The best model of higher education?

[Hans de Vries]

I am a bit confused and need some opinions..

 

1. What model of higher education (at a national level) is the best in your opinion, dear forum users? What I managed to conclude from my limited knowledge is that there are two quite distinct models of higher education - the American one and European one (with British being the most distinct). The first one is based on high autonomy of a university and also on high number of private schools which dominate both the best (Ivy League, MIT, Caltech etc) and the worst (various evangelical schools etc.) end of the spectrum. In Europe most universities are state funded and the best universities in Europe are also state funded. In all of Europe attempts to create a competitive private higher education sector have generally not yielded impressive results - why?

 

2. How good those best universities (you know - Oxfors, Cambridge, MIT and so on) are at a basic bachelor/master level compared to a sound European university (such as Belgian KU Leuben)? Here in Netherlands all unis are above world average but they are also very close to each other. There are no bad universities but there are no shining stars either.

[michel123456]

AMAIK Belgian KU Leuven is private, owned by the Catholic Church. Very good level.

The rating between universities is based on a large range of matters, not only the level of studies.

[physica]

Don't know much about any other countries but the UK universities I don't think UK universities live up to the reputation they have. UK universities are obsessed with their reputation and will happily neglect their students to hit technicalities to keep their rank. I know of a professor of vascular surgery at Imperial College London that doesn't have a single piece of equipment in his lab apart from computers, he doesn't do research but makes all his juniors write and publish literature reviews in any journal that will take them, Although it's nothing original he technically gets loads of publications a year so Imperial like him. There is also a sense of elitism. Young 18 year olds are constantly told they are the best of the best if they go to a russell group university in the UK. If you take it with a pinch of salt it will be ok but this can turn some into a very small minded arrogant adult. Also the UK education is very constricted and it does cut corners. You usually spend 3 years to get a undergraduate degree, only one year to get a masters and only three years to get a phd (shorter than other countries), English graduates are rushed through the system quickly and are not very rounded only focusing on the bones of their chosen subject. Like their focus on the ranking system you can graduate from a good university by memorising the bones of your subject to pass exams. I don't know if this is a worldwide problem but again I've met plenty of graduates who admit that they barely know anything about their degree subject despite getting good grades. It also depends of what subject you do in the UK. I have a friend who did a masters at Imperial college London (ranked 5th in the world at the time) in clinical research and passed it with no problems with a distinction not spending much time on it at all. He then did another masters at Birkbeck College (300th in the world) in statistics and he's studying long hours every day, struggling and getting a merit. I'm also going a second degree. My contrast in university rankings isn't so extreme but I'm finding a physics degree so much harder. It depends what you want out of an education. If you just want a degree just to get into a management etc do a medical/bio based degree in the UK. There is an government funded national health service that is not very efficient with it's money or high with it's academic standards. They chuck loads of money at medical "innovation" and "research" without really looking into it. you will be able to party a lot, get it done really quickly (as the degrees are shorter), have an easy time getting grades and your tutors will neglect you but work round the clock to make sure that your university has a high ranking in the worldwide figures.

 

If you want to go the extra mile you won't get rewarded. I got told once by a tutor not to work so hard. Didn't really understand because it was clear that he wasn't reading what people wrote anyway. I have a friend who did a phd at Oxford and he changed one word to penguins throughout his paper to see if his supervisor read it. They handed it back to him saying it was a good read. If you want to do a degree in marketing or want to work in marketing after graduation the UK is the best for you without a shadow of a doubt. Of course this is all anecdotal evidence. I'm sure there are very good tutors in the UK who will encourage you to develop but in general the system favours image. Like most things to biggest factor in education is you. The internet has given you so much power. The UK also does manage to develop cutting edge advancements. I'm sure other countries have flaws or the same problems as the UK.

Edited December 26, 2014 by physica

[Hans de Vries]

Thanks physica. You know. All around the world, with EU being no exception, these few British universities are held as a paragon of the best education possible. Thanks to prestige alone a degree from Oxford or Cambridge makes a graduate's life much easier. If you go to any country (even inside EU!) and ask about these two unis, you'll hear nothing but praises and if you ask about the aforementioned KU Leuven, most people will not even know what it it (except those from Belgium-Netherlands-Luxemburg)

[physica]

Thanks physica. You know. All around the world, with EU being no exception, these few British universities are held as a paragon of the best education possible. Thanks to prestige alone a degree from Oxford or Cambridge makes a graduate's life much easier. If you go to any country (even inside EU!) and ask about these two unis, you'll hear nothing but praises and if you ask about the aforementioned KU Leuven, most people will not even know what it it (except those from Belgium-Netherlands-Luxemburg)

That's mildly depressing to hear but on a practical note for you studying in the UK looks like a good choice. From a historical context EU universities have made great advancements. I'm definitely no expert but maybe british universities got into their pole position in the days of the empire. Maybe the majority of academic comunication is in english giving American and UK institutions an advantage. I have no idea. Hopefully someone who knows a lot more than me can shed some light on the subject.

[iNow]

Find myself leaning toward review of all lectures online via rockstar profs through MOOC's then supplement that with hands-on in-classroom learning where questions are asked and lessons performed with immediate help from instructors and TAs.

[CharonY]

Before this can be answered I think one has to define what the goals of higher education should be. Is it to provides degrees? Create adults with broad education? Or train them for specialist jobs? No one appears to be certain and in many cases we are doing a weird mix of things that is neither fish nor fowl.

 

But let us flip the question. How do you see higher education? What would you like to get? Network? Practical skills? Perdue academic interests? Get broader perspective on other people and cultures?

[michel123456]

As much as I know, the British sell their education. To them, it is a product. For other nations on the continent, education is not a product you can sell, it is a good that you have to deliver free of charge to your population.

[physica]

As much as I know, the British sell their education. To them, it is a product. For other nations on the continent, education is not a product you can sell, it is a good that you have to deliver free of charge to your population.

I agree i've experienced 3 British universities now (hoping to experience a 4th next year [haven't dropped out or failed anything yet]) and there main focus is marketing. The wealthy in this country see education as an investment with cash return. I don't think you can find shorter degree or phd course throughout the world. The courses generally have very little freedom. I once remember having two choices, qualitative and quantitative for a research module. The lecturers strongly encouraged all of us to pick qualitative because it was "easier". They even had material prepared to spoon feed a student who picked qualitative. All but me and another picked the qualitative option. The department wasn't happy and had to get someone from another department to mark it and couldn't offer any help with it. However, the degree certificate didn't specify which ones we picked and the course description stated that qualitative and quantitative were covered.

 

 

Before this can be answered I think one has to define what the goals of higher education should be. Is it to provides degrees? Create adults with broad education? Or train them for specialist jobs? No one appears to be certain and in many cases we are doing a weird mix of things that is neither fish nor fowl.

 

But let us flip the question. How do you see higher education? What would you like to get? Network? Practical skills? Perdue academic interests? Get broader perspective on other people and cultures?

If you don't really care about learning but you want your education to get you a good job then I'd say British will be a good choice. can't really comment on any other country as I haven't experienced it.

Edited December 27, 2014 by physica

[Hans de Vries]

I thought these two are synonymous - that universities that guarantee jobs are also the best in terms of education. Wasn't that the reason why universities were created in the first place? To teach much needed skills and provide opportunities for scientific carreer for those who wanted it.

 

Physica, what did you study and at what universities? Your and your friend's experience is a bit disappointing albeit in a neutral way Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College etc. should have no problems with keeping high level of teaching - the most prestige equals the most money and therefore, the best faculty. It also means a wide pool of candidates to choose from. If say your department admits 1500 undergrads a year while 8000 apply and every one of them is at least an above average student, you can afford to pick and choose.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Hans de Vries

[ajb]

...and there main focus is marketing.

 

In the UK there for sure has been a drive for commercialism of universities. This has really struck me as a change since I did my first degree.

 

I won't say where, but I was a little shocked when at an interview for a job the students were referred to as 'customers'. This is a fundamental change in attitude and not really a good one in my opinion. So now we are privileged to have students when not so long ago they were privileged to have lecturers.

 

 

I thought these two are synonymous - that universities that guarantee jobs are also the best in terms of education.

Nothing job wise is guaranteed.

Edited December 28, 2014 by ajb

[michel123456]

One should note that the criterias of ranking does not include students opinion. Although in real life i think the question you are interested in would be answered by students.

 

See http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/world-university-rankings/qs-world-university-rankings-methodology

[ajb]

One should note that the criterias of ranking does not include students opinion.

This is very interesting. I have seen some great student reviews and opinions of some, in my opinion, not very good universities. There maybe two phenomena here. First they are judging by different criteria than I am. Secondly, they don't know how thinge are at different universities.

[CharonY]

I thought these two are synonymous - that universities that guarantee jobs are also the best in terms of education. Wasn't that the reason why universities were created in the first place? To teach much needed skills and provide opportunities for scientific carreer for those who wanted it.

 

 

That is the ideal, but what I am getting at is that this is certainly not the case. Depending on your job, you will need to have skills that you may have acquired during your studies, but often more as a byproduct rather than due to the courses (e.g. effective time management, organizational and leadership skills, to provide some examples). In many cases the technical skills will vary and are often not useful to the majority of jobs outside academia. But beside that, good universities also allow you to broaden your horizons, by taking you out of your comfort zone and exposing you to other cultures and way of thinking. That, however, is often more dependent on the student, the uni just provides access. Again, there is a balance between academic training, technical skills and job-related skills. And really, no one has an idea what the best mix is. Partially, because it will be very dependent on each individual student. A student with sufficient money can afford to focus on broadening his education without a specific career view. Someone who is almost broke after school is more likely in need of a career-focused education, for example.

 

There are also broader, political issues. Are unis supposed to provide degrees to as many as possible? In many cases student success is measured by how many eventually graduate. Or should our duty be to evaluate and train an experts and fail everyone else? The latter is obviously not what is happening, but is closer to what unis used to be.

 

 

One should note that the criterias of ranking does not include students opinion. Although in real life i think the question you are interested in would be answered by students.

 

See http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/world-university-rankings/qs-world-university-rankings-methodology

 

It depends on the ranking, and some include student satisfaction. However, due to issues ajb mentioned these especially undergrads often do not have much to compare to. Also usually they focus on student services and conveniences. As such, these ranking are often national. Often, small, but well endowed teaching universities do disproportionately well, as they can focus their budget on students. But research is at best limited there.

Edited December 29, 2014 by CharonY

[studiot]

I don't like the word 'model' as it implies to me a simplified copy of something that already exists.

 

The correct English term is probably 'pattern' for your meaning.

 

I also think that you need to consider your question in context. That is you need to set your universities in context as there are many differences.

 

The European system is quite different from the British one for a whole variety of historic reasons.

In Britain there are state funded universites, private universities (Buckingham), military educational establishments with the status of a university (Shrivenham, Cranfield), and universites that enjoy some state funding but could and have recently threatened to leave the state system and go private (Oxford and Cambridge)

The US one is different again.

 

Returning to the context, there are the following issues to compare

 

1) Who sets the academic standards? This is very different in Europe, Britain and the US

 

2) What are the alternatives?

 

3) What is the educational background of the general student population?

 

4) What happens with courses that are integrated with another establishment eg Medicine?

 

and probably other major issues I've missed from the list.

[fiveworlds]

There are also broader, political issues. Are unis supposed to provide degrees to as many as possible? In many cases student success is measured by how many eventually graduate. Or should our duty be to evaluate and train an experts and fail everyone else?

 

 

There is a stigma here that people who don't attend college are unable to do the job and therefore unfairly never get a job. Whereas the old way of being able to work your way up in the industry just doesn't seem to be around much anymore.

 

Like their focus on the ranking system you can graduate from a good university by memorising the bones of your subject to pass exams

 

 

Without any understanding of how to use the information they have been provided it might as well be gobbledygook gook, and worse still there is little opportunity for questioning education you don't agree with and there is little continuing education after graduation.

Edited December 30, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Hans de Vries]

CharonY, studiot and others - how do you see the current overcrowding of universities and what solutions would you propose?

 

In Europe and US so many people attend universities that after graduating most are not able to find a job in their field of study. It's mostly non-STEM fields that are affected (i.e. political science or law schools in the US which are extremely strict on teaching and hard to get to and still US has an overproduction of lawyers) but some STEM fields have not been spared either - especially theoretical ones such as physics (lots of unemployed astro- or quantum physicists). It's sad to see people struggling for several years, knowing that for ~70% of them it will be a wasted time job-wise.

 

When someone pays for such education from his own pocket, then that's not such a big issue (but still quite sad). People can do whatever they want with their money. I am more worried about public money as most unis in Europe are public. Studying for the sake of studying alone makes no sense.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Hans de Vries

[iNow]

Those without higher education have an even harder time finding a job than those with higher education, ergo suggestions that it's still sometimes hard to secure employment despite higher Ed are a bit moot.

[overtone]

If guaranteed employment for good money is the criterion, two year tech schools teaching CNC machining are among the best universities on the planet.

 

Or any university with a strong chemical engineering department.

[studiot]

 

CharonY, studiot and others - how do you see the current overcrowding of universities and what solutions would you propose?

 

Well I hadn't noticed hairdressers being short of work yet and new salons are springing up all over the place.

 

So I suggest more Hairdressing degrees and fewer Physics degrees.

 

[ajb]

Well I hadn't noticed hairdressers being short of work yet and new salons are springing up all over the place.

 

So I suggest more Hairdressing degrees and fewer Physics degrees.

 

Degrees in coffee science maybe an idea. In the centre of Warsaw you could almost throw a cup of coffee from one coffee house to the next

 

But in all seriousness, the STEM shortage I fear is a lie and STEM degrees do not automatically mean a job.

Edited December 30, 2014 by ajb

[CharonY]

CharonY, studiot and others - how do you see the current overcrowding of universities and what solutions would you propose?

 

In Europe and US so many people attend universities that after graduating most are not able to find a job in their field of study. It's mostly non-STEM fields that are affected (i.e. political science or law schools in the US which are extremely strict on teaching and hard to get to and still US has an overproduction of lawyers) but some STEM fields have not been spared either - especially theoretical ones such as physics (lots of unemployed astro- or quantum physicists). It's sad to see people struggling for several years, knowing that for ~70% of them it will be a wasted time job-wise.

 

When someone pays for such education from his own pocket, then that's not such a big issue (but still quite sad). People can do whatever they want with their money. I am more worried about public money as most unis in Europe are public. Studying for the sake of studying alone makes no sense.

 

As I said, it is hard to say if we cannot even decide on the mission of an university. If employment is the primary focus, there is little chance but to break unis up with smaller and more dedicated training units while completely losing the chance of broader education. Alternatively, only train a small elite, which would mean that 90% of students will fail. I am sure there are other models but each will be associated with a large number of issues which no politician will touch.

I also disagree with the own income vs. public funded issue. If education becomes a luxury, than it will (and already has) extreme social consequences. It will result in a larger income gap and lower social mobility. This will be extreme in elite type system, as low-income folks also have less access to additional tuition, and often have to work in addition to their studies. Again, it boils down to figuring out what the role(s) of higher education has to have in the society, figuring out what structures can provide them and then whether one can finance them. Personally, I think most people (understandably) focus too much on the practical job side and neglect the impact of having a well-educated population (even if their work is different from what they study).

 

 

 

 

 

Well I hadn't noticed hairdressers being short of work yet and new salons are springing up all over the place.

 

So I suggest more Hairdressing degrees and fewer Physics degrees.

 

 

I know that this is a joke, but it is also an example of bias. How would you notice hairdressers that are out of jobs? The true measure would be the ratio of unemployed to employed workers and not the total amount of workers. Otherwise one could claim that academic jobs are plenty as each year positions are filled, while neglecting that there are over hundred applicants per position.

Also, many non-essential services are very sensitive to economic situations, so I would think that the situation was especially bad 2008-2010. Now with a slow recovery of services it may seem like growth but in truth may just be a return to prior levels (just as a thought).

[studiot]

Actually ,many a true word is said in jest, and there are indeed degrees in hairdressing available in the UK.

 

Bias?

 

I think you will find these figures bear me out and provide age related reasons for the upsurge.

 

http://www.habia.org/c/1910/industry-statistics

 

Podiatry is an even better career, for much the same reasons.

Edited December 30, 2014 by studiot

[CharonY]

Actually, the only point I see is that the overall vacancy rate is around 20%. But that only tells you half the story of being employable (although high amount of part-timers may not be a good sign, but can be related to the type of business). This shows that the over all vacancy rate (for all jobs) in the UK high, but still lower than pre-downturn (which is in line with my reasoning above). I.e. there are likely to be an increase in vacancies for many jobs that are growth-related.

 

Again, this only demonstrates that jobs are to be found in this area again, but it is possible that it is just a return to pre-downturn figures. The only way to see that is to find time-resolved statistics that also shows the total pool of trained applicants and get data on the unemployment rate of this particular occupation. I could, for example make the case that creative writing is a good job now as the posted job vacancies have increased over the last years.

The US statistics for 2012 show that hairdressers are slightly better than average in terms of unemployment, which is the only positive indicator I could find right now. I am not saying that employment chances may not be positive for that job segment, but it is hard to tell without additional data.

 

Edit: and I realize that we are going way off-topic.

Edited December 30, 2014 by CharonY

[Hans de Vries]

So guyts, what do you propose? I see three possibilities:

1. Leaving higher education as it is (I'm talking about Europe mostly)

2. Cutting admissions by ~50% on average, with admissions in some more useless fields (sociology, political science, various humanities) slashed by as much as 80%

3. Something else.