Society/Culture The great myth of higher education value

[Scotland]

That's the whole point though. Then governments can brag about how many people have degrees, the fact that so many are worthless is irrelevant (also helps youth unemployment numbers)

Yes. And lower cost to taxpayer. Common sense you would think.

Holding a degree used to be prestigious, and used to be beyond the means of many people. My grandfather was offered the a position at university in what would've been the 1930s when very few people attended university but never went because the family couldn't support the cost.

Over time society progressed to make university education more accessible to all, and for a time it was even free - but we've lost sight of the original goal. To use a footy analogy 6 years ago there were 16 teams in the AFL and now there are 18, meaning another 80-90 people are now playing at AFL level. We haven't unearthed another 80-90 Dustin Martins and Patrick Dangerfields, it just means that more middle of the road players and teenagers who would otherwise be playing at a lower grade are now in the AFL. If we expanded to 20+ teams the same would continue.

Making university accessible to all is a good thing. There are 50 odd public high schools over here, and we don't want the UWA med school intake to come entirely from 5 or 10 private schools nearby. We want the best and brightest getting into uni on merit, not everyone getting into uni because they have nothing better to do for a few years. Meritocracy is pretty much a dirty word these days.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Over time society progressed to make university education more accessible to all, and for a time it was even free - but we've lost sight of the original goal. To use a footy analogy 6 years ago there were 16 teams in the AFL and now there are 18, meaning another 80-90 people are now playing at AFL level. We haven't unearthed another 80-90 Dustin Martins and Patrick Dangerfields, it just means that more middle of the road players and teenagers who would otherwise be playing at a lower grade are now in the AFL. If we expanded to 20+ teams the same would continue.

Making university accessible to all is a good thing. There are 50 odd public high schools over here, and we don't want the UWA med school intake to come entirely from 5 or 10 private schools nearby. We want the best and brightest getting into uni on merit, not everyone getting into uni because they have nothing better to do for a few years. Meritocracy is pretty much a dirty word these days.

But our population has also increased over time, with participation rates increasing also....I don't think the standard of AFL has dropped at all, in fact the skills & speed are now better than they've ever been, given the full-time professional nature of the sport with all the $$$ nowadays.

A poor example to compare this to education really, where $$$ & funds are decreasing all the time, with debt loadings increasing.....Not to mention an almost 50% overseas student component to help run & pay for the University's themselves.

Our culture puts a higher premium & value on sports people....As we can see the ostensible achievements & measure before our eyes....Sad though that may be...As a kid, Leigh Matthews was my hero, not Einstein.

 

[madmug]

Holding a degree used to be prestigious, and used to be beyond the means of many people. My grandfather was offered the a position at university in what would've been the 1930s when very few people attended university but never went because the family couldn't support the cost.

Over time society progressed to make university education more accessible to all, and for a time it was even free - but we've lost sight of the original goal. To use a footy analogy 6 years ago there were 16 teams in the AFL and now there are 18, meaning another 80-90 people are now playing at AFL level. We haven't unearthed another 80-90 Dustin Martins and Patrick Dangerfields, it just means that more middle of the road players and teenagers who would otherwise be playing at a lower grade are now in the AFL. If we expanded to 20+ teams the same would continue.

Making university accessible to all is a good thing. There are 50 odd public high schools over here, and we don't want the UWA med school intake to come entirely from 5 or 10 private schools nearby. We want the best and brightest getting into uni on merit, not everyone getting into uni because they have nothing better to do for a few years. Meritocracy is pretty much a dirty word these days.

Trying to make an analogy between 1930's & now for access to university is not at all useful. Australia then had 6 mil people, now its over 24mil. Also we are a much better educated society. We all get past grade 5&6.

Footy isn't much different. The development of players has increased at a rate. Do you think it has really affected the standard that much going from 16 to 18 teams?. I'd have thought modern defensive tactics & tackling have ruined the spectacle of the game more than player quality & the number of teams. Players train in modern defensive tactics & they play that way.

 

[Kwality]

Holding a degree used to be prestigious, and used to be beyond the means of many people. My grandfather was offered the a position at university in what would've been the 1930s when very few people attended university but never went because the family couldn't support the cost.

Over time society progressed to make university education more accessible to all, and for a time it was even free - but we've lost sight of the original goal. To use a footy analogy 6 years ago there were 16 teams in the AFL and now there are 18, meaning another 80-90 people are now playing at AFL level. We haven't unearthed another 80-90 Dustin Martins and Patrick Dangerfields, it just means that more middle of the road players and teenagers who would otherwise be playing at a lower grade are now in the AFL. If we expanded to 20+ teams the same would continue.

Making university accessible to all is a good thing. There are 50 odd public high schools over here, and we don't want the UWA med school intake to come entirely from 5 or 10 private schools nearby. We want the best and brightest getting into uni on merit, not everyone getting into uni because they have nothing better to do for a few years. Meritocracy is pretty much a dirty word these days.

When a Uni accepts students for engineering without the relevant maths as a pre requisite, I call fowl/foul.

 

[Scotland]

But our population has also increased over time, with participation rates increasing also....I don't think the standard of AFL has dropped at all, in fact the skills & speed are now better than they've ever been, given the full-time professional nature of the sport with all the $$$ nowadays.

The number of teams in the AFL increased 12.5% in two years. The population did not. Adding GC and GWS has not increased the overall standard at all.

A poor example to compare this to education really, where $$$ & funds are decreasing all the time, with debt loadings increasing.....Not to mention an almost 50% overseas student component to help run & pay for the University's themselves.

50% of Australian university students are not from overseas. It's about half that.

Funds are decreasing partly due to the fact that so many ******* people are going to uni. More funding per student and more students means ever increasing overall funding. It's not a sustainable model.

Trying to make an analogy between 1930's & now for access to university is not at all useful. Australia then had 6 mil people, now its over 24mil. Also we are a much better educated society. We all get past grade 5&6.

6m people and how many of them went to uni? In the 1950s less than 0.5% of the population at the time were at uni. These days it's about 6%. Right now there is somewhere between 1m and 1.5m people currently at university.

About 1 in 5 adults have a degree today compared 1 in 50 to the 1970s.

https://theconversation.com/who-goes-to-university-the-changing-profile-of-our-students-40373

Footy isn't much different. The development of players has increased at a rate. Do you think it has really affected the standard that much going from 16 to 18 teams?. I'd have thought modern defensive tactics & tackling have ruined the spectacle of the game more than player quality & the number of teams. Players train in modern defensive tactics & they play that way.

Yes, the standard has dropped overall because we were already watching the best 700 players in the country and now we are watching the best 800., give or take. It will normalise over time but as I said we didn't unearth another two lists worth of stars, just more middle of the road players and kids are running around at AFL level.

 

[Scotland]

When a Uni accepts students for engineering without the relevant maths as a pre requisite, I call fowl/foul.

Agree 100%.

These days education is about making everyone feel good, so if you aren't admitted to engineering because you can't count then your feelings might get hurt - which neglects that most engineering students are complete Aspies anyway...

As far as universities go, their admin just want bums on seats. They get funding from students and the govt, and more students = more money. Faculties need to balance not failing people vs their degrees actually being worthwhile so you tend to see a lot of people on the 'Ps get degrees' path.

 

[Procrastinator35]

The number of teams in the AFL increased 12.5% in two years. The population did not. Adding GC and GWS has not increased the overall standard at all.



50% of Australian university students are not from overseas. It's about half that.

Funds are decreasing partly due to the fact that so many ******* people are going to uni. More funding per student and more students means ever increasing overall funding. It's not a sustainable model.



6m people and how many of them went to uni? In the 1950s less than 0.5% of the population at the time were at uni. These days it's about 6%. Right now there is somewhere between 1m and 1.5m people currently at university.

About 1 in 5 adults have a degree today compared 1 in 50 to the 1970s.

https://theconversation.com/who-goes-to-university-the-changing-profile-of-our-students-40373



Yes, the standard has dropped overall because we were already watching the best 700 players in the country and now we are watching the best 800., give or take. It will normalise over time but as I said we didn't unearth another two lists worth of stars, just more middle of the road players and kids are running around at AFL level.

I see the over-arching point went well over your head, so I'll bring it directly into conscious awareness for you.

The fallacy of the argument from analogy is never more pertinent than when one attempts to compare sports with education.

You're welcome.

 

[Seeds]

The Ivy League universities in America have a policy of diversity with regard to their student intake. They construct heterogeneous student populations at the expense of meritocracy. The social dimension of campus life is a massive factor in tertiary education's contribution to society.

and its rubbish policies like this that have helped contribute to the complete social and institutional dysfunction that is currently taking place in the US. If you dont aim for meritocracy in all parts of society then you get it in none.

 

[parsons nose]

and its rubbish policies like this that have helped contribute to the complete social and institutional dysfunction that is currently taking place in the US. If you dont aim for meritocracy in all parts of society then you get it in none.

.....or the see the value in creating an educational environment which facilitates exposure of students to other students from a diverse range of cultural/social/economic backgrounds. As opposed to a production line of graduates who exhibit ignorance to everything outside of their sphere of expertise.

 

[King Brown]

When a Uni accepts students for engineering without the relevant maths as a pre requisite, I call fowl/foul.

That’s crazy if true. It’s an impossible degree without a high quality grounding in maths.

 

[madmug]

The number of teams in the AFL increased 12.5% in two years. The population did not. Adding GC and GWS has not increased the overall standard at all.



50% of Australian university students are not from overseas. It's about half that.

Funds are decreasing partly due to the fact that so many ******* people are going to uni. More funding per student and more students means ever increasing overall funding. It's not a sustainable model.



6m people and how many of them went to uni? In the 1950s less than 0.5% of the population at the time were at uni. These days it's about 6%. Right now there is somewhere between 1m and 1.5m people currently at university.

About 1 in 5 adults have a degree today compared 1 in 50 to the 1970s.

https://theconversation.com/who-goes-to-university-the-changing-profile-of-our-students-40373



Yes, the standard has dropped overall because we were already watching the best 700 players in the country and now we are watching the best 800., give or take. It will normalise over time but as I said we didn't unearth another two lists worth of stars, just more middle of the road players and kids are running around at AFL level.

You're making a lot of subjective assumptions about both Uni & Football.

Australia is a far more technologically advanced country today. Few were educated past year 6 in the 1930's. Today Nearly all kids finish year 12. Even thats not enough for the needs of a modern economy, hence the growth of higher education.

The growth from 16 to 18 clubs has only put a short term squeeze on the number of suitable players to play AFL football. It could be argued that the drain on financial resources is more of a concern than the number of players available to play in the expanded AFL. We once had 3 top leagues with about 28 clubs back some 40 years ago. In that time its become 18 clubs with nearly twice the population we had then. So we already have a greater concentration of the best players in less clubs per the relevant populations of the times.

 

[bfff]

That’s crazy if true. It’s an impossible degree without a high quality grounding in maths.

They are accepted but are then expected to pass units to demonstrate improved ability. It's not a big deal.

 

[King Brown]

They are accepted but are then expected to pass units to demonstrate improved ability. It's not a big deal.

Sure, but those first few units cost a fair bit in terms of debt. It's going to be a steep learning curve for the kids who aren't well grounded.

 

[Kwality]

Agree 100%.

These days education is about making everyone feel good, so if you aren't admitted to engineering because you can't count then your feelings might get hurt - which neglects that most engineering students are complete Aspies anyway...

As far as universities go, their admin just want bums on seats. They get funding from students and the govt, and more students = more money. Faculties need to balance not failing people vs their degrees actually being worthwhile so you tend to see a lot of people on the 'Ps get degrees' path.

Given the Royal Commission into Banking, the Tertiary Education sector should be due.

 

[Kwality]

That’s crazy if true. It’s an impossible degree without a high quality grounding in maths.

Crazy what?
Who are these people spending our money?

Check this out from The University of Sydney:
To apply for some courses, students are required to complete mathematics through their high school studies.

The University is introducing mathematics course prerequisites for some courses from 2019 to help students thrive in their science, technology, engineering and mathematics related degrees and prepare them to tackle future career challenges.

https://sydney.edu.au/study/admissi...ic-requirements/mathematics-prerequisite.html

How widespread is this version of education? A nephew has been admitted to Swinburne for 2018 without an ATAR, being referred to it seems as the backdoor.

 

[madmug]

Given the Royal Commission into Banking, the Tertiary Education sector should be due.

The best RC I could conceive of would be into the cost & inefficiency of our Federal, 3 tier system of government. Lets put the blow torch on our mass of bureaucrats & politicians to see them try to justify themselves & our century old system of government. We've seen the fights & cost shifting over the journey. It's also one big blame game.
We seem to be about the worlds most 'governed' population.

That certainly would be fun.

 

[Pessimistic]

But our population has also increased over time, with participation rates increasing also....I don't think the standard of AFL has dropped at all, in fact the skills & speed are now better than they've ever been, given the full-time professional nature of the sport with all the $$$ nowadays.

A poor example to compare this to education really, where $$$ & funds are decreasing all the time, with debt loadings increasing.....Not to mention an almost 50% overseas student component to help run & pay for the University's themselves.

Our culture puts a higher premium & value on sports people....As we can see the ostensible achievements & measure before our eyes....Sad though that may be...As a kid, Leigh Matthews was my hero, not Einstein.

Also the AFL sends the brightest kids to the shittiest universities, so to speak

 

[Patrick Bullet]

If its not in the students best interests, it won't last long. Social media, like with most things, spreads the word quickly.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is true for HE in Australia. I attribute this to a number of factors.

First, students are, by and large, a compliant bunch. When someone is 17/18, and choosing a place to study, I don't think they're really well equipped with the experience and perspective to understand what would make for a good tertiary education; instead, they just go with the flow and may not realise until after the fact if they have been dudded. Students tend to complain loudly when something terrible happens (e.g., sexual harassment), but if things are 'kind of crap but I can't be certain', then most people just assume that this is how it is meant to be, and get on with it.

Second, universities are becoming more centralised in structure, at least in Australia. This means that the people involved in setting 'student experience policy' are those who are furthest away from the students. The result of this is that we're getting standardised policies driven by university execs, rather than bottom-up innovation driven by the academics and tutors involved in the actual teaching. The execs rely on KPIs to judge performance (e.g., teaching evaluations and unit evaluations), and these are easily gamed. I do believe the standardisation of policy has helped raise the floor in performance standards (many old-school academics from a bygone era were simply taking the piss with respect to the effort they put into their teaching), but it has also killed innovation in curriculum development and delivery by academics who are passionate about their teaching. But since all universities are going down this path, and KPIs are so general and easily gamed, students are not faced with a range of exciting alternatives nor clear avenues through which to express discontent.

Third, local students don't really get the opportunity to learn about the negative impacts of expanding into the international market (I'll refrain from listing those here), and even when they do discover this, since they don't know how much better it could be, they don't complain.

Ultimately, I think things won't get better until the governments of Aus let go of the neo-liberal ideology, at least in relation to tertiary education provision. I do believe that universities have benefited from a 'clean out' of some of the dead wood, and that globalisation has raised the academic standards in Australia, but I fear for the future if the pendulum continues to swing in the direction that Birmo is proposing. I also wish the government made the execs of universities more accountable. Their size and salaries have skyrocketed over the last 5-10 years, but I am not convinced that their accountability has increased concomitantly.

 

[madmug]

Unfortunately, I don't think this is true for HE in Australia. I attribute this to a number of factors.

First, students are, by and large, a compliant bunch. When someone is 17/18, and choosing a place to study, I don't think they're really well equipped with the experience and perspective to understand what would make for a good tertiary education; instead, they just go with the flow and may not realise until after the fact if they have been dudded. Students tend to complain loudly when something terrible happens (e.g., sexual harassment), but if things are 'kind of crap but I can't be certain', then most people just assume that this is how it is meant to be, and get on with it.

Second, universities are becoming more centralised in structure, at least in Australia. This means that the people involved in setting 'student experience policy' are those who are furthest away from the students. The result of this is that we're getting standardised policies driven by university execs, rather than bottom-up innovation driven by the academics and tutors involved in the actual teaching. The execs rely on KPIs to judge performance (e.g., teaching evaluations and unit evaluations), and these are easily gamed. I do believe the standardisation of policy has helped raise the floor in performance standards (many old-school academics from a bygone era were simply taking the piss with respect to the effort they put into their teaching), but it has also killed innovation in curriculum development and delivery by academics who are passionate about their teaching. But since all universities are going down this path, and KPIs are so general and easily gamed, students are not faced with a range of exciting alternatives nor clear avenues through which to express discontent.

Third, local students don't really get the opportunity to learn about the negative impacts of expanding into the international market (I'll refrain from listing those here), and even when they do discover this, since they don't know how much better it could be, they don't complain.

Ultimately, I think things won't get better until the governments of Aus let go of the neo-liberal ideology, at least in relation to tertiary education provision. I do believe that universities have benefited from a 'clean out' of some of the dead wood, and that globalisation has raised the academic standards in Australia, but I fear for the future if the pendulum continues to swing in the direction that Birmo is proposing. I also wish the government made the execs of universities more accountable. Their size and salaries have skyrocketed over the last 5-10 years, but I am not convinced that their accountability has increased concomitantly.

My comment was in relation to OS students. If they feel they are being ripped off or duded, it soon gets round on social media.

You broad sweep reply covers a lot of territory not related to my comment. However I fear the trend towards the Americanisation of our Tertiary education system. We'd end up back in the pre Gough Whitlam days of the Universities being full of the wealthy born to rule classes to the exclusion of the ability of students.

Education is the best method of social mobility currently available in society. It should remain at least as available as it is currently. It ensures a measure of opportunity based on merit, not parental wealth. I think that is an important strength in a democratic society. The opportunity to advance your life chances not based on your family name or wealth. Such is an anathema to democracy itself.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

My comment was in relation to OS students.

Alas, you didn't specify this, and the thread seemed to be more focused on local students, so I didn't really have a fighting chance...

If they feel they are being ripped off or duded, it soon gets round on social media.

Maybe - that is an untested hypothesis, as is the hypothesis that it would even matter if it did get around social media. I am very skeptical that either are supported by the data. More generally, this claim isn't that different from the neo-liberal model of free markets sorting things out. I am quite convinced that neoliberalism is not the answer for higher education.

To attract international student enrolments, univerisity execs are focusing on pushing their universities up the ranking tables; apparently the rankings have a strong impact on where parents of foreign students decide to send their children. The problems with that are (a) getting up the rankings is not necessarily correlated with improving student outcomes (or correlated negatively since investing in research outcomes may come at an opportunity cost to teaching), and (b) there are enough different ranking tables out there now that it seems like every university can be in the top 1% of at least one of them.

However I fear the trend towards the Americanisation of our Tertiary education system. We'd end up back in the pre Gough Whitlam days of the Universities being full of the wealthy born to rule classes to the exclusion of the ability of students.

Education is the best method of social mobility currently available in society. It should remain at least as available as it is currently. It ensures a measure of opportunity based on merit, not parental wealth. I think that is an important strength in a democratic society. The opportunity to advance your life chances not based on your family name or wealth. Such is an anathema to democracy itself.

I do not disagree with any of that.

While perhaps not a direct reply to you, I agree with a lot of what Ross Gittins says here:
http://www.watoday.com.au/business/...g-exploiters-of-students-20170916-gyiv0e.html
I do take exception to this quote though, "An oddball minority of academics takes a pride in lecturing well." Based on my experiences, it is not the minority, but then my experience is limited to one department in one university.

 

[ShanDog]

Alas, you didn't specify this, and the thread seemed to be more focused on local students, so I didn't really have a fighting chance...


Maybe - that is an untested hypothesis, as is the hypothesis that it would even matter if it did get around social media. I am very skeptical that either are supported by the data. More generally, this claim isn't that different from the neo-liberal model of free markets sorting things out. I am quite convinced that neoliberalism is not the answer for higher education.

To attract international student enrolments, univerisity execs are focusing on pushing their universities up the ranking tables; apparently the rankings have a strong impact on where parents of foreign students decide to send their children. The problems with that are (a) getting up the rankings is not necessarily correlated with improving student outcomes (or correlated negatively since investing in research outcomes may come at an opportunity cost to teaching), and (b) there are enough different ranking tables out there now that it seems like every university can be in the top 1% of at least one of them.

I do not disagree with any of that.

While perhaps not a direct reply to you, I agree with a lot of what Ross Gittins says here:
http://www.watoday.com.au/business/...g-exploiters-of-students-20170916-gyiv0e.html
I do take exception to this quote though, "An oddball minority of academics takes a pride in lecturing well." Based on my experiences, it is not the minority, but then my experience is limited to one department in one university.

I've found that every lecturer I've had has been varying degrees of 'good'. Only two of the 30 or so (at a guess) regulars stand out in my mind as having a gift for speaking as well as being subject matter experts.

 

[madmug]

Alas, you didn't specify this, and the thread seemed to be more focused on local students, so I didn't really have a fighting chance...

Mate I was writing in reply to your comment about attracting overseas money to universities. So, Of course it was about overseas students. What else?

 

[Patrick Bullet]

Mate I was writing in reply to your comment about attracting overseas money to universities. So, Of course it was about overseas students. What else?

I was making the point that the current funding model of universities means that the overseas market is what universities are incentivised to focus on, as opposed to looking after the local students. But I can see how the confusion could have arisen, so fair bump; play on.

Anyway, this study shows that higher education certainly has value, if you would like to avoid Alzheimers. (tl;dr - read the abstract; that's what it's for!)
http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5375

 

[Patrick Bullet]

And it's associated with reduced coronary heart disease risk
http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3542

but yeah, the value of higher education is a myth...

 

[ShanDog]

And it's associated with reduced coronary heart disease risk
http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3542

but yeah, the value of higher education is a myth...

Strange study. People with higher education levels tend to lead healthier lives... What a revelation. Was it controlled at all by different socioeconomic status stats? I couldn't tell from reading the word salad (happy to admit when I'm a layman).