Who needs the State - Buckingham University
Discussion
"Britain's only private university comes top in three categories in a league table of UK higher education institutions published in The Independent today.
Buckingham University finishes first for student satisfaction in the Complete University Guide table, published in today's Education Supplement, and is also deemed to have the best staff to student ratio and career prospects for graduates. It is the first time the university, which has only 677 students, has been included in the rankings.
It takes 20th place in the 115-strong league table overall, finishing ahead of several of the universities in the elite Russell Group, which represents 20 of the country's leading higher education research institutions.
The university is marked down for its research, coming bottom of the pile in this category because – as it is private – it is not included in the Government's research rankings. But its showing will create waves in official circles at a time when the country's leading universities are seeking more financial independence.
Earlier this week, the Russell Group called for the cap on university fees of £3,225 a year to be eventually lifted so that all universities would be free to charge their own fees.
The university was formally opened by Margaret Thatcher, a former education secretary, in May 1974. Fees for courses are £8,640 a year compared with the £3,225 annual cap in government-financed universities. Buckingham offers its students the opportunity to complete three-year degree courses in two years, which it says saves them money once their reduced living costs are taken into account.
source
Clearly the state is not the only way that high quality services can be provide to the population.
Buckingham University finishes first for student satisfaction in the Complete University Guide table, published in today's Education Supplement, and is also deemed to have the best staff to student ratio and career prospects for graduates. It is the first time the university, which has only 677 students, has been included in the rankings.
It takes 20th place in the 115-strong league table overall, finishing ahead of several of the universities in the elite Russell Group, which represents 20 of the country's leading higher education research institutions.
The university is marked down for its research, coming bottom of the pile in this category because – as it is private – it is not included in the Government's research rankings. But its showing will create waves in official circles at a time when the country's leading universities are seeking more financial independence.
Earlier this week, the Russell Group called for the cap on university fees of £3,225 a year to be eventually lifted so that all universities would be free to charge their own fees.
The university was formally opened by Margaret Thatcher, a former education secretary, in May 1974. Fees for courses are £8,640 a year compared with the £3,225 annual cap in government-financed universities. Buckingham offers its students the opportunity to complete three-year degree courses in two years, which it says saves them money once their reduced living costs are taken into account.
source
Clearly the state is not the only way that high quality services can be provide to the population.
it's not a real university though, is it. You can't educate to the limits of a subject unless you have active research programmes and researchers in that subject. A university education should give a fairly broad overview of a subject and this includes making the knowledge taught current and cutting-edge.
DangerousMike said:
it's not a real university though, is it. You can't educate to the limits of a subject unless you have active research programmes and researchers in that subject. A university education should give a fairly broad overview of a subject and this includes making the knowledge taught current and cutting-edge.
It does do research http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/research/It simply doesn't appear in the Government university research stats because it isn't funded by the taxpayer.
677 students is nothing. The school I study at university has more that alone while the whole university has 22,000. So that will skew the staff ratios a lot. According to those rankings though, less than half the students at Buckingham leave with a good honours. And their entry standards appear to fall far short of top class universities - CCC at A Level compared to typical requirements of AAB. Fair enough they appear to take a significant number of mature students but I don't think the traditional universities have much to worry about here.
DangerousMike said:
it's not a real university though, is it. You can't educate to the limits of a subject unless you have active research programmes and researchers in that subject. A university education should give a fairly broad overview of a subject and this includes making the knowledge taught current and cutting-edge.
It's a little while ago, now, but my recollection is that those researching the 'limits of the subject' did not exactly relish the prospect of teaching undergraduates.Nick_F said:
DangerousMike said:
it's not a real university though, is it. You can't educate to the limits of a subject unless you have active research programmes and researchers in that subject. A university education should give a fairly broad overview of a subject and this includes making the knowledge taught current and cutting-edge.
It's a little while ago, now, but my recollection is that those researching the 'limits of the subject' did not exactly relish the prospect of teaching undergraduates.DangerousMike said:
Nick_F said:
DangerousMike said:
it's not a real university though, is it. You can't educate to the limits of a subject unless you have active research programmes and researchers in that subject. A university education should give a fairly broad overview of a subject and this includes making the knowledge taught current and cutting-edge.
It's a little while ago, now, but my recollection is that those researching the 'limits of the subject' did not exactly relish the prospect of teaching undergraduates.Fee cap has to come off and very soon. It's the only solution.
Diderot said:
DangerousMike said:
Nick_F said:
DangerousMike said:
it's not a real university though, is it. You can't educate to the limits of a subject unless you have active research programmes and researchers in that subject. A university education should give a fairly broad overview of a subject and this includes making the knowledge taught current and cutting-edge.
It's a little while ago, now, but my recollection is that those researching the 'limits of the subject' did not exactly relish the prospect of teaching undergraduates.Fee cap has to come off and very soon. It's the only solution.
Beckhamology.
I don't think the fee cap is the problem - I think the problem is too many Universities (or university places). I think you could cut public expenditure on higher education by reducing the number of places, whilst at the same time increasing the funding per student place for the remaining universities. I think we just have too many poor quality institutions diluting the funding and it is starting to make the top quality, world leading institutions (like the one I'm at 
) uncompetitive.
) uncompetitive. Edited by DangerousMike on Wednesday 23 June 18:41
DangerousMike said:
I don't think the fee cap is the problem - I think the problem is too many Universities (or university places). I think you could cut public expenditure on higher education by reducing the number of places, whilst at the same time increasing the funding per student place for the remaining universities. I think we just have too many poor quality institutions diluting the funding and it is starting to make the top quality, world leading institutions (like the one I'm at ) uncompetitive.
I agree with this to a degree, but think it's politically impossible. Universities are supposed to be for the best & brightest to become better and brighter so they can become very wealthy, develop wealth and get the s) uncompetitive. Edited by DangerousMike on Wednesday 23 June 18:41
t taxed out of them for the good for the country. Instead we have polytechnics all over the place offering poor standards of education to pupils who arent good enough to get into better uni's.I'd have the government create a list of labour shortages (nuclear physicists, for instance), and a list of the top institutions for those subjects, changes to this list should be made with three years advance warning. If you're good enough to get into such a course, your fee's are paid. If you're not good enough, or you want to be an artist or media studies expert, then you have to fund yourself at a different uni.
This wouldn't be "fair" in the sense of "everyone deserves to get a university place" Labour sense of fairness, but IMHO, Univerities are there to train the best of the best, not the feckless. I also feel it would prevent people going to university too young, before they have a clue what they want to do with their life, or how hard the real world really is, and blowing their shot at uni.
Edited by glazbagun on Wednesday 23 June 19:09
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff