Really interesting ideas here and in the comments. To some extent we are already starting to see these issues addressed in some arts universities. At the University for the Creative Arts, (which specialises in arts, creative business, technologies and communication) many of our undergraduate degrees will soon have a 4th 'professional practice' year, which will require students to spend their last year of study in industry applying their theoretical/technical skills and gaining valuable work experience. This is quite exciting, and could make entry into highly technical/practice based industries (such as architecture, fashion, design, film/tv, media, gaming, communications) all the more accessible.
Exactly our experience with drivers and many others. Orchestrated attacks on university education do not have the support in the country sometimes claimed.
Also agree about the pivotal importance of Masters' degrees, having organised and run them for thirty years before retiring ten years ago. While they have become of greater structural importance for the reasons you state, the cost has spiralled, creating an individual, social and economic bottleneck.
This is so true. I always have exactly the same conversations with Taxi drivers (and Uber drivers to be fair) and many tell me with much pride that their children are at university, often at the cost of much personal sacrifice from the parents. A Masters would be regarded as incomprehensible and unaffordable l.
Is there not a strong argument for 4- rather than 3-year degrees? Obviously the cost would be greater, not just in terms of fees for students and associated expenses for institutions, but also living costs and so on. But this is the model in Scotland and many other countries, but it would be a worthwhile government investment (I'm very aware that there has been a lot of talk from politicians about going to the other extreme and introducing 2-year degrees). Having the first year spread over two years, as in Scotland, would make building the foundations more practical for those whose background from secondary education has been patchy.
Ian Somerville says 'Whilst there is definitely a need in science and engineering to impart a certain degree of knowledge about the discipline as well as skills such as critical thinking, I'm not convinced the same is true for most degrees in the Arts and Humanities.' The extent to which this is true in practice in some arts and humanities degrees may vary, but traditionally many have indeed required such a thing - in the case of arts degrees, core technical knowledge about the art form, some overview of its history, some practical knowledge in the case of practice-based arts, and most definitely critical thinking (and often much else). And there are various parallels in non-arts humanities. If these are sometimes downplayed, I think one should be aiming to build them up again.
Your implicit message here seems to be that universities in England and Wales should follow Scotland's example and require 4 years of study for an undergraduate degree.
I completely agree with this although we have to be careful not to be too utilitarian about university education. Whilst there is definitely a need in science and engineering to impart a certain degree of knowledge about the discipline as well as skills such as critical thinking, I'm not convinced the same is true for most degrees in the Arts and Humanities.
To my mind, the greatest failing of the universities in terms of access is their abandonment of 'conversion' courses that allow people to retrain as their views on their career change. Part-time courses are particularly important so that students can fund their studies through work.
I believe this is a particular problem for women who are often subjected to peer pressure at school to avoid science and engineering because they aren't 'cool'. Later, when they are more confident, they may wish to retrain and find that there are no real options to do so. My daughter fell into that category and only managed to change to a tech-based career because she got free personal computing tuition and found an enlightened employer who didn't demand a formal qualification.
I actually would prefer to see a 2+2 system with a diploma + masters and the option of mobility after the diploma. This is, of course, a big structural (and cultural change). I strongly agree on 'conversion' masters. There is no reason why we cannot operate them and, actually, we will not be able to address the forthcoming shortage of engineers unless we do.
Would it make some sense to place the Bachelor's threshold at the 2-year mark? Or even jettison the terms 'Bachelor' and 'Masters', with degrees just indicating '2 year' or '4 year' after them? I know in Music various types of diplomas have a stigma attached to them because they indicate not having finished a full degree; rather like having just an MPhil after registering for a PhD.
You seem to suggest that the school curriculum - both at GCSE and degree level - have been degraded such that universities have lowered the standards of their initial BA/BSc courses and consequently have had to introduce MAs to compensate. Am I correct in this assumption? I remember the advent of Foundation courses at universities. Eg for engineering and science courses and computer studies because schools were not adequately preparing students.
Of course in Art and Design this had been the case for many years and was essential because A level art did NOT in any way prépare students for the demands of what became Art, Design and Media degree courses in especially the new universities but also the degree awarding FE colleges.
My son was shocked when he went to study History and Politics at Manchester University that the first year was simply a repeat of what he had done during his A levels - at a very good King Edwards School in Birmingham. I’m speaking 30 years ago.
My own personal experience, having married someone who went to Lancing and Cambridge, was that the books he read at public school were thé ones I read at University. He was upper middle class, I was lower middle class.
There’s a lot in there to explore in your talks with your taxi driver.
I am not sure I think secondary education has 'degraded' but it has changed. Students are, in general, less well prepared for acquiring some of the skills that a degree level technical education requires.
A degree in engineering is not just 'technical' , I would suggest. Nor are degrees in art, design and media. They all require high levels of intellectual, critical and cultural and reflexive skills. These abilities seem to be pursued less rigourously at school and thus are very dependent on informal learning at home. This of course creates a difficult social divide.
As for the secondary school curriculum not having degraded, I would say that Gove took a wrecking ball to it. Eg, he didn't see the need for computer studies and thought facts and dates were the bedrock of education in a period where creative problem-solving was coming to be seen as essential in the so-called knowledge economy.
Facts and dates are certainly not the be-all and end-all of education, but are still vital as a basis for informed critical thinking. If we consider one of the most charged issues at the moment, on 'decolonisation' of education, to consider this issue in an intelligent and informed manner surely requires some factual knowledge of the incidence and nature of colonialism, which powers were involved and when (and when did they withdraw) and ideally something about the relationship of colonialism to commerce, and of major companies' role in first establishing a presence in areas which would come to be more fully colonised. It is far from frequent to hear this level of knowledge brought to bear upon such debates, which are too often sustained simply by dogma.
A colleague in another institution once asked a whole class when they thought World War One had taken place, and few were anything like close - a significant number apparently thought it was in the eighteenth century. Now of course a date is just a number in a literal sense - 1914 in that sense is no more meaningful than 1714 - but if one is to be able to engage with the relationship of something to the context in which it occurred (which was the issue at stake here, in this case with music, though equally applicable to any other cultural field), then some understanding of at what point in history this occurred is surely essential to relate this to other aspects of geopolitics, cultural development at that point, imperialism, technology, communications, political ideologies which were then current, and so on.
Putting one's thoughts on various Education Secretaries to one side, what I see from various quarters are ideologies which maintain that critical and analytical skills can be taught without being backed up by a body of knowledge, especially not anything of a historical nature, which is often deemed not 'relevant'. There are such things as 'facts' which can be ascertained with a fair degree of objectivity, and dates are vital as well.
I think perhaps we have a different view of what a 'technical education' might mean. I agree with your para 1. I disagree however with your para 2. It is a fixed prof serious position not to enter into 'political' discussion, but I believe that creative problem solving is enabled by a framework of formal skills and knowledge that it is critical to impart.
Your analysis (https://seans.substack.com/p/education-1) is interesting and I think contains some valuable suggestions. I take the view however that we can reshape higher education to ensure the value proposition remains strong - better integrated skills at "the lower end" integrated entrepreneurship, networking and content creation at "the upper end". We can add assurance, credentialing and an intellectual framework.
Really interesting ideas here and in the comments. To some extent we are already starting to see these issues addressed in some arts universities. At the University for the Creative Arts, (which specialises in arts, creative business, technologies and communication) many of our undergraduate degrees will soon have a 4th 'professional practice' year, which will require students to spend their last year of study in industry applying their theoretical/technical skills and gaining valuable work experience. This is quite exciting, and could make entry into highly technical/practice based industries (such as architecture, fashion, design, film/tv, media, gaming, communications) all the more accessible.
Exactly our experience with drivers and many others. Orchestrated attacks on university education do not have the support in the country sometimes claimed.
Also agree about the pivotal importance of Masters' degrees, having organised and run them for thirty years before retiring ten years ago. While they have become of greater structural importance for the reasons you state, the cost has spiralled, creating an individual, social and economic bottleneck.
Tim Putnam
sometime Prof of Material Culture
Middlesex and Portsmouth
This is so true. I always have exactly the same conversations with Taxi drivers (and Uber drivers to be fair) and many tell me with much pride that their children are at university, often at the cost of much personal sacrifice from the parents. A Masters would be regarded as incomprehensible and unaffordable l.
Is there not a strong argument for 4- rather than 3-year degrees? Obviously the cost would be greater, not just in terms of fees for students and associated expenses for institutions, but also living costs and so on. But this is the model in Scotland and many other countries, but it would be a worthwhile government investment (I'm very aware that there has been a lot of talk from politicians about going to the other extreme and introducing 2-year degrees). Having the first year spread over two years, as in Scotland, would make building the foundations more practical for those whose background from secondary education has been patchy.
Ian Somerville says 'Whilst there is definitely a need in science and engineering to impart a certain degree of knowledge about the discipline as well as skills such as critical thinking, I'm not convinced the same is true for most degrees in the Arts and Humanities.' The extent to which this is true in practice in some arts and humanities degrees may vary, but traditionally many have indeed required such a thing - in the case of arts degrees, core technical knowledge about the art form, some overview of its history, some practical knowledge in the case of practice-based arts, and most definitely critical thinking (and often much else). And there are various parallels in non-arts humanities. If these are sometimes downplayed, I think one should be aiming to build them up again.
I think, for the reasons you allude to, 2 + 2 might be a politically easier sell!
Your implicit message here seems to be that universities in England and Wales should follow Scotland's example and require 4 years of study for an undergraduate degree.
I completely agree with this although we have to be careful not to be too utilitarian about university education. Whilst there is definitely a need in science and engineering to impart a certain degree of knowledge about the discipline as well as skills such as critical thinking, I'm not convinced the same is true for most degrees in the Arts and Humanities.
To my mind, the greatest failing of the universities in terms of access is their abandonment of 'conversion' courses that allow people to retrain as their views on their career change. Part-time courses are particularly important so that students can fund their studies through work.
I believe this is a particular problem for women who are often subjected to peer pressure at school to avoid science and engineering because they aren't 'cool'. Later, when they are more confident, they may wish to retrain and find that there are no real options to do so. My daughter fell into that category and only managed to change to a tech-based career because she got free personal computing tuition and found an enlightened employer who didn't demand a formal qualification.
I actually would prefer to see a 2+2 system with a diploma + masters and the option of mobility after the diploma. This is, of course, a big structural (and cultural change). I strongly agree on 'conversion' masters. There is no reason why we cannot operate them and, actually, we will not be able to address the forthcoming shortage of engineers unless we do.
Would it make some sense to place the Bachelor's threshold at the 2-year mark? Or even jettison the terms 'Bachelor' and 'Masters', with degrees just indicating '2 year' or '4 year' after them? I know in Music various types of diplomas have a stigma attached to them because they indicate not having finished a full degree; rather like having just an MPhil after registering for a PhD.
You seem to suggest that the school curriculum - both at GCSE and degree level - have been degraded such that universities have lowered the standards of their initial BA/BSc courses and consequently have had to introduce MAs to compensate. Am I correct in this assumption? I remember the advent of Foundation courses at universities. Eg for engineering and science courses and computer studies because schools were not adequately preparing students.
Of course in Art and Design this had been the case for many years and was essential because A level art did NOT in any way prépare students for the demands of what became Art, Design and Media degree courses in especially the new universities but also the degree awarding FE colleges.
My son was shocked when he went to study History and Politics at Manchester University that the first year was simply a repeat of what he had done during his A levels - at a very good King Edwards School in Birmingham. I’m speaking 30 years ago.
My own personal experience, having married someone who went to Lancing and Cambridge, was that the books he read at public school were thé ones I read at University. He was upper middle class, I was lower middle class.
There’s a lot in there to explore in your talks with your taxi driver.
I am not sure I think secondary education has 'degraded' but it has changed. Students are, in general, less well prepared for acquiring some of the skills that a degree level technical education requires.
A degree in engineering is not just 'technical' , I would suggest. Nor are degrees in art, design and media. They all require high levels of intellectual, critical and cultural and reflexive skills. These abilities seem to be pursued less rigourously at school and thus are very dependent on informal learning at home. This of course creates a difficult social divide.
As for the secondary school curriculum not having degraded, I would say that Gove took a wrecking ball to it. Eg, he didn't see the need for computer studies and thought facts and dates were the bedrock of education in a period where creative problem-solving was coming to be seen as essential in the so-called knowledge economy.
Facts and dates are certainly not the be-all and end-all of education, but are still vital as a basis for informed critical thinking. If we consider one of the most charged issues at the moment, on 'decolonisation' of education, to consider this issue in an intelligent and informed manner surely requires some factual knowledge of the incidence and nature of colonialism, which powers were involved and when (and when did they withdraw) and ideally something about the relationship of colonialism to commerce, and of major companies' role in first establishing a presence in areas which would come to be more fully colonised. It is far from frequent to hear this level of knowledge brought to bear upon such debates, which are too often sustained simply by dogma.
A colleague in another institution once asked a whole class when they thought World War One had taken place, and few were anything like close - a significant number apparently thought it was in the eighteenth century. Now of course a date is just a number in a literal sense - 1914 in that sense is no more meaningful than 1714 - but if one is to be able to engage with the relationship of something to the context in which it occurred (which was the issue at stake here, in this case with music, though equally applicable to any other cultural field), then some understanding of at what point in history this occurred is surely essential to relate this to other aspects of geopolitics, cultural development at that point, imperialism, technology, communications, political ideologies which were then current, and so on.
Putting one's thoughts on various Education Secretaries to one side, what I see from various quarters are ideologies which maintain that critical and analytical skills can be taught without being backed up by a body of knowledge, especially not anything of a historical nature, which is often deemed not 'relevant'. There are such things as 'facts' which can be ascertained with a fair degree of objectivity, and dates are vital as well.
I think perhaps we have a different view of what a 'technical education' might mean. I agree with your para 1. I disagree however with your para 2. It is a fixed prof serious position not to enter into 'political' discussion, but I believe that creative problem solving is enabled by a framework of formal skills and knowledge that it is critical to impart.
Your analysis (https://seans.substack.com/p/education-1) is interesting and I think contains some valuable suggestions. I take the view however that we can reshape higher education to ensure the value proposition remains strong - better integrated skills at "the lower end" integrated entrepreneurship, networking and content creation at "the upper end". We can add assurance, credentialing and an intellectual framework.