Taught postgraduate degrees may soon be preserve of the rich

What! You mean we are finally admitting that the rich need extra schooling! A1 chaps! Chocks away!!

Bye Bye Miss larger-than-a-reasonable-slice-of-the-pie, drove your DTC to the gov'mnt but the gov'mnt was dry, those good old boys won't give you the promotion you requi' saying this will be the day that you die this will be the day you say bye (to that senior university position!)

These overly late corrections will sort out the overfunded bloated 'we are attracting students because we are spending seven times as much on them' blowards from the truly-work-hards. Bye Bye money wasters - hello normality and promotion by merit!

I agree there has been far too much money put in the hands of newbies and ingrates to promote so called 'interdisciplinarity' in taught courses - so many of them are claiming new money from the government (research councils) for 'setting up and delivering new courses' that are really just renamings of existing courses for the benefit of the application to the research council. I.e a big fat devious con. It is interesting that a poster above mentions chrisitanity, because I do know that one of the Universities that is promulgating one of these major cons in the provision of taught masters in doctoral training centres is a prominent christian who has also been accused (by a thread about a year ago) of bullying out non-christians a) in general and b) who recruit similar students!

I am pleased that some of these bloated schemes are going to be cut - often they are used as a vehicle to get substandard overseas students in the door paying cash in a manner that means they can fail after a year, but also they are used as a year-long graduate recruitment scheme paid for by the government to allow cherry picking onto PhD schemes - good in one way, buy bloody expensive in another

Have to concur with this In my institution (top five) - taught masters-led DTCs - spend per year per student recruited - circa £2700, department spend per student recruited, circa £237. Proportion of students funded in DTC? circa 80% (proportion of students funded PhD circa 60%.) DTC (taught masters only) student office equipment provided? Free £700 Laptop each. PhD student office equipment provided? none.

Serious point, so the first person with an axe to grind, and an odd approach, gets in a couple of posts agreeing with themselves and some problem they have with someone...

Does the Government know what it's doing about anything?

It is already happening at my RG uni. How could I possibly take on additional debt?

It's a shame that posters have used this story to post thoughtlessly or on areas that are tangential to the topic - perhaps THE would benefit from a general discussion forum for exploring issues that aren't raised directly in the magazine.

Postgraduate taught degrees may require amendment for a wide range of reasons but the key point - that they will effectively to restricted to the rich - is something that should cause anxiety in anyone concerned with the well-being of both higher education and society as a whole.

The taught postgraduate degree (or sub-degree postgraduate course) is the main pathway to a number of professional and career opportunities. If selection is to be skewed even more towards those with wealth rather than those with ability. society will become increasingly polarised and important jobs will be held by the less competent.

The taught M.A. has also become the chief pathway to the Ph.D. Even ten years ago bright students were able to move straight from undergraduate to doctoral studies but this is now extremely rare and widely discouraged. If the path to a doctorate and hence to an academic career is limited to those whose families are sufficiently wealthy to fund them, higher education will, in the future, be even more dominated by those who have a stake in the status quo and wish to preserve their own and their children's comfort.

Somehow I have preserved a naive belief that one of the roles of the academy is to question things as they are and contemplate the need for change. However the desire to fortify and protect comfort and privilege contributes to a huge weight of inertia; many academics are unable to extend their honest questioning to the point where they risk their own well-being and the future opportunities of their families. This is understandable.

However, if the academy wishes to guard against that inertia it is important that it recruits new members from the widest possible range of able graduates so that it does, at least, involve people from a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. The restriction of taught M.A. programmes to the wealthy and the children of the wealthy is likely to contribute to the kind of narrowing of the academy which damages the academy itself and the wider society to which it contributes.

Taught master's degrees, followed by PhDs are still well-funded in the United States. Students are required to do a bit of teaching in the process to earn their keep, but they also get some valuable experience from the teaching. This isn't the solution for every student - some won't want to move abroad, and some won't want to spend 2 years on the master's portion of the course, followed by typically 4 years on the research portion of the course - but for many well-motivated students, they'll come out well from the process, and if they live frugally, they'll be able to complete their PhDs without taking on any additional debt for either tuition fees or maintenance costs.

I sympathise, but taxpayers really can't pay for everything. There's a limited pot of money, and I'd much rather it was spent on undergraduates .

How many people actually need a postgraduate degree? The number of lecturer vacancies for new lecturers vastly outstrips the number of PhD students...so a lot of those students will be going straight into consulting, banking and other industries. Do taxpayers really want to pay for someone to do a PhD so they can become a banker? Yes they'll pay higher taxes, but their PhD isn't helping society anywhere near as much as it will help the individual. Probably not.

If they're doing a taught postgrad then they probably don't even want to go into research, but will be looking for a graduate job after the 1 year course has finished.

A taught masters is one more year of being funded by the taxpayer and not having to make career decisions for a lot of students - yes there are many who are genuinely interested in their subject and want to learn more about it, but there's obviously not an infinite pool of money to fund learning for its own sake.

There has to be a limit somewhere, and I'd much rather that the Government funded undergraduate places so that people from all social groups can go to university and then compete for research funding, rather than cutting down on undergraduate places so that it can fund Master's courses for a lot of students who are only doing them because they don't have a graduate job and don't know what to do.

Competition for these assitantships in USA is very intense and thare are not that many of these assistantships allocated to each department. I did my graduate studies and research some 30+ years ago in one of these assistantships. The comeptition even then was intense. Teaching assistantship carry normally 20 hours of work every week, and the professor can even assign lectures to teaching assitants if they have experience. Also, there are other work associated with professors' teaching load, like grading, lab demostration etc.. Hence it is not simply " a bit of teaching".

I in my few years as a professor in USA recruited a few with these assistantships.

@to kathz. You sound as if these assistantships are handed out generously, and you sound as if securing and holding an assistantship is that easy. We should remember even a first class honours student here is not a straight A student and may fall well short of their GPA expected for considering these assistanships, although they will recognise a first class honours.

Let us stop misleading the students.

@Student - I am confused about your argument (if you have any?) since the government is cutting the funding for both under and post-graduates! Secondly, do you know how many graduates work at graduate level? I am sure that if you search around a bit you will be shocked at the facts that postgrads (including PhD) are more likely to work in their chosen field than graduates (your argument about the reason for pursuing a postgrad course denotes your lack of knowledge)!

@ student
"The number of lecturer vacancies for new lecturers vastly outstrips the number of PhD students"

This is factually incorrect. There are many, many more PhD students than there are lecturer vacancies.

For that reason, a reduction PhD students may not be a bad thing: there are plenty of excellent PhDers now who will never get the academic jobs they hope for because there are simply too few vacancies.

The challenge is making sure that those who DO embark on the PhD are intellectually the best, rather than simply the richest who can most easily afford to do the degree.

"@to kathz. You sound as if these assistantships are handed out generously, and you sound as if securing and holding an assistantship is that easy. We should remember even a first class honours student here is not a straight A student and may fall well short of their GPA expected for considering these assistanships, although they will recognise a first class honours.

Let us stop misleading the students."

I didn't mean to make it sound easy. Nontheless, for truly excellent students who lack the financial means to do a British master's degree, this is an option. That the moderately good students don't have this option isn't such a problem in my opinion, given the glut of PhDs out there, especially in the humanities.

That would not be the case if the changes along the lines that I proposed were taken seriously. The proposals appeared in the Times
and here (free): http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3564

The problem is that we can't afford honours degrees for 50% of the population, and my guess is that 50% of the population don't want education to research level. If first degrees were made cheaper then perhaps we could afford proper graduate schools (rather than the present charades that mostly reach powerpoint), Such graduate schools might well award a masters degree.

@student and @counterpunch you are both making the assumption that students who earn a post-graduate qualification are destined only for university employment. This is very misleading. Focusing more on undergraduate qualifications, where more people are gaining them, will undoubtedly have the affect of making degrees harder to distinguish. Post-graduate qualifications will increasingly provide this distinguishment. That is the material difference when gaps between the rich and poor, in tertiary education, become further apparent.

On a slightly related note, while I do realise this magazine is largely focused on university education, we would do well to remember that vocational education is more often than not a better and more financially rewarding option for a lot of 'average' university students.

Well, I suppose that's one way of dealing with the oversupply of Ph.D. students. Slash the number of taught postgraduates, and the number of research postgraduates will eventually start to fall too. I'm not convinced that market-based solutions are the best way of dealing with this issue, though, whether at the undergraduate level or the postgraduate level. My experience, in various stints as admissions tutor at various levels, has been that students applying to enter university have expectations and career plans that are somewhat detached from the real world.

@Natasha. Are you the same Natasha who said in another thread that you are interested to university? If you care to look through even the bottom most university in the league table, you will find it offering masters degree. Hence these degrees are also offered in plentiful by all new universities , and what applies for undergraduate degrees-there being a glut from these so called universities also applies for masters degrees. Having said that these degrees in the top 10-15 universities are still marketable.

As for your: "while I do realise this magazine is largely focused on university education, we would do well to remember that vocational education is more often than not a better and more financially rewarding option for a lot of 'average' university students." who said this? If you look at the work permits given to non-EU skilled people, the majority of them have vocational qualifications. The polytechnics dropped the excellent vocational diploma and degree courses they were running , became universities to put on useless business studies and media studies courses. Colleges run not as well as the polyechnics these vocational courses now which lack depth. Hence it will be a good idea to downgrade these new universities into polytechnics so that we produce the people with skills and stop these thousands of work permits issued per year. But these new universities will not agree and many of them go bankrupt when students desert them.

@Lord Kabla I don't think I'm the same Natasha you recall, I'm university educated to a post-graduate level.

Your comments regarding mine about vocational education seem to agree with my point, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. I think more focus on vocational education is vital. By this, I also include trades training. So, while I don't consider business studies or media studies universally pointless, there are a number of students at high school age that have only ever considered going to university, and quite simply do not know there's another higher education world out there for them.

I work in an RG university and we offer some very applied taught masters that are very focussed on a particular industry. In fact as far as I was aware, state funding in the sciences and engineering was previously focussed on applied subjects. I guess that in the future the only people on the course will be folk who can afford it. I guess we adapt or we whither so we have to adapt.

@Natasha. I pointed out your observation: "while I do realise this magazine is largely focused on university education, we would do well to remember that vocational education is more often than not a better and more financially rewarding option for a lot of 'average' university students." and said that indeed vocational courses can be rewarding if they are run in polytechnics the likes of which we had in pre-92. Just read the above, you are saying that do not agree that vocational education can benefit where as I do for those who are not academically able.

I do consider business and media studies are pointless and so are many in the business and industry. These courses are the last refuge for those who do have A levels and who are recruited with questionable background during clearing weeks. We churn too many of these students from post-92 universities.

you smell

"Taught postgraduate courses in England could become "completely populated" by overseas and wealthy home students if fees rise to unaffordable levels in the wake of reforms at undergraduate level, the government has been warned."

This has been the trajectory for postgraduate law programmes for some time now. The University of London colleges (UCL etc) are pulling in 14-19k per international student and 7-11k for domestic/EU students for Master of Laws (LLM) courses. The colleges each take in 200 plus LLM students (most international)... do the sums (loadsamoney).

Homegrown aspriring law academics invariably not afford these fees. If they cannot secure a funded PhD straight from an undergraduate degree - they are stuffed. The result is a growing generation gap of English legal academics.

@Natasha: But is a postgraduate qualification really better than a year's (more in the case of PhDs) work experience or internships? And if you have to borrow money anyway, wouldn't even unpaid internships or voluntary work be better? Given the emphasis on work experience by employers, it is dubious the opportunity cost of a postgraduate qualification is worthwhile if you do not wish to be a researcher or teacher. Comparing those who have just finished their undergraduate the years to those who have spent additional years doing a postgraduate qualification is comparing apples to oranges.

Given this, less funding may well be a good way of reducing the PhD glut. There is little point in the taxpayer funding, say, someone to study a PhD in physics and then work as a banker.

@RS. NERC funded MSc places are all applied to specific industries. They usually require 6months of 30 hours a week of classes/practicals followed by a research project. An M.Sc is a qualification minimum for many technical careers in my field. The interesting thing is that in this particular industry that UK companies cant get enough good graduates. They cant hire non-eu folk so they ponder...... Some are quietly setting up offices overseas so they can hire folk from South America!

But if we reduce the number of people doing PhDs, who's going to do all the teaching for barely minimum wage?

I have NEVER heard of PhD students giving lectures, at my RG university they do however help in tutorials under the guidance of a member of academic staff. They get paid well for their time approx. £20 p/h and it is up to them how much (we have a upper limit) or little they do (even zero). So John no one is being exploited!

@DrFinchlegg

actually, PhD students in RG universities do deliver lectures - just not in sciences, maths and engng.

In the arts, humanities and social sciences, this is common practice. Indeed, bursaries are provided in lieu of lecturing, typically 2/3 courses per year.

Let's not also forget that it's common practice in N America, but then students undertake a 5-year programme with 2 years of advanced courses that our students, to their detriment, don't enjoy - hence the extreme narrowness of their knowledge.

They do not. @They do does not know what he/she is talking about. We get these characters, and they have their own agendsa-misinformation. Even in US where they give teaching assistantships, it is for those with teaching experience and a professor is in charge for the majority of lectures.

@They do. You are simply an idiot.

They do: I have to agree with @They do that you are clearly a moron. Please name your RG university that uses PhD students to lecture.

"Even in US where they give teaching assistantships, it is for those with teaching experience and a professor is in charge for the majority of lectures."

That's not completely true. Certainly the bulk of courses at most universities in the US have a professor in charge, but there are some institutions where certain courses like introductory foreign language courses will be taught by graduate students, and there are many universities where a small fraction of courses will be lectured by graduate students.

@@They do. Not really. @They do is a moron and don't join that person.
Gradaute students do not have any standing wothout their professors. Another moron.

It strikes me that we've strayed from the topic a bit but ho hum. I have been teaching since i started my doctorate. I finished last february and as I haven't yet got a full time job in my field such casual teaching is the best way to 'keep my hand in'. I don't really have time for research, as no one will pay me for that yet! The teaching has mostly been classes and tutorials but also lectures for the faculty. It seems to me that doctorate students and those who finish and are looking for a full time fixed term position do some vital filling in of the cracks (research and maternity leave, mostly, but sometimes covering retirements until the money comes up for a new FT appointment), at my institution at least. This is good in that it gives experience to those starting their careers, but it is bad as there is an almost limitless pool of people willing to get that vital experience for little financial reward and no job security, which means people can be 'starting their careers' for a ruddy long time. A strong position for the university to be in, I guess.

@John. Try coventry university and in particular the MSc in Automotive which some one recommended attracts the attention of employers and is the best course. You should try to get a job to teach this course.

I'm not sure that my background in eighteenth-century literature and politics would make me a strong candidate for that one in particular...

student 13 January, 2011

I sympathise, but taxpayers really can't pay for everything. There's a limited pot of money, and I'd much rather it was spent on undergraduates ......

Do you actually have a brain? I am a BSc Neuroscience and Pharmacology graduate who wishes to go into Alzheimer's research. My girlfriend did the same and is wishing to go into memory research.

In our field a BSc garauntees you nothing. I got a 2.1. and am in a £12,000 per annum microbiology job because no university will take me without further education. If I wish to become a researcher I must get first a masters, then a PhD.

The number of students in science, for example, who go into research following masters is quite high. However, those that don't wish to research still need a masters because a BSc in science is pretty much worthless on its own.

Because of these supposed cuts I and people like me may have to work for 10 years in order to fund a masters, just to get into a PhD. By which point they are likely to consider someone else for position who has not had a 10 year gap in their education.

If people like me and my girlfriend are forced out of postgraduate education so thoudands of people can get worthless batchelors degrees (believe me, they are, you'll find out when you've graduated), then who is going to do Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or cancer research? These three conditions alone, when put together, cost the NHS over £10billion a year, and as the overall population ages this is set to rise by 500% over the next 25years.

This country will be economically crippled if people are forced out of doing jobs like medical research.

Not only this, I know several people who did a batchelor course simply to avoid work for another 3 years. One even did child care and told me they weren't going to be a child carer because they "hate kids".

This country needs both under and postgraduate degree courses in order to progress. What is not needed is for inconsiderate people who have no intention of using their degree to get one in the first place. Stop spending money on these morons and you would have more for the people who need it. And trust me from experience, there are a LOT of people like those I described above.