Higher Education
in Epiphanies
This discussion was created from comments split from: Parental roles and responsibilities, especially with young adult children..
Comments
Many years ago, I taught a foundation year at a middle-rank university. This was a year prior to the "real degree", aimed at people who did not have A-levels that would qualify them for the degree, and basically spent a year covering the A-level topics. It attracted two kinds of students: mature students, most of whom had left school at 16, worked in the trades for several years, and decided they wanted a degree; and school leavers who had done very badly on their A-levels.
The difference in outcome between these two groups was stark. The mature students, almost without exception, worked hard, and did well. They were not always the most brilliant of students, but they tended to be solid performers, and a willingness to work hard can make up for many deficits. They were a pleasure to teach.
The school leavers, on the other hand, were not. There were one or two (good) exceptions, but for the majority of them, it was clear that the reason they failed their A-levels was that they spent more time in the pub than in the classroom, and they were intending to continue the same behavior at university.
This probably won't come as a surprise to anyone who has ever met humans.
So much for widening participation. Yes, I do have a dog in this fight: two, to be precise. My sister, who left school with a handful of GCEs and now has an MBA and more letters after her name than me: and my daughter, who after a long struggle with mental health problems caused by the school system is now studying for a degree at a university with a less toffee-nosed management.
There is a genuine issue with 16 year olds being conveyor belted towards HE who aren't necessarily suited to it, but that applies to kids hothoused through A-Levels as well as to kids who scrape through a less traditional route. It's the age-old question of how do you assess academic potential.
I enjoyed your post, in the way that one enjoys a joke with a predictable punch line (or maybe that's just me). Our 'apprentices' are very much like your mature students, though not all are older.
One problem with 'widening participation' is that the folks running HE institutions in the bottom half are basically Del Boy, but with fewer scruples. 'No family history of involvement in HE? A market-led approach which attaches guaranteed state funding to numbers recruited? 17-yr-old applicants, and a very weak feedback loop from graduate destinations back to applicant decision making? Lubbly Jubbly.'
I'm saying this from the inside, folks, and my irritation is driven by the exploitation of the unwary and unsuitable, not by some kind of desire to man exclusion barriers at the ivory (OK, urea formaldehyde) towers.
One of the saving graces of nursing (I have experience via the daughters of two close friends), (I assume with no knowledge) teaching, and (my area) engineering, is that to run a course which recruits strongly enough to be profitable, some form of external accreditation is required. So - in the area with which I am most familiar - the Joint Board of Moderators are something of a partially-effective bulwark against the unlimited dumbing-down which otherwise is financially attractive to managers, and which is sold straight-faced as 'improving the student experience'.
The stories I hear from nursing and midwifery is that the (external) clinical parts of the courses 'we' offer are good, but that the 'academic' offering is variable and often woeful. I'm not surprised by that.
Maintaining standards while supporting students with additional needs (to be as general as I can about it) represents a net cost. Taking content out (to reduce drop-out rates, which are a bottom line issue) and inviting all-comers for an increasingly worthless experience, invites a net profit. In the bottom half of the sector, the second approach predominates heavily in preference to the first - though the language of the first is always used to appease worthy opinions, with which I of course agree, such as those expressed in this thread.
In the American system post secondary
There are trade schools for those so inclined (we do not require testing to determine who will go to trades or academic.) Most secondary schools are geared for academic. A few schools are now featuring trades, but they are in the larger school districts."
Some students will get Advance Placement credits in High School to advance further in HE than entering peers.
There are community Junior Colleges, usually commuter schools, for people who want a two year Associates Degree. Helps lower the cost of HE expenses if students go through the Community College System
There is the College System for people seeking a baccalaureate degree, usually four years, but some schools are reducing it to three (usually dropping some basic programs the kids should have gotten in secondary education. Colleges at one time were for just for four year degrees, but more and more are adding post graduate programs.
The University System, which has a number of colleges combined. They also offer post graduate, Masters and PhD programs
There are public colleges and universities, where at least a portion of tuition is paid through taxes. There are private colleges and universities where the tuition is being paid more through endowments and grants. Both private and public schools will offer a mix of student aid plans to help make college more affordable for anyone who wants to pursue a HE degree.
Personally, I think our downfall is the heavy emphasis on student loans, which can cover a great chunk of education and living costs, but are bears to pay off once one is no longer pursuing a degree.
There are usually considered three tiers of education based on student body size and quality of education. When I went to school, I went through the lower tier. I have worked some in the middle tier. The upper tier are names of American Colleges you think of off the top of your heads.
Should say something about Land Grant schools. These were schools set up in the 1880s with more of an agricultural background. At one time heavily funded through the federal government, less so now.
I am sure other Americans can expand more on how they see the American system.
When I am reading about the English system, I have some trouble understanding what level of college people are talking about. I will just keep reading along, trying to figure out what you all are talking about.
I'm of an earlier generation so it's a race against time to see if I pay off the rest of my student debt before it gets written off.
I've been told in the past that "college" in the UK doesn't mean the same thing it does in the US. In the US it refers to post-secondary education--the kind that comes after high school, and isn't required by law from people (unlike high school). The blanket term "college" tends to be used as an umbrella term referring to any academic post-secondary study, usually seeking a bachelor's or associate degree, though not always. It doesn't matter for us whether this study takes place at a university or at a non-university four- or two-year college (the latter is called a "community college). Bachelor's degrees in the US normally take 4 years, while an associate degree is usually 2.
What we call "graduate school" happens after you earn a bachelor's degree, and results in a master's or doctoral degree (various types). This normally happens at a university.
The term "college" also gets used of post-secondary four-year academic institutions without an attached graduate school. Once they add a graduate school, they generally rename themselves "Such and Such University."
(There's also the use of the term "college" to denote a particular segment of a university, but that doesn't make it into popular speech so often.)
Private vs. public simply means "Does this school receive direct government funding?" In practice it translates to "Does it cost an arm and a leg, or simply an arm only?" Public schools tend to cost half or less as much to attend as the private ones. But students at either kind of school may apply for federal grants and loans.
Further education college do none university courses for post-16 year olds through to life long “night school” etc). Some universities have the word college in the name, and some universities have different groupings within them called colleges - e.g. Cambridge & Oxford. Many universities do not have colleges.
Most UK universities are public with some sort of funding settlement in addition to the students fees - and some have money accrued from donations etc. There are som private universities in the UK but I don’t think there are very many.
Junior colleges and community colleges are not necessarily the same thing. There can be overlap, but there can also be differences.
Community college systems can vary from state to state, and from locality to locality. While many community colleges focus on trades, technical skills or certification tracks, many scalps offer associate’s degrees, and some even offer bachelor’s degrees. Many also offer stand alone classes for any interested and remedial-type education. Some community college grads go on to a get their bachelor’s degree from a four-year college (with community college coursework counting towards that degree).
“Junior college” simply means a two-year institution from which one might earn an associate’s degree and from which one typically transfers to a four-year institution. The number of junior colleges has been shrinking for decades; they’ve either been becoming four-year colleges or closing. Most remaining junior colleges now are private. Just by way of illustration in my state (population >11 million), there are 16 separate secondary education institutions in the public university system (244k students), 35 four-year private colleges and universities (83k students), 58 (public) community colleges (594k students) and one junior college (380 students).
People sometimes simplify U.S. colleges into three broad groups:
Tier 1 — Highly selective / elite
Tier 2 — Strong regional or national universities
Tier 3 — Broad‑access institutions
This three‑tier language is informal, but it’s common because it’s easy to understand.
Admissions counselors will often use four tiers.
Tier 1: Elite, highly selective (Ivy+, top publics)
Tier 2: Selective but not elite
Tier 3: Moderately selective regional universities
Tier 4: Broad‑access colleges and community colleges
See: https://www.collegevine.com/faq/15087/college-tiers-what-s-the-difference?utm_source=copilot.com
To be very general, students are sorted before attending British universities. There are exams that people take at 18. The grades sort the students and it is a competitive system to fill the available university places, with usually the "most desirable" places filling first. So when others above are talking about "Russell Group" these are the most research focussed institutions which have most competitive entry. Once you are on an undergraduate course it is not common to be "thrown off" before the end.
In comparison in Belgium anyone can essentially go to any university at 18 but more than 50% leave after the first year, so the sorting happens there.
I am sorry if this explanation is unclear
The constituent elements of certain universities, especially London, Durham, Oxford and Cambridge, are colleges, each with its own foundation and ethos.
Colleges for specific purposes eg teacher training, agriculture, have largely been absorbed into universities, though may still remain as separate elements, retaining their name.
When I was a teenager in a working class background, if you didn’t want to sound snobby, you told people you were going to college, not university.
In normal every day speech a school would be for under 18s, but universities have Schools of Medicine, Dentistry etc.
Then there are Academies, ranging from comprehensive school, grammar school, to specialist institutions for sport, art or music eg Royal Academy of Music.
Universities include the Russell Group, Oxbridge, the Open University and a few other independent ones.
But then there is also u3a, the University of the Third Age, which is for older people and mainly exists to offer self-led groups for any activity from ambling, beer and chess to languages, recorders and wine-making.
In short, an institution’s name is no guide to its status.
That made me smile. It's a bit like church - sometimes the more words there are in the title 'The one true church of the holy redeemed blah-de-blah' or 'xyz international ministries' the more caution one needs to apply.
The main lab of the department I used to work in when I lectured is currently being rebuilt (at a cost of several tens of millions, for the second time in 20 years), and in order (I assume) to obtain funding the notice on the building site advises visitors that they are on the premises of 'The National Institute for xxxxx yyyyyy zzzzzzz'.
It's all 'Trotters Independent Trading Co. - New York, Paris, Peckham'.
My husband is adamant that there is such a thing as "Titles opposite syndrome"- just because something calls itself something does not always guarantee it does what it says on the tin and sometimes it's the complete opposite of what it chooses to call itself!
This can matter not just in terms of structure and governance, but in terms of degrees awarded. I majored in music and studied in the School of Music at my university, and I have a Bachelor of Music degree. People who majored in music and studied in the Music Department of the College of Arts and Sciences at nearby university have Bachelor of Arts degrees.
The situation is similar in the US; the only formal “leagues” are for athletic purposes (and they’re typically called “conferences,” though one or two are “associations”). Colleges and universities that participate in intercollegiate athletic competition will be members of conferences of typically 8 to 18 colleges/universities. Formally speaking, that what the Ivy League is. While “Ivy League” is often used more broadly, the Ivy League is an athletic conference.
But there are a variety of associations colleges and universities might be part of.
In England at least, you leave school at 16 but have to be in education or training until 18 - this can mean more formal study but can also involve things like apprenticeships. Most schools in the UK have mandatory school uniform, but for post-16 study at college students can usually wear their own clothing and call their teachers by their first names.
One big difference to the US system which surprised me is that a lot of US universities don't accept older students (in the UK students aged 21 and over are called mature students), and that it's much harder to return to education later in life. In the UK it's pretty common to return to study later in life, and generally universities are keen on mature students as they tend to be more committed and more engaged in classes - there is quite a stereotype of the mature students being the ones to ask questions in class.
In Scotland almost all high schools go up to 18 (there are a handful of small, rural exceptions where pupils have to transfer to a larger school for the later years) and uniforms cannot legally be a requirement to attend a state school (though some head teachers like to act as if they are).
In my experience, many American colleges and universities are accepting older students. Many of those students are looking at second careers. I once worked for a former Marine who, when he retired from the military, went into school to get his first baccalaureate. He even joined a fraternity--which was unusual for a man in his 40s.
With the shrinking pool of people coming out of high school these days, colleges and universities are welcoming older generations. They find older generations more prepared to study, their life experiences contribute a lot to the learning environment, and many times they do not have to rely as heavily on financial aid to complete their studies.
I can imagine older students may not want to apply to small colleges where pretty much all students are 18–22 and live on campus, but that’s the student’s (understandable) choice, not the college’s decision not to admit older students.
Which US universities don't accept older students? The 1975 Age Discrimination Act prohibits any program or activity that receives federal money from discriminating based on age. That's pretty much all US schools one way or another, including private schools receiving federal grants.
There are lots of older students here. When I was teaching at a Cal State in the 90s, the average undergraduate age there was 27. The Brookings Institute cites US government data from 2023 that shows
Source: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/older-adult-college-enrollment-trends-and-benefits/
There's a link at this site to the data in a pdf.
The biggest problem for older students in the US is the cost of education (a near universal problem here), followed by the fact that schools frequently don't accommodate their needs and schedules. Given how increasingly dependent schools will be on older students due to changing demographics, one would think they'd be more responsive, but higher education here can be hugely resistant to change.
It’s different in my area of the UK. Within a 20 mile radius or thereabouts, all the secondary schools, bar two, have six forms, and sixth form education is usually referred to as “school”. The local further education colleges also offer post-16 education, including some A-levels. To some extent their provision overlaps with the schools, and to some extent it complements it. Indeed in our local secondary school some students have part of the sixth-form experience in school, and part in the local FE college.
6th form? When I was at 6th form attached to my school (I've done both that type and the big centralised campus type) everyone was very eager to emphasise that it wasn't school.
Be a bit hard really. Same buildings, same teachers, same uniform, bar a different tie.
Because private universities are rare in the UK (they exist but are generally small and obscure, or are highly specialist eg music conservatoires) and religious universities are also not generally a thing, admissions policies in the UK seem more "standardised" in the UK - for want of a better word. There are plenty of universities/university constituent colleges with a religious foundation in the UK but they are also publicly-funded, and generally the religious foundation means a more active/better funded chaplaincy and a nicer chapel building but not any religious-based restrictions on student behaviour.
Almost all on-campus student accommodation at UK universities consists of individual en-suite study bedrooms based around a shared kitchen - almost all students are self-catering. Shared rooms exist but are very uncommon nowadays, an individual room is expected. It always seemed to me like having to share a bedroom at US university is very poor value for money given how expensive it is. I'm also always surprised that students are generally not cooking for themselves, because surely that would save the college money too?
Not quite right. Older undergraduates at Columbia almost always apply through the School of General studies, but it is an official undergraduate college of Columbia University. GS students will graduate with a Columbia University BA, not a separate credential. They take the same courses and are taught by the same faculty as Columbia College.
The Columbia School of General Studies—in which, as I understand it, about 30% of Columbia undergrads are enrolled—has, since WW2 and the GI Bill, simply been Columbia’s way of serving and including nontraditional (older and/or working) students.
Most schools in the UK have mandatory school uniform
I suppose that's technically correct, as most schools in the UK are located in England. It's not true of the Scottish part of the UK though. Schools can prohibit items of clothing - no jeans, no white trainers, no football colours, no hoop earrings etc, and the list of prohibited clothing can be a long, long list, but there is no mandatory uniform in state schools.
Having said that, uniforms are generally worn, because they are cheap and easy.
When it’s a school.
On local tv news, “The Nottingham University Academy of Science and Technology has today re-opened after being closed following the death of a pupil by stabbing.”
This is an 11-18 free state school ( originally a university technical college for students 14-19).
I think it may be slightly different in Scotland, but in England the applicants to a university almost always sign up to a specific degree course from the beginning. The trend has been that the names of these courses have got longer and more specific and many students think that they are getting very specific knowledge and skills which will stand out when they apply for jobs.
We do not really have a tradition of "liberal arts" and it is unusual to have science graduates who have studied anything other than science subjects for their entire 3 year course.
This is of course "a choice" by successive British governments who have long thought that university education can only really be justified if it is useful. So there's a heavy focus on STEM, and even within science on some over others. In comes Biomedical science, out goes chemistry. The idea of education as an end in itself, unlinked to specific outcomes in terms of employment, has largely been lost.
From what I have heard from employers, this often generates a perverse situation where there is a massive bunfight in terms of finding the "best" graduates, with an inflationary and highly competitive credentialism. In practice I have heard that that many jobs are actually looking for generalists who are flexible and and quickly adapt to new things, which bizarrely the university and credential driven candidate system does not usually provide.
Many graduates are left on the roadside, metaphorically, unable to access the jobs that they are suited to work in. After 4 or 5 years of underemployment they will likely never catch up with their peers who have been able to get one.
And the popularity of the course has nothing to do with how likely you are to get a job in it. Forensic Science, for one, is massively over-subscribed but jobs are few, far between, and ill-paid. I'm sure it's not the only one, it's simply the example I know best.
The idea of a competitive advantage given by any specific course or institution is largely mythical for the majority of graduates.
Yeah, it's long been the go-to example of rebadging and oversubscription. From what I recall it tends to be a chemistry degree with a theme rather than anything too specialised (which is just as well given the ratio of FS students to jobs in forensics).
On the specialist vs generalist point, I suspect the skills I developed in being a pedantic PITA through my student union involvement are at least as valuable to my current career as my STEM masters.
I would hope so. If one (the new undergrad) is lucky, then enough residue of a deeply unfashionable benign paternalism hangs around in the department (or school, as ours have become known, via the really whacky title 'directorate' - all means to subdivide areas whilst removing the financial and regulatory autonomy which once attached to a 'department') that the lecturers will have conspired (if they still have that authority) to retain the skeleton of a useful syllabus, underneath whatever shiny degree title has been employed to entrap the unwary (sorry, widen participation).
When unscrupulous, greedy people exploit the prejudices of the further-right by populist appeals to racism and discrimination, we (on the left - perhaps I only speak for myself) imagine that those voters deserve what is coming to them. When the same kind of people exploit the ... concerns ... of the progressive left to promise all sorts in HE - well, I think it is harder to spot being sold a pup by one's own.
That's a feature of absent Chinese students being worth (say) two-and-a-half home students. The hoovering-up of large cohorts of the semi-able decimates viable cohorts in the bottom half.
Sure there are are no religious HE institutions in the UK ( a link to the Cathedral group which covers Anglican and Roman Catholic Universities in the UK). Actually, it is worse than that. Religious foundations that are Universities to my knowledge in the UK: Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, and, also highly probable, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Durham. Anything before 1800 is likely to be religious in its foundation. St Andrews even has a Papal Bull for its foundation, unfortunately from the wrong lineage, but still...
Red bricks and London are Nonconformist responses to being unable to get into Oxford and Cambridge. They are often deliberately secular.