Tag Archives: Higher Education

Less than half of the students accepted at UK universities have A levels!

A recent report in the Sunday Times noted that according to UCAS figures only “49.8% of the 425,000 British students accepted at universities across the UK for full-time degrees starting last autumn had taken A-levels, down from nearly 70% in 1999”.  This is a remarkable figure, and reinforces my views abut the dumbing down of UK higher education that has taken place over the last decade.

To be sure, there are many reasons why A levels are no longer seen as the gold standard exam used for university entrance, but as the Sunday Times report goes on to argue, there are huge implications of this change.  Certainly, universities are now taking students from much more diverse backgrounds, and with different qualifications, which is all to the good – providing of course that these students have the intellectual capacity to cope with the rigorous demands of a quality higher education system.

One of the things that really concerns me about this, though, is that as the Sunday Times notes many schools are “pushing academically bright pupils towards vocational exams to improve league table positions. The result is the students have almost no chance of gaining entry to academic courses at top universities, shutting them out of highly paid jobs”. The article goes on to quote Anna Fazackerley, head of education at the Policy Exchange think tank, who claimed that “Vocational courses can be hugely worthwhile… However, many children from less wealthy backgrounds are pushed into less academic courses simply because their school has low aspirations for them and one eye firmly on league tables.”

This is worrying on two grounds: first, that such students appear to be being excluded from the best universities (however defined) because of decisions made by school teachers so as to ensure their success in the league tables; second, that the argument helps to perpetuate the myth that universities are only about creating graduates who will get high paid jobs.  We must never forget that universities should be about so much more than just enabling people to get better paid jobs!

Over the last 20 years, governments and those working in the higher education sector have combined to create a system that is fundamentally flawed, and fails to provide the intellectual and scholarly leadership that we so desperately need in this country.  Since 1992, when the former polytechnics and universities were merged, attempts have continued to create a unified higher education system – driven largely by the flawed belief that we need half of our young people to go to ‘university’.  We need to recognise that these have failed.  We are increasingly creating a system that delivers neither on academic excellence, nor on giving people the high level vocational qualifications that they want or need.

I wish to retain the idea of a “university” as a community of scholars and learners, all of whom are committed to the advancement of knowledge for the good of society.  Universities should not simply be about providing people with technical skills that certain people deem to be useful.  In the UK, we are indeed in need of people with an outstanding technical education; students doing dumbed down degrees at so-called ‘univeristies’, are not gaining the skills that either they, or our economy, require.  We also need outstanding scholars and scientists who are able to push forward the boundaries of knowledge; sadly, our present so-called ‘university’ system is likewise failing to deliver the excellence that it might be capable of – and it is expected to do so with increasingly severe funding cuts!

Leave a comment

Filed under Higher Education

‘Collective’ reflections on plagiarism and the production of knowledges

ICT4D BookParticipating today in a very interesting seminar organised by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) at Woburn House in London, made me reflect on actually why plagiarism is becoming such a ‘problem’, and on ways in which we might create alternative ideas about this.

The first question I wish to raise is whether ‘scientific ideas’ or ‘individual careers’ matter most?  As a starting point, let me suggest that actually it should be the ideas that are of most importance.  Yet, we always tend to associate ideas with people – hence, we have Nobel prizewinners who are individuals. It is authors’ names that are on articles.

But following my logic, if it is the ideas that are of most importance, then perhaps plagiarism actually becomes less of a ‘problem’.  Plagiarism is generally seen as the passing off of someone else’s ideas as being one’s own.  So, if we do not attribute ideas to people, but let the ideas in a sense speak for themselves, and make them available for public scrutiny through for example the Web, then the ideas that are deemed to be of most importance might, in a sense, float to the top by popular choice.

This is particularly important right now.  In the UK (as in many other countries) governments fund universities – both directly and through research councils.  Governments, very literally, pay academics to produce knowledge.  So, a case could be made for this knowledge to be ‘published’ under the government’s or research council’s ‘name’.  Imagine a world where there were no author(s)’s names on published articles.  Journal articles would just be known by their titles and the funding source.  Would not this be more open and honest?

What does the individual author’s name matter – other than for their own personal careers?  In a world where knowledge has increasingly become a commodity, where individual academic careers depend largely on publication records, where departmental and institutional reputations and thus funding rest on publications and grants, it is of course essential that authors are named.  That is why plagiarism is so important an issue. But if we want to fragment this system, if we believe in knowledge as something so much more valuable than a commodity, if we wish to make this freely available – if we want to be a little less selfish about our own careers – then perhaps, there is some value in my proposal.

After all, as one of my former PhD students regularly reminds me, where do our ideas actually come from?  We can never cite all of the influences on our writing.  I am quite sure that the inspirational lectures that I listened to as an undergraduate in one of the best universities in the world have influenced my subsequent writing.  The beggars I met on the street in Bihar have also influenced my ideas.  I am ashamed that I do not always cite them as influences on my writing – although I do indeed try to mention them in my acknowledgements.  In a sense, almost all of our written work is indeed plagiarised…

3 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Higher Education

Further reflections on the refereeing process

Not so long ago, I wrote about some of the issues associated with peer reviewing of research grant proposals.  This morning, I received editorial comments on one of my recently submitted papers – four sets of comments were broadly supportive, usefully recommending changes that would improve the paper.  However, a fifth referee clearly had not understood the purpose of the paper, which was a largely qualitative analysis of ICTs and disability in Ghana.  This is what the referee wrote:

“The paper lacks a profound research method & data analysis techniques.
In order to improve the paper I suggest:
-You develop taxonomy of the various possible factors (drivers, benefits, barriers, pitfalls) related to:
ICT & Special Education Needs in Developing Country Settings.
-Make a thorough field study grounded by previously derived taxonomy
-Use statistical analysis to determine the correlations between the taxonomies & derive the hypothesis for the study. Or use grounded theory analysis if you are interested more in the phenomenon rather than the correlations.
For the time being the paper findings are scattered and cannot be granted as validated or evenaccurate or complete.
Therefore the paper is not ready yet for publishing”.

OK – at one level, I accept that there are indeed different approaches to intellectual enquiry, but it seems quite clear that this referee fails to see the value of qualitative approaches, and is seeking to impose one particular view of the research process.

At least the other referees found something that they liked in the paper:

  • “This article addresses a particularly important issue very well. The authors understand the problem deeply and support their case with relevant evidence and clear writing.”
  • “This manuscript addresses an important and inadequately addressed topic. Data presented is valuable in informing programs and policy needs related to ICT for people with disabilities in educational settings in Ghana and other low-resource communities.”

I am tempted entirely to give up sending papers to academic journals – let’s face it, few people read them anyway – and instead simply put out material on the Internet and see what readers themselves make of them!

At the very least, I will try in future to submit papers to journals where I have greater faith in the quality of the refereeing process!

———————————————

Following correspondence with the journal’s Editor in Chief, I am delighted to say that my co-author and I are resubmitting our paper, and will include with this a commentary of exactly what we think of the referee’s comments above. Let’s see what happens!

7 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Higher Education

Dumbing down in UK higher education – what’s new?

Three Appeal Court judges ruled on 24th February that Paul Buckland, a professor at Bournemouth University, who resigned in 2007 in a row over the alleged dumbing down of degrees, was treated unfairly.  In essence, Professor Buckland had given fail marks to a number of students, whose papers were subsequently remarked and permitted to pass (for a detailed summary of the case, see the University and College Union News). He had complained, and subsequently resigned as a result of the university’s investigatory process.  As UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “This is an important victory for everyone who values high standards and probity in our universities. Dr Buckland’s defence of academic standards and examination procedures must be congratulated. However, we are deeply concerned about the events that led to this tribunal. Staff need the confidence to be forthright and honest in their comments and assessment of work”.

This is an important and personal case, but what surprises me most about it is that few people or reports seem to have picked up on the fundamental underlying issue, which is that universities across the country have indeed been manipulating the degrees they have been awarding in recent years to give higher marks.  According to the then Department for Children, Schools and Families, between 1994/5 and 2005/6 the percentage of first class and upper second class degrees in HE institutions in the UK increased from 47% of all first degrees awarded to 56%. The latest HESA figures show that this percentage had risen to 62% in 2008/9.

Universities, just like schools, are subject to league tables, and one of the criteria they are frequently  judged by is the percentage of students getting good honours degrees, usually defined as upper seconds and firsts.  Is it therefore surprising that universities have sought means to maximise this figure as they compete in an increasingly competitive market?  Moreover, it is perfectly possible to manipulate the percentages of good degrees gained, even without any changes in the actual rigour of the marking. Typical of such ways are the following:

  • changing the mechanisms for awarding degree grades by, for example, ignoring the worst 20% of marks given
  • discounting the first year exam marks, when students often do worst as they get used to the university system
  • reducing the amount contributed by terminal exams to the overall assessment, and increasing the amount of coursework at which most students usually do better

There is also some evidence that actual marking is becoming more lenient, as universities seek to encourage more diverse expressions and interpretations in response to assignments that are set.  This was the issue that gave rise to the original disagreement at Bournemouth. Attention paid to the quality of written expression has, in many institutions, declined, and it is therefore scarcely surprising that employers regularly complain about the quality of these skills in apparently highly qualified graduates!  The nature of assignments has also in many instances changed to make them easier.  Typical of this is the expectation of what is required for an undergraduate research dissertation.  Years ago, it was expected that students would spend most of the summer vacation between their second and third years undertaking their dissertations – and I indeed still expect a substantial amount of empirical work to be done for a dissertation to gain a good mark.  However, on more than one occasion colleagues have berated me saying that this is completely unreasonable, because students have to gain paid employment over the summer to cover their fees, and that I should therefore be willing to accept what I consider to be paltry amounts of empirical work.

The situation is at least as bad in many Master’s degrees, especially where foreign students are concerned.  Many universities rely heavily on the financial income derived from fees paid by foreign students.  Despite the requirements imposed on such students to have high language scores as tested, for example, by the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), the reality is that many such students do not have sufficient language abilities to perform at a high level in written terminal examinations.  Many Master’s degrees which in the past were assessed by terminal examinations that required a high degree of competency in academic writing in English, are now being assessed purely by course assignments, and even in some cases largely by oral presentations!  As is well know, anyone who can use a word processor with  grammar and spelling checkers can produce a half-competent piece of written work, even when their ability to do so without such support is very much less!  The assessment requirements are less challenging, and therefore the pass rates remain high.  Universities are too desperate for the fees that such students bring in that they cannot be seen to be failing large numbers of them; the assessment system therefore has to change to accommodate the financial realities.

To make matters even worse, this percentage increase in ‘good degrees’ is taking place at a time when many universities have reduced the amount of time academic staff actually spend teaching students so that they are able instead to concentrate on research.  Across the country, class sizes have gone up, there are fewer and fewer personal or group tutorials, and undergraduates have less and less contact with academics!

This is of course not to deny that many students work incredibly hard, and get the good degrees that they deserve.  However, it is to claim that university degrees taken as a whole have seen very considerable dumbing down in recent years.  There is nothing extraordinary or surprising about this.  Universities do have some clever people working for them, and in a competitive market place where they are being judged in part on the number of ‘good degrees’ that they award, some of them are bound to find ways of manipulating the system!  There is nothing new in this.

2 Comments

Filed under Education, Higher Education

Mandelson hammers another nail into the coffin of higher education in the UK

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Peter Mandelson, hammered another nail into the coffin of UK higher education in his letter of 22nd December to the Chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) confirming the Council’s budget for 2010/11. As has been widely reported (Independent, BBC, Daily Mail, Guardian) this announced that

  • an additional £135 million ‘adjustment’ will be required, over and above the ‘£180 million efficiency savings’ currently being implemented and the £83 million deduction announced in October 2008 (albeit noting that the government has agreed to switch £84 million from universities’ capital baselines so that the teaching gtant reduction can be held to £51 million);
  • ‘adjustments’ will be made to those institutions that have over-recruited, at a rate of £3,700 per full time under-graduate and PGCE student;
  • the net effect on funding will be a reduction in the HEFCE Grant Settlement from £7,809 million in 2009/10 to £7,291 in 2010/11;
  • HEFCE is being encouraged to develop proposals that will ‘provide significant incentives to enhance the economic and social impact of research’; and
  • the government wishes ‘to see more programmes, such as foundation and fast-track degrees, that can be completed full-time in two years’.

I have commented elsewhere in detail on Mandelson’s announcement in November concerning his Department’s new framework for the success (or should this be ‘failure’) of British higher education, but this latest announcement of cuts, alongside the notion of two-year degrees warrants further critique.  Six main points should be noted:

  • These policies are driven by the completely unsubstantiated belief that we need to have 50% of our population going through university.  Why?  No logical argument is given in support of this, and there is no evidence that this would benefit society, our economy or our young people.
  • Simply cutting university funding across the board is insane.  If these cuts are essential, then underperforming institutions should be closed, thereby enabling the fittest and healthiest to survive.
  • Rather than having two-year academic degrees, surely we should close down many universities and turn them into institutes specifically designed to train young people to be excellent in fields other than academic ones.  It is nonsensical to believe that half of our population is able to undertake and benefit from the highest quality academic degrees.  Surely it is better to provide these people with outstanding training in technical and other skills – be they plumbing, football, dance, culinary expertise, art and design, or marketing.  Some of our ‘competitor’ countries, such as Germany have a fine tradition in this arena – why do we not learn from their successes?  Much can indeed be taught and learnt intensively in two years in fields such as these.
  • For academic subjects – and yes, there is still a need to train young people to the highest level of academic excellence – it is important that time is spent exploring literatures, gaining a rich grasp of a subject, developing critical analytical expertise, and reaching the forefront of knowledge in a discipline.  This is not something that can be crammed into two years.
  • University academics are rightly encouraged to do research alongside their teaching – indeed, it is this combination of research and learning that lies at the heart of what a university is, or at least should be, about.  A university is not just a teaching institution.  If students are therefore to be ‘taught’ to the same level of achievement in two years, academics will quite simply not have enough time to do the research to drive their disciplines forward. UK higher education will not just stagnate as it is at present, but will plunge into terminal decline.
  • There are too many vested interests within the system, however, to enable the dramatic changes that I propose to take place.  The net effect will therefore be for student fees to rise higher than already predicted.  These cuts, alongside those announced in the pre-budget report, will lead to a dramatic increase in student fees, which are likely to reach on average around £5,000 a year by 2011, and £7,500 by 2013.  Why is it that so many other countries in Europe are still able to offer ‘free’ higher education to their populations and the UK has decided that it is unable to do so?  Our philistine government persists in seeing higher education as a private rather than a public good.  Before long, English born students will vote increasingly with their feet, and go and study for free in excellent universities oversees where more and more courses are now being taught in English.  What then for the UK’s remaining universities?

3 Comments

Filed under Higher Education

Putting a value on the UK’s universities

The latest report on the ‘added value’ of universities in this country undertaken by academics at the University of Strathclyde for Universities UK, has found that “Universities in the UK now generate £59 billion for the UK economy putting the higher education sector ahead of the agricultural, advertising, pharmaceutical and postal industries, according to new figures published today”.

In more detail, Universities UK summarised the report’s findings as follows:

  • “The higher education sector spent some £19.5 billion on goods and services produced in the UK.
  • Through both direct and secondary or multiplier effects this generated over £59 billion of output and over 668,500 full time equivalent jobs throughout the economy. The equivalent figure four years ago was nearly £45 billion (25% increase).
  • The total revenue earned by universities amounted to £23.4 billion (compared with £16.87 billion in 2003/04).
  • Gross export earnings for the higher education sector were estimated to be over £5.3 billion.
  • The personal off-campus expenditure of international students and visitors amounted to £2.3 billion”.

These are generally interpreted as being very positive results; UK Universities contribute significantly to our economy. Indeed, the Guardian newspaper picks up on the report’s findings, noting in particular that “Higher education generates 2.3% of the UK’s gross domestic product, making it ‘one of the most effective sectors,’ said Ursula Kelly, another of the report’s authors. ‘As a producer of goods and services alone, the sector makes an evidentially large contribution to the UK economy of £19.5bn.’ Universities brought in £5.3bn from overseas students, international conferences and work conducted for overseas businesses. They provide the equivalent of 314,600 full-time jobs, or 1.2% of all full-time jobs in the UK. Those visiting universities from abroad and overseas students spent £2.3bn off-campus, the study found”.

But amidst all this economic justification, let us never forget what universities should be about.  Above all universities should be moving the research frontiers forward, developing innovative and creative science and scholarship, and engaging students in the challenge of using this knowledge to make the world a better place.  It would be worth doing this even if universities did not make an economic profit.  Their value is worth immeasurably more than these crude economic indicators might suggest. One hallmark of a civilised society is that it has a university sector that is vibrant, pursues excellence, and challenges taken for granted assumptions.  Access to such universities must remain free for the brightest and most able students.  We are in danger of becoming uncivilised.

2 Comments

Filed under Education, Higher Education

Google books – philanthropy or piracy?

In the Observer on 30th Augsut, William Skidelsky has added a contribution to the debate about Google’s plans to create the world’s biggest online library.  As he comments “Google has already scanned 10 million books in its bid to digitise the contents of the world’s major libraries, but a copyright battle now threatens the project, with Amazon and Microsoft joining authors and publishers opposed to the scheme”.

As he points out, Google claims that they are doing this for the good of society.  However, he notes that opponents have been critical on the grounds that:

  • “First, they have questioned whether the primary responsibility for digitally archiving the world’s books should be allowed to fall to a commercial company”, and
  • “The second, related criticism is that Google’s scanning of books is actually illegal”

As he concludes, “No one knows the precise use Google will make of the intellectual property it has gained by scanning the world’s library books, and the truth, as Gleick points out, is that the company probably doesn’t even know itself. But what is certain is that, in some way or another, Google’s entrance into digital bookselling will have a significant impact on the book world in years to come”.

See also

Leave a comment

Filed under Ethics, Higher Education, ICT4D

OECD report on demography and higher education

The OECD has recently (2008 ) published an important monograph entitled Higher education to 2030 (Volume 1): demography (read only version)  In summary, this assumes that:

  • There will be continued expansion of student participation, with majority female participation, greater variation in student profiles and increased emphasis on issues of access and equality.
  • The academic profession is to become more internationally oriented and increasingly mobile. There will also be greater variety in academic employment contracts and a movement away from the traditional concept of a self regulated community of professionals.
  • Society will contain a greater proportion of graduates which will have implications for social well-being and economic growth, the gap between the number of graduates from OECD area and from emerging economies (especially China and India) will be significantly reduced and issues around the social exclusion of those without HE qualifications will rise.

It is a long – but interesting – read, and includes syntheses of much useful data.  It is good to see a chapter by Serge Enersold on ‘Adapting higher education to the needs of disabled students’.

1 Comment

Filed under Accessibility, Higher Education