Everyone deserves an education - a formal degree-level education at the very least. Well, not everyone but only those who want it. Education is long, tedious, deliberate, repetitive, slow and sometimes boring. If you are lucky enough to be in an area of study that fires you up emotionally and you feel really passionate about it, then it becomes none of the above but exciting. Not everyone feels passionately about their area of study and as a result cannot go through with it. Even if they do, it will always be a struggle. You have to really want it bad or find it interesting to be able to submit to the demands of a slow, tedious and boring education. In an ideal world, one can afford this education and one is free to choose a field of study that suits one’s intellectual curiosities and passions. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in the real world where education is expensive. It leaves us with only 2 options. It is either one is rich enough to be able to afford it or the state is rich enough to pay for the education of its citizens. In fee-paying states, it is either one is rich enough to pay his way or bright enough to be awarded some sort of academic scholarship. Where the state is rich enough to pay for the education of the citizens, the freedom to choose a field of study is not always available. Of what economic value will one’s passionate field of study be to the state? Employability and practicality have to be factored in. There is no point for the state to spend all that money on education that has no economic or political value. In fact, the state should only sponsor certain fields of study which it considers nationally profitable or useful. As more and more citizens opt for degree-level education, the state has the right not only to set the fields of study which it will sponsor but also set the high academic standard it will be willing to sponsor. Once again, no need mass-producing 2nd and 3rd rate graduates that will not be of creative use to the state. Only those citizens, who demonstrate academic brilliance above and beyond an acknowledged average, deserve to be sponsored by the state. As ruthless as it sounds, this is the only way the state can reap rewards from sponsoring the education of its citizens. These above-average students stand better chances of gaining useful employment and contribution to society. With this format of state sponsorship of higher education, waste due to unemployment is minimal. Besides, more and more students will be willing to take advantage of state sponsorship and will be motivated to improve their academic standards to sponsorship levels. This way, the highly sought standards in graduates, which seem to be suffering in this country at the moment, will be restored. Today what we have is a situation where the average graduate employer is finding the average graduate lacking in basic skills and intelligence expected of a graduate. I personally blame the socialist free-for-all model that has been in place in this country for so long. In its wake, it has created biggest graduate bubble since the 1940s. The socialist format was suitable for those times as there were plenty graduate positions and very few graduates to occupy them. Today, the opposite is the case – very few graduate positions in relation to the number of graduates produced by our universities. Higher education funding is due for yet another review. If high standards are to be maintained in higher education and graduates to be of the standard expected of them, higher education has to be elitist.£
Come September 2012, it will cost the average British student £9,000 a year to attend university. For the cost of university tuition to jump from £3,000 to £9,000 for a year’s tuition has huge implications both for the students and for society at large. For starters, that is a 200% increase and majority of our students depend on student loans already. There is no reason for that trend not to continue. Most significant here is the fact that bigger loans have already been made available via the same student loans company to cater for the economically-disadvantaged students who will need the financial assistance. Many expressed fears that increasing tuition fees will serve as a huge deterrent to students willing to go to university. I disagree. How can it be a deterrent if loans are available to those who qualify? Also most young people today already believe that it is better to have a degree than not to have one - despite the cost. It only means that the average student debt upon graduation will increase correspondingly. As at 2010/11 average student debt was between $10,000 and $25,000. Come 2015/16 it would increase to between $30,000 and $50,000 for the typical 3-4 year degree course. Being in a severe recession, the coalition government was right to shake up the higher education funding format. However, I think they went about it the wrong way. What they have done effectively is try to solve one problem [trying to cut down the huge amounts spent on higher education] by creating another one [higher graduate debt] – which in comparison is a much bigger problem. What we will end up with are more unemployed graduates with even more debt. For British and EU citizens, gaining a place at university automatically qualifies one to a student loan to cover tuition costs. Even though there was a 9% decrease in applications to universities this year compared to last year’s figures, student numbers are still very high compared to available graduate jobs. Youth unemployment is currently very high in the UK so going to university – no matter the cost - is still seen as a better option. Better be an unemployed graduate than being young and unemployed with no skills or qualifications. Besides, one in five recent graduates is currently unemployed. Repayment is not demanded until one’s earnings exceed £21,000 per year. As I said earlier, what the coalition government has done here is to create another problem. The original problem was that the higher education funding format was unsustainable. The government could not afford to sponsor all students that gained entry into universities. As a result, they lowered government funding for each student which meant the amount each student had to pay increased from £3,000 to £9,000. The only problem was loans are being provided to cover these increased costs just as before. Only a foolish student will be put off by increased debt accumulation. No student is forced to pay back until they start to earn over $21,000 a year. This is a recipe for disaster. It will only further inflate the graduate bubble which is already very large.
Automatic loan qualification upon securing a place at university is not only misleading but it is dangerous. As I mentioned earlier, it is better being an unemployed graduate than a young unemployed person without a degree. There is still a huge incentive for a young person to go to university and get a degree, even if it leads to nothing in the end. The esteemed graduate status is still too strong to dissuade most young people from going to university. So the 200% increase in tuition fees will not really serve as a deterrent as many feared. What we saw this year in terms of the 9% drop in university applications compared to last year was a momentary dip in student numbers. Next year’s figures will show an increase as the recession bites further. The system as it is currently will only lead to further inflation of the graduate and debt bubble. Will it not be better to change the format of dispensing loans to students? Why give a student a loan even if it will not lead to employment? Tough call but let us look at how it works at the moment.
After A levels, by securing a place at university one automatically qualifies for a student loan – if eligible. The point is that securing a place at university does not mean anything. First, it does not necessarily mean the course offered by the university is economically useful or will lead to employment. Second, it does not mean the student will go on and graduate with good enough grades that will lead to reasonable employment. Third, universities are in a racket of their own which has everything to do with central government funding and league tables and nothing to do with employment. For the average university, it is all about securing funds from students and central government and the more students they have the better. Let us say a university offers English language as a course. This is a respected and useful course and as a result might be over subscribed. For a student wanting to attend this university but unable to get place on this course, he might look for another under subscribed course. In order to attract students still, the same university might offer another course - Library Sciences for instance. As this is not as well respected as English Language, entry requirements will obviously be lower and those desperate to enter university might choose this course just to get in. This way the university manages to keep student numbers high by offering alternative courses and attract funding from government and fee-paying students. As one can imagine, just as these courses are offered primarily to lure students in, monitoring academic standards will not be a high priority on this course as – say – English Language at the same university. So it becomes very clear that the availability of student loans and the willingness of some universities to offer irrelevant courses, just to boost numbers, will end up sustaining a graduate bubble that is already too large. Clearly most of these graduates will end up unwanted both by the private and public sectors and will end up costing the state even more by being on social security benefits. It seems that the last Labour government deliberately let the graduate bubble grow by pumping so much money into universities to offer all sorts of alternative courses just to boost graduate numbers nationally. Thanks to the recession, the graduate bubble has burst and recent graduates are experiencing a harsh landing. One in five recent graduates is unemployed. For every graduate position, there are 30 to 50 applicants and current graduate debt levels are set to increase. This is the sad reality we face simply because selection [elitism] was not enforced as vigorously as it should have in higher education.
Now let us take a closer look at selection [what I call elitism] in higher education. Many people are against selection at universities as they fear it favours the well off. It is true that the well off can afford the best private tuition to meet the highest standards set by the best universities. But is it not time more money is spent on secondary education to ensure higher standards are achieved rather than dishing out loads on student loans at university level? When I say elitism, I do not mean elitism based on economic or social class. It is purely based on academic merit. If more money is spend on secondary education to raise standards, a lot less will be spent as student loans to students so below-average that makes reasonable employment almost impossible. As student numbers increase nationally, does it not make better sense to demand more from students intellectually? At the moment, many students are being deceived into thinking they stand a chance with top employers whereas employers strictly favour Oxbridge and Russell Group University students with a 2:1 or above. They engage in this practice because it is widely believed that standards in higher education are dropping. As institutions ignore rigorous selection or standards regulation, employers have found ways round that problem. This is a sensitive subject but it is only sensitive because those in charge of education are more interested in the politics of education than educating the masses. It is always better for a government to claim that there are over 10,000 graduates in a given country in a given year than say 3,000. You can begin to see the incentive to mass produce graduates. There is this common belief graduates lead to economic growth. If that were the case, we will not be in a recession right now. On the other hand, regulating the quality of graduates not only will it be difficult but it will reduce the number of graduates which is not good for politics.
Those who are against selection are misguided. They simply miss the point. The prevailing view is that selection or elitism favours the well off. They argue that the rich can afford the best private tuition or private schools to give them an unfair advantage over the less well-off. But that has been and will always be the case. The well-off will always have all the advantages. Who says life was fair? But that is not the point. The point is that fair or not, education is all about standards which have to be met. No standard, no education. No testing, no education. No monitoring, no education. If standards are deliberately over-looked to favour the less well-off, education itself suffers. Academic attainment and qualification will not be what it professes to be. Faith will be lost in the institution of education. It is already happening and that is why certain employers only recruit those from top universities – where standards are high and where selection is practiced. The good news is that with a bit of will and hard work, anyone can reach the highest of standards. Instead of finding more evidence to support the case against selection and bringing the whole institution into disrepute, disadvantaged schools should concentrate more on hard work and will power. There simply is no other way round it – education has to be elitist.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Sunday, December 18, 2011
How to Study - Part 1
Studying should be a positive and lively experience. It should be something we all should look forward and be addicted to. All alone in a quiet room or library learning something you never knew before. All alone in your own world trying to solve that mathematical equation that you know you are very close to solving but not quite there yet. In fact, it should be a physically euphoric experience. Unfortunately, due to the way we have been taught to study, the way we were taught in the classroom, the conditions under which study at home or at school, our emotional or mental state as we study and finally also partly due to our very nature as human beings – studying is not always a positive and happy experience. In most cases it is a difficult and boring chore. The challenge here is for us to find a way round studying even though sometimes it can be difficult and boring.
If you are not already a high-achieving student, chances are that you do not find studying a happy and positive experience. As a result, you are either not studying hard enough or are not studying properly. For those involved in the business of education, this is not an easy problem to solve. If it were, all students from all schools and all backgrounds will be getting top marks. But as with all difficult problems, some theory almost always emerges that reduces the whole problem of academic under-achievement to some acceptable norm. Once this theory is well established, it is no longer looked upon as a problem but as an acceptable law of nature. In other words, academic under-performance is no longer seen as a problem but as a norm. Unfortunately, this is how the problem of academic under-achievement is viewed in our society today. Even when programs are set up to tackle this problem, they are always mostly cosmetic PR exercises with no genuine intention or will. The so-called solutions are meant to fool people into thinking something is being done about it. Unfortunately, nothing can be done and nothing will ever be done about it. Academic under-performance will always be a problem. As long as the top universities produce top graduates, academic under-performance especially in inner cities will never be a serious priority.
The natural acceptable law in the case of academic under-performance is the idea that some students are just naturally more intelligent or academically more gifted than others. There is a lot of statistics that seems to support this view but upon closer examination, it is misleading. It is misleading because it ignores other factors that affect academic performance. It is the single most destructive idea the average student can believe in. By comparing the free-time habits of the high-achieving students with those of the low-achieving students, it will be noticed that the high-achieving students spend more time studying than the low-achieving students. This is main reason for the difference in academic achievement. Other factors contribute to academic performance but to a lesser extent. Environment in which one lives plays a huge role. Having a room to oneself at home is always more conducive to studies than having to share with others. The institution one attends has an impact on academic performance. The caliber and quality of fellow students in a school affects academic performance as well. A student whose parents can afford private tuition stands a better chance than a student whose parents cannot afford private tuition. A student with formally educated parents has a better chance at succeeding academically as he or she is likely to receive more help and support from parents with studies at home than a student whose parents are not formally educated. A student with a parent or an older sibling who has done the same subjects as he/she is currently doing stands a better chance than a student who has no one who did the same subjects at home. All these contribute to academic performance in students rather than some inert or inborn ability. Obviously no single institution can deal with all factors affecting academic performance no matter how hard they try. That is why the students themselves have to take it upon themselves to take the necessary action to improve their academic performance.
Studying is a serious activity. In fact it is a physical activity. Approach to study has to be both pro-active and physical. You use just as much brain power to concentrate as you use to perform a physical activity. The brain has to be active and engaged for you to learn anything. Your brain has to be awake for you to assimilate information. In other words, you need to be conscious. The more conscious you are the easier it will be for you to assimilate information. The less conscious you are, the more difficult it will be for you to assimilate information. Just as you need to be conscious to ride a bicycle or play football you need to be just as conscious to study. If you are drunk, your ability to drive or perform any physical activity is impaired, likewise studying. If you are tired, you would not be able to study properly. Many people do not realize this and therefore assume studying is a passive activity. They study in bed assuming it does not affect how much they can take in. They study with the television on in the background or with music playing in the back ground not knowing it affects their concentration. They study while logged on to Facebook or Twitter or Youtube assuming it does not affect their study. Some people study without making notes and wonder why they do not retain certain facts. Before any form of serious study, the student has to be prepared mentally and physically for the task otherwise the slightest distraction will disrupt concentration. Some people do not prepare physically and mentally before settling down to study and realize after spending hours and hours studying that they didn’t really learn much. It is bad practices like these that reinforce destructive misconceptions about academic ability that some are people are naturally more gifted than others. In part 2 of this article are a few tips that if any student adheres to – no matter how good or bad they are at studying at present – will improve academic performance drastically.
If you are not already a high-achieving student, chances are that you do not find studying a happy and positive experience. As a result, you are either not studying hard enough or are not studying properly. For those involved in the business of education, this is not an easy problem to solve. If it were, all students from all schools and all backgrounds will be getting top marks. But as with all difficult problems, some theory almost always emerges that reduces the whole problem of academic under-achievement to some acceptable norm. Once this theory is well established, it is no longer looked upon as a problem but as an acceptable law of nature. In other words, academic under-performance is no longer seen as a problem but as a norm. Unfortunately, this is how the problem of academic under-achievement is viewed in our society today. Even when programs are set up to tackle this problem, they are always mostly cosmetic PR exercises with no genuine intention or will. The so-called solutions are meant to fool people into thinking something is being done about it. Unfortunately, nothing can be done and nothing will ever be done about it. Academic under-performance will always be a problem. As long as the top universities produce top graduates, academic under-performance especially in inner cities will never be a serious priority.
The natural acceptable law in the case of academic under-performance is the idea that some students are just naturally more intelligent or academically more gifted than others. There is a lot of statistics that seems to support this view but upon closer examination, it is misleading. It is misleading because it ignores other factors that affect academic performance. It is the single most destructive idea the average student can believe in. By comparing the free-time habits of the high-achieving students with those of the low-achieving students, it will be noticed that the high-achieving students spend more time studying than the low-achieving students. This is main reason for the difference in academic achievement. Other factors contribute to academic performance but to a lesser extent. Environment in which one lives plays a huge role. Having a room to oneself at home is always more conducive to studies than having to share with others. The institution one attends has an impact on academic performance. The caliber and quality of fellow students in a school affects academic performance as well. A student whose parents can afford private tuition stands a better chance than a student whose parents cannot afford private tuition. A student with formally educated parents has a better chance at succeeding academically as he or she is likely to receive more help and support from parents with studies at home than a student whose parents are not formally educated. A student with a parent or an older sibling who has done the same subjects as he/she is currently doing stands a better chance than a student who has no one who did the same subjects at home. All these contribute to academic performance in students rather than some inert or inborn ability. Obviously no single institution can deal with all factors affecting academic performance no matter how hard they try. That is why the students themselves have to take it upon themselves to take the necessary action to improve their academic performance.
Studying is a serious activity. In fact it is a physical activity. Approach to study has to be both pro-active and physical. You use just as much brain power to concentrate as you use to perform a physical activity. The brain has to be active and engaged for you to learn anything. Your brain has to be awake for you to assimilate information. In other words, you need to be conscious. The more conscious you are the easier it will be for you to assimilate information. The less conscious you are, the more difficult it will be for you to assimilate information. Just as you need to be conscious to ride a bicycle or play football you need to be just as conscious to study. If you are drunk, your ability to drive or perform any physical activity is impaired, likewise studying. If you are tired, you would not be able to study properly. Many people do not realize this and therefore assume studying is a passive activity. They study in bed assuming it does not affect how much they can take in. They study with the television on in the background or with music playing in the back ground not knowing it affects their concentration. They study while logged on to Facebook or Twitter or Youtube assuming it does not affect their study. Some people study without making notes and wonder why they do not retain certain facts. Before any form of serious study, the student has to be prepared mentally and physically for the task otherwise the slightest distraction will disrupt concentration. Some people do not prepare physically and mentally before settling down to study and realize after spending hours and hours studying that they didn’t really learn much. It is bad practices like these that reinforce destructive misconceptions about academic ability that some are people are naturally more gifted than others. In part 2 of this article are a few tips that if any student adheres to – no matter how good or bad they are at studying at present – will improve academic performance drastically.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Beware of the Super Graduates
The global recession which hit in September 2008 continues to bite. It is affecting all sectors in all sorts of ways but come 2012 academic year, higher education will be hit harder than most. By then it will cost the average student £9,000 a year to go to University in the UK. By 2015 -16, upon graduation the average student will be £40,000 - £50,000 in debt. Now, that is a lot of money even for the reasonably employed to pay back. The fact that the recent graduate will be lumbered with such debt even before they start a new independent life away from home is very worrying. That is on top of having for the first time to make allowances for rent/mortgage, pension/savings and other necessary living expenses that come with newly found independence. As I said - very worrying.
As worrying as it may seem, I have stressed in the past
that increasing tuition fees will not reduce the number of students still wishing to go to university in this country. It certainly does not reduce the number of students flocking in from the EU and it definitely will not reduce the number of students from outside the EU. Conventional wisdom has it that it is still better to be a graduate – even if you end up an unemployed or in a dead-end job. Besides for UK and EU citizens, there are loans available to the less well-off students to cover these costs. Also you only are asked to pay back the loans when you are suitably employed so crippling debt upon graduation is not as prohibitive as it might seem. In fact considering what is happening in Greece, Italy and the rest of Europe, it makes more sense for well off and ambitious students from any of these countries to wish to study in the UK. As citizens of EU member states, they are not subject to travel restrictions or conditions and they are eligible to whatever grant or loan available to British students. On top of it all, they are free to live and work in the UK afterwards. As for students from outside the EU, tuition fees – no matter how high - can never reduce the number of willing applicants. The rest of the world is a big place compared to the UK and there will always be those rich enough to pay UK tuition fees. In America, where university tuition fees are much higher than in the UK, there has been a year on year increase in applications from foreign students since the end of world war 2. The only thing that will reduce the influx of foreign students to our universities is by setting quotas and not raising fees.
There lies the problem – more graduates with even more debt but no corresponding increase in available graduate jobs. We are still in a very severe recession after all so if anything job opportunities are decreasing not increasing. So what hope do all these new graduates have? To be honest – not a lot. No government, no politician, no institution of higher learning will ever come out and admit to this fact. Like most things in society, as long as no one says anything publicly, the masses will be fooled. That is how we ended up in this financial mess in the first place. Those in the know knew that the crisis was bound to happen but kept the rest of us in the dark till it happened. Some even bet against the markets and made colossal private gains while public loses were huge. Openly admitting such will be disastrous. It will send out the wrong message to students. But what many people do not realise is that it is happening already. One in five recent graduates is unemployed and a higher number are stuck in undesirable jobs. Ultimately, the onus lies with the students themselves to sort themselves out of this mess.
This should be a serious worry for the average student but not for the average employer. The average employer has never had it so good. Back in the day, graduates from certain universities and with certain degrees only applied to top firms and city jobs. These days due to the weak job market, recent graduates are diversifying their job search. For every graduate job advertised, there are about 70 applications. Employers can afford to pick and choose as they are now truly spoilt for choice. As I was thinking about the plight of recent graduates, I came up with the idea of the Super-Graduate. A Super-Graduate is simply a recession-proof graduate, a market-proof graduate, a graduate that will secure employment despite market conditions. It is what I will push for my kids to be. I thought I was the only one to think about it till I stumbled across this article by accident. Not only was I surprised to read about the Super-Graduates, the fact that companies are springing up all over to help produce Super-Graduates sent a cold chill down my spine. The Ivy League universities produce something similar to super graduates already but when Ivy league graduates start to feel they need an edge to stand out then my fear is that they will be going down the super graduate route.
The so-called Super Graduate usually has more than one degree. One or all degrees with honours and in one of the traditional subjects - Mathematics, Engineering, Physics, Economics, Philosophy, Classics, Political Science, History, Law, Finance, or Computer Science. One or all degrees from a top global university. They usually are fluent in more than one European language, have an internship already from a top firm and almost certainly comes from a rich and educated family. They are normally academically above average, confident in their abilities; feel they are God’s gift, demand huge starting salaries and almost always end up doing an MBA as well.
These are the type of graduates the average graduate will have to compete with for the top jobs. As the market is shrinking, competition will be cut-throat. My question is why would a top employer go for an inner-city graduate if a super graduate exists? I predict the idea of the Oxbridge Graduates will give way for the Super Graduates and aspire to be one or forever beware of the Super Graduates.
As worrying as it may seem, I have stressed in the past
that increasing tuition fees will not reduce the number of students still wishing to go to university in this country. It certainly does not reduce the number of students flocking in from the EU and it definitely will not reduce the number of students from outside the EU. Conventional wisdom has it that it is still better to be a graduate – even if you end up an unemployed or in a dead-end job. Besides for UK and EU citizens, there are loans available to the less well-off students to cover these costs. Also you only are asked to pay back the loans when you are suitably employed so crippling debt upon graduation is not as prohibitive as it might seem. In fact considering what is happening in Greece, Italy and the rest of Europe, it makes more sense for well off and ambitious students from any of these countries to wish to study in the UK. As citizens of EU member states, they are not subject to travel restrictions or conditions and they are eligible to whatever grant or loan available to British students. On top of it all, they are free to live and work in the UK afterwards. As for students from outside the EU, tuition fees – no matter how high - can never reduce the number of willing applicants. The rest of the world is a big place compared to the UK and there will always be those rich enough to pay UK tuition fees. In America, where university tuition fees are much higher than in the UK, there has been a year on year increase in applications from foreign students since the end of world war 2. The only thing that will reduce the influx of foreign students to our universities is by setting quotas and not raising fees.
There lies the problem – more graduates with even more debt but no corresponding increase in available graduate jobs. We are still in a very severe recession after all so if anything job opportunities are decreasing not increasing. So what hope do all these new graduates have? To be honest – not a lot. No government, no politician, no institution of higher learning will ever come out and admit to this fact. Like most things in society, as long as no one says anything publicly, the masses will be fooled. That is how we ended up in this financial mess in the first place. Those in the know knew that the crisis was bound to happen but kept the rest of us in the dark till it happened. Some even bet against the markets and made colossal private gains while public loses were huge. Openly admitting such will be disastrous. It will send out the wrong message to students. But what many people do not realise is that it is happening already. One in five recent graduates is unemployed and a higher number are stuck in undesirable jobs. Ultimately, the onus lies with the students themselves to sort themselves out of this mess.
This should be a serious worry for the average student but not for the average employer. The average employer has never had it so good. Back in the day, graduates from certain universities and with certain degrees only applied to top firms and city jobs. These days due to the weak job market, recent graduates are diversifying their job search. For every graduate job advertised, there are about 70 applications. Employers can afford to pick and choose as they are now truly spoilt for choice. As I was thinking about the plight of recent graduates, I came up with the idea of the Super-Graduate. A Super-Graduate is simply a recession-proof graduate, a market-proof graduate, a graduate that will secure employment despite market conditions. It is what I will push for my kids to be. I thought I was the only one to think about it till I stumbled across this article by accident. Not only was I surprised to read about the Super-Graduates, the fact that companies are springing up all over to help produce Super-Graduates sent a cold chill down my spine. The Ivy League universities produce something similar to super graduates already but when Ivy league graduates start to feel they need an edge to stand out then my fear is that they will be going down the super graduate route.
The so-called Super Graduate usually has more than one degree. One or all degrees with honours and in one of the traditional subjects - Mathematics, Engineering, Physics, Economics, Philosophy, Classics, Political Science, History, Law, Finance, or Computer Science. One or all degrees from a top global university. They usually are fluent in more than one European language, have an internship already from a top firm and almost certainly comes from a rich and educated family. They are normally academically above average, confident in their abilities; feel they are God’s gift, demand huge starting salaries and almost always end up doing an MBA as well.
These are the type of graduates the average graduate will have to compete with for the top jobs. As the market is shrinking, competition will be cut-throat. My question is why would a top employer go for an inner-city graduate if a super graduate exists? I predict the idea of the Oxbridge Graduates will give way for the Super Graduates and aspire to be one or forever beware of the Super Graduates.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Failures in University Education
In the UK today, Education has failed. As it is currently practised, education fails more people than it helps. Annually, many graduates are deceived into believing a dream job awaits upon graduation. Many are deluded into thinking they posses the highly sought attributes of the ideal graduate. Many are ignorant of the fact that they are doomed simply because they attended a non Ivy-league university. The fact that there exist some sub-standard universities and that those sub-standard universities are allowed to produce sub-standard graduates is tantamount to a crime. That is the failure of education of which I am referring to. However, education in itself is not a complete failure. It still serves its limited purpose. It provides top businesses, top government and private institutions with suitable fresh graduate recruits. It provides the economy with fresh graduate workers. Understandably, as long as the best universities produce the best graduates for the best jobs, it is taken as a given that education is serving its rightful purpose. But that is only half of what a proper and effective education should do. The main aim of education is to enlighten, to inspire, to educate – to a set standard, regardless of institution. And employment should be a by-product of education, not the main product.
Today, the aim of education is simply to lead one to employment. This is not just wrong but wasteful. It is wasteful because there will never be 100% graduate employment or 0% graduate unemployment. As it is prescribed, education turns the average student into nothing more than a professional job seeker. At any given time, there are far too many graduates for the economy to absorb. As a consequence, the business of education is reduced to a heartless, wasteful, competitive, win-loose, sum-zero, elitist business. Those with the means to get the best education get the best jobs and opportunities. The rest – which are a majority - loose out. Not only do they loose out on the jobs but they also loose their education. A graduate has no validation without suitable employment. This is another failure of education.
This failure comes from the format in which education is delivered today. Education should be a two-way traffic. First, education has to enlighten, inspire, educate – to a set standard regardless of institution. Second, education should only be provided to those who want to be enlightened, those who want to be educated. In other words, only those who deserve it should be educated. This is very controversial but education cannot be delivered in any other format if it is to be proper and effective. Education cannot be delivered in any other format if the independence of the standard is to be maintained. To be worthy of education, one has to be able to demonstrate education-worthiness beyond all doubt. Anything less than an ample and appropriate demonstration of ones desire, eligibility to be educated to the highest standards should be rejected. Anything less than a comfortable demonstration of one’s academic abilities prior to entrance into a university and through out the duration of ones course should be rejected. Sub-standard graduates end up devaluing the institutions that produces them. As a consequence, education can never be for all. A medical doctor without the minimum grades and right disease-diagnosing instincts of a medical doctor is more of a menace rather than a messiah to society. An engineer without the right objective and analytical mind ends up a danger to his profession and mankind. In order to ensure those with the right attributes and capabilities go on to qualify as graduates, proper periodical testing should be the norm. This view that education should be for all is the greatest threat to proper and effective education. All intentions to open education, especially University education up to all, has always been political. What is the benefit to society of a graduate who cannot speak, write or think like a graduate? Such egalitarian practices inevitably lead to wastage and devaluation in standards of education. It also leads to the emergence of elitist universities where standards are maintained and selection processes a nightmare. If standards were maintained everywhere, there will be no room for elitism. The sub-standard students end up paying a higher price in the end.
Education is about attaining a certain academic standard. That standard has to been defended, protected, maintained and monitored for education to justify its worth. Education has to be difficult. Education has to be demanding. That is the first part. The second part is that the students themselves have to submit to this standard. Students must want to attain this high standard themselves. No institution, teacher, library or lecturer can bring a student to this standard without the will of the students themselves. The defining difference should come from the individual student. That is why there always has to be some sort of vigorous standards testing in the form of regular examinations to monitor standards.
In the final analysis, a university education should be able to guarantee a certain standard in a graduate regardless of university attended. The fact that some universities are obviously head and shoulders better than others defeats the object of setting up a university as an institution of higher learning in the first place. Why should a PhD from say South Bank University be viewed any differently from a PhD from Oxford? A levels in this country are far better in this respect as an “A” grade say in mathematics from any College is still an “A” grade regardless of the College from which it is obtained.
Today, the aim of education is simply to lead one to employment. This is not just wrong but wasteful. It is wasteful because there will never be 100% graduate employment or 0% graduate unemployment. As it is prescribed, education turns the average student into nothing more than a professional job seeker. At any given time, there are far too many graduates for the economy to absorb. As a consequence, the business of education is reduced to a heartless, wasteful, competitive, win-loose, sum-zero, elitist business. Those with the means to get the best education get the best jobs and opportunities. The rest – which are a majority - loose out. Not only do they loose out on the jobs but they also loose their education. A graduate has no validation without suitable employment. This is another failure of education.
This failure comes from the format in which education is delivered today. Education should be a two-way traffic. First, education has to enlighten, inspire, educate – to a set standard regardless of institution. Second, education should only be provided to those who want to be enlightened, those who want to be educated. In other words, only those who deserve it should be educated. This is very controversial but education cannot be delivered in any other format if it is to be proper and effective. Education cannot be delivered in any other format if the independence of the standard is to be maintained. To be worthy of education, one has to be able to demonstrate education-worthiness beyond all doubt. Anything less than an ample and appropriate demonstration of ones desire, eligibility to be educated to the highest standards should be rejected. Anything less than a comfortable demonstration of one’s academic abilities prior to entrance into a university and through out the duration of ones course should be rejected. Sub-standard graduates end up devaluing the institutions that produces them. As a consequence, education can never be for all. A medical doctor without the minimum grades and right disease-diagnosing instincts of a medical doctor is more of a menace rather than a messiah to society. An engineer without the right objective and analytical mind ends up a danger to his profession and mankind. In order to ensure those with the right attributes and capabilities go on to qualify as graduates, proper periodical testing should be the norm. This view that education should be for all is the greatest threat to proper and effective education. All intentions to open education, especially University education up to all, has always been political. What is the benefit to society of a graduate who cannot speak, write or think like a graduate? Such egalitarian practices inevitably lead to wastage and devaluation in standards of education. It also leads to the emergence of elitist universities where standards are maintained and selection processes a nightmare. If standards were maintained everywhere, there will be no room for elitism. The sub-standard students end up paying a higher price in the end.
Education is about attaining a certain academic standard. That standard has to been defended, protected, maintained and monitored for education to justify its worth. Education has to be difficult. Education has to be demanding. That is the first part. The second part is that the students themselves have to submit to this standard. Students must want to attain this high standard themselves. No institution, teacher, library or lecturer can bring a student to this standard without the will of the students themselves. The defining difference should come from the individual student. That is why there always has to be some sort of vigorous standards testing in the form of regular examinations to monitor standards.
In the final analysis, a university education should be able to guarantee a certain standard in a graduate regardless of university attended. The fact that some universities are obviously head and shoulders better than others defeats the object of setting up a university as an institution of higher learning in the first place. Why should a PhD from say South Bank University be viewed any differently from a PhD from Oxford? A levels in this country are far better in this respect as an “A” grade say in mathematics from any College is still an “A” grade regardless of the College from which it is obtained.
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Myth of Academic Intelligence.
I grew up thinking that I was not quite of first rate intelligence. Luckily for me, I was never at the bottom of any of my classes either. In fact I was always in the top quarter. I mixed and mingled with the so-called very best in my classes but never really believed that I was one of them. It was the single most destructive belief I ever adopted. In fact, when looked at properly, it can be seen to be the reason why I never made it to the very top. Well, up until now. I cannot remember who said it but I feel the same and quote him here that… “Only death will prevent that from happening”. That is why I do what I do now. I am a private A Level Mathematics tutor and a student coach simply and squarely because I see far too many students wander into college and university – just as I did – not really believing they have what it takes to make profound discoveries or difference in the world. It is now my job to destroy such limiting-beliefs in the average student before they destroy the average student.
Such limiting-beliefs about intelligence are not only extremely dangerous and destructive but simply just wrong. However, no student should be blamed for adopting such beliefs. Almost all societies are designed based on such beliefs. As far back as I can go in my formative years, it was drilled into my psyche that some people naturally had what it took to succeed, while others, just as naturally, did not. As I said before, such beliefs are as dangerous as they are destructive. If you are already considered or looked upon as academically superior then you should - without guilt - enjoy all that goes with it. I wish you go on to achieve and attain the majestic and dizzy heights of success in any profession or field of your choosing. If on the other hand you are seen as merely average then you need to work on yourself rather than believe in and accept your assigned place. In today’s world, being average is a deficiency and by believing in such, you are preventing yourself from actually doing what it takes to rise to the top. You need help. Get in touch.
To start with, for one to actually lack intelligence, one would have to be walking into lampposts, walking into traffic, putting their hands in fire and poking their eyes out with sharp objects. The fact that one does not do such implies that one is intelligent. Having shown that one is intelligent, there is simply no reason why one should not ascend to the dizzy heights of academic and professional success.
Academic intelligence is always the result of some sort of effort. Why then do some exert more effort than others? That is the question. The answer is much simpler than it seems. That unquestionable and undeniable exertion of effort in order to acquire intelligence comes from a “deliberate intent” or an “accidental emotional need”. Deliberate intention is when one works hard solely to do well in an academic exercise like an examination. Most intelligent people fall under this category of hard workers. To be seen as intelligent is very rewarding and most intelligent people are used to being seen this way and just cannot bear to be seen otherwise so stay up all night if they have to just to maintain their standard or live up to expectation. It becomes an accidental emotional need when the subject of one’s study excites some pleasure or is soothing or satisfying in some emotional context. As a result, the subject of study is not as boring and tedious as normal subjects seem to be sometimes. I remember feeling some sort of pleasure while doing mathematics especially algebra during my A levels. As a result, I like mathematics more than I will ever like say biology. Biology never gave me pleasure so reading or studying it was always a chore. When there is this type of emotional connection with study, the act of studying can be intensive and result in one being able to either take in a lot at one sitting or frequently indulge in the study of the subject without getting bred or tired of it. In this category you see exceptional displays of academic brilliance. People that fall under this group dazzle with their intelligence because acquiring knowledge to them is not hard work but pleasurable.
Those who do not have any emotional connection with or satisfaction from study and no discipline to stick to a regular study pattern are unfortunate. Studying has to be a boring, tedious, emotionless and demanding deliberate intention. Not as pleasurable or as easy as in the first case but not impossible none the less. This is where training and conditioning comes in. intelligence has never been about any natural ability. If you are lucky enough to be excited about the subject, then you will always be better at the subject than those for which it is a boring chore. If not excited about the subject then you remind yourself on a regular basis why you are studying in the first place. With proper reminding or motivation, huge academic feats can be achieved.
The idea that intelligence is based on natural ability is nothing but a myth.
Such limiting-beliefs about intelligence are not only extremely dangerous and destructive but simply just wrong. However, no student should be blamed for adopting such beliefs. Almost all societies are designed based on such beliefs. As far back as I can go in my formative years, it was drilled into my psyche that some people naturally had what it took to succeed, while others, just as naturally, did not. As I said before, such beliefs are as dangerous as they are destructive. If you are already considered or looked upon as academically superior then you should - without guilt - enjoy all that goes with it. I wish you go on to achieve and attain the majestic and dizzy heights of success in any profession or field of your choosing. If on the other hand you are seen as merely average then you need to work on yourself rather than believe in and accept your assigned place. In today’s world, being average is a deficiency and by believing in such, you are preventing yourself from actually doing what it takes to rise to the top. You need help. Get in touch.
To start with, for one to actually lack intelligence, one would have to be walking into lampposts, walking into traffic, putting their hands in fire and poking their eyes out with sharp objects. The fact that one does not do such implies that one is intelligent. Having shown that one is intelligent, there is simply no reason why one should not ascend to the dizzy heights of academic and professional success.
Academic intelligence is always the result of some sort of effort. Why then do some exert more effort than others? That is the question. The answer is much simpler than it seems. That unquestionable and undeniable exertion of effort in order to acquire intelligence comes from a “deliberate intent” or an “accidental emotional need”. Deliberate intention is when one works hard solely to do well in an academic exercise like an examination. Most intelligent people fall under this category of hard workers. To be seen as intelligent is very rewarding and most intelligent people are used to being seen this way and just cannot bear to be seen otherwise so stay up all night if they have to just to maintain their standard or live up to expectation. It becomes an accidental emotional need when the subject of one’s study excites some pleasure or is soothing or satisfying in some emotional context. As a result, the subject of study is not as boring and tedious as normal subjects seem to be sometimes. I remember feeling some sort of pleasure while doing mathematics especially algebra during my A levels. As a result, I like mathematics more than I will ever like say biology. Biology never gave me pleasure so reading or studying it was always a chore. When there is this type of emotional connection with study, the act of studying can be intensive and result in one being able to either take in a lot at one sitting or frequently indulge in the study of the subject without getting bred or tired of it. In this category you see exceptional displays of academic brilliance. People that fall under this group dazzle with their intelligence because acquiring knowledge to them is not hard work but pleasurable.
Those who do not have any emotional connection with or satisfaction from study and no discipline to stick to a regular study pattern are unfortunate. Studying has to be a boring, tedious, emotionless and demanding deliberate intention. Not as pleasurable or as easy as in the first case but not impossible none the less. This is where training and conditioning comes in. intelligence has never been about any natural ability. If you are lucky enough to be excited about the subject, then you will always be better at the subject than those for which it is a boring chore. If not excited about the subject then you remind yourself on a regular basis why you are studying in the first place. With proper reminding or motivation, huge academic feats can be achieved.
The idea that intelligence is based on natural ability is nothing but a myth.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Crisis in Education
Ever since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, I predicted a similar crisis in Higher Education in this country. My prediction turns out to be correct. The recent student demonstrations against the increase in university tuition fees in London and other cities across the UK in November and December of 2010 were just the beginnings of the crisis. On the 19th of January 2011, college students demonstrated again in front of the houses of parliament in Westminster against the scrapping of Education Maintenance Allowance. Further demonstrations against tuition fees increases and the scrapping of EMA have been arranged for later this month and March of this year. With both the government and students determined not to yield, brace yourselves for a thorny ride. It will get much worse before it gets better. It has already dawned on clever students that demonstrating from here to Herefordshire will not change a thing. We are in a recession, the current higher education funding is unsustainable and national debt is staggering. The government had to do something. This is the time for students – just like the rest of us - to rise to the huge challenges that lie ahead. I can see something similar to the 80’s poll tax riots on the way. It is hard not to be convinced of the impending crisis in education if you have been following the build-up and are equipped with good judgement.
On the 15th of September 2008, Lehman Brothers – one of the world’s biggest investment banks – filed for Bankruptcy. Apparently they [Lehman Brothers] made a lot of losses in the sub-prime mortgage market. That brought about the end of a global financial powerhouse that was in business for over 150 years. For an investment bank so large to collapse so spectacularly highlighted for many the severity of the credit crisis. Severe credit crisis inevitably lead to economic recessions and governments react to economic recessions by making fiscal and monetary policy adjustments. In the UK, in response to the global recession and the huge national dept, the last labour government in its final Pre-Budget Report on the 9th of December 2010 made some fiscal policy adjustments. VAT was increased from 17.5% to 20% which took effect in January 2011 and National Insurance Contributions were increased by a further 0.5% to take effect in April 2011. In November 2009 they [the last labour administration] also commissioned The Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance to make recommendations on the future of fees policy and financial support in Higher Education for undergraduate and postgraduate students. The key recommendation of the report - headed by Lord Brown and published on the 12th of October 2010 – was that for education in this country to remain competitive and sustainable, the current £3,000 cap on university tuition fees be removed and individual universities should have the freedom to charge tuition as they saw fit. It is believed that universities will charge anything between £7,000 and £11,000 per year as from 2012. The report also recommended that repayment of any student loans after graduation only begin upon graduates earning salaries of over £21,000 a year - an increase from the current £15,000. On June the 22nd 2010, George Osborne - in his first budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer under the new coalition government - announced further fiscal adjustments. He announced a series of government spending cuts. The sectors affected by these cuts included Education, Health Care, Defence and Local Government. For Education it meant the reduction of the number of spaces available on certain courses and/or discontinuation of certain unpopular/unpractical courses all together at some institutions. Also it meant that as from January 2011, new college students no longer got the weekly EMA - Education Maintenance Allowance – which was between £10 and £30 per week.
The implications of all these cuts for the average student are huge. It will bring about changes in higher education of which many students are still not prepared for. That is the other part of the crisis. The demonstrations are just the beginnings. The economic boom times are definitely well and truly over. From 1997 to 2006, with the exception of the dot com bubble bursting in late 2000 and the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 - which slowed down the economy briefly - the UK economy was in a continuous and steady boom. According to New Labour, “Things could only get better”. More and more money was poured into higher education; more and more students were attending university. By 2007, there were already too many unemployed graduates. Unemployed not because of a recession but because there simply were too many graduates for even the boom-time economy to absorb. By 2008, things changed. A global credit crisis hit. A global recession followed. Fiscal and Monetary policies were adjusted. Public spending cuts were announced. Inevitable public sector redundancies lie ahead. The higher education tuition fees cap was removed and universities are set to charge as they see fit. Come 2012, tuition fees will be between £7,000 and £11,000. Student debt upon graduation will rise from its current average of £20,000 to £30,000 in 2009-2010 to a new average of £30,000 to £50,000 as from 2013 onwards. And there is more. College and University student numbers have been increasing yearly since 1997. University student numbers might dip come 2012 but that is not likely to be that significant as loans will be made available to cover tuition fees. Despite the severe recession and higher tuition fees, more and more school leavers are still opting to go to university - most probably because of it. Everybody seeks the good life and all students have been made to believe a university degree is the answer. The European Union is now a 27 member-state entity that offers citizens the freedom to travel, work, study and settle anywhere within the union. London is still a top international city, English is still the global language and the UK is doing better than many EU states like Greece, Spain and Ireland. These facts make the UK very attractive and draws many students to the UK especially London. In addition to EU students, there are Non-EU students as well. Many end up working and living in the UK after graduation. It is within this chaotic framework that the average student is supposed to do his/her A levels, obtains good enough grades, obtain a place at University, graduate, seek and secure an ideal graduate job – stress free. That is the crisis.
If competition for university places were as bad as the reports told us in 2009-2010, competition for graduate jobs were even worse. With the private and public sectors both downsizing, with huge numbers of graduates chasing few jobs, with the country going through the worst economic recession since the great depression, with the cost of living rising year on year, with college students no longer entitled to EMA, with university tuition fees set to increase to £9,000 per annum come 2012, with average student debt set to climb to between £30,000 and £50,000 upon graduation, with graduate unemployment at an all-time high, with morale amongst fresh graduates at an all-time low the average student should think long and hard before deciding to go to university.
In fact the decision to go to university should now be a decision to fully commit to the expensive investment in education. It is a decision to fully commit to hard work to make a return on that expensive investment in education. It is a decision that the education will and must pay off in the end. It is a decision to make oneself employable despite severe competition. When I went to university, it was assumed there will be a job afterwards. Today, to get a job, you must either be lucky or exceptionally good. Those hoping on luck need not apply. In other words, it is no longer an insurance policy, but an assurance policy. That simply is and should now become the basic requirement for those willing to attend university. There is no point attending university to see what will happen or wish a suitable job will materialize. It is way too expensive to wish for a good return. It has to be the absolute driving and burning ambition. It is either a student is willing to completely commit or not bother at all.
In a very weird sense, this crisis is good. As with every crisis, it can be an opportunity to make any system better. For sometime now, there has been concern about the quality of education in this country. There has been concern that A Levels and GCSEs are dropping in standards. I totally agree. Comparing examination papers - say Pure Mathematics - of the years 1977 and 2007 will reveal this fact even to the blind. Graduate employers have been saying this for years. This crisis should be an opportunity for reform. Higher education should be incentivized either via scholarships or otherwise. Instead of a flat system of grants and loans, universities especially in inner cities have do offer scholarships to the best performing students.
In the final analysis, this crisis will hit students hard. No amount of student protests will prevent the government cuts or the increase in tuition fees. Upon graduation, the struggle for employment will ensue. These times present real challenges for the average student. The onus lies wholly and ultimately with the student to demonstrate his or her fitness to succeed despite the crisis.
Mr Jideofo Obianyido is a private A Level Mathematics Tutor and a student coach. His new book “EDUCATION – A message to young and ambitious students” is due in April 2011. He lives in London and can be contacted via Jideofo.Obianyido@gmail.com
On the 15th of September 2008, Lehman Brothers – one of the world’s biggest investment banks – filed for Bankruptcy. Apparently they [Lehman Brothers] made a lot of losses in the sub-prime mortgage market. That brought about the end of a global financial powerhouse that was in business for over 150 years. For an investment bank so large to collapse so spectacularly highlighted for many the severity of the credit crisis. Severe credit crisis inevitably lead to economic recessions and governments react to economic recessions by making fiscal and monetary policy adjustments. In the UK, in response to the global recession and the huge national dept, the last labour government in its final Pre-Budget Report on the 9th of December 2010 made some fiscal policy adjustments. VAT was increased from 17.5% to 20% which took effect in January 2011 and National Insurance Contributions were increased by a further 0.5% to take effect in April 2011. In November 2009 they [the last labour administration] also commissioned The Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance to make recommendations on the future of fees policy and financial support in Higher Education for undergraduate and postgraduate students. The key recommendation of the report - headed by Lord Brown and published on the 12th of October 2010 – was that for education in this country to remain competitive and sustainable, the current £3,000 cap on university tuition fees be removed and individual universities should have the freedom to charge tuition as they saw fit. It is believed that universities will charge anything between £7,000 and £11,000 per year as from 2012. The report also recommended that repayment of any student loans after graduation only begin upon graduates earning salaries of over £21,000 a year - an increase from the current £15,000. On June the 22nd 2010, George Osborne - in his first budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer under the new coalition government - announced further fiscal adjustments. He announced a series of government spending cuts. The sectors affected by these cuts included Education, Health Care, Defence and Local Government. For Education it meant the reduction of the number of spaces available on certain courses and/or discontinuation of certain unpopular/unpractical courses all together at some institutions. Also it meant that as from January 2011, new college students no longer got the weekly EMA - Education Maintenance Allowance – which was between £10 and £30 per week.
The implications of all these cuts for the average student are huge. It will bring about changes in higher education of which many students are still not prepared for. That is the other part of the crisis. The demonstrations are just the beginnings. The economic boom times are definitely well and truly over. From 1997 to 2006, with the exception of the dot com bubble bursting in late 2000 and the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 - which slowed down the economy briefly - the UK economy was in a continuous and steady boom. According to New Labour, “Things could only get better”. More and more money was poured into higher education; more and more students were attending university. By 2007, there were already too many unemployed graduates. Unemployed not because of a recession but because there simply were too many graduates for even the boom-time economy to absorb. By 2008, things changed. A global credit crisis hit. A global recession followed. Fiscal and Monetary policies were adjusted. Public spending cuts were announced. Inevitable public sector redundancies lie ahead. The higher education tuition fees cap was removed and universities are set to charge as they see fit. Come 2012, tuition fees will be between £7,000 and £11,000. Student debt upon graduation will rise from its current average of £20,000 to £30,000 in 2009-2010 to a new average of £30,000 to £50,000 as from 2013 onwards. And there is more. College and University student numbers have been increasing yearly since 1997. University student numbers might dip come 2012 but that is not likely to be that significant as loans will be made available to cover tuition fees. Despite the severe recession and higher tuition fees, more and more school leavers are still opting to go to university - most probably because of it. Everybody seeks the good life and all students have been made to believe a university degree is the answer. The European Union is now a 27 member-state entity that offers citizens the freedom to travel, work, study and settle anywhere within the union. London is still a top international city, English is still the global language and the UK is doing better than many EU states like Greece, Spain and Ireland. These facts make the UK very attractive and draws many students to the UK especially London. In addition to EU students, there are Non-EU students as well. Many end up working and living in the UK after graduation. It is within this chaotic framework that the average student is supposed to do his/her A levels, obtains good enough grades, obtain a place at University, graduate, seek and secure an ideal graduate job – stress free. That is the crisis.
If competition for university places were as bad as the reports told us in 2009-2010, competition for graduate jobs were even worse. With the private and public sectors both downsizing, with huge numbers of graduates chasing few jobs, with the country going through the worst economic recession since the great depression, with the cost of living rising year on year, with college students no longer entitled to EMA, with university tuition fees set to increase to £9,000 per annum come 2012, with average student debt set to climb to between £30,000 and £50,000 upon graduation, with graduate unemployment at an all-time high, with morale amongst fresh graduates at an all-time low the average student should think long and hard before deciding to go to university.
In fact the decision to go to university should now be a decision to fully commit to the expensive investment in education. It is a decision to fully commit to hard work to make a return on that expensive investment in education. It is a decision that the education will and must pay off in the end. It is a decision to make oneself employable despite severe competition. When I went to university, it was assumed there will be a job afterwards. Today, to get a job, you must either be lucky or exceptionally good. Those hoping on luck need not apply. In other words, it is no longer an insurance policy, but an assurance policy. That simply is and should now become the basic requirement for those willing to attend university. There is no point attending university to see what will happen or wish a suitable job will materialize. It is way too expensive to wish for a good return. It has to be the absolute driving and burning ambition. It is either a student is willing to completely commit or not bother at all.
In a very weird sense, this crisis is good. As with every crisis, it can be an opportunity to make any system better. For sometime now, there has been concern about the quality of education in this country. There has been concern that A Levels and GCSEs are dropping in standards. I totally agree. Comparing examination papers - say Pure Mathematics - of the years 1977 and 2007 will reveal this fact even to the blind. Graduate employers have been saying this for years. This crisis should be an opportunity for reform. Higher education should be incentivized either via scholarships or otherwise. Instead of a flat system of grants and loans, universities especially in inner cities have do offer scholarships to the best performing students.
In the final analysis, this crisis will hit students hard. No amount of student protests will prevent the government cuts or the increase in tuition fees. Upon graduation, the struggle for employment will ensue. These times present real challenges for the average student. The onus lies wholly and ultimately with the student to demonstrate his or her fitness to succeed despite the crisis.
Mr Jideofo Obianyido is a private A Level Mathematics Tutor and a student coach. His new book “EDUCATION – A message to young and ambitious students” is due in April 2011. He lives in London and can be contacted via Jideofo.Obianyido@gmail.com
Saturday, August 14, 2010
A Message To Young and Ambitious Students 1
In the UK, the education system was designed to produce well trained, capable and intelligent individuals to take up all the key jobs. In other words – the best people for the best jobs. Today, that is still the intention but the playing field has changed significantly. In those days, only 5% of school leavers went to university. Students didn’t have to pay tuition fees, there was no EU [not as it is today] and there were not enough graduates to go round. That was then. Today [2010] the percentage of school leavers that go to university stands at between 35 and 40, and according to statistics, this figure increases every year. Today we have a 27 member-state European Union that offers citizens the freedom to travel, work and study anywhere within the union. Many are choosing the UK especially London. In addition to EU students, UK attracts hundreds of non-EU citizens as international students some of whom settle in the UK after studies. Today we are going through the worst economic recession since the great depression of the 1930s. This is a massive change from the conditions under which our education system was designed. This has a huge impact on higher education funding and the graduate job market. There are simply too many graduates chasing after very few jobs.
With the huge number of graduates seeking the very few available jobs, with student tuition fees on the increase year after year, with the average student graduating with a £20,000 - £30,000 mountain of debt, with the average university course taking 3 – 4 years to complete, with graduate unemployment at record levels, with the country going through one of the worst recessions in history; the serious question now should be if going to university is still a good investment for the average student.
The answer to that question is yes and no. No because only those willing to make the huge commitment should be encouraged to go to university. Yes because if done properly, a good education is a ticket to riches beyond imagination no matter the cost.
Higher education in this country is highly overdue for revision. The current system is not sustainable. University education is simply not for everybody. A more effective method of selection is needed to reflect current times. A more ruthless system is needed to cut down on quantity and maintain quality. Quality has suffered under the current system at the expense of quantity. Former polytechnics were all given university status for the wrong reasons. Higher Education has to be elitist. The current system mass-produces graduates. Polytechnics should be brought back so that universities can concentrate on specific areas and research. Grants-for-all has to be changed to scholarships for the few. That way, only those good enough get to go to university as should be the case.
I always advice my students to aim for nothing but a first class honours. The decision to go to university today by the average student should be a decision to graduate with flying colours. It should be either that or nothing. It should be a decision to go from average to above-average. Nothing else is good enough. Not only will the average graduate today need good grades to survive these cut-throat competitive times, the average student needs good long-term job securing strategy. Investment in career management is also advised.
With the huge number of graduates seeking the very few available jobs, with student tuition fees on the increase year after year, with the average student graduating with a £20,000 - £30,000 mountain of debt, with the average university course taking 3 – 4 years to complete, with graduate unemployment at record levels, with the country going through one of the worst recessions in history; the serious question now should be if going to university is still a good investment for the average student.
The answer to that question is yes and no. No because only those willing to make the huge commitment should be encouraged to go to university. Yes because if done properly, a good education is a ticket to riches beyond imagination no matter the cost.
Higher education in this country is highly overdue for revision. The current system is not sustainable. University education is simply not for everybody. A more effective method of selection is needed to reflect current times. A more ruthless system is needed to cut down on quantity and maintain quality. Quality has suffered under the current system at the expense of quantity. Former polytechnics were all given university status for the wrong reasons. Higher Education has to be elitist. The current system mass-produces graduates. Polytechnics should be brought back so that universities can concentrate on specific areas and research. Grants-for-all has to be changed to scholarships for the few. That way, only those good enough get to go to university as should be the case.
I always advice my students to aim for nothing but a first class honours. The decision to go to university today by the average student should be a decision to graduate with flying colours. It should be either that or nothing. It should be a decision to go from average to above-average. Nothing else is good enough. Not only will the average graduate today need good grades to survive these cut-throat competitive times, the average student needs good long-term job securing strategy. Investment in career management is also advised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)