
>
> Yes, some bottom universities, and some commentators, don't
>understand these fundamental facts, and that's why you are able to
>pounce on the occasional scandal.
>
--
Andy Walker
>> [...] the income stream
>> depended not on students finishing but on warm bodies in place on the
>> census date.
> So, you claiming that if a student on a three, four or even five and six
> year course (eg medicine) drops out in the first year, the government
> keeps paying for the rest of their course? ROTFL!
It may not be obvious to you, but a student who drops out in the
first year is not in place on the census date in years two to six.
> It is worth adding that getting the warm bodies at the beginning of the
> course is also an incentive to drop standards, especially in the case
> of students from outside their EU who pay full tuition fees.
It's a bigger incentive, in most cases, to raise standards. It's
very expensive for families and governments to support students to come to
the UK to study -- they flock to the prestigious universities and courses,
not to the scrotty ones, they want value for money, and they are not fools.
Tourists come to the UK to see the stately homes and castles, not your flat.
If you want to get more visitors, you need to raise your profile, not just
offer free entry.
> There is
> also the commercialisation of the relationship between the teachers and
> the taught by the removal of grants and the use of tuition fees to
> consider. This means students think thya have a right to a good degree
> classification. RH
Well, you know my views on tuition fees. But I don't know of any
students who think they have a right to a good degree classification; I
know of plenty who think -- rightly, in my view -- that they have a right
to a good degree course, taught in a professional way to a modern syllabus
with modern facilities.
>> Then they started to allow us to vire bodies between
>> related courses, and then within bands.
> Irrelevant to the point because the universities still compete for
> students to fill all their courses. RH
Of course we do. Now tell us which restaurants you have to book
for, which cars you have to order months in advance, which schools you
have to have your name down for before you are born. Good ones or bad
ones? Why do you think it might be different for universities? Do you
think we compete best by offering worthless degrees in mickey mouse
subjects or by persuading applicants and employers that we offer high
quality education in relevant courses with high standards? PR and spin
can cover up the cracks for a while, but long-term quality wins out.
>> But there are still no blank
>> cheques.
> I never said there were. RH
Your primary claim was that govt policy was causing us to lower
standards to attract students to get more money. Wrong about standards,
and wrong about extra govt money once past quota.
[...]
>> ..., the way to attract students, esp OS students, is not to
>> lower standards but to raise them.
> Classic bounded mind naivety. Most students simply want to know they
> will probably get a first or upper second. They will follow the grades. RH
Tell you what. Come to an open day at a decent university, and
I will pay you #1000 for every visitor who asks about the proportion of
firsts and upper seconds if you will pay me #100 for every visitor who
asks about sports facilities, job opportunities, how many lecture hours
there are per week, how many students there are in tutorials, whether it's
possible to change course, how long it takes to get to the city centre,
whether they have a guaranteed place in hall, and all the other things
that students *actually* bother about when they apply. They take it for
granted that if they work hard and do well they will get a good degree,
and if they don't, they won't.
>> Top universities get many more
>> applicants -- and many more *good* applicants -- than bottom ones.
> But not for all courses. RH
If you mean that Jt Hons Anglo-Saxon and Psychology may get fewer
applicants at Cambridge than Scuba Diving at Bog End, then sure. If you
mean something else, then what?
> WE are talking about the universities as a whole not just the better
> ones. The more good students the better universities cream off the more
> incentive for the poorer universities to drop standards. RH
Perhaps you can point me to a web-site for a poor university that
says "In response to increasing competition from Cambridge, we have
decided to drop our standards, and we will now take you for our course
in Scuba Diving provided you can swim"? Instead of your fantasy world,
perhaps you need to look at what the poorer universities are *actually*
doing by way of opening and closing departments, competing with FE, going
for niche markets, and so on. Your local chippie is not competing with
the top restaurant down the street, and doesn't mind [and won't drop its
standards] if the restaurant gets more customers.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
Shaun
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <4b9539bc...@news.virginmedia.com>, Shaun
><shaun.ja...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>>The rot set in when the Government found out university was a brilliant
>>way to get 18-21 year olds to willingly pay for their own
>>unemployment. Hence anybody can now go.
>
>Actually the argument doesn't work. It still costs the taxpayer a good
>deal to keep a student at university because their tuition fees are
>still largely paid by the taxpayer and they get loans on very generous
>terms. RH
and they don't appear on the unemployment statistics for at least 5
years after leaving school
HardySpicer
wrote:
How the hell did you get through?
HardySpicer
wrote:
> In message <4b9539bc.1130...@news.virginmedia.com>, Shaun
> <shaun.jamesons...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>
>
> >The rot set in when the Government found out university was a brilliant
> >way to get 18-21 year olds to willingly pay for their own
> >unemployment. Hence anybody can now go.
>
> Actually the argument doesn't work. It still costs the taxpayer a good
> deal to keep a student at university because their tuition fees are
> still largely paid by the taxpayer and they get loans on very generous
> terms. RH
> --
Robert Henderson
<shaun.ja...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>>Actually the argument doesn't work. It still costs the taxpayer a good
>>deal to keep a student at university because their tuition fees are
>>still largely paid by the taxpayer and they get loans on very generous
>>terms. RH
>
>and they don't appear on the unemployment statistics for at least 5
>years after leaving school
Well, three years but I take your point. RH
Robert Henderson
<061f9269-3149-4b9a...@u5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> >The rot set in when the Government found out university was a brilliant
>> >way to get 18-21 year olds �to willingly pay for their own
>> >unemployment. Hence anybody can now go.
>>
>> Actually the argument doesn't work. It still costs the taxpayer a good
>> deal to keep a student �at university because their tuition fees are
>> still �largely paid �by the taxpayer and they get loans on very generous
>> terms. RH
>> --
>Yeh - the Scottish taxpayer funding *nglish students as usual.
Other way round. More Scotch students in England than English students
in Scotland. RH
Robert Henderson
<ne...@cuboid.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> [...] the income stream
>>> depended not on students finishing but on warm bodies in place on the
>>> census date.
>> So, you claiming that if a student on a three, four or even five and
>>six year course (eg medicine) drops out in the first year, the
>>government keeps paying for the rest of their course? ROTFL!
>
> It may not be obvious to you, but a student who drops out in the
>first year is not in place on the census date in years two to six.
>
Which gives the university an incentive to keep the student on their
course regardless of performance. Doh! RH
>> It is worth adding that getting the warm bodies at the beginning of
>>the course is also an incentive to drop standards, especially in the
>>case of students from outside their EU who pay full tuition fees.
>
> It's a bigger incentive, in most cases, to raise standards. It's
>very expensive for families and governments to support students to come to
>the UK to study -- they flock to the prestigious universities and courses,
>not to the scrotty ones,
Simply untrue. Stories regularly appear in the media about non EU
students complaining about the dire courses they are on at converted
polys. Moreover, the so-called better universities have their fill of
complaining students, unsurprising as the amount of lecture and
especially tutorial time has reduced greatly over the past thirty years.
RH
> they want value for money, and they are not fools.
See above. I wonder how many have attended Oxford Brooks University
under the impression it was part of OU. RH
>Tourists come to the UK to see the stately homes and castles, not your flat.
>If you want to get more visitors, you need to raise your profile, not just
>offer free entry.
The ever rising figures for EU students at all types of British
university belie that claim... RH
>
>> There is
>>also the commercialisation of the relationship between the teachers
>>and the taught by the removal of grants and the use of tuition fees
>>to consider. This means students think thya have a right to a good
>>degree classification. RH
>
> Well, you know my views on tuition fees. But I don't know of any
>students who think they have a right to a good degree classification; I
>know of plenty who think -- rightly, in my view -- that they have a right
>to a good degree course, taught in a professional way to a modern syllabus
>with modern facilities.
You imagine they would tell a tutor that they had a right to a good
degree...... RH
>
>>> Then they started to allow us to vire bodies between
>>> related courses, and then within bands.
>> Irrelevant to the point because the universities still compete for
>>students to fill all their courses. RH
>
> Of course we do. Now tell us which restaurants you have to book
>for, which cars you have to order months in advance, which schools you
>have to have your name down for before you are born. Good ones or bad
>ones? Why do you think it might be different for universities? Do you
>think we compete best by offering worthless degrees in mickey mouse
>subjects or by persuading applicants and employers that we offer high
>quality education in relevant courses with high standards? PR and spin
>can cover up the cracks for a while, but long-term quality wins out.
>
More irrelevancy. The point is universities compete for students because
the money is attached to them., RH
>>> But there are still no blank
>>> cheques.
>> I never said there were. RH
>
> Your primary claim was that govt policy was causing us to lower
>standards to attract students to get more money.
Sigh. That is because you have to get the students to bring in the
money. It is irrelevant to the argument that their is a cap on the
number of students. If you university is allowed 50 people on a course,
you want 50 not less. RH
> Wrong about standards,
>and wrong about extra govt money once past quota.
>
>[...]
>>> ..., the way to attract students, esp OS students, is not to
>>> lower standards but to raise them.
>> Classic bounded mind naivety. Most students simply want to know they
>>will probably get a first or upper second. They will follow the
>>grades. RH
>
> Tell you what. Come to an open day at a decent university, and
>I will pay you #1000 for every visitor who asks about the proportion of
>firsts and upper seconds
Quite wonderful. Of course they don't ask about that because it would be
too blatant. They can get the info easily enough by Googling. RH
> if you will pay me #100 for every visitor who
>asks about sports facilities, job opportunities, how many lecture hours
>there are per week, how many students there are in tutorials, whether it's
>possible to change course, how long it takes to get to the city centre,
>whether they have a guaranteed place in hall, and all the other things
>that students *actually* bother about when they apply. They take it for
>granted that if they work hard and do well they will get a good degree,
>and if they don't, they won't.
>
>>> Top universities get many more
>>> applicants -- and many more *good* applicants -- than bottom ones.
>> But not for all courses. RH
>
> If you mean that Jt Hons Anglo-Saxon and Psychology may get fewer
>applicants at Cambridge than Scuba Diving at Bog End, then sure. If you
>mean something else, then what?
It can be across many less rarefied subjects, modern languages for
example, or the hard sciences. Please don't try to tell me that even
so-called leading universities don't struggle to get top notch students
in those subjects. RH
>
>> WE are talking about the universities as a whole not just the better
>>ones. The more good students the better universities cream off the
>>more incentive for the poorer universities to drop standards. RH
>
> Perhaps you can point me to a web-site for a poor university that
>says "In response to increasing competition from Cambridge, we have
>decided to drop our standards, and we will now take you for our course
>in Scuba Diving provided you can swim"?
ROTFL! A really hilarious piece of bounded mind incomprehension of
normal human interaction. Of course they don't advertise the fact
blatantly. That's not what normal human beings do when engaged in
something shady. RH
> Instead of your fantasy world,
>perhaps you need to look at what the poorer universities are *actually*
>doing by way of opening and closing departments, competing with FE, going
>for niche markets, and so on.
>Your local chippie is not competing with
>the top restaurant down the street, and doesn't mind [and won't drop its
>standards] if the restaurant gets more customers.
>
I want all British universities to be cordon bleu not cordon chippy. RH
True Blue
>
> See above. I wonder how many have attended Oxford Brooks University under
> the impression it was part of OU. RH
My company's name is on the side of one of their racing cars. They *do* try
to disguise the difference.
Andy Walker
>>> So, you claiming that if a student on a three, four or even five and
>>> six year course (eg medicine) drops out in the first year, the
>>> government keeps paying for the rest of their course? ROTFL!
>> It may not be obvious to you, but a student who drops out in the
>> first year is not in place on the census date in years two to six.
> Which gives the university an incentive to keep the student on their
> course regardless of performance. Doh! RH
Not so. (a) Quotas allowed for "wastage", so drop-outs result
in increased entry quotas. (b) Advanced students are more expensive
than first years -- to the extent that HEU students barely cover even
their marginal cost on average [but this will vary with subject].
>> [...] It's
>> very expensive for families and governments to support students to
>> come to the UK to study -- they flock to the prestigious universities
>> and courses, not to the scrotty ones,
> Simply untrue. Stories regularly appear in the media about non EU
> students complaining about the dire courses they are on at converted
> polys. Moreover, the so-called better universities have their fill of
> complaining students,
And? In cases where such complaints are justified, do you
expect the number of overseas [and HEU, for that matter] applicants
to that university to go up or down? A large university may have
5000 overseas students, from well over 100 countries. It would be
a miracle if there were no problems, just as even the most snooty
shops, hotels and restaurants sometimes receive complaints, some of
them justified. It doesn't mean they aren't *trying* to do better.
> unsurprising as the amount of lecture and
> especially tutorial time has reduced greatly over the past thirty years. RH
Lectures: At both Cambridge and Nottingham, the number of
lectures per week to maths students has been unchanged for at least
40 years. Can't speak for anywhere else. Tutorials: Cambridge has
the same system in place as when I was a student, probably as it was
over 100 years ago. Nottingham has indeed reduced tutorial time, on
discovering [essentially by accident] that in *some* parts of the
subject problems classes are educationally better; there has been
an increase in contact time for the students. Again, I can't speak
for anywhere else. With hundreds of universities out there and tens
of thousands of courses, and the whole system short of cash, it would
be surprising if you could not find some course which has cut back on
teaching.
>> they want value for money, and they are not fools.
> See above. I wonder how many have attended Oxford Brooks University
> under the impression it was part of OU. RH
It is normal in America and Europe for cities to have two or
more universities. 18yo Malaysian students may not know the difference
between them, but their government certainly does -- they inspect our
courses, syllabuses, etc., regularly and expect reports on the students
they are sponsoring.
>> Tourists come to the UK to see the stately homes and castles, not your
>> flat. If you want to get more visitors, you need to raise your profile,
>> not just offer free entry.
> The ever rising figures for EU students at all types of British
> university belie that claim... RH
Then perhaps you should acknowledge that the reason just could
be that "all types of British university" are offering better courses
than their counterparts elsewhere for these particular students. Do
you think that is because our universities are offering parochial
courses fit only for the output of sink comprehensives or because they
are highly regarded elsewhere?
>>> [...] This means students think thya have a right to a good
>>> degree classification. RH
>> Well, you know my views on tuition fees. But I don't know of any
>> students who think they have a right to a good degree classification;
>> [...]
> You imagine they would tell a tutor that they had a right to a good
> degree...... RH
If it doesn't show in anything they say, or in anything they do,
or in their general attitudes, then what makes you claim that they think
it? Been attempting mind-reading [and failing] again?
> [...] The point is universities compete for students because
> the money is attached to them., RH
The money always was attached to them, or do you think the UGC
used to give out teaching money to departments with no students? How
do you claim this differs from restaurants or shops or hotels competing
for customers? In other spheres, competition is usually alleged to
raise standards; why are you so afraid of it for HE?
>> Your primary claim was that govt policy was causing us to lower
>> standards to attract students to get more money.
> Sigh. That is because you have to get the students to bring in the
> money.
We always did.
> It is irrelevant to the argument that their is a cap on the
> number of students. If you university is allowed 50 people on a course,
> you want 50 not less. RH
We always did. I was an Admissions Tutor for over a third of
a century. Throughout that time, we were given quotas, and missing
that quota [over or under] was always a serious problem. At different
times, there were changes at the margins -- eg, allowing us to switch
quotas between single and joint honours, or allowing a small number of
places outside quotas to "disadvantaged" applicants -- but the basic
principles never varied.
>>> [...] Most students simply want to know they
>>> will probably get a first or upper second. They will follow the
>>> grades. RH
>> Tell you what. Come to an open day at a decent university, and
>> I will pay you #1000 for every visitor who asks about the proportion of
>> firsts and upper seconds
> Quite wonderful. Of course they don't ask about that because it would be
> too blatant. They can get the info easily enough by Googling. RH
They can get virtually all the information we impart by googling,
but they prefer to hear it from us. Some do ask about it, usually in the
form of a question about comparisons between [eg] Nott'm and Warwick;
but it's a tiny minority compared with those who ask about other aspects
of university entrance and life.
>>>> Top universities get many more
>>>> applicants -- and many more *good* applicants -- than bottom ones.
>>> But not for all courses. RH
>> If you mean that Jt Hons Anglo-Saxon and Psychology may get fewer
>> applicants at Cambridge than Scuba Diving at Bog End, then sure. If you
>> mean something else, then what?
> It can be across many less rarefied subjects, modern languages for
> example, or the hard sciences. Please don't try to tell me that even
> so-called leading universities don't struggle to get top notch students
> in those subjects. RH
Whether or not they struggle, you can be sure that they get many
more applications from top-notch students than do weaker universities,
and much less difficulty filling quotas with them. Why on earth should
such a student go to Bog End when, in a subject with too few applicants,
he has the choice of many, if not all, top universities?
>>> WE are talking about the universities as a whole not just the better
>>> ones. The more good students the better universities cream off the
>>> more incentive for the poorer universities to drop standards. RH
>> Perhaps you can point me to a web-site for a poor university that
>> says "In response to increasing competition from Cambridge, we have
>> decided to drop our standards, and we will now take you for our course
>> in Scuba Diving provided you can swim"?
> ROTFL! A really hilarious piece of bounded mind incomprehension of
> normal human interaction. Of course they don't advertise the fact
> blatantly. That's not what normal human beings do when engaged in
> something shady. RH
What are you claiming is "shady"? There are few, if any, selection
processes more open than university admission. Every course is advertised
openly, complete with the normal entrance standards, both over the main
season and in clearing, and students compare their treatment both between
universities and between each other. If a course lowers its grades, it
can't disguise the fact; and you can be sure that they regard it as a
failure on their part, with all manner of inquests within the university.
Courses that can't get good students *close*. Look what has happened to
physics. See also the next sentence:
>> Instead of your fantasy world,
>> perhaps you need to look at what the poorer universities are *actually*
>> doing by way of opening and closing departments, competing with FE, going
>> for niche markets, and so on.
>> Your local chippie is not competing with
>> the top restaurant down the street, and doesn't mind [and won't drop its
>> standards] if the restaurant gets more customers.
> I want all British universities to be cordon bleu not cordon chippy. RH
*You* want to go back to a situation where only middle-class white
male go to university, and all the real-world courses are hived off to the
polys. Well, the news is that the rest of the population wants the same
privileges, that the rest of the world saw no merit in the "binary divide",
that elsewhere in the civilised world between 50% and 80% of the population
gets degrees, and that UK universities have moved on since your day. We
can see the results in the success that UK universities have in competing
on the world stage. You should be celebrating that, not whingeing.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
HardySpicer
wrote:
> In message
> <061f9269-3149-4b9a-9cbc-2367514d7...@u5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >> >The rot set in when the Government found out university was a brilliant
> >> >way to get 18-21 year olds to willingly pay for their own
> >> >unemployment. Hence anybody can now go.
>
> >> Actually the argument doesn't work. It still costs the taxpayer a good
> >> deal to keep a student at university because their tuition fees are
> >> still largely paid by the taxpayer and they get loans on very generous
> >> terms. RH
> >> --
> >Yeh - the Scottish taxpayer funding *nglish students as usual.
>
> Other way round. More Scotch students in England than English students
> in Scotland. RH
> --
> Robert Henderson
> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Yes, that's because for our number many more of us have a higher
education.
Hardy
Robert Henderson
<4ee4916f-293f-4304...@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> Other way round. More Scotch students in England than English students
>> in Scotland. RH
>> --
>> Robert Henderson
>> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
>
>Yes, that's because for our number many more of us have a higher
>education.
>
NO, it's because the Scotch have found another way to put their hands in
English pockets and cannot resist the temptation plus the "finest
prospect a Scotchman ever sees".... RH
>Hardy
Robert Henderson
<ne...@cuboid.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>> So, you claiming that if a student on a three, four or even five
>>>>and six year course (eg medicine) drops out in the first year, the
>>>>government keeps paying for the rest of their course? ROTFL!
>>> It may not be obvious to you, but a student who drops out in the
>>> first year is not in place on the census date in years two to six.
>> Which gives the university an incentive to keep the student on their
>>course regardless of performance. Doh! RH
>
> Not so. (a) Quotas allowed for "wastage", so drop-outs result
>in increased entry quotas. (b) Advanced students are more expensive
>than first years -- to the extent that HEU students barely cover even
>their marginal cost on average [but this will vary with subject].
>
But you can't keep on having hordes of Ist year students who never
progress because that would get you marked down as a department. Hence,
you have to make sure most pass. Doh! RH
>>> [...] It's
>>> very expensive for families and governments to support students to
>>> come to the UK to study -- they flock to the prestigious universities
>>> and courses, not to the scrotty ones,
>> Simply untrue. Stories regularly appear in the media about non EU
>>students complaining about the dire courses they are on at converted
>>polys. Moreover, the so-called better universities have their fill of
>>complaining students,
>
> And?
It means I have demolished your claim. RH
> In cases where such complaints are justified, do you
>expect the number of overseas [and HEU, for that matter] applicants
>to that university to go up or down?
It depends on how good the bush telegraph about the university is
amongst the foreigners looking for a university. RH
> A large university may have
>5000 overseas students, from well over 100 countries. It would be
>a miracle if there were no problems, just as even the most snooty
>shops, hotels and restaurants sometimes receive complaints, some of
>them justified. It doesn't mean they aren't *trying* to do better.
>
>> unsurprising as the amount of lecture and
>>especially tutorial time has reduced greatly over the past thirty
>>years. RH
>
> Lectures: At both Cambridge and Nottingham, the number of
>lectures per week to maths students has been unchanged for at least
>40 years. Can't speak for anywhere else. Tutorials: Cambridge has
>the same system in place as when I was a student, probably as it was
>over 100 years ago. Nottingham has indeed reduced tutorial time, on
>discovering [essentially by accident] that in *some* parts of the
>subject problems classes are educationally better; there has been
>an increase in contact time for the students. Again, I can't speak
>for anywhere else. With hundreds of universities out there and tens
>of thousands of courses, and the whole system short of cash, it would
>be surprising if you could not find some course which has cut back on
>teaching.
The general trend is to reduce tutorials substantially and to increase
the size of tutorials to the point where they are really seminars. RH
>
>>> they want value for money, and they are not fools.
>> See above. I wonder how many have attended Oxford Brooks University
>>under the impression it was part of OU. RH
>
> It is normal in America and Europe for cities to have two or
>more universities. 18yo Malaysian students may not know the difference
>between them, but their government certainly does -- they inspect our
>courses, syllabuses, etc., regularly and expect reports on the students
>they are sponsoring.
Courses and syllabuses mean nothing in themselves any more than written
constitutions do. It is the execution which matters. RH
>
>>> Tourists come to the UK to see the stately homes and castles, not your
>>> flat. If you want to get more visitors, you need to raise your profile,
>>> not just offer free entry.
>> The ever rising figures for EU students at all types of British
>>university belie that claim... RH
>
> Then perhaps you should acknowledge that the reason just could
>be that "all types of British university" are offering better courses
>than their counterparts elsewhere for these particular students.
Doesn't follow. The English language is a great draw. British
universities may be cheaper than most other universities in the First
World, not least because most of our degrees are three year courses
compared with 5 or six which is the norm in Europe. American
universities are penal in their charges. RH
> Do
>you think that is because our universities are offering parochial
>courses fit only for the output of sink comprehensives or because they
>are highly regarded elsewhere?
>
>>>> [...] This means students think thya have a right to a good degree
>>>>classification. RH
>>> Well, you know my views on tuition fees. But I don't know of any
>>> students who think they have a right to a good degree classification;
>>> [...]
>> You imagine they would tell a tutor that they had a right to a good
>>degree...... RH
>
> If it doesn't show in anything they say, or in anything they do,
>or in their general attitudes, then what makes you claim that they think
>it? Been attempting mind-reading [and failing] again?
>
No, just using normal, ie, non-bounded, understanding of human beings.
RH
>> [...] The point is universities compete for students because the
>>money is attached to them., RH
>
> The money always was attached to them, or do you think the UGC
>used to give out teaching money to departments with no students?
They didn't attach the money to the student. They gave a sum to the
department. That is what matters. RH
> How
>do you claim this differs from restaurants or shops or hotels competing
>for customers? In other spheres, competition is usually alleged to
>raise standards; why are you so afraid of it for HE?
>
Oh God, the baked beans view of the world. RH
>>> Your primary claim was that govt policy was causing us to lower
>>> standards to attract students to get more money.
>> Sigh. That is because you have to get the students to bring in the
>>money.
>
> We always did.
>
There was a big difference in the numbers of places available and those
after them 20 years ago. IT was easy to fill most courses with at least
adequate students than. It isn't now taking the university sector
overall. RH
>> It is irrelevant to the argument that their is a cap on the
>>number of students. If you university is allowed 50 people on a
>>course, you want 50 not less. RH
>
> We always did. I was an Admissions Tutor for over a third of
>a century. Throughout that time, we were given quotas, and missing
>that quota [over or under] was always a serious problem
It wasn't that rigid. I can ember when I was at Keele the numbers
varying by a few either way each year. RH
>. At different
>times, there were changes at the margins -- eg, allowing us to switch
>quotas between single and joint honours, or allowing a small number of
>places outside quotas to "disadvantaged" applicants -- but the basic
>principles never varied.
>
>>>> [...] Most students simply want to know they will probably get a
>>>>first or upper second. They will follow the grades. RH
>>> Tell you what. Come to an open day at a decent university, and
>>> I will pay you #1000 for every visitor who asks about the proportion of
>>> firsts and upper seconds
>> Quite wonderful. Of course they don't ask about that because it would
>>be too blatant. They can get the info easily enough by Googling. RH
>
> They can get virtually all the information we impart by googling,
>but they prefer to hear it from us.
And your evidence fro this as a retired academic is? The coming
generation has a very different view to where to get info. The web is
king for them. RH
>Some do ask about it, usually in the
>form of a question about comparisons between [eg] Nott'm and Warwick;
>but it's a tiny minority compared with those who ask about other aspects
>of university entrance and life.
>
>>>>> Top universities get many more
>>>>> applicants -- and many more *good* applicants -- than bottom ones.
>>>> But not for all courses. RH
>>> If you mean that Jt Hons Anglo-Saxon and Psychology may get fewer
>>> applicants at Cambridge than Scuba Diving at Bog End, then sure. If you
>>> mean something else, then what?
>> It can be across many less rarefied subjects, modern languages for
>>example, or the hard sciences. Please don't try to tell me that even
>>so-called leading universities don't struggle to get top notch
>>students in those subjects. RH
>
> Whether or not they struggle, you can be sure that they get many
>more applications from top-notch students than do weaker universities,
>and much less difficulty filling quotas with them.
That says nothing. Better than the weaker does not mean adequate. RH
> Why on earth should
>such a student go to Bog End when, in a subject with too few applicants,
>he has the choice of many, if not all, top universities?
>
>>>> WE are talking about the universities as a whole not just the
>>>>better ones. The more good students the better universities cream
>>>>off the more incentive for the poorer universities to drop standards. RH
>>> Perhaps you can point me to a web-site for a poor university that
>>> says "In response to increasing competition from Cambridge, we have
>>> decided to drop our standards, and we will now take you for our course
>>> in Scuba Diving provided you can swim"?
>> ROTFL! A really hilarious piece of bounded mind incomprehension of
>>normal human interaction. Of course they don't advertise the fact
>>blatantly. That's not what normal human beings do when engaged in
>>something shady. RH
>
> What are you claiming is "shady"?
More hilarious bounded mind incomprehension. It is shady because
dropping standards is an academic sin. RH
> There are few, if any, selection
>processes more open than university admission. Every course is advertised
>openly, complete with the normal entrance standards, both over the main
>season and in clearing, and students compare their treatment both between
>universities and between each other. If a course lowers its grades, it
>can't disguise the fact; and you can be sure that they regard it as a
>failure on their part, with all manner of inquests within the university.
>Courses that can't get good students *close*. Look what has happened to
>physics. See also the next sentence:
>
>>> Instead of your fantasy world,
>>> perhaps you need to look at what the poorer universities are *actually*
>>> doing by way of opening and closing departments, competing with FE, going
>>> for niche markets, and so on.
>
>>> Your local chippie is not competing with
>>> the top restaurant down the street, and doesn't mind [and won't drop its
>>> standards] if the restaurant gets more customers.
>> I want all British universities to be cordon bleu not cordon chippy. RH
>
> *You* want to go back to a situation where only middle-class white
>male go to university,
Utter nonsense. The proportion of workingclass children in the
university population when I was there was substantially higher than it
is now. Plenty of women too, around a third at Keele when I was there.
RH
>and all the real-world courses are hived off to the
>polys. Well, the news is that the rest of the population wants the same
>privileges, that the rest of the world saw no merit in the "binary divide",
>that elsewhere in the civilised world between 50% and 80% of the population
>gets degrees, and that UK universities have moved on since your day. We
>can see the results in the success that UK universities have in competing
>on the world stage. You should be celebrating that, not whingeing.
>
--
Andy Walker
> But you can't keep on having hordes of Ist year students who never
> progress because that would get you marked down as a department. Hence,
> you have to make sure most pass. Doh! RH
But there is no pressure to do so for *funding* reasons, so
your claim that it follows changes to the UGC is false.
>>> [...] Moreover, the so-called better universities have their fill of
>>> complaining students,
>> And?
> It means I have demolished your claim. RH
How does the [inevitable] fact that some students are unhappy
with their courses demolish a claim that OS students, and especially
the governments and families that support them, prefer to go to the
more prestigious universities and courses?
> The general trend is to reduce tutorials substantially and to increase
> the size of tutorials to the point where they are really seminars. RH
Do you have evidence for these trends? Outside Oxbridge. we
have always had tutorials that were "really seminars". Nothing new.
>>> [...] I wonder how many have attended Oxford Brooks University
>>> under the impression it was part of OU. RH
>> It is normal in America and Europe for cities to have two or
>> more universities. 18yo Malaysian students may not know the difference
>> between them, but their government certainly does -- they inspect our
>> courses, syllabuses, etc., regularly and expect reports on the students
>> they are sponsoring.
> Courses and syllabuses mean nothing in themselves any more than written
> constitutions do. It is the execution which matters. RH
Nevertheless, I expect the Malaysian officials who come round
from time to time know which university in Oxford they are visiting
and are competent to assess whether the students they talk to are
getting good value for money.
[...]
>>> The ever rising figures for EU students at all types of British
>>> university belie that claim... RH
>> Then perhaps you should acknowledge that the reason just could
>> be that "all types of British university" are offering better courses
>> than their counterparts elsewhere for these particular students.
> Doesn't follow. The English language is a great draw.
Really? You don't think that students in France, Germany, etc
are, other things being equal, likely to prefer a university in which
the lectures are given in their own language and follow on from the
Baccalaureate or the Abitur, etc., to one in which the lecture are given
in a foreign language and follow on from a quite different syllabus?
Especially if their own universities are, as you seem to think, better.
> British
> universities may be cheaper than most other universities in the First
> World, not least because most of our degrees are three year courses
> compared with 5 or six which is the norm in Europe.
Instead of producing these theories, why not check? If you
didn't already know, you could have found out in less than five minutes
what the fee structures are elsewhere in the EU. You have previously
been told about the Bologna Process, but clearly that didn't penetrate.
In 1997, your theories might have held water; today, they have sunk.
> American
> universities are penal in their charges. RH
Realistic rather than penal. The extent to which other
countries are cheaper simply reflects differing levels of subsidy
and differing levels of equipment, library provision, and so on.
>>> [...] The point is universities compete for students because the
>>> money is attached to them., RH
>> The money always was attached to them, or do you think the UGC
>> used to give out teaching money to departments with no students?
> They didn't attach the money to the student. They gave a sum to the
> department. That is what matters. RH
They gave a sum to the department to teach so-many students.
UGC and its successors always did, they still do. There has been some
tinkering at the edges over the past 40 years, but nothing to justify
your outbursts.
>>>> Your primary claim was that govt policy was causing us to lower
>>>> standards to attract students to get more money.
>>> Sigh. That is because you have to get the students to bring in the
>>> money.
>> We always did.
> There was a big difference in the numbers of places available and those
> after them 20 years ago. IT was easy to fill most courses with at least
> adequate students than. It isn't now taking the university sector
> overall. RH
I see no evidence of any significant change. There have always
been courses that were hard to fill. There are more "at least adequate"
applicants than ever before, but there is still a mis-match between what
they want to do and what courses are available. Top universities moan
and groan, but still fill up; the tail end [perforce] respond by setting
up new courses in demand areas and closing down their failing areas --
and by trying to climb out of the tail.
>>> It is irrelevant to the argument that their is a cap on the
>>> number of students. If you university is allowed 50 people on a
>>> course, you want 50 not less. RH
>> We always did. I was an Admissions Tutor for over a third of
>> a century. Throughout that time, we were given quotas, and missing
>> that quota [over or under] was always a serious problem
> It wasn't that rigid. I can ember when I was at Keele the numbers
> varying by a few either way each year. RH
(a) In your time, quotas were being increased year-on-year
anyway. (b) All sorts of factors affected the relation between the
total number of FTEs and the *admissions* quota -- students failing,
or changing course or withdrawing, transfers in or out. (c) It's
a random process anyway -- students apply [mostly] in the Autumn
and get offers, *then* in December AT's are told how many to recruit,
*then* students decide which offers to accept. It is, and always has
been, crazy. The miracle is that mostly it more-or-less works, and
we get within two or three of quota.
>>> [...] They can get the info easily enough by Googling. RH
>> They can get virtually all the information we impart by googling,
>> but they prefer to hear it from us.
> And your evidence fro this as a retired academic is?
My successor as AT is a personal friend, and I have been known
to talk to him in the past two years .... I've even popped in to the
dept occasionally.
> The coming
> generation has a very different view to where to get info. The web is
> king for them. RH
It has been for a decade or so. Almost all interaction between
UCAS, applicants and universities has been computerised for *years*. I
would still discourage anyone from signing up to a course at a place
they have never visited. Spending three or more years at a university
is a rather more serious commitment than going to a random resort for a
two-week holiday.
>>> [...] Please don't try to tell me that
>>> even so-called leading universities don't struggle to get top notch
>>> students in those subjects. RH
>> Whether or not they struggle, you can be sure that they get many
>> more applications from top-notch students than do weaker universities,
>> and much less difficulty filling quotas with them.
> That says nothing. Better than the weaker does not mean adequate. RH
You specifically referred to "top notch students", not to the
merely adequate.
>>> [...] That's not what normal human beings do when engaged in
>>> something shady. RH
>> What are you claiming is "shady"?
> More hilarious bounded mind incomprehension. It is shady because
> dropping standards is an academic sin. RH
The question was "what", not "why". You have not explained
how something carried out in the full public glare, with no secrecy
as to the standard asked for or as to what standard the applicants
have obtained, can be shady. No department wants to drop its entry
requirements, and doing so is rather often counterproductive and
an act of desperation prior to closure. So it may be clever or
[more likely] stupid, but it's not sinful or shady.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
Robert Henderson
<ne...@cuboid.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>> But you can't keep on having hordes of Ist year students who never
>>progress because that would get you marked down as a department.
>>Hence, you have to make sure most pass. Doh! RH
>
> But there is no pressure to do so for *funding* reasons, so
>your claim that it follows changes to the UGC is false.
Sigh. Getting an extreme example of a bounded mind to follow a train of
logic which goes beyond the immediate is worse than pulling teeth. The
logic is this: fail too many students = bad dept mark = reduced future
funding. RH
>
>>>> [...] Moreover, the so-called better universities have their fill
>>>>complaining students,
>>> And?
>> It means I have demolished your claim. RH
>
> How does the [inevitable] fact that some students are unhappy
>with their courses demolish a claim that OS students, and especially
>the governments and families that support them, prefer to go to the
>more prestigious universities and courses?
The experience demolishes the anticipated experience. RH
>
>> The general trend is to reduce tutorials substantially and to
>>increase the size of tutorials to the point where they are really
>>seminars. RH
>
> Do you have evidence for these trends?
Students have increased vastly more rapidly than teaching staff. Do the
arithmetic. Oh, sorry, I forgot that you are a professional
mathematician and consequently will have difficulty with arithmetic. RH
> Outside Oxbridge. we
>have always had tutorials that were "really seminars". Nothing new.
>
There is a great deal of difference between a tutorial with 3 or 4
people and a seminar with 12+. RH
>>>> [...] I wonder how many have attended Oxford Brooks University
>>>>under the impression it was part of OU. RH
>>> It is normal in America and Europe for cities to have two or
>>> more universities. 18yo Malaysian students may not know the difference
>>> between them, but their government certainly does -- they inspect our
>>> courses, syllabuses, etc., regularly and expect reports on the students
>>> they are sponsoring.
>> Courses and syllabuses mean nothing in themselves any more than
>>written constitutions do. It is the execution which matters. RH
>
> Nevertheless, I expect the Malaysian officials who come round
>from time to time know which university in Oxford they are visiting
>and are competent to assess whether the students they talk to are
>getting good value for money.
>
Hilarious. Most students, like most tourists, will be very reluctant to
say they are not getting value for money. Morover, many foreign students
are privately funded. RH
>[...]
>>>> The ever rising figures for EU students at all types of British
>>>>university belie that claim... RH
>>> Then perhaps you should acknowledge that the reason just could
>>> be that "all types of British university" are offering better courses
>>> than their counterparts elsewhere for these particular students.
>> Doesn't follow. The English language is a great draw.
>
> Really? You don't think that students in France, Germany, etc
>are, other things being equal, likely to prefer a university in which
>the lectures are given in their own language and follow on from the
>Baccalaureate or the Abitur, etc., to one in which the lecture are given
>in a foreign language and follow on from a quite different syllabus?
>Especially if their own universities are, as you seem to think, better.
>
Well, most foreign students don't come from countries with well
established university systems. Moreover, if British degrees are much
cheaper and less time consuming they will attack people from the EU in
particular. RH
>> British
>>universities may be cheaper than most other universities in the First
>>World, not least because most of our degrees are three year courses
>>compared with 5 or six which is the norm in Europe.
>
> Instead of producing these theories, why not check? If you
>didn't already know, you could have found out in less than five minutes
>what the fee structures are elsewhere in the EU. You have previously
>been told about the Bologna Process, but clearly that didn't penetrate.
>In 1997, your theories might have held water; today, they have sunk.
>
So, you are saying that Italian universities offer 3 year degree
courses? RH
>> American
>>universities are penal in their charges. RH
>
> Realistic rather than penal.
Universities with students graduating with debts of $100k+ aren't penal
in their charges? RH
> The extent to which other
>countries are cheaper simply reflects differing levels of subsidy
>and differing levels of equipment, library provision, and so on.
>
>>>> [...] The point is universities compete for students because the
>>>>money is attached to them., RH
>>> The money always was attached to them, or do you think the UGC
>>> used to give out teaching money to departments with no students?
>> They didn't attach the money to the student. They gave a sum to the
>>department. That is what matters. RH
>
> They gave a sum to the department to teach so-many students.
>UGC and its successors always did, they still do. There has been some
>tinkering at the edges
Love it. Do tell.... RH
>over the past 40 years, but nothing to justify
>your outbursts.
>
>>>>> Your primary claim was that govt policy was causing us to lower
>>>>> standards to attract students to get more money.
>>>> Sigh. That is because you have to get the students to bring in the
>>>>money.
>>> We always did.
>> There was a big difference in the numbers of places available and
>>those after them 20 years ago. IT was easy to fill most courses with
>>least adequate students than. It isn't now taking the university
>>sector overall. RH
>
> I see no evidence of any significant change. There have always
>been courses that were hard to fill. There are more "at least adequate"
>applicants than ever before, but there is still a mis-match between what
>they want to do and what courses are available. Top universities moan
>and groan, but still fill up; the tail end [perforce] respond by setting
>up new courses in demand areas and closing down their failing areas --
>and by trying to climb out of the tail.
Pure fantasy. The fact that 40%+ of school-leavers now start degree
courses means the average IQ is far lower and consequently the quality
downgraded. RH
>
>>>> It is irrelevant to the argument that their is a cap on the
>>>>number of students. If you university is allowed 50 people on a
>>>>course, you want 50 not less. RH
>>> We always did. I was an Admissions Tutor for over a third of
>>> a century. Throughout that time, we were given quotas, and missing
>>> that quota [over or under] was always a serious problem
>> It wasn't that rigid. I can ember when I was at Keele the numbers
>>varying by a few either way each year. RH
>
> (a) In your time, quotas were being increased year-on-year
>anyway.
The numbers went down as well as up during my time there. Nor was there
any restriction on the numbers an individual dept could cater for. In
fact, Keele students did not formally decide on their degree subjects
until the end of the Foundation Year. That would be impossible now. RH
> (b) All sorts of factors affected the relation between the
>total number of FTEs and the *admissions* quota -- students failing,
>or changing course or withdrawing, transfers in or out. (c) It's
>a random process anyway -- students apply [mostly] in the Autumn
>and get offers, *then* in December AT's are told how many to recruit,
>*then* students decide which offers to accept. It is, and always has
>been, crazy. The miracle is that mostly it more-or-less works, and
>we get within two or three of quota.
>
>>>> [...] They can get the info easily enough by Googling. RH
>>> They can get virtually all the information we impart by googling,
>>> but they prefer to hear it from us.
>> And your evidence fro this as a retired academic is?
>
> My successor as AT is a personal friend, and I have been known
>to talk to him in the past two years .... I've even popped in to the
>dept occasionally.
My woprd, that's brooks no argument - not... RH
>
>> The coming
>>generation has a very different view to where to get info. The web is
>>king for them. RH
>
> It has been for a decade or so. Almost all interaction between
>UCAS, applicants and universities has been computerised for *years*. I
>would still discourage anyone from signing up to a course at a place
>they have never visited. Spending three or more years at a university
>is a rather more serious commitment than going to a random resort for a
>two-week holiday.
>
No suggested that they did not visit the course, merely that they got
their info about failure rates, class awards etc online. RH
>>>> [...] Please don't try to tell me that even so-called leading
>>>>universities don't struggle to get top notch students in those
>>>>subjects. RH
>>> Whether or not they struggle, you can be sure that they get many
>>> more applications from top-notch students than do weaker universities,
>>> and much less difficulty filling quotas with them.
>> That says nothing. Better than the weaker does not mean adequate. RH
>
> You specifically referred to "top notch students", not to the
>merely adequate.
Sigh. Adequate only has meaning in context. You claim Nottingham only
has top notch students in Maths. Hence, an adequate Nottingham maths
students has to be top notch. RH
>
>>>> [...] That's not what normal human beings do when engaged in
>>>>something shady. RH
>>> What are you claiming is "shady"?
>> More hilarious bounded mind incomprehension. It is shady because
>>dropping standards is an academic sin. RH
>
> The question was "what", not "why".
No, the question was why the dropping of standards woulod not be
admitted by the university. The reason is the one I have already given.
RH
> You have not explained
>how something carried out in the full public glare, with no secrecy
>as to the standard asked for or as to what standard the applicants
>have obtained, can be shady.
> No department wants to drop its entry
>requirements, and doing so is rather often counterproductive and
>an act of desperation prior to closure. So it may be clever or
>[more likely] stupid, but it's not sinful or shady.
>
It is if it is not admitted to. Every University official I have ever
heard dealing with questions about dropping standards has baldly denied
that it has happened. Normally they claim quite absurdly that standards
have risen. RH
Andy Walker
>>> Hence, you have to make sure most pass. Doh! RH
>> But there is no pressure to do so for *funding* reasons, so
>> your claim that it follows changes to the UGC is false.
> funding. RH
But in that sense *everything* we do is liable to cause good
or bad publicity which will be reflected in future funding. *Passing*
too many == bad mark == reduced future funding. Writing letters to
the Times/Grauniad/Telegraph == bad mark, not writing letters == bad
mark, rejecting applicants == bad mark, .... Everything. Anything
which may cause some employer or parent or civil servant to think ill
or well of the department. You can keep your head down and be trampled
on by those with better PR or you can raise it above the parapet and
get shot. Still absolutely nothing to do with changes to the UGC, so
your OP was utter rubbish.
>> Do you have evidence for these trends?
> Students have increased vastly more rapidly than teaching staff. Do the
> arithmetic. [...]
Right. That means we have become much more efficient in the
way we deliver modules; it means we have come to use many more admin
staff [freeing up teaching staff time]; it means we employ teaching
fellows; and we have many more postgrads [who can be used to aid
teaching -- routine weekly marking, assisting with problem classes
-- to the benefit of everyone].
>> Outside Oxbridge. we
>> have always had tutorials that were "really seminars". Nothing new.
> There is a great deal of difference between a tutorial with 3 or 4
> people and a seminar with 12+. RH
Indeed there is. At Nottingham, we had tutorials of 7 or 8
in the sixties, and now have tutorials of 5. Further, as the routine
exercises have been hived off to problems classes and marking to PGs,
the tutorials are much more productive educationally.
[UK universities attracting more EU students:]
> Well, most foreign students don't come from countries with well
> established university systems. Moreover, if British degrees are much
> cheaper and less time consuming they will attack people from the EU in
> particular. RH
Where in the EU are you claiming does not have a well-
established university system? And repeating your claims about
UK degrees does not make the claims true. See:
>> Instead of producing these theories, why not check? If you
>> didn't already know, you could have found out in less than five minutes
>> what the fee structures are elsewhere in the EU. You have previously
>> been told about the Bologna Process, but clearly that didn't penetrate.
>> In 1997, your theories might have held water; today, they have sunk.
> So, you are saying that Italian universities offer 3 year degree
> courses? RH
Is there some reason why you can't find these things out by
yourself? Essentially the whole of Europe [not just the EU] is moving
more or less quickly to the BP model, which is much closer to the UK's
system than to the former systems in France, Germany, etc. Italy has
had the three-year "Laurea Triennale" for over a decade.
>>> American
>>> universities are penal in their charges. RH
>> Realistic rather than penal.
> Universities with students graduating with debts of $100k+ aren't penal
> in their charges? RH
What would you expect the realistic cost of three or four years
living away from home at Harvard or Yale, attending dozens of modules
given by world-class experts, receiving personal tuition from them and
having them check through and mark your work, and having access to
world-class libraries, IT facilities, sports facilities, ... -- what
would you expect that cost to be? It costs about two-thirds of that
in the UK for a four-year degree, despite the much lower levels of
provision, much lower staff salaries, and substantial subsidy.
[...]
>> They gave a sum to the department to teach so-many students.
>> UGC and its successors always did, they still do. There has been some
>> tinkering at the edges
> Love it. Do tell.... RH
>> over the past 40 years, but nothing to justify
>> your outbursts.
What do you want to know? Mostly it's been changes in the level
of micro-management -- at times, they have simply given us faculty or
departmental targets, at others they have specified numbers on each
course -- and in the degree of relaxation with which they have approached
the exercise. But in addition there have been periodic attempts by the
govt to steer things, so that we get "initiatives". These usually take
the form of [eg] being allowed to recruit up to 5 extra students if they
are "first in family" [or whatever the latest fad is].
> [...] The fact that 40%+ of school-leavers now start degree
> courses
You have been told this before -- you are falling for govt
spin. You need to distinguish 18yos going onto 3-yr degree courses
from people under 30 going into HE and then to compare like with like.
Not that bringing the UK into line with the rest of the civilised
world is an unworthy aim.
> means the average IQ is far lower
No it doesn't. You've been around this before, as well, and
made your usual pig's ear of the maths involved. Not that IQ has ever
or should ever be a serious consideration in whether or not someone is
likely to benefit from HE.
> and consequently the quality
> downgraded. RH
That doesn't follow either. But keep digging.
[...]
>>> It wasn't that rigid. I can ember when I was at Keele the numbers
>>> varying by a few either way each year. RH
>> (a) In your time, quotas were being increased year-on-year
>> anyway.
> The numbers went down as well as up during my time there.
Very possibly, eg if an earlier overshoot was being clawed back.
> Nor was there
> any restriction on the numbers an individual dept could cater for.
That may have been true in some depts; ITYF that science and
engineering depts often had [and have] absolute limits based on the
availability of lab space.
> In
> fact, Keele students did not formally decide on their degree subjects
> until the end of the Foundation Year. That would be impossible now. RH
No it wouldn't. (a) In recent years, the funding councils have
generally been much more concerned with overall numbers than with the
micro-management. (b) It just means that the admissions quotas would
be pooled, giving in fact a greater degree of flexibility. Within that
there would be a model for how many students were expected to gravitate
towards each degree course.
[...]
>>>> What are you claiming is "shady"?
>>> More hilarious bounded mind incomprehension. It is shady because
>>> dropping standards is an academic sin. RH
>> The question was "what", not "why".
> No, the question was why the dropping of standards woulod not be
> admitted by the university. The reason is the one I have already given. RH
But dropping standards is not of itself dishonest. Pretending
you haven't done it is the sin. No university or department is going
to like dropping standards; in fact, it's an act of desperation. But
if they do do it, there's no escaping the fact [in the way that might
have been possible a few decades ago, when admissions criteria were
not made public]. *You* may not keep an eye on the required grades
of any particular course, but schools do -- and they're very quick to
ring up and ask questions if anything changes.
> [...] Every University official I have ever
> heard dealing with questions about dropping standards has baldly denied
> that it has happened. Normally they claim quite absurdly that standards
> have risen. RH
You mean you have found a course that used to ask for, say, ABC
and now asks for ACC and denies this is lower? Do tell.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
Robert Henderson
<ne...@cuboid.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>> Hence, you have to make sure most pass. Doh! RH
>>> But there is no pressure to do so for *funding* reasons, so
>>> your claim that it follows changes to the UGC is false.
>> Sigh. [...]. The logic is this: fail too many students = bad dept
>>mark = reduced future funding. RH
>
> But in that sense *everything* we do is liable to cause good
>or bad publicity which will be reflected in future funding.
Irrelevant to the point at issue which is the effect of failing too many
students early in their courses. RH
>*Passing*
>too many == bad mark == reduced future funding. Writing letters to
>the Times/Grauniad/Telegraph == bad mark, not writing letters == bad
>mark, rejecting applicants == bad mark, .... Everything. Anything
>which may cause some employer or parent or civil servant to think ill
>or well of the department. You can keep your head down and be trampled
>on by those with better PR or you can raise it above the parapet and
>get shot. Still absolutely nothing to do with changes to the UGC, so
>your OP was utter rubbish.
>
>>> Do you have evidence for these trends?
>> Students have increased vastly more rapidly than teaching staff. Do
>>the arithmetic. [...]
>
> Right. That means we have become much more efficient in the
>way we deliver modules;
Effing hilarious. The time given to tutorials, the size of tutorials
and the lecture time are all the subject of widespread complaints. RH
> it means we have come to use many more admin
>staff [freeing up teaching staff time]; it means we employ teaching
>fellows; and we have many more postgrads [who can be used to aid
>teaching -- routine weekly marking, assisting with problem classes
>-- to the benefit of everyone].
>
>>> Outside Oxbridge. we
>>> have always had tutorials that were "really seminars". Nothing new.
>> There is a great deal of difference between a tutorial with 3 or 4
>>people and a seminar with 12+. RH
>
> Indeed there is. At Nottingham, we had tutorials of 7 or 8
>in the sixties,
Keele averaged about 4 in my time there. However, there were occasions
when it could be as low as 2 when people were absent. RH
>and now have tutorials of 5. Further, as the routine
>exercises have been hived off to problems classes and marking to PGs,
>the tutorials are much more productive educationally.
Really? Do tell... RH
>
>[UK universities attracting more EU students:]
>> Well, most foreign students don't come from countries with well
>>established university systems. Moreover, if British degrees are much
>>cheaper and less time consuming they will attack people from the EU in
>>particular. RH
>
> Where in the EU are you claiming does not have a well-
>established university system?
Most of Eastern Europe in the sense that they do not have places to come
anywhere near meeting demand. Moreover, it depends on what yoiu call a
well established university system. Would one trust universities which
have only recently emerged from the Soviet bloc to be well established?
RH
> And repeating your claims about
>UK degrees does not make the claims true. See:
>
>>> Instead of producing these theories, why not check? If you
>>> didn't already know, you could have found out in less than five minutes
>>> what the fee structures are elsewhere in the EU. You have previously
>>> been told about the Bologna Process, but clearly that didn't penetrate.
>>> In 1997, your theories might have held water; today, they have sunk.
>> So, you are saying that Italian universities offer 3 year degree
>>courses? RH
>
> Is there some reason why you can't find these things out by
>yourself? Essentially the whole of Europe [not just the EU] is moving
>more or less quickly to the BP model, which is much closer to the UK's
>system than to the former systems in France, Germany, etc. Italy has
>had the three-year "Laurea Triennale" for over a decade.
Continental first degree students routinely take 4 or 5 years to obtain
their degrees. RH
>
>>>> American
>>>>universities are penal in their charges. RH
>>> Realistic rather than penal.
>> Universities with students graduating with debts of $100k+ aren't
>>penal in their charges? RH
>
> What would you expect the realistic cost of three or four years
>living away from home at Harvard or Yale,
The $100k+ is simply the tuition fees. RH
> attending dozens of modules
>given by world-class experts, receiving personal tuition from them and
>having them check through and mark your work, and having access to
>world-class libraries, IT facilities, sports facilities, ... -- what
>would you expect that cost to be? It costs about two-thirds of that
>in the UK for a four-year degree, despite the much lower levels of
>provision, much lower staff salaries, and substantial subsidy.
>
>[...]
>>> They gave a sum to the department to teach so-many students.
>>> UGC and its successors always did, they still do. There has been some
>>> tinkering at the edges
>> Love it. Do tell.... RH
>>> over the past 40 years, but nothing to justify
>>> your outbursts.
>
> What do you want to know? Mostly it's been changes in the level
>of micro-management -- at times, they have simply given us faculty or
>departmental targets, at others they have specified numbers on each
>course -- and in the degree of relaxation with which they have approached
>the exercise. But in addition there have been periodic attempts by the
>govt to steer things, so that we get "initiatives". These usually take
>the form of [eg] being allowed to recruit up to 5 extra students if they
>are "first in family" [or whatever the latest fad is].
Right, so nothing of significance since the abolition of the UGC. RH
>
>> [...] The fact that 40%+ of school-leavers now start degree courses
>
> You have been told this before -- you are falling for govt
>spin. You need to distinguish 18yos going onto 3-yr degree courses
>from people under 30 going into HE and then to compare like with like.
>Not that bringing the UK into line with the rest of the civilised
>world is an unworthy aim.
What is civilised about producing more and more graduates of a lower
standard who earn less and less? RH
>
>> means the average IQ is far lower
>
> No it doesn't. You've been around this before, as well, and
>made your usual pig's ear of the maths involved. Not that IQ has ever
>or should ever be a serious consideration in whether or not someone is
>likely to benefit from HE.
>
You mean like it wasn't in the time of the general application of the
11 plus - not? RH
>> and consequently the quality
>>downgraded. RH
>
> That doesn't follow either.
So, a lower IQ distribution amongst students has no effect on quality?
RH
> But keep digging.
>
>[...]
>>>> It wasn't that rigid. I can ember when I was at Keele the numbers
>>>>varying by a few either way each year. RH
>>> (a) In your time, quotas were being increased year-on-year
>>> anyway.
>> The numbers went down as well as up during my time there.
>
> Very possibly, eg if an earlier overshoot was being clawed back.
>
All that means is that there was no rigid number set. RH
>> Nor was
>>there any restriction on the numbers an individual dept could cater
>>for.
>
> That may have been true in some depts;
It was in all departments. Not once in my four years was there a case of
a student being refused their choice of subject. You need to understand
that the science departments at Keele had to be capable of handling
large numbers of students because every student had to take science
courses in the Foundation Year and a further year's science whilst
taking their main degree. RH
> ITYF that science and
>engineering depts often had [and have] absolute limits based on the
>availability of lab space.
>
See above. RH
>> In
>>fact, Keele students did not formally decide on their degree subjects
>>until the end of the Foundation Year. That would be impossible now. RH
>
> No it wouldn't. (a) In recent years, the funding councils have
>generally been much more concerned with overall numbers than with the
>micro-management. (b) It just means that the admissions quotas would
>be pooled, giving in fact a greater degree of flexibility. Within that
>there would be a model for how many students were expected to gravitate
>towards each degree course.
But there is a difference with Keele degrees as they were when I was
there, the degree subject(s) is/are decided before the student goes to
university today. RH
>
>[...]
>>>>> What are you claiming is "shady"?
>>>> More hilarious bounded mind incomprehension. It is shady because
>>>>dropping standards is an academic sin. RH
>>> The question was "what", not "why".
>> No, the question was why the dropping of standards woulod not be
>>admitted by the university. The reason is the one I have already
>>given. RH
>
> But dropping standards is not of itself dishonest.
> Pretending
>you haven't done it is the sin.
That is precisely what they do. Moreover, if you value academic quality
it is a sin to drop the standards. RH
> No university or department is going
>to like dropping standards; in fact, it's an act of desperation. But
>if they do do it, there's no escaping the fact [in the way that might
>have been possible a few decades ago, when admissions criteria were
>not made public]. *You* may not keep an eye on the required grades
>of any particular course, but schools do -- and they're very quick to
>ring up and ask questions if anything changes.
>
>> [...] Every University official I have ever heard dealing with
>>questions about dropping standards has baldly denied that it has
>>happened. Normally they claim quite absurdly that standards have
>>risen. RH
>
> You mean you have found a course that used to ask for, say, ABC
>and now asks for ACC and denies this is lower? Do tell.
>
Oh dear, the poor old bounded mind trapped in its love of quantified
data. No, what happens is course demands whatever it needs to fill the
course then swears blind that however poor the qualifications of
successful applicants are thye quality of the course has gone up. RH
Andy Walker
>> But in that sense *everything* we do is liable to cause good
>> or bad publicity which will be reflected in future funding.
> Irrelevant to the point at issue which is the effect of failing too many
> students early in their courses. RH
You were trying to produce chains of consequences. There
is no reason at all for universities to fail too many [or too few]
students; they do better by failing exactly those who deserve to
fail. More generally, they do best by having a high reputation,
which is difficult to achieve, but easy to throw away. You seem
to think that taking low-quality students and giving them firsts
they don't deserve is a way of gaining reputation -- phooey.
>>> Students have increased vastly more rapidly than teaching staff. Do
>>> the arithmetic. [...]
>> Right. That means we have become much more efficient in the
>> way we deliver modules;
> Effing hilarious. The time given to tutorials, the size of tutorials
> and the lecture time are all the subject of widespread complaints. RH
As ever, you are the master of irrelevance. You seem to
be asserting that we have become too efficient. But AAMOF, I have
*never* heard any complaint from a student about those things
[assuming that by "lecture time" you mean hours devoted to it, not
the time when the lecture is delivered, which is indeed a common
source of grumbling]. However, with hundreds of universities, tens
of thousands of courses, and millions of students, it's inevitable
that there will be some complaints ....
>> [...] Further, as the routine
>> exercises have been hived off to problems classes and marking to PGs,
>> the tutorials are much more productive educationally.
> Really? Do tell... RH
Nothing to tell. If we don't have to deal with routine
exercises and marking in tutorials, then we can spend more time
dealing with real points of difficulty.
[...]
>> Where in the EU are you claiming does not have a well-
>> established university system?
> Most of Eastern Europe in the sense that they do not have places to come
> anywhere near meeting demand.
You mean they have higher standards, and don't let just
anyone into their universities?
> Moreover, it depends on what yoiu call a
> well established university system. Would one trust universities which
> have only recently emerged from the Soviet bloc to be well established? RH
Presumably they should be as well-established as universities
which only emerged from below the "binary divide" at about the same
time? Academics meet colleagues from all over the world, and while
there is a certain cachet attached to the Ivy League or Oxbridge, I'm
not aware of any general sneering at the quality of universities in,
say, Poland.
[...]
>>> So, you are saying that Italian universities offer 3 year degree
>>> courses? RH
>> Is there some reason why you can't find these things out by
>> yourself? Essentially the whole of Europe [not just the EU] is moving
>> more or less quickly to the BP model, which is much closer to the UK's
>> system than to the former systems in France, Germany, etc. Italy has
>> had the three-year "Laurea Triennale" for over a decade.
> Continental first degree students routinely take 4 or 5 years to obtain
> their degrees. RH
In some countries they still do, but the BP will get them in
the end. France, Germany and Italy are among the countries that have
more-or-less implemented the BP, meaning that they are now in line
with the UK.
>>>> [...] There has been some
>>>> tinkering at the edges
>>> Love it. Do tell.... RH
>>>> over the past 40 years, but nothing to justify
>>>> your outbursts.
>> What do you want to know? Mostly it's been changes in the level
>> of micro-management [...]
> Right, so nothing of significance since the abolition of the UGC. RH
Nothing of significance since long before that. As I said.
[...]
>> Not that bringing the UK into line with the rest of the civilised
>> world is an unworthy aim.
> What is civilised about producing more and more graduates of a lower
> standard who earn less and less? RH
What is civilised about not giving UK students the same chances
of a place in HE as their counterparts in France, Germany, ...?
>> [...] Not that IQ has ever
>> or should ever be a serious consideration in whether or not someone is
>> likely to benefit from HE.
> You mean like it wasn't in the time of the general application of the 11
> plus - not? RH
You're full of confusions. If you can put that into coherent
form as something about IQ and admission to HE, as opposed to the 11+
and entry to secondary education, you might find a point.
>>> and consequently the quality
>>> downgraded. RH
>> That doesn't follow either.
> So, a lower IQ distribution amongst students has no effect on quality? RH
You haven't demonstrated a lower IQ distribution, nor that it
would be relevant if there was. There are many HE courses for which
skills such as research, writing reports, working in groups, manual
dexterity, cultural skills [foreign language, music, etc] and others
are much more relevant than ability to progress Raven's matrices.
[...]
>>> The numbers went down as well as up during my time there.
>> Very possibly, eg if an earlier overshoot was being clawed back.
> All that means is that there was no rigid number set. RH
No, it means there *was* a rigid number set, and the relevant
depts were being "punished" for overshooting it. Fined, in effect.
>>> Nor was
>>> there any restriction on the numbers an individual dept could cater
>>> for.
>> That may have been true in some depts;
> It was in all departments.
I'm tolerably certain that if the advanced physics labs had
room for [say] 100 students, they would not have built another lab
simply because you had chosen to be the 101st. By the time they got
to 95, they would be exerting more-or-less subtle pressure on the
less motivated students to choose something else.
> Not once in my four years was there a case of
> a student being refused their choice of subject. You need to understand
> that the science departments at Keele had to be capable of handling
> large numbers of students because every student had to take science
> courses in the Foundation Year and a further year's science whilst
> taking their main degree. RH
FY labs are a different kettle of fish from the specialised
[and expensive] equipment needed for the final year. There are in
any case statistical expectations. If every student at Keele had
suddenly decided to do Russian and Geology, then the lecturers in
those subjects would have been completely overwhelmed, and unable
to run tutorials, while their counterparts in French and Geography
would have been redundant. You can't run universities on that basis
so there has to be a degree of coercion and of managed admissions.
>>> In
>>> fact, Keele students did not formally decide on their degree subjects
>>> until the end of the Foundation Year. That would be impossible now. RH
>> No it wouldn't. [...]
> But there is a difference with Keele degrees as they were when I was
> there, the degree subject(s) is/are decided before the student goes to
> university today. RH
Then your claim is that Keele has chosen to adopt a different
model, in line with other universities, rather than that their old
model would be impossible.
>> But dropping standards is not of itself dishonest.
>> Pretending you haven't done it is the sin.
> That is precisely what they do.
Evidence?
> Moreover, if you value academic quality
> it is a sin to drop the standards. RH
It's undesirable, and I don't personally know of a case where
it has happened. In an era of expansion, it's been unnecessary, as
standards rise naturally, so there is scope for mildly-failing courses
to drift down relative to others merely by standing still. Any course
which is doing worse than that is v likely to be due for the chop.
[...]
>> You mean you have found a course that used to ask for, say, ABC
>> and now asks for ACC and denies this is lower? Do tell.
> Oh dear, the poor old bounded mind trapped in its love of quantified
> data. No, what happens is course demands whatever it needs to fill the
> course then swears blind that however poor the qualifications of
> successful applicants are thye quality of the course has gone up. RH
But the standard UCAS offer, the Clearing offer [if appropriate],
and the offers actually made and accepted are all known information. It
can't be done in secret. It is all much more open than in your day.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
Robert Henderson
<ne...@cuboid.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> But in that sense *everything* we do is liable to cause good
>>> or bad publicity which will be reflected in future funding.
>> Irrelevant to the point at issue which is the effect of failing too
>>many students early in their courses. RH
>
> You were trying to produce chains of consequences.
It is called logic.... RH
>There
>is no reason at all for universities to fail too many [or too few]
>students; they do better by failing exactly those who deserve to
>fail.
Oh, the naivety! They cannot fail too many so that is a non-starter....
RH
> More generally, they do best by having a high reputation,
>which is difficult to achieve, but easy to throw away. You seem
>to think that taking low-quality students and giving them firsts
>they don't deserve is a way of gaining reputation -- phooey.
>
>>>> Students have increased vastly more rapidly than teaching staff. Do
>>>>the arithmetic. [...]
>>> Right. That means we have become much more efficient in the
>>> way we deliver modules;
>> Effing hilarious. The time given to tutorials, the size of tutorials
>>and the lecture time are all the subject of widespread complaints. RH
>
> As ever, you are the master of irrelevance. You seem to
>be asserting that we have become too efficient. But AAMOF, I have
>*never* heard any complaint from a student about those things
>[assuming that by "lecture time" you mean hours devoted to it, not
>the time when the lecture is delivered, which is indeed a common
>source of grumbling]. However, with hundreds of universities, tens
>of thousands of courses, and millions of students, it's inevitable
>that there will be some complaints ....
I suggest you read the papers... RH
>
>>> [...] Further, as the routine
>>> exercises have been hived off to problems classes and marking to PGs,
>>> the tutorials are much more productive educationally.
>> Really? Do tell... RH
>
> Nothing to tell. If we don't have to deal with routine
>exercises and marking in tutorials, then we can spend more time
>dealing with real points of difficulty.
Well, maths is of course a distinctly unusual subject because it deals
with function rather than facts and their evaluation. It might
conceivably work for maths but it would not do so for most subjects.
Tutorials are very important for subjects such as history and
philosophy... . RH
>
>[...]
>>> Where in the EU are you claiming does not have a well-
>>> established university system?
>> Most of Eastern Europe in the sense that they do not have places to
>>come anywhere near meeting demand.
>
> You mean they have higher standards, and don't let just
>anyone into their universities?
>
ROTFL! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Fewer university places
per capita will mean a higher general standard because the IQ level will
be higher. RH
>> Moreover, it depends on what yoiu call a
>>well established university system. Would one trust universities which
>>have only recently emerged from the Soviet bloc to be well
>>established? RH
>
> Presumably they should be as well-established as universities
>which only emerged from below the "binary divide" at about the same
>time?
Why? The entire ethos of those teaching would be different in a
post-communist country and Britain. That does not easily change. RH
>Academics meet colleagues from all over the world, and while
>there is a certain cachet attached to the Ivy League or Oxbridge, I'm
>not aware of any general sneering at the quality of universities in,
>say, Poland.
>
>[...]
>>>> So, you are saying that Italian universities offer 3 year degree
>>>>courses? RH
>>> Is there some reason why you can't find these things out by
>>> yourself? Essentially the whole of Europe [not just the EU] is moving
>>> more or less quickly to the BP model, which is much closer to the UK's
>>> system than to the former systems in France, Germany, etc. Italy has
>>> had the three-year "Laurea Triennale" for over a decade.
>> Continental first degree students routinely take 4 or 5 years to
>>obtain their degrees. RH
>
> In some countries they still do, but the BP will get them in
>the end. France, Germany and Italy are among the countries that have
>more-or-less implemented the BP, meaning that they are now in line
>with the UK.
I suspect that this will simply mean they have agreed to do it without
doing it, that is the norm for the EU. RH
>
>>>>> [...] There has been some
>>>>> tinkering at the edges
>>>> Love it. Do tell.... RH
>>>>> over the past 40 years, but nothing to justify
>>>>> your outbursts.
>>> What do you want to know? Mostly it's been changes in the level
>>> of micro-management [...]
>> Right, so nothing of significance since the abolition of the UGC. RH
>
> Nothing of significance since long before that. As I said.
>
The UGC operated on a completed different system which included
favouring the older universities over the newer. RH
>[...]
>>> Not that bringing the UK into line with the rest of the civilised
>>> world is an unworthy aim.
>> What is civilised about producing more and more graduates of a lower
>>standard who earn less and less? RH
>
> What is civilised about not giving UK students the same chances
>of a place in HE as their counterparts in France, Germany, ...?
>
>>> [...] Not that IQ has ever
>>> or should ever be a serious consideration in whether or not someone is
>>> likely to benefit from HE.
>> You mean like it wasn't in the time of the general application of the
>>11 plus - not? RH
>
> You're full of confusions. If you can put that into coherent
>form as something about IQ and admission to HE, as opposed to the 11+
>and entry to secondary education, you might find a point.
The two are obviously linked because the growth in university education
following Robbins was fuelled by the grammars. RH
>
>>>> and consequently the
>>>>quality downgraded. RH
>>> That doesn't follow either.
>> So, a lower IQ distribution amongst students has no effect on quality? RH
>
> You haven't demonstrated a lower IQ distribution, nor that it
>would be relevant if there was.
Simple arithmetic tells you it must because only 25% of the population
have IQs of 111 or better. The average IQ when I was at university was
around 116. RH
>There are many HE courses for which
>skills such as research, writing reports, working in groups, manual
>dexterity, cultural skills [foreign language, music, etc] and others
>are much more relevant than ability to progress Raven's matrices.
>
IQ tests give you the basic intelligence which is needed for most of
these activities, perhaps even all for manual dexterity is probably
linked in some way to IQ because it is about hand/eye co-ordination. I
don';t know of any study which has tested this. RH
>[...]
>>>> The numbers went down as well as up during my time there.
>>> Very possibly, eg if an earlier overshoot was being clawed back.
>> All that means is that there was no rigid number set. RH
>
> No, it means there *was* a rigid number set, and the relevant
>depts were being "punished" for overshooting it. Fined, in effect.
>
>>>> Nor was
>>>>there any restriction on the numbers an individual dept could cater >>>>for.
>>> That may have been true in some depts;
>> It was in all departments.
>
> I'm tolerably certain that if the advanced physics labs had
>room for [say] 100 students, they would not have built another lab
>simply because you had chosen to be the 101st. By the time they got
>to 95, they would be exerting more-or-less subtle pressure on the
>less motivated students to choose something else.
NO such pressure was ever brought to light and you could bet that it
would have been if it had existed because it went against the whole idea
of Keele then. RH
>
>> Not once in my four years was there a case
>>of a student being refused their choice of subject. You need to
>>understand that the science departments at Keele had to be capable of
>>handling large numbers of students because every student had to take
>>science courses in the Foundation Year and a further year's science
>>whilst taking their main degree. RH
>
> FY labs are a different kettle of fish from the specialised
>[and expensive] equipment needed for the final year.
It wasn't just the FY year. You had to take a further year during your
principal subject years. RH
> There are in
>any case statistical expectations.
Quite probably. But that does not invalidate what I told you and which
you wished to argue about for some reason best known to yourself, even
though I had been a student under the regime and you have never worked
at Keele. Talk about being on a hiding to nothing.... RH
>If every student at Keele had
>suddenly decided to do Russian and Geology, then the lecturers in
>those subjects would have been completely overwhelmed, and unable
>to run tutorials, while their counterparts in French and Geography
>would have been redundant. You can't run universities on that basis
>so there has to be a degree of coercion and of managed admissions.
>
>>>>
>>>>In fact, Keele students did not formally decide on their degree
>>>>subjects until the end of the Foundation Year. That would be
>>>>impossible now. RH
>>> No it wouldn't. [...]
>> But there is a difference with Keele degrees as they were when I was
>>there, the degree subject(s) is/are decided before the student goes
>>university today. RH
>
> Then your claim is that Keele has chosen to adopt a different
>model, in line with other universities, rather than that their old
>model would be impossible.
What are you on? I merely pointed out the difference between then and
now. RH
>
>>> But dropping standards is not of itself dishonest.
>>> Pretending you haven't done it is the sin.
>> That is precisely what they do.
>
> Evidence?
You have the never ending complaints of university teachers about the
quality of the students they get and the fact that average student IQ
must as a matter of arithmetic be reduced from what it once was. RH
>
>> Moreover, if you value academic
>>quality it is a sin to drop the standards. RH
>
> It's undesirable, and I don't personally know of a case where
>it has happened. In an era of expansion, it's been unnecessary, as
>standards rise naturally
Rise naturally? ROTFL! Please demonstrate this claimed logical
inevitability. RH
#
>, so there is scope for mildly-failing courses
>to drift down relative to others merely by standing still. Any course
>which is doing worse than that is v likely to be due for the chop.
>
>[...]
>>> You mean you have found a course that used to ask for, say, ABC
>>> and now asks for ACC and denies this is lower? Do tell.
>> Oh dear, the poor old bounded mind trapped in its love of quantified
>>data. No, what happens is course demands whatever it needs to fill the
>>course then swears blind that however poor the qualifications of
>>successful applicants are thye quality of the course has gone up. RH
>
> But the standard UCAS offer, the Clearing offer [if appropriate],
>and the offers actually made and accepted are all known information. It
>can't be done in secret. It is all much more open than in your day.
>
And? That does not stop lower A Level scores being required. Moreover,
the inflation of A Level grades hides the decline in scores required
because a B now is not worth a B twenty years ago. RH
Bob LeChevalier
>>There are many HE courses for which
>>skills such as research, writing reports, working in groups, manual
>>dexterity, cultural skills [foreign language, music, etc] and others
>>are much more relevant than ability to progress Raven's matrices.
>
>IQ tests give you the basic intelligence
IQ tests measure your ability to take certain kinds of tests. Nothing
else.
The people who postulate multiple intelligences probably are closer to
the mark, but even there I question that it is possible to measure any
sort of innate ability in a particular subject matter short of having
the student attempt to learn that material.
>which is needed for most of these activities,
A minimum level of intelligence is needed for many activities, but it
is a relatively low minimum. There is no particular reason to believe
that someone above that minimum with higher IQ will be any better at
any of the listed activities. In particular, my IQ is measured quite
high, but my manual dexterity is poor (fumble fingers), I have good
general language skills but find learning foreign languages to be
extremely difficult (in part, I think, because I tend to cogitate and
analyze rather than relying on whatever innate skills I might have),
and music is something I have no talent for. And very bright people
are often noted for a lack of social skills needed for group work
(though I have improved greatly in this arena since college).
My son, who has a learning disability, measures an IQ probably 20
points lower than his actual ability, and below average. He takes
tests poorly in general, but his musical talent is outstanding, and he
has excellent group skills as well.
>>>> But dropping standards is not of itself dishonest.
>>>> Pretending you haven't done it is the sin.
>>> That is precisely what they do.
>>
>> Evidence?
>
>You have the never ending complaints of university teachers about the
>quality of the students they get and the fact that average student IQ
>must as a matter of arithmetic be reduced from what it once was. RH
Actually, that may not be true, since measured IQs of the general
population have risen slowly over time.
>> It's undesirable, and I don't personally know of a case where
>>it has happened. In an era of expansion, it's been unnecessary, as
>>standards rise naturally
>
>Rise naturally? ROTFL! Please demonstrate this claimed logical
>inevitability. RH
The sum of human knowledge continually grows. Because of this, the
educational requirements for various careers have tended to rise
slowly with time (I am not talking about degrees required, but of the
actual knowledge.). Here in the US they talk of falling standards,
but in fact many concepts that were taught in secondary school in my
schooldays (1960s) are now taught in lower grades. In maths, they
talk of teaching algebra in the middle school grades, while in my
schooldays it was still possible to graduate secondary school without
any algebra at all.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Andy Walker
>> There
>> is no reason at all for universities to fail too many [or too few]
>> students; they do better by failing exactly those who deserve to
>> fail.
> Oh, the naivety! They cannot fail too many so that is a non-starter.... RH
Why would they want or expect to? A "pass" degree is universally
recognised as an attendance certificate -- "This student has been at that
university doing such-and-such course, he has been to a few lectures and
tutorials, and has shown that he understands some things better than the
general public, but don't rely on him for specialist knowledge." For a
student to do worse than that implies incompetence on a major scale,
should be rare, esp after the first year, and normally means that the
university is only too pleased to see the back of the student.
[...]
>> Nothing to tell. If we don't have to deal with routine
>> exercises and marking in tutorials, then we can spend more time
>> dealing with real points of difficulty.
> Well, maths is of course a distinctly unusual subject because it deals
> with function rather than facts and their evaluation.
Don't be so daft. Two of the three major parts of maths deal
extensively -- virtually exclusively -- with facts and their evaluation,
the third [pure maths] is the one that needs most help via tutorials,
not least.
> It might
> conceivably work for maths but it would not do so for most subjects.
> Tutorials are very important for subjects such as history and
> philosophy... . RH
They're very important for maths, and AFAIK for every subject.
What we *don't* want to do with them is waste them dealing with the
routine aspects, equivalent to you spending your history tutorials
being told the date of the battle of Trafalgar.
>>> Most of Eastern Europe in the sense that they do not have places to
>>> come anywhere near meeting demand.
>> You mean they have higher standards, and don't let just
>> anyone into their universities?
> ROTFL! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Fewer university places
> per capita will mean a higher general standard because the IQ level will
> be higher. RH
So tell us again, then. Are you saying that universities in,
say, Lithuania have a higher standard than universities in the UK?
Why aren't top UK students flocking to Vilnius rather than Cambridge?
Or are you merely saying that a university founded in 1571 is not as
well-established as, say, Keele? You seem to have a very "Cold War"
view of how uncivilised eastern Europe is.
> [...] The entire ethos of those teaching would be different in a
> post-communist country and Britain. That does not easily change. RH
You have some very strange views about teaching. I expect
there are a few topics in history or economics where it was important
to toe a communist line, but the vast majority of academics, in Poland,
Hungary or Lithuania as much as in the UK, are just ordinary people who
happen to be [mostly] rather bright and enthusiastic about some aspect
of knowledge, and keen to research in that aspect and to pass on their
enthusiasms to young people.
>> [...] France, Germany and Italy are among the countries that have
>> more-or-less implemented the BP, meaning that they are now in line
>> with the UK.
> I suspect that this will simply mean they have agreed to do it without
> doing it, that is the norm for the EU. RH
Whereas it's easy to promise to increase butter production or
to stop subsidising car manufacturing, and just as easy to find ways
around those promises, it's rather hard to have three-year degrees
[there's a clue in the Italian "Triennale"] that actually run for the
four or five that you allege. You would have quite a lot of dischuffed
students [and their families] clamouring to be let out, and while UK
students are mostly rather docile politically, in France, Germany and
Italy they tend to take to the streets and attempt violent revolutions
at the slightest pin-prick.
It's not the sort of thing where lip-service will do, as there
are implications for "credit transfer" and, within the EU [the BP is
across Europe, not just the EU], for job mobility.
[...]
>>>> What do you want to know? Mostly it's been changes in the level
>>>> of micro-management [...]
>>> Right, so nothing of significance since the abolition of the UGC. RH
>> Nothing of significance since long before that. As I said.
> The UGC operated on a completed different system which included
> favouring the older universities over the newer. RH
But that favouritism did not affact in the slightest the pressure
on every AT to get numbers spot on, neither over nor under, relative to
the targets set by the UGC and its successors. That the targets were
unfair is quite another matter.
>>>> [...] Not that IQ has ever
>>>> or should ever be a serious consideration in whether or not someone is
>>>> likely to benefit from HE.
>>> You mean like it wasn't in the time of the general application of the
>>> 11 plus - not? RH
>> You're full of confusions. If you can put that into coherent
>> form as something about IQ and admission to HE, as opposed to the 11+
>> and entry to secondary education, you might find a point.
> The two are obviously linked because the growth in university education
> following Robbins was fuelled by the grammars. RH
So your claim is that grammar schools said "Look, we have lots
of really bright pupils in our sixth forms who would benefit from HE
but are being denied the chance" and that *as a consequence* universities
should look at 11+ results, as proxies for IQ tests, to see if applicants
should have a place? Well, it would be a Brave Decision. For the
foreseeable future, I'm tolerably sure they will continue to look at the
A-level results. As an AT, I barely glanced even at GCSE results, and
that only as a sanity check against what the school was saying about the
applicant's performance and predictions at A-level.
>>> So, a lower IQ distribution amongst students has no effect on
>>> quality? RH
>> You haven't demonstrated a lower IQ distribution, nor that it
>> would be relevant if there was.
> Simple arithmetic tells you it must because only 25% of the population
> have IQs of 111 or better. The average IQ when I was at university was
> around 116. RH
You've been around that arithmetic before, and all that you
managed to prove was that you didn't understand it.
>> There are many HE courses for which
>> skills such as research, writing reports, working in groups, manual
>> dexterity, cultural skills [foreign language, music, etc] and others
>> are much more relevant than ability to progress Raven's matrices.
> IQ tests give you the basic intelligence which is needed for most of
> these activities, [...].
No they don't, as BobLeC has pointed out to you. That's quite
apart from the reversal in your argument. You aren't given intelligence
by IQ tests, rather an IQ test is a [heavily flawed] measure of your
basic intelligence. It may not be possible for really stupid people
to do well on IQ tests, but it is certainly possible for really clever
ones to do badly -- and for students who get firsts, even in maths, to
have measured IQs below 100.
[...]
>> I'm tolerably certain that if the advanced physics labs had
>> room for [say] 100 students, they would not have built another lab
>> simply because you had chosen to be the 101st. By the time they got
>> to 95, they would be exerting more-or-less subtle pressure on the
>> less motivated students to choose something else.
> NO such pressure was ever brought to light and you could bet that it
> would have been if it had existed because it went against the whole idea
> of Keele then. RH
All that shows is that physics [and engineering, computing,
pharmacy, ...] never got to the stage of having more students than
they could cope with. For those subjects, it is easily controlled at
the admissions stage, eg by limiting the numbers taken with maths and
physics [eg] A-levels.
>> FY labs are a different kettle of fish from the specialised
>> [and expensive] equipment needed for the final year.
> It wasn't just the FY year. You had to take a further year during your
> principal subject years. RH
So you could have taken what the rest of HE would have called
an "appreciation" course in, say, Physics. The only difference you
have managed to explain between Keele than and Nottingham today is
that you were *required* to take an appreciation course whereas only
some of our students are required to do so, the rest being permitted
[and indeed encouraged]. There is still a big difference between the
physics modules laid on for non-physicists and those aimed at the
final-year specialists.
>> There are in
>> any case statistical expectations.
> Quite probably. But that does not invalidate what I told you and which
> you wished to argue about for some reason best known to yourself, even
> though I had been a student under the regime and you have never worked
> at Keele.
I'm not arguing about what you were told, just pointing out
the practicalities. Keele could not have coped with large numbers of
students opting to do a "Physics major", whatever the theory. If you
had expressed a desire to do serious amounts of physics, I expect you
would have been told that before you could do general relativity you
needed to get up to speed on maths and physics first, which would have
put you a couple of years behind.
As I have told you before, I have nothing against Keele, a
perfectly respectable 2nd-division university in your time and where
I was offered a job in 1969. It just wasn't as unusual as you seem
to think, except in quite minor ways.
[...]
>>>>> In fact, Keele students did not formally decide on their degree
>>>>> subjects until the end of the Foundation Year. That would be
>>>>> impossible now. RH
>>>> No it wouldn't. [...]
>>> But there is a difference with Keele degrees as they were when I was
>>> there, the degree subject(s) is/are decided before the student goes
>>> university today. RH
>> Then your claim is that Keele has chosen to adopt a different
>> model, in line with other universities, rather than that their old
>> model would be impossible.
> What are you on? I merely pointed out the difference between then and
> now. RH
OK, I assumed you to be claiming that the old Keele model was one
that is now impossible, given changes to funding regimes, etc., whereas
in fact you seem to be merely claiming that Keele has changed its mind.
>>>> But dropping standards is not of itself dishonest.
>>>> Pretending you haven't done it is the sin.
>>> That is precisely what they do.
>> Evidence?
> You have the never ending complaints of university teachers about the
> quality of the students they get
So when academics complain about lower standards, this ia a
pretence that they have better students? This is separate from whether
the complaints [which have been going on since at least Ancient Greece]
are justified -- most complaints start out with "We've used the same
test for 25 years and ...", apparently without realising that they need
to adapt their tests to modern syllabuses, teaching methods, etc., etc.
> and the fact that average student IQ
> must as a matter of arithmetic be reduced from what it once was. RH
Your arithmetic is flawed, as well as irrelevant.
>>> Moreover, if you value academic
>>> quality it is a sin to drop the standards. RH
>> It's undesirable, and I don't personally know of a case where
>> it has happened. In an era of expansion, it's been unnecessary, as
>> standards rise naturally
> Rise naturally? ROTFL! Please demonstrate this claimed logical
> inevitability. RH
It's not "inevitable", it's just that if a course is sinking
faster than the expansion, it's likely to be doomed anyway. Lowering
standards is simply not a way to attract more students, so the only
realistic way out is to close the course down [which incidentally gives
a boost to other courses in the same subject]. Modern universities are
quite ruthless in this respect.
[...]
>> But the standard UCAS offer, the Clearing offer [if appropriate],
>> and the offers actually made and accepted are all known information. It
>> can't be done in secret. It is all much more open than in your day.
> And? That does not stop lower A Level scores being required.
But it stops the lowering being covert. You can be quite sure
that if Nottingham ever lowers standards, our rivals will jump on the
fact. *You* might not hear about it, but all the applicants will.
> Moreover,
> the inflation of A Level grades hides the decline in scores required
> because a B now is not worth a B twenty years ago. RH
Well, that's a different [and contentious] debate. *If* there
has been a decline in standards of A-levels, it is nevertheless the case
that at almost all universities -- and certainly at "old" universities
-- the jacking up of required grades far exceeds are grade inflation.
The course for which I was responsible went from BC in 1972, when I was
first involved in admissions, to AAA a few years back. Luckily, where
they go in the future is no longer my problem, but I'd rather be an AT
in that situation than one facing decline ....
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
Robert Henderson
<ne...@cuboid.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> There
>>> is no reason at all for universities to fail too many [or too few]
>>> students; they do better by failing exactly those who deserve to
>>> fail.
>> Oh, the naivety! They cannot fail too many so that is a non-starter.... RH
>
> Why would they want or expect to? A "pass" degree is universally
>recognised as an attendance certificate
Evidence? To get a pass degree used to mean you scored between 35-44
in your finals. RH
>-- "This student has been at that
>university doing such-and-such course, he has been to a few lectures and
>tutorials, and has shown that he understands some things better than the
>general public, but don't rely on him for specialist knowledge." For a
>student to do worse than that implies incompetence on a major scale,
>should be rare, esp after the first year, and normally means that the
>university is only too pleased to see the back of the student.
Because of the way IQ is distributed, our university system must now
taking many students with IQs below 110 because only 25% of the
population have IQs of 110 or better. There will be substantial numbers
below 100. Because many with IQs of 100 or better will not go to
university.
>
>[...]
>>> Nothing to tell. If we don't have to deal with routine
>>> exercises and marking in tutorials, then we can spend more time
>>> dealing with real points of difficulty.
>> Well, maths is of course a distinctly unusual subject because it
>>deals with function rather than facts and their evaluation.
>
> Don't be so daft. Two of the three major parts of maths deal
>extensively -- virtually exclusively -- with facts and their evaluation,
>the third [pure maths] is the one that needs most help via tutorials,
>not least.
Sigh. You have to recognise which function is to be used. That is not
the same as the evaluation of unquantifiable data. RH
>
>> It might
>>conceivably work for maths but it would not do so for most subjects.
>>Tutorials are very important for subjects such as history and
>>philosophy... . RH
>
> They're very important for maths,
But for different reasons to subjects such as history and philosophy.
Maths tutorials will be bringing students to an understanding of
process; history etc tutorials to an understanding of the nature of the
data. RH
> and AFAIK for every subject.
>What we *don't* want to do with them is waste them dealing with the
>routine aspects, equivalent to you spending your history tutorials
>being told the date of the battle of Trafalgar.
>
>>>> Most of Eastern Europe in the sense that they do not have places to
>>>>come anywhere near meeting demand.
>>> You mean they have higher standards, and don't let just
>>> anyone into their universities?
>> ROTFL! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Fewer university
>>places per capita will mean a higher general standard because the IQ
>>level will be higher. RH
>
> So tell us again, then. Are you saying that universities in,
>say, Lithuania have a higher standard than universities in the UK?
How would you judge the standard of any university? RH
>Why aren't top UK students flocking to Vilnius rather than Cambridge?
The language and the extra cost of the courses. Bear in mind that all EU
law requires is that each country treats foreign students as they would
their own students not provide education at the same price as the
student would pay in their homeland. RH
>Or are you merely saying that a university founded in 1571 is not as
>well-established as, say, Keele?
It depends how corrupted it was by the Soviet period. RH
> You seem to have a very "Cold War"
>view of how uncivilised eastern Europe is.
>
>> [...] The entire ethos of those teaching would be different in a
>>post-communist country and Britain. That does not easily change. RH
>
> You have some very strange views about teaching. I expect
>there are a few topics in history or economics where it was important
>to toe a communist line,
How little you understand of the Soviet Union. Marxism pervaded
everything, including science. Have you never heard of Lysenko? RH
>but the vast majority of academics, in Poland,
>Hungary or Lithuania as much as in the UK, are just ordinary people who
>happen to be [mostly] rather bright and enthusiastic about some aspect
>of knowledge, and keen to research in that aspect and to pass on their
>enthusiasms to young people.
>
>>> [...] France, Germany and Italy are among the countries that have
>>> more-or-less implemented the BP, meaning that they are now in line
>>> with the UK.
>> I suspect that this will simply mean they have agreed to do it
>>without doing it, that is the norm for the EU. RH
>
> Whereas it's easy to promise to increase butter production or
>to stop subsidising car manufacturing, and just as easy to find ways
>around those promises, it's rather hard to have three-year degrees
>[there's a clue in the Italian "Triennale"] that actually run for the
>four or five that you allege.
The continental way is often to take a course lasting a set number of
years but to keep taking sabbaticals. RH
> You would have quite a lot of dischuffed
>students [and their families] clamouring to be let out, and while UK
>students are mostly rather docile politically, in France, Germany and
>Italy they tend to take to the streets and attempt violent revolutions
>at the slightest pin-prick.
Far less then they used to. Even the farmers have been tamed - hundreds
of thousands of small farmers in France have vanished in the 50 odd
years of the EU. RH
>
> It's not the sort of thing where lip-service will do, as there
>are implications for "credit transfer" and, within the EU [the BP is
>across Europe, not just the EU], for job mobility.
>
>[...]
>>>>> What do you want to know? Mostly it's been changes in the level
>>>>> of micro-management [...]
>>>> Right, so nothing of significance since the abolition of the UGC. RH
>>> Nothing of significance since long before that. As I said.
>> The UGC operated on a completed different system which included
>>favouring the older universities over the newer. RH
>
> But that favouritism did not affact in the slightest the pressure
>on every AT to get numbers spot on, neither over nor under, relative to
>the targets set by the UGC and its successors. That the targets were
>unfair is quite another matter.
It had a great deal of practical effect because it meant the older
universities could either expand their numbers or increase the funding
of courses, something especially important in the sciences. RH
>
>>>>> [...] Not that IQ has ever
>>>>> or should ever be a serious consideration in whether or not someone is
>>>>> likely to benefit from HE.
>>>> You mean like it wasn't in the time of the general application of
>>>>the 11 plus - not? RH
>>> You're full of confusions. If you can put that into coherent
>>> form as something about IQ and admission to HE, as opposed to the 11+
>>> and entry to secondary education, you might find a point.
>> The two are obviously linked because the growth in university
>>education following Robbins was fuelled by the grammars. RH
>
> So your claim is that grammar schools said "Look, we have lots
>of really bright pupils in our sixth forms who would benefit from HE
>but are being denied the chance" and that *as a consequence* universities
>should look at 11+ results, as proxies for IQ tests, to see if applicants
>should have a place? Well, it would be a Brave Decision. For the
>foreseeable future, I'm tolerably sure they will continue to look at the
>A-level results. As an AT, I barely glanced even at GCSE results, and
>that only as a sanity check against what the school was saying about the
>applicant's performance and predictions at A-level.
What happened was implied by the 1944 Butler Act which greatly expanded
the grammars. By the fifties it was clear that large numbers of
qualified grammar school children could not get a university education.
The universities expanded to cater to the expansion of qualified
condidates created by the 1944 Act. RH
>
>>>> So, a lower IQ distribution amongst students has no effect on
>>>>quality? RH
>>> You haven't demonstrated a lower IQ distribution, nor that it
>>> would be relevant if there was.
>> Simple arithmetic tells you it must because only 25% of the
>>population have IQs of 111 or better. The average IQ when I was at
>>university was around 116. RH
>
> You've been around that arithmetic before, and all that you
>managed to prove was that you didn't understand it.
This is simple arithmetic. If only 25% of the population has IQs of 110
or better the average IQ of students has to be less than 116. In fact,
it will be considerably less because many of those with IQs over 100
will not go to university. RH
>
>>> There are many HE courses for which
>>> skills such as research, writing reports, working in groups, manual
>>> dexterity, cultural skills [foreign language, music, etc] and others
>>> are much more relevant than ability to progress Raven's matrices.
>> IQ tests give you the basic intelligence which is needed for most of
>>these activities, [...].
>
> No they don't, as BobLeC has pointed out to you.
I suggest you read the Bell Curve. Chapter after chapter demonstrating
that you are wrong. RH
>That's quite
>apart from the reversal in your argument. You aren't given intelligence
>by IQ tests, rather an IQ test is a [heavily flawed] measure of your
>basic intelligence. It may not be possible for really stupid people
>to do well on IQ tests, but it is certainly possible for really clever
>ones to do badly -- and for students who get firsts, even in maths, to
>have measured IQs below 100.
Examples? RH
>
>[...]
>>> I'm tolerably certain that if the advanced physics labs had
>>> room for [say] 100 students, they would not have built another lab
>>> simply because you had chosen to be the 101st. By the time they got
>>> to 95, they would be exerting more-or-less subtle pressure on the
>>> less motivated students to choose something else.
>> NO such pressure was ever brought to light and you could bet that it
>>would have been if it had existed because it went against the whole
>>idea of Keele then. RH
>
> All that shows is that physics [and engineering, computing,
>pharmacy, ...] never got to the stage of having more students than
>they could cope with. For those subjects, it is easily controlled at
>the admissions stage, eg by limiting the numbers taken with maths and
>physics [eg] A-levels.
That wasn't the way Keele worked. Students were accepted
unconditionally. I know people who did not take science A Levels who
switched to science at Keele and students who switched to the Arts and
social sciences having taken science A Levels. . RH
>
>>> FY labs are a different kettle of fish from the specialised
>>> [and expensive] equipment needed for the final year.
>> It wasn't just the FY year. You had to take a further year during
>>your principal subject years. RH
>
> So you could have taken what the rest of HE would have called
>an "appreciation" course in, say, Physics.
Nope. The work done in the subsids was around A Level for those who had
not taken the subject at A Level. For those who had taken it at A level
the standard was higher. RH
> The only difference you
>have managed to explain between Keele than and Nottingham today is
>that you were *required* to take an appreciation course
You have no concept of what Keele was. Apart from the general FY course
which covered the entire core academic curriculum, the subsidiary
subjects were studied in detail. Moreover, students had to cover the
arts, social sciences and sciences in their combination of principle and
subsidiary subjects. Hence, someone taking History and Politics as
principle subjects had to take a science as a subsidiary plus another
subsidiary. Similar rules applied to the two subjects studied in depth
in the FY year. RH
>whereas only
>some of our students are required to do so, the rest being permitted
>[and indeed encouraged]. There is still a big difference between the
>physics modules laid on for non-physicists and those aimed at the
>final-year specialists.
>
That is not the point at issue. Whether principal or subsidiary subject
students the lab time is still taken and it was lab work every week. RH
>>> There are in
>>> any case statistical expectations.
>> Quite probably. But that does not invalidate what I told you and
>>which you wished to argue about for some reason best known to
>>yourself, even though I had been a student under the regime and you
>>have never worked at Keele.
>
> I'm not arguing about what you were told, just pointing out
>the practicalities. Keele could not have coped with large numbers of
>students opting to do a "Physics major", whatever the theory. If you
>had expressed a desire to do serious amounts of physics, I expect you
>would have been told that before you could do general relativity you
>needed to get up to speed on maths and physics first, which would have
>put you a couple of years behind.
Obviously most people who came to Keele took principle courses
appropriate to their A Levels. However, especially in subjects such as
psychology, economics and philosophy which were not then taught in
schools as a rule there could be wide variations in how many opted for a
subject each year. You also need to understand that Keele offered only
dual Honours degrees so the numbers potentially opting for a course were
double the number of students. RH
>
> As I have told you before, I have nothing against Keele, a
>perfectly respectable 2nd-division university in your time and where
>I was offered a job in 1969. It just wasn't as unusual as you seem
>to think, except in quite minor ways.
>
Minor ways such as a four year course with a foundation yera and being
forced to take subjects across the entire core academic curriculum to
obtain a degree you mean? RH
>[...]
>>>>>> In fact, Keele students did not formally decide on their degree
>>>>>>subjects until the end of the Foundation Year. That would be
>>>>>>impossible now. RH
>>>>> No it wouldn't. [...]
>>>> But there is a difference with Keele degrees as they were when I
>>>>was there, the degree subject(s) is/are decided before the
>>>>student goes university today. RH
>>> Then your claim is that Keele has chosen to adopt a different
>>> model, in line with other universities, rather than that their old
>>> model would be impossible.
>> What are you on? I merely pointed out the difference between then and
>>now. RH
>
> OK, I assumed you to be claiming that the old Keele model was one
>that is now impossible, given changes to funding regimes, etc., whereas
>in fact you seem to be merely claiming that Keele has changed its mind.
It would be impossible now as something which all students take because
of funding. RH
>
>>>>> But dropping standards is not of itself dishonest.
>>>>> Pretending you haven't done it is the sin.
>>>> That is precisely what they do.
>>> Evidence?
>> You have the never ending complaints of university teachers about the
>>quality of the students they get
>
> So when academics complain about lower standards, this ia a
>pretence that they have better students?
What are you on? IT means they are saying the students now are poorer
quality. RH
> This is separate from whether
>the complaints [which have been going on since at least Ancient Greece]
>are justified -- most complaints start out with "We've used the same
>test for 25 years and ...", apparently without realising that they need
>to adapt their tests to modern syllabuses, teaching methods, etc., etc.
>
>> and the fact that average student IQ
>>must as a matter of arithmetic be reduced from what it once was. RH
>
> Your arithmetic is flawed, as well as irrelevant.
Sigh. 25% of the population have IQs of 110 or better. 43% of those
under 30 go to university. Do the maths. RH
>
>>>> Moreover, if you value academic
>>>>quality it is a sin to drop the standards. RH
>>> It's undesirable, and I don't personally know of a case where
>>> it has happened. In an era of expansion, it's been unnecessary, as
>>> standards rise naturally
>> Rise naturally? ROTFL! Please demonstrate this claimed logical
>>inevitability. RH
>
> It's not "inevitable", it's just that if a course is sinking
>faster than the expansion, it's likely to be doomed anyway.
BUJt you said "rise naturally". Now you are saying sink if you can't
swim. 40 years ago the drop out rate was two or three per cent across
the British university spectrum, now it is over ten per cent. . RH
> Lowering
>standards is simply not a way to attract more students, so the only
>realistic way out is to close the course down [which incidentally gives
>a boost to other courses in the same subject]. Modern universities are
>quite ruthless in this respect.
>
>[...]
>>> But the standard UCAS offer, the Clearing offer [if appropriate],
>>> and the offers actually made and accepted are all known information. It
>>> can't be done in secret. It is all much more open than in your day.
>> And? That does not stop lower A Level scores being required.
>
> But it stops the lowering being covert. You can be quite sure
>that if Nottingham ever lowers standards, our rivals will jump on the
>fact. *You* might not hear about it, but all the applicants will.
>
Lower offers = more students because the lower the offer the greater
the number of people qualified. If the prime concern of a university
is to fill courses that is all that matters. RH
>> Moreover,
>>the inflation of A Level grades hides the decline in scores required
>>because a B now is not worth a B twenty years ago. RH
>
> Well, that's a different [and contentious] debate. *If* there
>has been a decline in standards of A-levels, it is nevertheless the case
>that at almost all universities -- and certainly at "old" universities
>-- the jacking up of required grades far exceeds are grade inflation.
>The course for which I was responsible went from BC in 1972, when I was
>first involved in admissions, to AAA a few years back.
And when there are zillions of people with AAA, what then? RH
> Luckily, where
>they go in the future is no longer my problem, but I'd rather be an AT
>in that situation than one facing decline ....
>
--
Andy Walker
> [....] To get a pass degree used to mean you scored between 35-44 in
> your finals. RH
It was 40-44 at most universities. Doesn't matter -- what you
regularly forget is that marks have no absolute meaning. If your essay
scores [say] 65%, it doesn't mean that nearly a third of your essay is
wrong, but that the marker has assessed your essay as being the sort of
work that a middling 2.1 student would produce, and the convention is
that a middling 2.1 is given 65%. Similarly, 40% [or 35% in your case]
does not mean that 2/5 of your work is right, but that the marker thinks
your efforts just about deserve to pass.
[...]
> Because of the way IQ is distributed, our university system must now
> taking many students with IQs below 110 because only 25% of the
> population have IQs of 110 or better. There will be substantial numbers
> below 100. Because many with IQs of 100 or better will not go to
> university.
As usual in this debate, your arguments are innumerate, as
I have explained to you several times before. More important, they
are *irrelevant*. No-one selects students on the basis of their IQ
[which is indeed very rarely known], but on the basis of whether
the AT believes them capable of benefiting from the course.
[...]
>>> Well, maths is of course a distinctly unusual subject because it
>>> deals with function rather than facts and their evaluation.
>> Don't be so daft. Two of the three major parts of maths deal
>> extensively -- virtually exclusively -- with facts and their evaluation,
>> the third [pure maths] is the one that needs most help via tutorials,
>> not least.
> Sigh. You have to recognise which function is to be used. That is not
> the same as the evaluation of unquantifiable data. RH
When you're in trouble, stop digging. You don't have even the
foggiest idea what you're talking about. ["Unquantifiable" is your
interpolation, and another indication that you are out of your depth.]
[...]
>> So tell us again, then. Are you saying that universities in,
>> say, Lithuania have a higher standard than universities in the UK?
> How would you judge the standard of any university? RH
Well, it's not something one person can do -- no-one is likely
to be expert in more than about 1% of the topics they offer either for
teaching or for research -- which is why producing ranking lists is
both very difficult and a deeply-flawed process. Having said that,
there is general agreement that [eg] Cambridge is a world-class
university, and that there are a dozen or more UK universities in
the world top 100.
>> Why aren't top UK students flocking to Vilnius rather than Cambridge?
> The language and the extra cost of the courses.
And yet students from across the world are flocking to the UK
despite the language and the extra cost. Why do you find it so hard to
admit that HE in the UK is a success story?
>> You have some very strange views about teaching. I expect
>> there are a few topics in history or economics where it was important
>> to toe a communist line,
> How little you understand of the Soviet Union. Marxism pervaded
> everything, including science. Have you never heard of Lysenko? RH
That would be more relevant were there no similar "scandals" in
other parts of the world. It's not unusual for politicians to get hold
of some piece of science and turn it into a matter of national pride or
other importance. It rarely affects more than one topic or more than
one country, though that may be changing in the modern world, with much
more international co-operation on the grand scale. Incidentally, it's
nearly fifty years since Lysenko was denounced -- by other scientists
within the Soviet Union -- and, broadly, science [inc engineering and
maths] has since then been allowed to develop freely and to a high
standard right across eastern Europe. To repeat:
>> but the vast majority of academics, in Poland,
>> Hungary or Lithuania as much as in the UK, are just ordinary people who
>> happen to be [mostly] rather bright and enthusiastic about some aspect
>> of knowledge, and keen to research in that aspect and to pass on their
>> enthusiasms to young people.
[...]
> The continental way is often to take a course lasting a set number of
> years but to keep taking sabbaticals. RH
Not unusual in the UK either, but nothing to do with the length of
the degree course. The "credit transfer" aspects of the Bologna Process
will steadily force genuine harmonisation of HE, pretty much on the UK
model, across Europe.
>> [...] That the targets were
>> unfair is quite another matter.
> It had a great deal of practical effect because it meant the older
> universities could either expand their numbers or increase the funding
> of courses, something especially important in the sciences. RH
But universities weren't given the *choice*. They were given
money and told what to do with it. They are actually a lot freer today,
partly because the civil service has stepped back from trying to micro-
manage every single course, partly because a much smaller proportion of
HE funding is from the public purse, and partly because the whole system
is much more open to scrutiny and comparisons.
[...]
> What happened was implied by the 1944 Butler Act which greatly expanded
> the grammars. By the fifties it was clear that large numbers of
> qualified grammar school children could not get a university education.
> The universities expanded to cater to the expansion of qualified
> condidates created by the 1944 Act. RH
It has always been the case that demand has exceeded supply --
there have plenty of reports within the past few days of huge numbers
of qualified applicants unlikely to get places, of political parties
falling over themselves to pledge extra places, of parents wittering
on about how Jemima has a string of top GCSEs and is predicted to get
AAA but has still been turned down by cruel, heartless Oxford, and so
on. The UK is still well below most of its rivals in the proportions
of young people stopping on for post-compulsory education and for HE.
[...]
> This is simple arithmetic. If only 25% of the population has IQs of 110
> or better the average IQ of students has to be less than 116. In fact,
> it will be considerably less because many of those with IQs over 100
> will not go to university. RH
It isn't "simple", and you still don't understand it and are
drawing bogus conclusions. There is a reasonably detailed explanation
in the thread "Why university drop outs are so high" from 2005; see
my article "<dijm54$in4$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>". I shouldn't
have to keep repeating corrections to your mistakes.
[...]
> I suggest you read the Bell Curve. Chapter after chapter demonstrating
> that you are wrong. RH
I suggest you read Velikovsky. Chapter after chapter showing
how planets collided within historical times. It's both as accurate
and as relevant as TBC.
[...]
>>> It wasn't just the FY year. You had to take a further year during
>>> your principal subject years. RH
>> So you could have taken what the rest of HE would have called
>> an "appreciation" course in, say, Physics.
> Nope. The work done in the subsids was around A Level for those who had
> not taken the subject at A Level. For those who had taken it at A level
> the standard was higher. RH
That is what happens in the rest of HE. There are typically
sub-A-level modules such as "Maths and Society" or "Physics and the
Environment" as well as "thin" strands in topics such as statistics
or computing.
> You have no concept of what Keele was. Apart from the general FY course
> which covered the entire core academic curriculum, the subsidiary
> subjects were studied in detail. [...]
Yes, we understand all that. Shades of C. P. Snow. All you
are saying is that you were forced to do things that were voluntary
at other universities. Perfectly commendable as an experiment, but
ultimately a failure.
>> [...] It just wasn't as unusual as you seem
>> to think, except in quite minor ways.
> Minor ways such as a four year course with a foundation yera and being
> forced to take subjects across the entire core academic curriculum to
> obtain a degree you mean? RH
Same as, for example, Nottingham then, except that we expected
only students without relevant A-levels to take the foundation year and
that we didn't restrict which subsidiary modules students took.
[...]
>>> What are you on? I merely pointed out the difference between then and
>>> now. RH
>> OK, I assumed you to be claiming that the old Keele model was one
>> that is now impossible, given changes to funding regimes, etc., whereas
>> in fact you seem to be merely claiming that Keele has changed its mind.
> It would be impossible now as something which all students take because
> of funding. RH
Oh, then you're back to what I thought you meant first time.
No, it wouldn't be at all impossible. It's just that Keele has changed
its mind.
>>>>>> But dropping standards is not of itself dishonest.
>>>>>> Pretending you haven't done it is the sin.
>>>>> That is precisely what they do.
>>>> Evidence?
>>> You have the never ending complaints of university teachers about the
>>> quality of the students they get
>> So when academics complain about lower standards, this ia a
>> pretence that they have better students?
> What are you on? IT means they are saying the students now are poorer
> quality. RH
So when they say the students are poorer, they are pretending
that they are better? Proclaiming something in the national media is
a funny way of keeping it secret.
>>> and the fact that average student IQ
>>> must as a matter of arithmetic be reduced from what it once was. RH
>> Your arithmetic is flawed, as well as irrelevant.
> Sigh. 25% of the population have IQs of 110 or better. 43% of those
> under 30 go to university. Do the maths. RH
I did. See the article referenced above. Meanwhile, if you
really want to compare with 20 or 40 years ago, you need to make sure
that you are comparing like with like. You've been warned often enough
about the weasel words in NuLab claims. But the irrelevance is more
important than your innumeracy. No-one of importance cares what the IQ
of university students is, only about whether admitting a particular
student to a particular course will be of benefit to the student and to
the university.
>>>>> Moreover, if you value academic
>>>>> quality it is a sin to drop the standards. RH
>>>> It's undesirable, and I don't personally know of a case where
>>>> it has happened. In an era of expansion, it's been unnecessary, as
>>>> standards rise naturally
>>> Rise naturally? ROTFL! Please demonstrate this claimed logical
>>> inevitability. RH
>> It's not "inevitable", it's just that if a course is sinking
>> faster than the expansion, it's likely to be doomed anyway.
> BUJt you said "rise naturally". Now you are saying sink if you can't
> swim.
Of course "rise naturally". More and more well-qualified
young people are applying each year. You have to be doing something
very wrong if your department is not getting better applicants, and
so cannot raise standards. This is especially true at the bottom end,
where they benefit not only from naturally increased applications but
also from more and better applicants being rejected by the top end.
> 40 years ago the drop out rate was two or three per cent across
> the British university spectrum, now it is over ten per cent. . RH
2-3% is pretty much the irreducible minimum -- students who
drop out for financial/medical/family/personal reasons; it allows
no room at all for purely academic failures. Some universities have
always had much higher drop-out rates [eg, those with a "mission
statement" that includes giving a second/last chance to students who
have previously done badly -- a high-risk strategy with spectacular
successes but many failures]. Anyway, you complaint now seems to be
that we rarely used to fail weak students, whereas now we can't do
it because of the financial pressures we are failing 8% more. Make
your mind up.
[...]
> Lower offers = more students because the lower the offer the greater
> the number of people qualified.
Lower offers == fewer applicants, because students will assume
that your course is worse than those with higher offers. What is more,
your students will tend to be those who could not make higher offers,
esp in Clearing, so you lose out both in quality and quantity. That
is why top universities get more *and* better applicants in the first
place.
[...]
>> The course for which I was responsible went from BC in 1972, when I was
>> first involved in admissions, to AAA a few years back.
> And when there are zillions of people with AAA, what then? RH
Then I'm pleased it's no longer my problem. But at least it's
a better problem to have than a shortage of applicants.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham