There is, in particular, an opinion that the older the university, the more solid the traditions, the higher the quality of teaching. It is no wonder that Oxford and Cambridge invariably top most rankings. But, firstly, Oxbridge is a special world, these classical universities are very different from the rest. Secondly, any schoolchild understands that applied specialties (such as business, economics, construction, computer science, design) are preferably studied at modern universities that are more adapted to today's job market. And recently it turned out that there are aspects in which new universities, existing “for a mere moment,” outshine their venerable colleagues.
Old-timers and newcomers
The creation of universities in Britain came in waves. The first, roughly speaking, began in the 12th century and stretched over several centuries: Oxford was followed by Cambridge (13th century), St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen (15th century), Edinburgh (16th century) — and it all ended for a long 300 years. The next wave came in the 19th century. The “redbrick” universities appeared, supporting local industry (Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield, etc.). After World War I, even that was insufficient, and a group of universities emerged, dubbed by playwright John Osborne as “white-tile” universities: Reading, Exeter, Southampton, Hull, and Leicester. They also trained engineers and technicians for industrial enterprises. The next stage was the 1960s: the right to award academic degrees and, consequently, university status and the nickname “plate-glass” were given to the colleges of Sussex, Bath, Loughborough, Essex, and others. Finally, the last wave was the 1990s, when a number of colleges and institutes were “en masse” transformed into universities. These, regardless of architectural features, are simply called new universities.
It is clear that initially the former colleges — modest local universities with a pronounced applied focus — indeed could not compete with the classics. But over time, new departments and faculties emerged, teaching and research bases improved, and prominent scientists arrived. Moreover, the material base improved — having cartridges and toner clp 320 in the printer also characterizes the university in a positive light. As a result, in the latest ranking, the “plate-glass” universities of Loughborough, Warwick, and Bath far surpassed ancient Glasgow and Aberdeen. And it seems that the flexibility and dynamism of newcomers are now more valued than the thoroughness and traditions of the “old-timers.”
One hour we write, three we think
This is evidenced by a survey conducted by HEPI — the British Higher Education Policy Institute. The authors did not set out to identify “winners”; they revealed themselves. The survey's goal was primarily to determine how much a student studies to obtain a particular specialty. Such a study was conducted in Britain for the first time. And surprising things came to light. The same degree, with the same duration and cost of study, can require completely different academic workloads at different universities. Let us emphasize again: we are talking about students of the same specialty — because it is clear that future doctors or engineers must spend many more hours in the laboratory than lawyers or philologists in the lecture hall.
Britain does not have a single state program for higher education. Each university is free to design its subject courses at its own discretion, including determining the number of contact hours. And so the study authors, who surveyed more than 25,000 students, concluded that students studying medicine and dentistry have a workload ranging from 29 to 45 hours per week, depending on the university. The workload for biologists “varies” from 19 to 43 hours per week, while historians spend from 17.5 to 32 hours on classes.
It was then that it turned out that students at new universities spend much more time in classrooms, laboratories, and libraries than their counterparts at universities founded before 1992. Moreover, “newcomers” tend to include many more seminars and small-group sessions in their programs, so their intensity is also higher.
Thus, according to the survey, in Sheffield, a biology student at the new university Sheffield Hallam (founded 1992, 80th in the 2007 ranking) studies an average of 28.4 hours per week, while at the renowned University of Sheffield (founded 1904, 24th in the ranking) it is 23.6 hours. On the other hand, the same biologists at the University of Central Lancashire (72nd place) receive only 19.1 hours of teaching per week. But in Cambridge, this figure is 43.7, and in Oxford, 35.
It must be said that Oxford and Cambridge are unrivaled even here. The academic workload of Oxonians and Cantabrigians is higher than in other universities, and the tutorial system, where students study in groups of three or four, or even individually, ensures not only a large quantity but also high quality of classes.
Such an incredible disparity in programs led the study authors to a logical question: what is a degree at a British university if obtaining it requires completely different efforts? Especially since another fact emerged along the way: some universities award many more honors degrees than others. Are the students there more capable, or do they study more? No, impartial statistics answer; neither admission requirements nor academic workload influence this. What does influence it — God only knows.
“Professor, sit down, fail”
Is the reliability of British degrees really in doubt? Of course not, the authors assure. And yet questions arise... Yes, questions that students are asked. And students answer: no, we did not expect this from our alma mater! In new universities, 92% of seminars are led by teachers with academic degrees. But in old universities – only 70%. Even Oxford and Cambridge, it turns out, delegate a significant part of seminars and tutorials to postgraduate and doctoral students. Especially in subjects such as business, computer science, social sciences - "degreed" teachers lead no more than half of the seminars in these fields.
Of course, it may not be so bad when young and enthusiastic postgraduate students teach modern applied disciplines. But students, and their parents as well, do not always like it when "boys" and "girls" step up to the lectern instead of venerable professors. Especially when they almost completely replace "real" teachers.
Meanwhile, the senior teaching staff is fully engaged in research. Of course, university science is a commendable thing, but not at the expense of teaching! But in 2008, British universities face a national research assessment exercise - Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). And it is unlikely that on the eve of this event the administration is interested in switching professors from scientific studies to lectures and seminars. And it's not just studies! Worse still, teachers have to constantly deal with reporting and other "paperwork". Is there time for students?
Shame on truants!
The optimal workload per subject, according to the student survey, turned out to be 24 hours per week: those who study more and those who study less are equally dissatisfied, albeit for different reasons. Although students are less concerned about the number of classes than their quality. When asked where the additional money received by universities as a result of tuition fee increases should go, the majority answered: to reduce class sizes, improve libraries and laboratories. And not to increase the number of hours or build new sports facilities on campus. True, they somehow didn't think about raising teachers' salaries...
Students, of course, are not angels. And perhaps they were not sincere on all topics. In particular, on the question of truancy: if the answers are to be believed, British universities have almost 100% attendance. Most "skivers" are among those studying computer science (13%) and business (11%). Fewer – among future teachers (2%), which is to be expected (it's not proper for a teacher to skip lectures). Those whose specialty is related to medicine also turned out (or seemed) very conscientious: future doctors, dentists, veterinarians, nurses. And, of course, boys are not as diligent as girls: they spend an average of 12 hours per week on homework and independent work, and skip 10% of classes. For the fair sex, these figures are 12 hours and 7% respectively. And overall, the myth of "lazy students" was shaken: 93% of students regularly attend university.
What to do and who is to blame
To the most important question: how well does the university meet their expectations, only 11% of students said that everything turned out worse than they expected. However, 40% answered: "In some ways worse, in some ways better." So more than half of respondents are at least a little disappointed. As a rule, alas, precisely in teaching. And one in five accused their university's information brochures of containing unreliable, misleading information.
Regarding the price-quality ratio, 16% of respondents rated their course as bad or very bad. And among foreign students (non-EU), the share of dissatisfied is 30%. Recall that foreigners pay much more for tuition than the British and students from EU countries. "And here we need to sound the alarm," comment the authors of the study. "The price/quality ratio can be optimized by lowering the price or improving the quality. And if we don't do this, we will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, which foreign students are for us." Indeed, foreigners bring universities much more profit than funding from the notorious RAE, which amounts to only 7.5% of income.
It is quite natural that only representatives of new universities are satisfied with the results of the study. "The moral for students and their parents is clear: if you want a good education, go to a new university," says Michael Driscoll, vice-chancellor of Middlesex University. Other education authorities express mixed opinions. Some, for example, believe that its quality does not depend on the study load at all, and the grumbling foreigners simply have not adapted sufficiently to a different culture and teaching methods. "We should not draw hasty conclusions from this study about the inadequacy of degrees," warns Paul Ramsden, head of the Higher Education Academy, which, by the way, funded the survey. But, as Wes Streeting, vice-president of the National Union of Students, believes, if nothing changes in universities soon, the percentage of those dissatisfied with the price/quality ratio will "grow, grow and grow." So, it seems, British higher education is facing changes. For the better...
_