Wow! 2-year degrees on the agenda

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Ciggie, Jul 17, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Golly gosh, when we have the CBI complaining that graduate recruits can't spell their own name and need help picking their own noses, is it really wise to reduce a university course to 2 years?
  2. Frankly why have "university courses" from which people are exited, unable to write accurately and incisively of issues placed before them? Even the engineers!
  3. Golly gosh? There's no need for ****ing language like that mate.
  4. Some artsy degrees could easily be compressed to 2 years given longer terms and more hours per week. Perhaps that's the angle they're looking for.

    Bloody hell is every instance of 'RE' going to be hyperlinked as 'Royal Engineers' from now on.
  5. if you really want to improve university you need to get rid of the 50% rule. Secondly universities need to stop dumbing down some degrees you can sleep walk through. One example is a friend of mine who has a Bsc in physchology for that he attended 5 hours a week in university and this is not unusual talking to others.

    As you may tell by my lack of coherent argument, grammar and critical input yees i am a graduate.
  6. I'm actually inclined to agree. I have just finished my MA - and I was have spent the last 3 (4, including this one) summer periods being bored out of my mind looking for things to do.

    I would have loved to spend my summer on modules instead of browsing the internet and playing the PS every day.

    There is only a limited argument to suggest that 2 year degrees will harm the academic value; that the free time taken to research/write a good dissertation will be wiped out by this move. However, in MOST subjects it is perfectly acceptable to require students to write a dissertation alongside researching a dissertation. But lecturers will have to accept that some students will need the odd week off here and there to allow them to go to archives/labs etc.

    From my point of view, my MA dissertation is due in October. Yet I handed it in over a month ago despite completing modules and exams concurrently to writing it. It is possible.
  7. Yer ****ing right AB, ma cocking rap ain't up wiv the times, ya knobber! :)))))))
  8. You smug ****** :), I'm struggling to knock out the basic level of essay for an MSc and keep up with the next modules reading.

    Its the voices in my head, they just don't let me concentrate for more than 5 minutes
  9. Cuddles - hardly anyone studies engineering these days, or sciences other than of the computer variety. What chance for the future? A time may come when the wheel really might have to be re-invented.
  10. I started my research about a year ago and did little and often to build the evidence base I needed. The actual writing took about a week of solid work - this would be hard, I accept, if I was not in a position to spend a solid week working on it.

    To be fair though, many of my course mates struggled to even think about their dissertations whilst we were also completing modules. But I comfortably put this down to their lack of time appreciation and motivation and not a lack of time. It was certainly harder for mature students/those with families etc and they do normally need more time.

    For a BSc/BA however, I think it is standard practise to require students to write their dissertations concurrently with a reduced module workload. In my BA we completed one module and the dissertation at the same time. I can't think of many of my student friends who used their extended summer holidays to actually work on their degree.
  11. To come back to the topic of the thread; the problem does not lay with the lenght of the course. But rather with the quality of the students. If Universities are willing to acccept second best - or give out marks high enough to allow said students to continue on their course - then of course the CBI will complain.

    From my experience (of a BA/MA) I can see two important points:
    1. Seminars should be assessed and become part of the final mark. Unless their is a motivation to do so many students will not actually read about the topic that week and will not contribute. If they don't contribute then they will not develop their debating or reasoning skills.
    2. Writing - I have found that many of my course mates have handed in TERRIBLE essays and received the lowest possible marks. Lecturers can easily be put under pressure to pass students so the university can keep their tutition fees. I would argue for a far wider use of the marking criteria to distinguish between those who are good and those who are not.

    As further evidence, from my personal experience, I once handed in an essay that received the mark of 80. On the university marking guidelines this means that it was only just of the quality equilivent to a conference paper. Yet my professor, who is internationally renound, described it as one of the best essays on defence he had ever marked. But these comments had no relevence to the marking schemes.

    I recently went for PhD interviews and several of the lecturers admitted to me that they were under 'extreme' pressure to accept students with no requirement to seriously check their academic quality. Whilst universities continue to accept students for cash then the CBI will keep complaining.....
  12. It is, like so much of Higher Education these days, being done for 'business' reasons rather than academic integrity. It's cheaper to punt students through a 2-year cycle than a 3 or 4. It's also cheaper for the 'customer' as they only have to fund 2/3 of the living expenses before graduating to work in a bar or McDonalds.

    Given that the government is looking to put an even larger portion of costs in England and Wales onto the student/their family, then it was only a matter of time before someone brought the discipline of the marketplace to bear. It's no accident that the first place to introduce the compressed degree was Buckingham - Britain's first private university.
  13. Yup. And so long as universities are run by people whose interests and experience are in money, the CBI will keep complaining. Ironic, ain't it?
  14. Then you'll just have to get old, retired engineers like me, from a time when only 5% went to university and offer us pots of cash and the favours of nubile young Media Studies graduates (they have to be useful for something) to teach you about wheels, angular momentum, centre of gravity, simple harmonic motion and time dilation.

    The two year degree wheeze isn't about anything other than reducing costs. You wont receive 3 years worth of tuition in two years, because that wouldn't save any money. You'll just receive a certificate at the end that says BSc when it should say HND.
  15. It is only my opinion, but that is rubbish! I have done two related but different BSc's (yes on the second I got credit for the first) and to be frank they were both relatively easy. I got a first and a 2.1 and I truly believe that students were given far too much time for the courses. I meet people nowadays who have degrees in subjects, which are so narrow that they would have constituted a jouneyman qualification about twenty years ago. I think this is americanisation as only a degree seems to indicate academic ability.