• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Tuition fees

Those who have not paid anything back 5 years after leaving should do community service....making use of their chosen subject where possible. Drop outs fees should be paid in full by their parents, including the tax payers share, not just the £9,000 per year.

That way these poor overworked Professors will have far less students to worry about.
 
Can't really agree with the idea of shortened degree courses.You need the three years to think and read etc.

FWIW,at Brum Poly we were attending a lot more lectures,seminars and writing more essays than students on an equivalent course at Brum Uni (one of my fellow undergraduates was married to a lass studying there).Presumably the powere that be, thought we were thicker (or needed to improve our spelling).:winking:

That depends on the course. I would argue there is a good reason that a history degree (for example) is three years with minimal time spent in lectures. History students are expected to spend their time researching. The ones that really spend their time researching (as opposed to researching the effects of different alcoholic drinks on the human body) tend to be the ones that do well.

However, I think there is also an argument for reducing the length of, say, a law degree. My brother, for example, did a degree in geography before he went to law school. He did 2 years there (if he had a law degree it would have been one). In his first year he studied all the core law subjects. If you can do the entire core syllabus in one year at law school you don't really need three to do a degree. It can be argued that 2 would allow you to do your core subjects, and some extra subjects for good measure.

It's also interesting that there is now an argument in the law profession around whether or not a degree is necessary. Apparently (I don't know the ins and outs) the Law Society are considering allowing people to get a job with a law firm, and study part time at law school without having a degree at all. I'm sure the lawyers on here would be able to give more detail. Either way it seems to me that even the Law Society are starting to believe a degree is unnecessary...
 
That depends on the course. I would argue there is a good reason that a history degree (for example) is three years with minimal time spent in lectures. History students are expected to spend their time researching. The ones that really spend their time researching (as opposed to researching the effects of different alcoholic drinks on the human body) tend to be the ones that do well.

However, I think there is also an argument for reducing the length of, say, a law degree. My brother, for example, did a degree in geography before he went to law school. He did 2 years there (if he had a law degree it would have been one). In his first year he studied all the core law subjects. If you can do the entire core syllabus in one year at law school you don't really need three to do a degree. It can be argued that 2 would allow you to do your core subjects, and some extra subjects for good measure.

It's also interesting that there is now an argument in the law profession around whether or not a degree is necessary. Apparently (I don't know the ins and outs) the Law Society are considering allowing people to get a job with a law firm, and study part time at law school without having a degree at all. I'm sure the lawyers on here would be able to give more detail. Either way it seems to me that even the Law Society are starting to believe a degree is unnecessary...

There are quite a few degree subjects that don't require the equivalent A-Level to have been studied (it's preferred but not essential). For example I did BA(Hons) Economics but already had an A-Level in Economics, but was in a class with people who didn't. So the first year of my degree was quite repetitive (but still a reasonable amount of new content). However there could potentially be a way for an accelerated degree to be done for those who have an A-Level (or a couple of A-Levels, like Economics + Maths) to skip the first year.

Other degrees that would be similar (I imagine) - Psychology, Business, Religious Studies?

Not only are you at some advantage in terms of content, but it also demonstrates your passion/interest in the subject and by studying for two years at A-Level you know what you're getting into, somewhat.
 
There are quite a few degree subjects that don't require the equivalent A-Level to have been studied (it's preferred but not essential). For example I did BA(Hons) Economics but already had an A-Level in Economics, but was in a class with people who didn't. So the first year of my degree was quite repetitive (but still a reasonable amount of new content). However there could potentially be a way for an accelerated degree to be done for those who have an A-Level (or a couple of A-Levels, like Economics + Maths) to skip the first year.

Other degrees that would be similar (I imagine) - Psychology, Business, Religious Studies?

Not only are you at some advantage in terms of content, but it also demonstrates your passion/interest in the subject and by studying for two years at A-Level you know what you're getting into, somewhat.

Indeed. I'm not suggesting all degrees should be shorter than 3 years, just some. Even within the same subject it might be sensible to have two different courses to accommodate people such as yourself. For example, a person studying a degree in economics that did economics A Level might be able to effectively skip the first year and join the course in the 2nd year. People that didn't do A Level economics would have to do a 1st year. Then the student has a choice: do they want to specialise early or expand their knowledge in other areas before they do their degree.

Either way, to say all degrees should be the same is, IMO, too simplistic.
 
That depends on the course. I would argue there is a good reason that a history degree (for example) is three years with minimal time spent in lectures. History students are expected to spend their time researching. The ones that really spend their time researching (as opposed to researching the effects of different alcoholic drinks on the human body) tend to be the ones that do well.

However, I think there is also an argument for reducing the length of, say, a law degree. My brother, for example, did a degree in geography before he went to law school. He did 2 years there (if he had a law degree it would have been one). In his first year he studied all the core law subjects. If you can do the entire core syllabus in one year at law school you don't really need three to do a degree. It can be argued that 2 would allow you to do your core subjects, and some extra subjects for good measure.

It's also interesting that there is now an argument in the law profession around whether or not a degree is necessary. Apparently (I don't know the ins and outs) the Law Society are considering allowing people to get a job with a law firm, and study part time at law school without having a degree at all. I'm sure the lawyers on here would be able to give more detail. Either way it seems to me that even the Law Society are starting to believe a degree is unnecessary...

I also went the law conversion route but was only able to do so because of the academic grounding I received in my undergraduate degree. The conversion course doesn't teach you how to critically appraise things. You need to have acquired those skills prior to doing the post-graduate course as the post-graduate diploma in law is basically just learning by rote.

You can condense degree courses (longer terms would be an obvious starting point) but this will also make it harder for students to support themselves through education with part-time employment and will reduce the education received. If anything I suspect part of the answer is to make more degree courses longer but less intensive and combined with paid work placements/apprenticeship type schemes.
 
I also went the law conversion route but was only able to do so because of the academic grounding I received in my undergraduate degree. The conversion course doesn't teach you how to critically appraise things. You need to have acquired those skills prior to doing the post-graduate course as the post-graduate diploma in law is basically just learning by rote.

You can condense degree courses (longer terms would be an obvious starting point) but this will also make it harder for students to support themselves through education with part-time employment and will reduce the education received. If anything I suspect part of the answer is to make more degree courses longer but less intensive and combined with paid work placements/apprenticeship type schemes.

Again, one size won't fit all...
 
Back
Top