Blimey, I agree with Boris...

trisher

Ellianne Dance also has an academic side. Look at the writings of Martha Graham-in her words
^“It is not your business to determine how good it is, nor how valuable it is, nor how it compares with other expressions. It is your business to keep it yours clearly and directly, to keep the channel open.”^

Yes, dance, art, music, flower arranging, cookery ... you name it, I guess everything can have an academic side.

So would you rate all art forms as unsuitable for a degree?

After I made my post I thought about this trisher, maybe I was picking unfairly on photography. Of course there are artistic people for whom a degree is an appropriate qualification. But not everybody who wants to be a working photographer needs a degree which focusses on the artistic side. And I really disagree that there is academic work in understanding photographic processes or composition. It might be technical, or creative, but its not academic.

I agree with Callistemon's posts about HNDs, sandwich courses etc. This is my personal experience: In the city where I went to University there was my University and a College of Technology. You could do a degree in Physics at the university, and an HND in Physics at the tech college. You had to be clever to get in to both these courses, but the Tech one have you a more practical qualification while the University gave you a more theoretical one.

The HND was not the same as a degree and equating them does both a disservice.

And while we're on the subject can we have more realistic results awarded for degrees? It seems to me there are more and more 2:1s than ever. Back in the day they weren't handed out that easily, so those who did achieve the heights were the ones destined for the top jobs or further study.

Sorry to be a pedant
Bricklaying course, to start at Level 1, you should have at least two GCSEs at grade 2 (F) or above, preferably including English and maths. (Same is true in carpentry, child care etc.) Level 2 Bricklayers have to have done the Level 1 course
The current school leaving age in 18, unless you're in an apprenticeship or at college, so colleges have to provide courses suitable for those with few/no qualifications

Callistemon

Perhaps problems began with the aspiration of wanting 50% of students to go to university, turning Colleges of Technology and Po,ytechnics into universities as if they were somehow inferior to universities.

Many students who went to those institutions took an HND (although some did do degrees) and gained membership of Institurptes. They took sandwich courses and thus gained valuable experience in industry. They went on to gain good jobs and forge excellent careers - most are retired now or near retirement and the skills shortages in such areas as engineering reflects the loss of this knowledge and experience.

Yes, that’s when the rot set in! The techs did a great job.

Why do we keep separating things into academic and non-academic, as though it matters? Culture is as important as science, just as plumbers are as important as dentists, and music as shoemaking. Without any of these things life would be poorer.

People should be able to learn what they are good at and be encouraged to become even better at it, whatever ‘it’ is, for the benefit of all.

There have always been philistines who sneer at what they don’t understand. Nowadays they criticise courses in subjects they have never studied- usually with no clue about the content - then pronounce them a waste of time and money. It is not a waste of time to learn something that interests you, and if we (as a society) allowed everyone to flourish it would benefit us all financially, as there would be less crime, suicide and depression.

It’s the meanness of spirit that I find upsetting - I might not know anything about archeology (for instance), but why would I want to deny others the right to study it? As for whether there are ‘enough jobs’ for archeologists, or whether I would consider it an academic or vocational subject - surely that is for the prospective student to worry about, not me?

Regarding who gets paid more than whom - obviously that is a whole new argument, but a lot has to do with scarcity. By restricting access to certain professions it is guaranteed that the market will never be flooded, so salaries for those who qualify will always be highly paid.

I understand what you are saying Doodledog that everyone needs to flourish and that we shouldn't deny anyone the chance to study whatever they enjoy. The worry is the spiralling cost of it all. Where is the money going to come from? The country does not have unlimited funds and there may well be a need for some curtailment in certain areas.

We did photography as day release at College while working in labs and studios using the skills learned on that one day a week and far more It was a City and Guilds course then .It was a much more useful way of learning ...in my humble opinion .I've recently met several young people with degrees in Photography who know all the theory but none of the practice,cant set up studio lights or use fill in flash .Have issues with comminication with the public they are supposed to be working for or think they dont have to take advice from folk like me with 50 years experience of doing the job.There are other jobs that really should be learned onsite University isn't the be all or the best way

Hear hear paddyanne

Doodledog Why do we keep separating things into academic and non-academic

Maybe I'm getting paranoid but I wonder if its my posts that led you to say this? If we abandon academic subjects that are studied for advancing knowledge in those areas, and for that purpose alone, we're not doing society any good. We keep splitting them this way because they are different.

As far culture being as important as science, I recommend "The Two Cultures" By C P Snow, where he argued a that the split of knowledge into "sciences" and "the humanities" was a major barrier to solving the worlds problems, mainly because those who were educated in the humanities had little knowledge of the sciences. Conversely, those who studied science generally appreciated the arts. Something that remains true today, 60 years after he wrote it.

I've recently met several young people with degrees in Photography who know all the theory but none of the practice,cant set up studio lights or use fill in flash.
Too right paddyanne. Did you know you can do a 3 year degree course in surfing at Plymouth university, but I quote "no practical surfing is included in the course". You couldn't make it up!!

paddyanne you're right.
my DD did three years at college in subject which was nothing to do with photography, taught for a while then got into photography by chance, doing routine work training and learning from experts whilst working, now a member of the AIPP. Now she is much sought after and booked up for years ahead.

Ellianne I know someone who did the surfing degree; theres more to it than one might think. Apparently it's very technical. He's taught all over the world- it's big business!

Its whether you enjoy what you do and can earn a good living from it.

Alegrias

Hear hear paddyanne

Doodledog Why do we keep separating things into academic and non-academic

Maybe I'm getting paranoid but I wonder if its my posts that led you to say this? If we abandon academic subjects that are studied for advancing knowledge in those areas, and for that purpose alone, we're not doing society any good. We keep splitting them this way because they are different.

As far culture being as important as science, I recommend "The Two Cultures" By C P Snow, where he argued a that the split of knowledge into "sciences" and "the humanities" was a major barrier to solving the worlds problems, mainly because those who were educated in the humanities had little knowledge of the sciences. Conversely, those who studied science generally appreciated the arts. Something that remains true today, 60 years after he wrote it.

No, I wasn't getting at anyone in particular .

I don't think that splitting things into academic and not 'because they are different' ages a lot of sense, though. Things are different in so many ways, that saying this is meaningless.

I haven't read the text you mention, but it sounds, on the face of it, to be a dubious argument. Solving the world's problems is a tall order, but I would argue that doing so requires the sort of understanding of the 'human condition' that is the aim of many humanities courses. Without that, there will always be wars and suffering of various kinds.

Also, it is arguable that science is responsible for a lot of the world's problems, as well as the ones it solves. Without science we would have few weapons, for a start.

None of which is particularly relevant to whether we should be looking at all skills or knowledge in terms of whether or not they are 'academic'.

There is more than enough money to teach our young people to learn whatever they want to, incidentally. As with so much about public spending, it is a matter of prioritising, and the payback, in terms of a less barbaric society would make every penny well spent, in my opinion.

Callistemon

Ellianne I know someone who did the surfing degree; theres more to it than one might think. Apparently it's very technical. He's taught all over the world- it's big business!

Its whether you enjoy what you do and can earn a good living from it.

Absolutely.

And those who seem to assume that degrees just happen, or that there are no controls over the content are very wrong.

There are quality control committees at every stage of proposing a new degree course. These are attended not only by people at all levels within the proposing university, but by External Examiners and (where relevant) representatives of the accrediting professional bodies. There is a lot of consultation throughout the process, and all levels of the course have to map onto the HEFCE qualifications framework in England, and equivalents in the other home countries.

Well I would be pretty disappointed if my surfing degree didn't allow me to at least have some practice on the waves! A bit like doing a degree in Biology and never dissecting a rat?

Or would that be Zoology?

Ooh Ellianne that's a whole new ball game. Dissection of animals is now considered unsuitable on degree courses.

Or Veterinary Science?

Too many people go to university, do a low quality degree course, come out with a massive debt and no one wants to employ them. Schools push youngsters to apply for university because they get money and cudos for all those who do go regardless of whether they are suited or not. Lots of parents who did not go to university want their youngster to go because they didn’t.

It should be what they have an aptitude for. Vocational courses have more importance in my book than a degree in media studies. I know one young man doing an apprenticeship who albeit he is paid a pittance will have no debt in 3 years time and a wealth of experience.

There are quality control committees at every stage of proposing a new degree course. These are attended not only by people at all levels within the proposing university, but by External Examiners and (where relevant) representatives of the accrediting professional bodies.

I've been on some of these committees. You can imagine how annoying I was...

Lots of parents who did not go to university want their youngster to go because they didn’t.
Now that could be very true 25Avalon.
I often think that just because I was one of those privileged ones (in the top 15%) who went to university back in the day, it is probably far too easy for me to be critical of how it is now. Time to change how I view things maybe.

Schools don't get any money when pupils go to university.

Callistemon

Or Veterinary Science?

That's no fun!

Oops that was meant for trisher's post. Sorry!

In terms of employability, a degree from Oxford or Cambridge opens more doors than a degree from almost anywhere else. So much for vocational utility! That's the real problem - barristers are more respected than aircraft designers and chemists and are more likely to go into politics and other powerful positions in the civil service, etc. Graduates from all the "new" universities, who provide the bulk of vocational degrees, are less likely to be employed in graduate level jobs six months after graduating, regardless of the subject studied.