On the ‘non-courses’ report…

       

The Tax Payers’ Alliance non-course report is truly remarkable. Usually policy formers research their arguments, avoid baseless assertions and try not to be too selective. They at least attempt to make a credible case. The authors of the TPA report do none of this.

The report makes three obvious assertions without any supportive evidence:

1) “The dropout rate at universities reflects the extent to which students come to recognise that continuing to study “non-courses” is a poor use of their time.”

This is purely opinion. The author then cites the latest drop-out percentage available, 20% in 2004/05. However there is no attempt to support his assertion that the drop-out rate is linked to ‘non-courses’.

Aside, the latest drop-out figures are contained in a National Audit Office report which is cited as the TPA’s source. Ironically, the NAO describes only “small changes in the types of subjects studied” between 2002 and 2006, and reveals that the UK is fifth worldwide in terms of retention rates, that is, the number of students who complete their studies. In fact between 1999/2000 and 2005/06, the retention rate increased. This part of the NAO report however, goes uncited by the TPA.

2) “Fourteen institutions have been named and shamed by the Higher Education Funding Council for dropout rates above 25 per cent. Revealing, all are former polytechnics that offer high numbers of “non-courses.”

This appears to make a link between high drop-out rates at certain universities and the number of ‘non-courses’ they provide. There is no evidence given in the report to support such a link.

However, the NAO report does provide an alternative explanation for higher drop-out rates at certain universities. Students with lower A-Level grades are generally more likely to drop-out than students with higher grades. Consequently, institutions with lower admission requirements are likely to have higher drop-out rates. The NAO does not mention ‘non-courses’.

3) “The cost to the taxpayer of this dropout rate alone has been estimated at £300 million each year in subsidised loans and tuition fees.”

This, once again, seems to be making a causal link with ‘non-courses’ without any support. Given that the report fails to make any evidential case that ‘non-courses’ affect the overall drop-out rate, then it is hard to see the relevance of the overall drop-out rate cost.

What we are in fact left with are two seemingly unfounded assertions and one irrelevance.

And briefly, while we are on the subject of cost, the report rightly calculates that ‘non-degrees’ cost over £40 million per year. However there seems to be no consideration at all of the longer term cost benefit, leaving us with no idea of the net economy. Anyone who wants lower taxes should question this.

Apart from being thin in evidence, the report is also misleadingly selective. Crucially, the TPA have two benchmarks by which it measures degrees: Basically, does the course require study that can reasonably be defined as academic? And if a course is entirely practical is there a good reason why it should be taught in an academic environment? However, if we look closer at the report’s top ‘non-course’, we find that the author has been economical with the truth. Outdoor Adventure with Philosophy in fact consists of dissertation work in the final year, which can surely be reasonably defined as academic.

No doubt the authors thought that it would lend more credibility to their case if they could quote academics. They manage to quote three, hardly representative given that there are over one hundred thousand academics in the UK. There has been no attempt, so far as one can tell from the report, to survey a representative number of them.

There is more of this hidden in the report and I advise you to read it and see for yourself. Essentially though, the non-course report is pretty much all opinion. One wonders what the motives of the report are? If it is to reduce tax then why is there no wider calculation into the long-term cost benefit or loss? From what the report says we can have no idea of the net economy. Or perhaps this was just designed to coincide with exam results and to give maximum publicity to the Tax Payer’s Alliance, even if it did take an unfounded attack on a small minority of students to do it.

Not so Sure-Start

I just wanted to draw your attention to two reports out today regarding the failure of Labour in the education sphere. They haven’t had a great deal of press but they should have had more. The first is from Durham University’s Curriculum, Evaluation and Management Centre. They have assessed 35,000 children and concluded that despite a raft of measures by the government primary school starters are showing no signs of improved development.  

 Despite putting education at the top of their agenda over a decade ago the Durham University research shows the chronic failure of major government initiatives and legislation such as ‘Sure-Start’, free nursery education for three year olds, ‘Every Child Matters Program’ and the Children Act 2000 . The Times has reported that collectively this amounts to 3bn in wasted money. 

On top of that the Sutton Trust has reported that there is a growing gender gap between those aspiring to go to university, with boys markedly less likely to go on to study at higher education, almost 10% in fact. This is particularly acute with boys from disadvantaged backgrounds.  

The fact that it’s a boys falling behind or a girl falling behind is an irrelevance. It still shows that this government is failing a large demographic at both ends of their educational life. This is particularly unacceptable when we consider how important a role education plays in ones life. The reports are indicative of Labour’s failings at every level of our society for the past ten years. We are so used to government failure and waste now that even the massive figure of 3bn cited above will do little to stir up voter anger. But it remains true that with Labour enjoying a 5 point lead in the ICM poll the Conservative party should be ramming this type of failure down voters necks to get the message home and only then can we begin the claw back to power.   

‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees – Third installment!

First off, let me identify myself as the ever so politely referred to “other” in Daniel’s post – That is, the one who allegedly claimed that the state should fund golf management degrees. That, I am almost certain, was not my position. What I did seek to highlight, however, is that a degree in golf management, such as the one offered by the University of Birmingham, is not simply one dreamt up by financially greedy institutions, but rather, one that is both recognised and co-partnered by the PGA (and one that potentially leads to the internationally recognised ‘PGA Professional Status’). Any comments perceived as my believing that the state should fund this degree were either misinterpreted, or poorly articulated.

Where universities were once regarded as the intellectual powerhouses of a given country, I fear today they are becoming more and more akin to Tesco’s or ASDA, simply responding to demand, or worse, trying to create its own in hope of financial reward. Degrees in aromatherapy, conspiracy theories, science-fiction, simply do not belong in universities; and to describe this as an intellectually snobbish remark is as feeble as labelling an Israeli foreign policy critic as ‘anti-Semitic’.

I’m not opposed to taxation, but to justify it, the money raised must be invested sensibly and efficiently (as Daniel oh too well believes himself). To try and invest in everything would be like trying to feed the 5000 but without the miracle! State funding for higher education is basically a long-term investment. The government recognises that graduates help to fuel the economy, and so support it through taxation. A degree in history, for example, demonstrates to an employer that the person sat before them possesses certain sought after skills (in analysis, comprehension, literacy etc etc). These skills are transferable, whereas those from a degree in Aromatherapy, I would hazard a guess, are not. As Andy rightly points out in the post below, there is such a thing as training on the job (you know, the thing that has been practiced for hundreds and thousands of years without qualm).

‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees are a waste of tax payers’ money, but more importantly, are a waste of students money. If the government has a role to play here, it is to protect these students from unnecessary amounts of debt.

With regard to ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees.

I for one think that the Tax Payers’ Alliance research in to the phenomenon of what have been termed ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees is welcome. It got a mixed reception, but it is telling that many of the favorable comments on their website/blog come from academic staff at the ‘institutions’ listed. Though officially of course these institutions have defended themselves and charged the authors with academic snobbery. And why wouldn’t they defend such a glorious money making scheme. Hundreds of thousands of students up and down the land are duped every year by the clever marketing and false promises of some of these ‘creative’ courses. Especially wasteful of tax payers’ money are the predominantly practical degrees. This type pf degree was never called for until recently because the training was on the job. The employer wanted skilled staff and thus he paid for the privilege. Even if the state should pay the tax payers’ money would be better spent if it’s used to fund apprenticeships in the workplace. This way it doesn’t punish the tax payer and doesn’t burden the student with around fifteen thousands pounds worth of debt. 

Yet today we see degrees in ‘Equine Psychology’ (horse whispering to lay people). It doesn’t take a genius to work out that there can’t be enough vacant positions to get everybody with this degree in to work. Herein lies the first problem with these degrees: lack of transferability. A person with an esoteric practical degree such as ‘Equine Psychology’ is eligible for a graduate position only in a very narrow industry. People have looked after horses for thousands of years, hundreds of years in a professional capacity, but never and it has never been necessary to have a three year qualification in it. The market seems to be driven by the greed of many new universities who see their institutions as a business first and a seat of learning second. I would never advocate any unnecessary regulation of any market. But in terms of the farce in education at the moment market forces seem incredibly skewed. We have sophisticated marketing campaigns by some universities, always with the focus of ‘getting you where you want to be’.  

On the other hand the lethargy of some British students is a problem. The University of Glamorgan offers what is essentially a science fiction degree.  I’m sure it’s true that some Bsc Science Fiction (a Bsc!!) graduates have found work; a spokeswoman for the University has said that some had gone on to be science teachers. Is it just me or does that statement leave you cold?  Umm…shouldn’t science teachers have proper science degrees? The university has sugar coated science to appeal to people that are apathetic about reading for a real BSc. And herein lies another problem. Universities are now being dictated to by lazy students. They aspire to be teachers, but they don’t want the hassle of wading through mind-blowing physics equations to get there. It speaks volumes that on the short course synopsis for this degree they have stated ‘There are no examinations’. Unbelievable.  

However, a lot of the students on these courses do have ambition and that can never be faulted. But the Universities are cowing to the lazy amongst them. In this respect these courses are the actually the death of ambition. Why work hard toward a cusp of A’s at A-Level if you can get to ‘university’ with two D’s. We live in a global economy, what state will Britain be in 20 years time when Chinese students are all returning home with firsts in Economics from Bristol Uni yet we’ve become a nation of Aromatherapy graduates. The pursuit of knowledge is one of the most egalitarian things I can imagine, it doesn’t come with the status of birth only with honest hard work. Ambition and desire are not class sensitive. John Prescott announced his resignation today. Whether you’re a fan of his, or like me not so much, he started as a cabin boy and then dragged himself up to Oxford because he recognized the value of that degree, not because he wanted a three year holiday at the tax payers’ expense. Detractors of the TPA have said the jobs market changes and thus they are only reacting to this. They fail to recognise that the jobs market has always changed many times in history but the core subjects have always been favoured by credible employers, and they have changed little. They have also said this is academic snobbery but that’s an irrelevance in the pragmatic and cut throat world of graduate employment.  

Perhaps the real tragedy here is the fact that the tax payer isn’t the only victim. The people being duped by the clever marketing of these new universities, and by a general decline in standards, are unfortunately the most disadvantaged in society. They are often the most ill-informed when it comes to choosing a university and a course. Middle class parents on the whole are savvy and better informed about which universities are respected. This is a generalization but generalizations exist for a reason. It may not be fair but it is true.  

Earlier I used the adjective mind-blowing when talking about Physics. I mean this in a positive sense. Part of the greatness of studying at university, open to all remember, is that moment when you discover something that you could never have thought of before alone. That moment when your jaw drops and your think that maybe, just maybe, on your own in a the corner of a dusty old library you read something that will enlighten you forever, that holds a kernel of eternal truth that you can always keep. It’s not marketable but it is magic. That doesn’t happen on an ‘Aromatherapy’ BA’s. This country will be poorer for the loss of that. The tax payer already is.

Russia Update

Currently sitting in an underground internet Cafe in Siberia, just having come out the Altai Mountains. My fellow traveller Brownie has dislocated his shoulder.

However, my other comrade, has updated his blog

 http://leadeersofthefreeworld.blogspot.com

 I realise in the blogosphere there has been a lot of talk about A Conservative Future for Britain of which I am a founder member, I will on my return post a blog on here and on their website for the aims of CF4B.

 Hope your Summers are going well!!

Forget AAA what about the Rs?

In a recent survey more than half of the 500 members of the institute of directors agreed that in the last 10 years there has been no significant improvement of skill in the young workforce. They point out that increased attainment in exams is down to schools being better at preparing students for them but that this has not led to any significant increase in the knowledge or skill level of school leavers.

This is the result of 10 years of target driven educational policy, learning has been forgotten for recitation. I know it myself I have grown up in Blair’s educational programme. To do well you must learn to jump through the exam hoops. It is only thanks to some exceptional teachers that I was shown a more rounded education, which was not demanded of in the syllabus.

It is about time we had a mature approach to education giving freedom to teachers to set engaging and relevant course programs which would engage their students and give them a fuller education. There are many essential skills that we are not teaching children in the rush to get them 3 As. Learning is so much more than exams but we are teaching a generation of people that exams are all and that there is nothing else to do.

i look forward to a wind of change in education that would break the strangle hold central government has over educational policy let those who are trained to teach decide to a certain extent what to teach.

Better grades do not mean we have better skill levels. Just more people able to memorise great if we all want to be actors!

One-Trick Brown

         

Ask yourself, would Blair have come back from his summer holiday in Barbados because of an outbreak of foot and mouth? My feeling is probably not. Gordon Brown on the other hand, interrupted a short break in Dorset.

Blair could have got away with not being there at the initial outbreak of foot and mouth. Brown, however, didn’t have the option. His main strength is that he is a safe pair of hands, and he has typecast himself as such. He’s now stuck with it, and his whole reputation depends on being seen and seen to be in control.

The failed terror attacks, the floods and foot and mouth have all reinforced the typecast. Every statement he made in response was aimed to reassure. In fact whenever he appears on television, there’s hardly any difference in presentation, in tone or in content. There is no variation in response. It’s just reassuring.

But what if people get bored with being reassured? Blair like Thatcher could easily reassure, but they never allowed themselves to be typecast. Part of their appeal was that you never quite knew what to expect and that sometimes they themselves were slightly out of control. Their reputations did not depend entirely on being a safe pair of hands. To an extent people expect politics to be a Shakespearian drama, and the more dimensional its central character, the better the drama. Gordon Brown is one-dimensional and boring.

That said there have been attempts to make boring interesting. Labour commentators have argued that Gordon Brown represents the end of personality politics. Except, they know it’s not true. Politics, like any part of the public sphere, will always be about personality, and personality is part of what being Prime Minister is about.

For the moment though, the public are finding Brown’s style, distinct for its lack of style, an interesting change. It reminds me of John Cage’s piece of silent music. He famously performed his four minutes of silence in 1952. After initial interest, one observer noted that, “mostly what you could hear was people getting up and walking out.”

A snap election is not Brown’s intention…

         

I’ve convinced myself Brown won’t go to the polls this year. I bet a friend lunch that he won’t, so I’m trying to think positive.

If I were Brown, I’d be tempted to call an election pretty much now. The polls indicate that Labour would win a three figure majority. The Conservatives could even, catastrophically, lose seats.

But I look at Brown and then think of a snap election, and somehow the two don’t go together. I can imagine him flirting with the idea, but then erring on the side of caution.

For one thing, an election this early would look opportunist, and if he were to go through with it there’s a chance the Tories might gain seats, or even win. Think of Harold Wilson, who despite good polls, lost to Heath in 1970.

Where Tony Blair might take the risk, I’m not sure it’s in Brown’s nature.

That said, he’s certainly making no attempt to stop the speculation. For one, he might wake up one morning and feel like an election. More likely though, he’s allowing for the speculation to force the Tories right where he wants them.

Given the Tory’s poll ratings lately, their main objective in a snap election would be to not lose any seats. Accordingly, we can expect to see a retreat to ’comfort zone’ issues in a tactical attempt to shore up the core vote. 

No doubt some on the Tory Right would welcome a shift towards electoral oblivion. But if I were Cameron, I’d call Brown’s bluff. His aim is not to win an early election, but to divide and conquer, and force the Conservatives to the right and out of contention. The electorate will reward Cameron for standing firm. My prediction is May 2010, and a free lunch.