Main article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6955701.stm
Taxpayers' Alliance: http://tpa.typepad.com/waste/ (scroll down a bit)
(note: if this is viewed too late, the post might get replaced. In that case, tell me and I'll send the pdf research file to you)
Universities UK: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/mediareleases/show.asp?MR=502
A Certain Degree for the Degree
An interesting social issue in the papers recently was regarding a report by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, regarding the wastage of tax money in paying for university non-courses. When its report regarding the issue was published, Universities UK came up with a counter statement on its website.
First, a word on the credibility of these two organizations. Taxpayers’ Alliance is part of a “coalition”, with other websites, which frequently posts articles, often government bashing, about how tax money is being wasted. There is no word of its credibility. It is probably an advocacy group.
Universities UK is a top education group based in the UK which is the “essential voice” for universities in the UK. In short, they support and defend all universities in their various endeavours. Which also means they are equally biased when it comes to this matter.
The main criticism the Taxpayers’ Alliance (abbreviated as TPA) issues is that money is wasted on universities courses which have no academic merit and no application to real life. Its cites 5 examples of these courses, which it terms as non-courses:
- Outdoor adventure with philosophy
- Science: fiction and culture
- Equestrian psychology
- Fashion buying
- Golf management
When you first examine this list, you have to admit the TPA is making sense. Equestrian psychology, which is horse psychology, is simply a ‘mickey mouse’ degree. There is no recognizable value in learning about horse psychology. And as the TPA points out, such things could be learnt on the job.
But the Universities UK bites back with accusations that the report is prejudiced and that showcases academic snobbery. It also argues that courses which the TPA had pointed out were actually quite popular among graduates and have high employability rates.
Having no experience in the procedures which universities use to verify course quality, I cannot say anything authoritatively, but I do realize that even when trying not to be academically snobbish, I still find outdoor adventure with philosophy a rather humorous concept. Or fashion buying. Oh the skill you need to do that!
Of course, I should be considered rather snooty to not consider the fore mentioned two proper courses. I do apologize beforehand.
While I do not advocate academic snobbery, I find that labeling any form of criticism against university courses “academic snobbery” an appalling prospect. There should be some line drawn to differentiate the allowance for one to be snobbish. I am unashamed to be snobbish when the course in question is clearly unacademic, like fashion buying.
Of course, we should note as well that some of the courses highlighted by the TPA seem fine, like beauty therapy. There should be some skill to it, shouldn’t it?
Well, at least we should establish some sort of academic respectability without lapsing into academic arrogance. I do find the TPA’s argument with some merit.
And we could save money for that extra pint of beer in the process too.
1 comment:
There's a wealth of reading behind these commentaries - well done! Definitely, your perspectives are enriched, and the the range of reading enhances your sensitivity to the bias behind the text. Your responses demonstrate these, and the gentle humour, as well as the recognition of the limits to your own perspective, make these entries superior writing.
Post a Comment