A close friend's daughter, who has turned into a close friend herself, got her AS levels today: she got two As, a B and a C. I thought these were really good grades, and can be built upon in her A2 year; she's got her heart set on Cambridge though and is rather disheartened by these results. She's one of the cleverest, most dilligent people I've ever met: she's only just turned eighteen, but is *so* mature, sorts out all her revision herself, swots constantly, has been swotting through all of the summer 'holiday' for preparation for this next year. She got all A*s and As at GCSE, goes to a private school on a music scholarship, and is just incredibly dedicated. She's got an outstanding extra-curricular profile: head of Chester cathedral choir, music coach, multiple prize-winner, charity helper. And she's worried that she won't get into Cambridge. I'm utterly amazed.
I was similarly astounded when I read the university league tables for 2009. Personally, I think this is a really shit idea. It encourages elitism and rests purely on grades. For example: Chester, where I took my undergraduate degree, and also where I will be taking my PhD at, is ranked only 90th in the table. If you said to me that I could go back 4 years and choose ANY university to study English at, I'd choose Chester every time. Sod Oxford and Cambridge. The University of Liverpool's only ranked 40th, and that's considered to be a much 'bigger' and better known university than Chester. In fairness, when I choosing where to study, I had only a cursory look at the league tables because my Dad was interested to see where Chester ranked. This was after we'd been there for an open day and I'd decided that Chester was the only place I wanted to go.
In the recent RAE thing, Liverpool apparently got the highest grade possible, signifying that their research is fab, internationally acclaimed, that kind of jazz. I can categorically state, however, that my time at Chester was many, many times better than what I have had at Liverpool. It's been a good experience to study in a larger department and a larger university, but if anything, it's helped to reinforce my already high opinion of the quality of teaching/learning at Chester. I think there's a very fine line between the facets of the academic: of course research is a huge thing, I don't deny that, but it must be balanced successfully with the teaching role. At Chester, all of the lecturers had this absolutely perfect. At Liverpool, there are certain members of the academic staff who make it clear that they would rather be off researching whatever obscure topic/author they're focused on. 'Bigger' is not always better. In an interview before my place on the PhD was confirmed, the head of department asked whether I thought I'd be at a disadvantage in future for job-seeking with a BA and PhD 'only' from Chester. I replied that if places are all that prospective employers are interested in, then I have absolutely no interest in working with them. I stand by this. Elitism does my head in, and I think people, research, and personalities are MUCH more important than where their degrees came from. I'd like to think that I'd be judged more on what I've written and disseminated than a name on the top of my BA certificate.
I don't really know how universities *should* be judged, because obviously results are important, but I think that the general state of England at the moment will shortly make university-level education a highly elitist thing. (That sentence was going so well before I wrote 'thing'. Hmm). I mean, consider the economics at the moment. They've hiked tuition fees up already by more than half (in 2006), and now the government want to increase it by 2 or 3% before forcing a move through to double them again. This will, obviously, encourage only wealthy families to put their children through university. At the opposite end of the scale, families with less than however much annual income and/or whose children will be staying at home will either have greater non-repayable grants, or no tuition fees. This is good, I grant you, but there's a middle class of people. My parents' income is too much for me to be considered for grants, everything is 'means-tested'. This bugs me: just because my parents earn 'x' amount does NOT mean that I get it!! The general financial state of education is fairly shaky and needs some serious thinking about, if the government want to encourage young people to go to university, like they were trying to last year. I remember a lot of news reports about uni drop-outs and lower intake rates.
To conclude, I think there's a huge amount of pressure put upon these young people. If my friend doesn't make it to Cambridge then I'm going to try my hardest to help her see that it isn't the end of the world, and she can still have a fantastic experience at one of the other 'top' British universities. I didn't go to one of these 'huge' universities, but I had the most amazing time at Chester. One of my reasons for trying to make it into academia and get published a lot is for this brilliant university to gain more recognition. Without the superb staff there, I seriously doubt I'd be in the position I am now: finishing off an MA and about to start a PhD. I owe the University of Chester an awful lot.
I was similarly astounded when I read the university league tables for 2009. Personally, I think this is a really shit idea. It encourages elitism and rests purely on grades. For example: Chester, where I took my undergraduate degree, and also where I will be taking my PhD at, is ranked only 90th in the table. If you said to me that I could go back 4 years and choose ANY university to study English at, I'd choose Chester every time. Sod Oxford and Cambridge. The University of Liverpool's only ranked 40th, and that's considered to be a much 'bigger' and better known university than Chester. In fairness, when I choosing where to study, I had only a cursory look at the league tables because my Dad was interested to see where Chester ranked. This was after we'd been there for an open day and I'd decided that Chester was the only place I wanted to go.
In the recent RAE thing, Liverpool apparently got the highest grade possible, signifying that their research is fab, internationally acclaimed, that kind of jazz. I can categorically state, however, that my time at Chester was many, many times better than what I have had at Liverpool. It's been a good experience to study in a larger department and a larger university, but if anything, it's helped to reinforce my already high opinion of the quality of teaching/learning at Chester. I think there's a very fine line between the facets of the academic: of course research is a huge thing, I don't deny that, but it must be balanced successfully with the teaching role. At Chester, all of the lecturers had this absolutely perfect. At Liverpool, there are certain members of the academic staff who make it clear that they would rather be off researching whatever obscure topic/author they're focused on. 'Bigger' is not always better. In an interview before my place on the PhD was confirmed, the head of department asked whether I thought I'd be at a disadvantage in future for job-seeking with a BA and PhD 'only' from Chester. I replied that if places are all that prospective employers are interested in, then I have absolutely no interest in working with them. I stand by this. Elitism does my head in, and I think people, research, and personalities are MUCH more important than where their degrees came from. I'd like to think that I'd be judged more on what I've written and disseminated than a name on the top of my BA certificate.
I don't really know how universities *should* be judged, because obviously results are important, but I think that the general state of England at the moment will shortly make university-level education a highly elitist thing. (That sentence was going so well before I wrote 'thing'. Hmm). I mean, consider the economics at the moment. They've hiked tuition fees up already by more than half (in 2006), and now the government want to increase it by 2 or 3% before forcing a move through to double them again. This will, obviously, encourage only wealthy families to put their children through university. At the opposite end of the scale, families with less than however much annual income and/or whose children will be staying at home will either have greater non-repayable grants, or no tuition fees. This is good, I grant you, but there's a middle class of people. My parents' income is too much for me to be considered for grants, everything is 'means-tested'. This bugs me: just because my parents earn 'x' amount does NOT mean that I get it!! The general financial state of education is fairly shaky and needs some serious thinking about, if the government want to encourage young people to go to university, like they were trying to last year. I remember a lot of news reports about uni drop-outs and lower intake rates.
To conclude, I think there's a huge amount of pressure put upon these young people. If my friend doesn't make it to Cambridge then I'm going to try my hardest to help her see that it isn't the end of the world, and she can still have a fantastic experience at one of the other 'top' British universities. I didn't go to one of these 'huge' universities, but I had the most amazing time at Chester. One of my reasons for trying to make it into academia and get published a lot is for this brilliant university to gain more recognition. Without the superb staff there, I seriously doubt I'd be in the position I am now: finishing off an MA and about to start a PhD. I owe the University of Chester an awful lot.
Hear hear,
ReplyDeleteThough I have to admit: thephrase 'I grant you' raised a smile, and a groan.
X
You like the punnage? x
ReplyDeleteHang on, wasn't that the line Ash used about that 'metaphorical widow'?! x
ReplyDelete