View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 31st, 2014, 4:30 pm



Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Grayling's university 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm
Posts: 7265
Location: UK
I'm surprised at the anger and dismay this has provoked and, while I agree with Baroness Blackstone that it's a risky venture for everyone concerned not least the students, I don't see the harm of it for anyone else. What am I missing?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... NTCMP=SRCH

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 505555.stm


June 6th, 2011, 12:53 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: January 20th, 2011, 2:45 pm
Posts: 174
Location: Wilds of Herefordshire
They've got Dawkins and Pinker, how can they fail? Good luck to them, say I, though I'm sad that my own university has come to this.

_________________
A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.


June 6th, 2011, 1:02 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15185
As someone said somewhere, knocking someone trying something new is a British national sport. And not just in the tabloids.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


June 6th, 2011, 1:13 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15185
Grayling resigns from Birkbeck College

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


June 6th, 2011, 2:51 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 14288
Location: Gloucester
They seem to keep on about the cost of the courses but, providing the public are not paying the fees, it is up to prospective students to decide.

It would be interesting to see the declared aims of the college and the syllabus. Though humanities, in the depth this college seems to offer, are a good grounding for all kinds of things I worry what the ratio between the purely academic and the practical applications is.

_________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain


June 6th, 2011, 3:01 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15185
Dave B wrote:
It would be interesting to see the declared aims of the college and the syllabus. Though humanities, in the depth this college seems to offer, are a good grounding for all kinds of things I worry what the ratio between the purely academic and the practical applications is.
Their website: http://www.nchum.org/

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


June 6th, 2011, 3:17 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm
Posts: 5228
Location: Scotland
Dave B wrote:
They seem to keep on about the cost of the courses but, providing the public are not paying the fees, it is up to prospective students to decide.

Well, the annual fee is twice my income, and it's not as if I don't work bloomin' hard :sad2: So there's no way either my daughters or I could study there.

Have these folk forgotten they studied at the taxpayers expense themselves, with those good old fashioned student grants and all?
Therefore I see the harm in that it's purely for the very well off, which is hugely societally divisive.


June 6th, 2011, 3:32 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm
Posts: 7265
Location: UK
Is it better not to have it then?


June 6th, 2011, 4:09 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm
Posts: 5228
Location: Scotland
I'm not saying that. But I do think it is not beyond the bounds of such clever folk to have found a more equitable way of providing such an education...


June 6th, 2011, 4:14 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm
Posts: 8942
Location: Huddersfield, England
I agree with Fia.

I think this stinks - unless I have got the wrong end of the stick.


June 6th, 2011, 4:27 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 15185
From a press release from the University of London:
Quote:
About the New College of the Humanities
The University is aware of the intention of the New College of the Humanities (NCH) to provide tuition to students of the University of London International Programmes. There is no formal agreement between the University of London and the NCH concerning academic matters. As with any other Independent Teaching Institution, a dialogue will be maintained about when to apply for recognition under the Institutions Policy Framework, but normally a track record is required. To avoid any confusion, it should be made clear that NCH is not, and will not be, a part of the University of London. Meanwhile it is legitimate for NCH, as an entirely independent institution, to provide tuition to students of University of London International Programmes as other institutions in London and around the world do. These students’ applications for registration for degrees would be made individually with the University of London International Programmes.

No agreement has been concluded as yet regarding access to the Senate House Libraries by NCH students, but financial terms exist for the payment of fees for access by any students of University of London International Programmes and this would, of course, apply to students of NCH. The position is similar for the University of London Union, and it should be noted that all students of the University of London International Programmes are eligible for associate membership for a payment of £20 per annum, but are not eligible to compete competitively in University sports teams.

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


June 6th, 2011, 4:42 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: March 13th, 2011, 12:36 pm
Posts: 2346
Location: Between the New Forest and Cranborne Chase
Fia wrote:
Have these folk forgotten they studied at the taxpayers expense themselves, with those good old fashioned student grants and all?


I'm sorry, but I don't quite see the relevance of this. The only thing that I can infer from that is that you think there is some point in history at which the model for education funding (and presumably for everything else) should have been frozen.

As to the original question, if the venture meets a need, it will succeed, if it doesn't, it will fail. It's not, as far as I can see, drawing on the public purse, it's not some sectarian venture and it doesn't appear to wish to inculcate some narrow socio-political viewpoint, so I don't see any reason for me to object to its existence.

_________________
Steve

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. (Richard Feynman)


June 6th, 2011, 5:37 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm
Posts: 5228
Location: Scotland
Tetenterre wrote:
Fia wrote:
Have these folk forgotten they studied at the taxpayers expense themselves, with those good old fashioned student grants and all?


I'm sorry, but I don't quite see the relevance of this. The only thing that I can infer from that is that you think there is some point in history at which the model for education funding (and presumably for everything else) should have been frozen.

As to the original question, if the venture meets a need, it will succeed, if it doesn't, it will fail. It's not, as far as I can see, drawing on the public purse, it's not some sectarian venture and it doesn't appear to wish to inculcate some narrow socio-political viewpoint, so I don't see any reason for me to object to its existence.


My obscured point is that these intellectual giants had a far fairer playing field than now. In the days when far fewer, but more academically inclined were supported by the state, from whatever background if one was good enough one could study. It wasn't perfect, but the principle was far fairer. Personally I think education is too important to leave to market forces, the money market has a vested interest in populations thinking that debt is how to live one's life :sad2: We have discussed some of this here

So I'd have liked these intellectual giants to think outside the box rather more. I'm not the brainy ones but I know there's more than one way to skin a rabbit :)


June 6th, 2011, 8:12 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm
Posts: 7265
Location: UK
jaywhat wrote:
I think this stinks - unless I have got the wrong end of the stick.

I'm not sure what part of it you think stinks. I would agree that private education is socially divisive and that having a private sector in tertiary level education potentially stinks, depending on how it pans out, but I still think it's better to have a private sector than to have fewer university places and, from where I'm sitting, that seems to be the basic dichotomy.

From the little I've read, I understand this initiative to be a pragmatic response to the government cuts by a a high-profile academic who is passionate about education and ideas.

Quote:
Grayling said the decision to set up New College came after the government cut subsidies to humanities and social science subjects and introduced increased competition by allowing universities to charge annual tuition fees of up to £9,000.


His motivation is to keep university places open but he's not even a politician, let alone a government minister. He has no access to public funding. What is he to do?

Fia wrote:
So I'd have liked these intellectual giants to think outside the box rather more. I'm not the brainy ones but I know there's more than one way to skin a rabbit :)


I'm personally inclined to think that the intellectual giants will have considered every conceivable way to skin this rabbit and they came up with this way because it's the only one with a chance of working - the alternative being to do nothing but accept that there will be fewer university places in some subjects and more competition for them and, consequently, more students unable to get on them.
Quote:
"At £18,000 a go, it seems it won't be the very brightest but those with the deepest pockets who are afforded the chance," said Sally Hunt, general secretary of the lecturers' association, the University and Colleges Union.


This is mendacious. With such high entrance requirements it will be the brightest students with very deep pockets who will be creamed off, leaving more places in proper unis for those whose pockets are half as deep. While a part of me has always resented that my academically gifted offspring couldn't access the very highest standard of secondary education because of my inability to pay, another part of me is glad that at least this standard of education exists and that a small number of young people get the benefit of it. It should be a right, not a privilege, but better a privilege for some than not having it at all.

That said, I wonder if Grayling is right about increasing privatisation being the way it's going to go in this country out of economic necessity. Is this the thin end of the edge? Is he paving the way?

By the way, weren't the ancient universities private once upon a time?


June 6th, 2011, 10:46 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm
Posts: 8942
Location: Huddersfield, England
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH


Rather how I feel - and the BHA will have him as President in a few weeks !


June 7th, 2011, 8:36 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: June 18th, 2009, 11:07 pm
Posts: 189
Athena wrote:

This is mendacious. With such high entrance requirements it will be the brightest students with very deep pockets who will be creamed off, leaving more places in proper unis for those whose pockets are half as deep. While a part of me has always resented that my academically gifted offspring couldn't access the very highest standard of secondary education because of my inability to pay, another part of me is glad that at least this standard of education exists and that a small number of young people get the benefit of it. It should be a right, not a privilege, but better a privilege for some than not having it at all.

That said, I wonder if Grayling is right about increasing privatisation being the way it's going to go in this country out of economic necessity. Is this the thin end of the edge? Is he paving the way?

By the way, weren't the ancient universities private once upon a time?


It will indeed be the brightest with deepest pockets who gain entry. That alone is enough to get me irritated by this. Whether or not this provides more places in 'proper unis' is a separate issue. To get into this institution you need to pay a higher rate. That, irrrespective of anything else, on its own, is a problem because it will deter poorer students and reduce their choice. Im not suggesting its wrong, I just dont like it.

As mentioned above there are surely ways to charge this higher rate and in doing so not exclude sections of society.

_________________
John


June 7th, 2011, 9:24 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4365
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
Athena wrote:
From the little I've read, I understand this initiative to be a pragmatic response to the government cuts by a a high-profile academic who is passionate about education and ideas.

yes, though I have a knee-jerk reaction in favour of public versus private, the equality of opportunity argument seems stronger at the primary and secondary levels of education than at university level. The cuts are real, and from reading "Philosophy Now" on a regular basis, it seems that philosophy is an easy target for cutters. Given the fact that a philosophy-rich degree is not the obvious way to get ahead (if it is, then the cutters are cutting themselves) and that this new university does seem to have a lot of philosophers associated with it, I am not too concerned that an expensive degree like this is a real threat to equality of opportunity.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the UK's self-styled first private university, the University of Buckingham, which may well be much more oriented to providing prospective high-fliers with career-oriented degrees than is this new venture. Who knows?


June 7th, 2011, 11:10 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
Posts: 9159
Location: Darkest Kent
jaywhat wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/ac-graylings-new-private-univerity-is-odious?INTCMP=SRCH


Rather how I feel -


Terry Eagleton: Catholic Marxist. And what an odious man. Insufferable.


June 7th, 2011, 11:10 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: March 13th, 2011, 12:36 pm
Posts: 2346
Location: Between the New Forest and Cranborne Chase
Fia wrote:
In the days when far fewer, but more academically inclined were supported by the state, from whatever background if one was good enough one could study. It wasn't perfect, but the principle was far fairer.


I entirely agree that higher education should be restricted to fewer people -- this bizarre notion that we have to dumb down higher education so that nobody is excluded from it is inane in the extreme. However, I entirely disagree that the funding model was fairer, for this reason: When fewer people were at university but were being funded entirely via taxation, the actuality was that poorer people were effectively subsidising (via taxation) wealthier people to go to university. In my book, that stinks!

Frankly, when I was still a young man wanting to go to university, if someone had said to me, "We will subsidise approx 75% of the cost of your tertiary education and will give you an interest-free (or low interest) loan for the other 25%, which you will not have to repay unless you are earning over a certain threshold salary, i.e. when your salary is enhanced by your tertiary education," I'd have bitten his hand off!

_________________
Steve

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. (Richard Feynman)


June 7th, 2011, 11:30 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm
Posts: 8942
Location: Huddersfield, England
Nick wrote:
Terry Eagleton: Catholic Marxist. And what an odious man. Insufferable.


That's fine then, Nick. Sorry I mentioned his article.

I should add that I was interested in his words/opinions - but there you go.

As for the main guys in this uni thing. I am finding this very difficult because I admire the humanists that seem to be getting into it and am surprised to be in an opposing mode.


June 7th, 2011, 11:51 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 74 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.