Students university cheating

[PhilD28]

[

Education should be more than about training and preperation for the world of work. It should also promote crital and analytical thinking. English and other language degrees are a perfect example of that.

I believe that you will find that Science based courses do include critical and analytical thinking.
[/quote]

I would hope so given my own education and training was via an engineering degree.
But that doesn't mean that subjects such as English and music don't promote critical thinking too and both are valuable to society in different ways.

I was also fortunate enough to train in music, that is no soft option and every bit as demanding and analytical as many sciences and engineering. For instance look at the value of the music industry to this country, the joy it brings to many listeners is immense, these are things that also make life worth living for many people.

[Psamathe]

Education should be more than about training and preperation for the world of work. It should also promote crital and analytical thinking. English and other language degrees are a perfect example of that.

I agree completely.

I see degree courses being about giving students a broader set of skills for managing analysis, thought processes, confidence, etc. not just teaching a budding engineer how to calculate stress in a steel beam. My own degrees were certainly not for the career I then followed but they did give me an excellent grounding in how to approach a problem, how to analyse, overcome challenges, being self-critical, etc.. In addition they gave me a interest that has been lifelong (so far) through which I've contributed on a voluntary and charitable basis (so my study has been used in the real world, though not to earn more money).

So choosing degree subjects again even knowing the career I'd then follow and I'd make the same choices even though other study subjects would probably make more sense from a career perspective.

Ian

[Carlton green]

I agree on the importance of wealth creation, and higher education is crucial to that in countries such as the UK. And not looking after that is exceptionally dumb.

But that isn't the only purpose of education. I see no reason why those who aren't wealthy shouldn't be given the opportunity of studying a wide range of subjects that might not lead to high pay for them as individuals. PhilD28 has given some examples. Universities offer opportunities in culture, language, sport and travel (maybe that one only applies in sensible countries) that can transform lives.

Jonathan

To my mind it is all a matter of balance, realism and consequences. Higher education is crucial to wealth creation and it is dumb not to look after it however, that said, it is but one link in the chain or one spoke in the wheel of wealth creation. In a chain each link is equally important and in a wheel the same is pretty much true of each spoke.

For a balanced economy and one secure against the future a great diversity is needed and likewise a recognition that we need people to work at all levels in society. Nuclear Physicists, Chemical Engineers and Surgeons are all high powered roles filled via high quality University Education but we as a society also need Butchers, Bus Drivers, Refuse Collectors, Clerks, Plumbers, Nursery workers and Factory Production Line Workers. University is not needed by everyone and not everyone has what it takes to complete a degree, but the less able are still valued and important members of a functioning society ... we certainly can’t do without them.

As for culture, language, sport and travel they do indeed add to life but to think that University is the route to them is to be mistaken. Simple working class people have long held interest in all those fields and learnt about them in a variety of ways alongside their day to day working life and personal commitments. If you want to transform lives then adult evening classes are a jolly good way to do so.

[PhilD28]

"As for culture, language, sport and travel they do indeed add to life but to think that University is the route to them is to be mistaken. Simple working class people have long held interest in all those fields and learnt about them in a variety of ways alongside their day to day working life and personal commitments. If you want to transform lives then adult evening classes are a jolly good way to do so."
[/quote]

Non vocational evening classes have all but dissapeared in many areas since successive governments deemed them not worth funding. Therefore access to them by people of limited means no longer exists in my locality.

Because the "good" job opportunities for 16 year old school leavers (Tech apprenticeships etc.) has massively diminished, university has become a more common way of progressing in life. This increase in numbers has caused an increase in the variety of courses required to satisfy routes into employment that would have once been via employment and day release.

It's a fair argument that many of these course could and should be carried out in FE were it to be adequately funded, which it isn't.

[pete75]

Basing marks on coursework gives plenty of room for cheating, including paying others to produce the work. Why not return to all assessment by strictly invigilated examinations?

[PhilD28]

Most course do both. Coursework is formative and useful if correctly applied, the tendancy with the final exam model is for tutors to teach students to pass a final exam rather than to think out problems, often using past papers as models.

But I believe that both have a place.

[pete75]

As for culture, language, sport and travel they do indeed add to life but to think that University is the route to them is to be mistaken. Simple working class people have long held interest in all those fields and learnt about them in a variety of ways alongside their day to day working life and personal commitments. If you want to transform lives then adult evening classes are a jolly good way to do so.

No Fine art degrees, no English language degrees, no foreign language degrees, no history degrees? What a Gradgrindian view you have of education. You also appear somewhat snobby by describing working class people as simple. It may be news to you but some working class folk actually go to university these days and may even study the sort of subjects you approve of.

[PhilD28]

Calton, you seem to look upon languages (along with some other subjects) as a hobby rather than a career. Linguists are in demand all over the world as well as in the UK in areas as diverse as defence to the arts, a degree in languages is often the only route in.

[Carlton green]

Calton, you seem to look upon languages (along with some other subjects) as a hobby rather than a career. Linguists are in demand all over the world as well as in the UK in areas as diverse as defence to the arts, a degree in languages is often the only route in.

That would be to take my response to Jonathan out of context. The context being the purposes of education and that education should have a link to future career as otherwise it is little more than a luxury activity. Can Language degrees later be used in employment? I’d say yes but question whether they (all) were or not, if not used then really the study was (at least in part) a luxury activity that tax payers should not be expected to fund/cover. So we have applied study, study for entertainment value and various mixes of those two.

Edit. There is of course the question of what level a subject needs to be studied to to be useful. I would suggest that degree level study isn’t essential for language and other subjects to be used effectively.

[PhilD28]

i'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me Calton.

[Carlton green]

i'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me Calton.

I suggest that you look back along the thread towards and re-exam comments and context.

By the way, you’ve managed to mis-spell my name twice tonight ...

I think that I’ve made my points and I don’t have anything much to add here. It’s your choice to either read and accept the points made in this thread or to ignore them, that’s the nature of forums.

[pete75]

Education should be more than about training and preperation for the world of work. It should also promote crital and analytical thinking. English and other language degrees are a perfect example of that.

School is an excellent preparation for the world of work - boring and you'd rather be doing something else.

[pete75]

i'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me Calton.

I suggest that you look back along the thread towards and re-exam comments and context.

By the way, you’ve managed to mis-spell my name twice tonight ...

I think that I’ve made my points and I don’t have anything much to add here. It’s your choice to either read and accept the points made in this thread or to ignore them, that’s the nature of forums.

Did you go to University? If so what was your subject and are you employed in a job directly related to it?

[PhilD28]

i'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me Calton.

I suggest that you look back along the thread towards and re-exam comments and context.

By the way, you’ve managed to mis-spell my name twice tonight ...

I think that I’ve made my points and I don’t have anything much to add here. It’s your choice to either read and accept the points made in this thread or to ignore them, that’s the nature of forums.

I apologise for misspelling your name, it was a mistake,” that’s the nature of forums”, spelling mistakes are made.

The point you seem to be attempting to make is that what you see as non vocational education should not be funded by the tax payer, yet in a previous post you argued that night classes should be the route for exactly this non vocational education, as I advised you this route is no longer an option in most FE colleges via night classes, funded or otherwise. Where would you suggest the public without much disposable income learn these subjects?

Can I also ask by which criteria you determine which courses are vocational and which are non vocational. For instance in your opinion are, languages, English, music, art, ballet, zoology, theatre design, and journalism vocational or non vocational and should or should they not be funded by the taxpayer and if so to what level?

I have a good friend who is a successful stage sound man, travels all over Europe (normally) pays uk taxes, he did a media studies degree at University with options in sound. It led to a good career, that course has recently had it’s funding removed, yet it had great results and led to many successful careers.

Should sport, or sports physiotherapy be University level subjects, or theology for that matter? What value do those subjects bring to society as whole and how should we quantify them.

Things are not as simple as you seem to think when it comes to education and the value of some subjects to society.

I don’t routinely engage in forum subjects, normally only in those areas where I have some specialist knowledge and feel I can add something to a discussion, such as this.

Of course feel free to read or ignore this post and respond as you wish.
Phil (one L)

[Tangled Metal]

Going back a stage to school there's a range of school types like there is further education types. For example on our town there's state comprehensive schools, there's one of UK's largest Islamic schools, there's a very large school that's an academy (origins was a grammar I think) and a very good state funded grammar school. I know people from all those schools except the Islamic one. The typical output of those schools are totally different! Grammar school they're well rounded in education (STEM specialists learnt interest in arts and Humanities and vice versa). Large academy had excellent range from good alevels to vocational. Then there's the sink schools where majority leave with at best a trade to go into if they know someone or straight labouring. Occasionally a better future but it's not what the students there expect. The point being you can tell which school people went to.

Further education has differentiation too. Even universities have differentiation but it's not often clear because it can be course by course. I think it's the same with the more vocational further education establishments. It's not just about quality but also outcome. Good career or bad? Good "graduates" or bad? Some establishments are simply factories pumping people through. Others are truly producing quality for the student but also potential employers and society.

I've been looking at PhD courses and there's a lot of inter university centres of excellence that combine the excellence of all participant universities to create better output. Also, centres of excellence based at one institution. There's a big push to interact with industry to benefit all. One interesting PhD programme I read about makes outreach part of the course. Outreach
Well it could be placements or internships in industry partners to solve specific problems to the company. It could be problem solving workshops where SMEs come with issues and the students work on them. Or placements/internships with extra funding in charitable bodies. School presentations. All part of benefiting students, university department and other sections of wider society.

I have come to discover universities are not the same institutions as they were in my day studying at two Russell group ones. I wonder how recent poster's experiences are? Are you arguing a point that's no longer as relevant because you've not got looking at modern universities but what they were 20, 30 or more years ago?

20 years ago my old company used universities to carry out research for it. I also had contact trying to arrange it too. It was very hard work and we only had the success because the company employed the academic they developed contact with, poached him if you like to get inside contact.

Fast forward to 4 years ago I commisioned research and testing at our local university. It was so easy with a fast pipeline to get to the right person to deal with. The good universities are very much embedded in wider society and industry. More so than in the past.

Innovation? Intel spends an absolute fortune on research and innovation. They have their own research campuses like universities but they also fund a lot of university research and innovation too. Every PhD student funded integrates with internal researcher / research manager. They even carry out work at the intel campuses around the world, wherever their research is most relevant. I know someone who went to silicon valley and up in Oregon too. Huge sites employing virtually a mirror of universities with the variety of specialisms. Almost university model!!

I wonder if people looking back at old systems aren't really looking at what is here and now? I really don't know how true that question is but I've certainly seen a lot of good going on in universities in recent years. Often brought about by the increase in size and budget of them.