by David Craig
In a time of escalating workloads, increased student numbers and pressure from the university to pass students regardless of the quality of their output, it has become difficult for academics to swim against the tide. Perhaps it is better to think about cheating as a training issue as the NUS suggests. It’s probably a whole lot less stressful...
The new student hierarchy
The ‘degree factory’ university manifests two distinct attitudes towards its students. The first is a lack of interest bordering on contempt. The second is a desire to please to such an extent that this undermines academic standards. Which attitude a student encounters is likely to depend on what they pay the university. This has created an informal hierarchy in which treatment is closely linked to income at every stage of the student lifecycle. For example, in 2012 the Telegraph discovered that international students are regularly offered lower entry criteria to degrees:
“The official agent in Beijing for the elite Russell Group claimed that it could secure over–subscribed places for a Chinese student purporting to have scored three C grades in their A–levels – when British students are required to have at least A, A and B.”162
This was corroborated by headmasters of leading public schools, who stated that: “...some of their foreign pupils were being offered places with lower entry requirements than their British counterparts.”163
Universities can even retract a lower offer if they discover that a student will not be paying international fees. Andrew Halls, headmaster of King’s College School, mentioned: “...a boy who was made an offer dependent on him being a non–EU candidate, and when he clarified that he was a UK candidate, they said that the offer doesn’t stand.”164
The same preferential treatment is visible throughout Clearing, when universities offer a much broader choice of degree places to non–EU students paying higher fees. In 2012, the Telegraph found: “70 law courses in Scotland were taking applications from foreigners yesterday but just 25 had vacancies for British or EU candidates. Almost 150 maths courses were available for international students compared with 38 for home students, while 76 chemistry courses had foreign vacancies but only 28 (for) British candidates.”165
We’ve already seen examples of how universities can and will try to influence academics in their marking of overseas students, especially if they form an important source of income for the university. This malaise goes much deeper, however. Since 2000, UK universities have developed close links with regimes with some of the worst human rights records in the world; Iran, Syria and Libya. Privileged students from these regimes have been welcomed by these universities with reduced entry criteria and enhanced academic support that is unavailable to ordinary, especially domestic, undergraduates. The exact form this transaction takes varies from case to case. But the basic ingredient reported would appear to be that universities provide huge additional support to students to gain qualifications that they might not be able to obtain through their own efforts. In some cases, it may mean allowing entry to unqualified students and supporting them through their studies. In other cases, it may mean doing some or all of their academic work for them whilst the students avail themselves of other, perhaps more pleasurable, activities than studying. If these allegations are true (and they are numerous), these universities are essentially providing a more exclusive boutique version of the services offered by essay–writing services.
Perhaps one of the most memorable examples of this is Saif Ghadaffi’s enrolment at the London School of Economics (LSE). After five years of study Mr Ghadaffi successfully completed a Masters and a Doctorate at the university. Later, questions emerged from a number of quarters over allegations of plagiarism, the level of support that he received and the integrity of the university’s assessment process. These questions linked Mr Ghadaffi’s treatment to a £1.5 million donation from the Libyan government to the LSE and the high volume of university training purchased from the LSE by the Libyan state.166
Oxford University had rejected a previous application from Saif Ghadaffi. But they ran into difficulties with the former Iranian President’s son, Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani. His thesis proposal had been accepted by the university originally, but later it was subject to investigation after claims that university insiders had helped to push this through the system and that his English was not of a sufficient standard to have undertaken doctoral work. A subsequent university investigation found that nothing untoward had happened in the admission. Mr Rafsanjani had in fact been allowed into the University with a ‘let off clause’ with regard to his language skills, something permissible under university regulations. Exactly why the university chose to exercise this clause for Mr Rafsanjani is perhaps a question best directed to the university’s finance department.
The ‘degree factory’ university and the individual student
“The university views me as a source of funding.”
Engineering graduate
Many of the above issues can be viewed as victimless crimes from the student perspective. A large number of students are undoubtedly happy that many degrees now require less study. A large number of students are probably also pleased that plagiarism is now generally ignored within universities. The silent majority of the undergraduate body are also likely to be disinterested in where or how their universities find additional funding.
The possibly less than academic attitude of many of today’s universities doesn’t just apply to these areas however, it also affects the manner in which universities interact with individual students. Sometimes this behaviour is the result of scale, sometimes it reflects the increasingly bureaucratic nature of universities post expansion. Often the behaviour can seem selfish in its desire to wring the last available (usually borrowed) penny out of its students. For example, language courses which would have been free to students pre–expansion now cost full price.
The bureaucratic rigidity of universities becomes clear when a student wants to do anything that falls outside normal operating parameters. If, for example, a student wants to change course within the first few weeks of enrolment, universities generally offer little sympathy to such requests. University departments will similarly obstruct students who wish to take modules of courses external to their school. Transferring credit between universities is also far more difficult and arduous than it should be.
Some of this inflexibility is a problem of scale. Most popular courses are so oversubscribed that there are literally no spaces to move students to even if the university wanted to. It is also a problem of culture though. Post expansion, too many universities interact with their students through factory processes in pursuit of top–down targets. The student is a unit of funding and the modules that count towards their degrees are simply outputs. The intention is to convert funding to outputs as cost–efficiently as possible. Often, the result is that a university is set up to do the bare minimum possible in pursuit of this end, churning out a certain quantity of graduates rather than graduates of a certain quality.
Each university is also a monopoly supplier to its students and monopolies can treat their customers as they see fit. How many undergraduates are going to leave, if this means debt but no degree or even credit towards a degree? If a student does exercise the one choice available to them, of leaving, they should not expect any refund policy. One graduate interviewed mentioned that she had dropped out of a degree at her first university, unhappy with their standards of teaching. She complained several times and eventually left after six miserable weeks:
“... unfortunately it was past the point where I could get a refund on my tuition fees and I had to pay the full amount... The university got a debt collector in and I got this horrible phone call after I’d left.” English graduate
She soon discovered that she was still liable for the full year’s fees. The university had, in the student’s view, failed to provide the expected quality but, despite this, the student remained liable. Despite no
suggestion of default, the university involved the bailiffs, adding significant extra distress to the student and their parents.
This is not an isolated incident; it is what many students can expect when they drop out. Given that around 18% of undergraduates – tens of thousands every year – drop out of their degrees before completing them, it is a fairly widespread phenomenon. For these students there is no flexibility, no empathy and no special consideration. Instead, they are faced with the university seeking to enforce its side of a transaction through the legal system.
Complaints from the NUS over this type of university behaviour were serious enough for the Office for Fair Trading (OFT) to issue a warning to the Higher Education sector in 2014. Having analysed the terms and conditions laid out in the student contracts of 115 institutions, the OFT found that 75% contained provisions to stop students from enrolling for a new year or even from graduating if they owed any debts to the university for accommodation, childcare or even library fines. The OFT made it clear that such behaviour was disproportionate and put universities in breach of consumer protection law. 167
The ‘degree factory’ university is nothing if not consistent in its approach, right up until graduation ceremonies. This final act of student life is meant to be a celebration of achievement and a significant event for student and university. Sadly, many universities don’t view graduations in these terms, instead approaching them as a final chance to make money; or at least until they start their e–mail campaigns asking for alumni contributions. For example, in 2008 one of the authors attended a Russell Group university graduation which charged £20 per ticket. Graduates were allowed two family members to attend the event. Additional tickets were available on a “first come, first served” basis. Children older than two years were charged the full rate. Gown and Mortar hire was £50. A standard pack of photos with card frames another £50. By 2013, the Guardian estimated the average cost of a graduation for a UK student at £220.168 In 2014, the average cost of a graduation ticket was £68 and several universities now charge students for the ceremony even if they choose not to attend.
Given their taxpayer–funded resources (photography departments, sports halls, catering departments) there is no good reason why all of this – outfits, tickets, catering, photos and DVD – could not be provided free by every university, especially in view of the massive tuition fees now charged by most universities – both the elite institutions and those which are far from elite. It is this relentless need to profit from the student that highlights the ‘degree factory’ university at its worst:
“They make you pay for your graduation after you’ve spent £40,000 already over three years...to me that’s horrendous. It’s not even the expense, it’s the principle.” Finance and management graduate
That there is a principle at stake here is correct. But the ‘degree factory’ university doesn’t do principles. So students are crammed in like sardines, forced to pay through the nose and bored rigid. In this, at least, graduation provides a fitting finale to an undergraduate degree at one of these degree factories.
But what happens after graduation?
CHAPTER SEVEN: GRADUATES: ‘GIZZA JOB!’
“If you haven’t got a degree nobody wants you, but when you’ve got it nobody cares.” Engineering graduate
Prior to expansion, it was assumed that almost all graduates would find graduate jobs. Some might have to send off more applications than others, but eventually everybody who wanted it would find employment at this level. Graduates were in limited supply and, consequently, possession of a degree was a gateway to a career. However, employment data released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) made it clear that this was no longer the case by 2011: “...25% of 21–year olds who had completed university degrees were unable to find (any) job, compared with 26% of 16–year–olds with no qualifications other than GCSEs. The unemployment rate for 18–year–olds with A–levels was lower, at 20%”169
The reality of life post graduation can come as a shock to graduates who expect to walk straight into a well–paid job. In 2011, the Higher Education Careers Service Unit (HECSU) found that 67% of undergraduates surveyed six months before graduation felt that their degree had been worthwhile. Eighteen months after graduation this number fell to 50%.170 It’s not difficult to understand how this disenchantment occurs. It is the result of interaction with the labour market in which the actual value of a degree is generally less than the anticipated value. This is a long–term trend that has been driven by expansion and its relentless oversupply of graduates into an already saturated job market.
Research into graduate employment confirms a pattern of increasing numbers of graduates working in non–graduate jobs. A 1997 report by the Institute for Employment Studies, which tracked 1991–93 graduates, found that by 1995 just 22% of them were in low skilled (or non–graduate) jobs.171 By 2001, data from the ONS showed that the number of recent graduates working in non–graduate jobs had risen to 29%. By 2013, the same ONS figures had reached an eye–watering 47% of recent graduates.172
What many of today’s graduates slowly discover is that securing a graduate job depends on a variety of factors, many of which were beyond their control after they had started their degree. Particularly important amongst these factors are – which university a graduate attended, which subject they studied, where they live after graduation and what year they graduated.
1. Which university?
All the available evidence suggests that the university a graduate attends is a key determinant of their employability and future earnings. Research in 2008 by the 1994 Group, an association of eleven smaller, research–intensive universities, found that:
“A third of science and technology graduates from (elite) universities earn between £30,000 and £49,999 three years after leaving university. This compares with 12.4% of graduates from less prestigious institutions.”173
These findings were supported by ONS figures published in 2015 showing that graduates from elite universities (Russell Group) were 14% more likely to be employed in a high–skilled role and earned on average 20% more than other graduates. 174
This pattern intensifies the higher up the pay scale you go. Research from the Sutton Trust in 2008 suggested that top earners were four times as likely to have attended elite universities:
“A fifth of people (19%) who graduated from elite universities in the 1990s are now earning more than £90,000 a year, compared with only 5% of those who went to former polytechnics.”175
Unsurprisingly, these unequal returns start immediately after graduation. Research in 2014 from the Sutton Trust, identified that the average starting salaries for Oxbridge graduates were around 42% higher than those of graduates from new (post 1992) universities.176
There are also huge differences in the ability of the graduates of different universities to find employment. A Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) survey of 2012 graduates showed that the average unemployment rate six months after graduation was 8%. For Aberdeen’s Robert Gordon University – a university with one of the lowest rates of graduate unemployment – this fell to 2.3%, whilst for graduates from the London Metropolitan University it was 18.6%.177
Elite universities have significantly lower unemployment rates than new universities. In 2012, the Council of Professors and Heads of Computing Council found that universities such as those in the Russell Group had graduate unemployment rates of 7.2%, whilst the rate at new universities was 10.2%.178 Despite these differences in outcomes for employability and future earnings, nearly all universities currently charge the same fees.
2. Which degree subject?
There is also huge variation in graduate starting salaries depending on degree subject. The 2014 Higher Education Careers Service Unit (HECSU) survey reported that graduates studying dentistry had the highest average starting salary at £30,348 a year, while those studying ophthalmics had the lowest at
£15,546.179
Even for graduates from elite universities, their choice of degree subject can make a massive difference to their future earnings. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) degrees and some language subjects pay much better than arts or humanities subjects. Research in 2008 suggested that three years after university, graduates in science and technology subjects from elite universities were twice as likely to be earning £30,000 or above than their counterparts studying arts or social sciences. STEM graduates from these universities were also 10% more likely to be employed in graduate rather than non–graduate positions.180
These differences in starting salaries for subjects are only the tip of the iceberg. Later in graduates’ working lives, there is an earnings gulf between different subjects. The cyclical nature of the employment market also means that many degrees which might have been considered good investments upon application, such as computer science, can turn out to be anything but after graduation. In 2009, nearly one in six (16.3%) of ICT graduates were unemployed six months after graduation.181
One of the most interesting pieces of research in this area was provided by the Daily Telegraph in 2012. This examined the percentage of graduates working in barista–level jobs six months after graduation, by their degree subject. The worst five subjects were fine arts (29%), media studies (26.7%), performing arts (23.5%), design (23.1%) and sociology (22.7%). The five best–performing subjects were civil engineering (4.7%), mechanical engineering (4.7%), architecture (7.9%), economics (7.9%) and electrical engineering (8.8%). If only it were possible for governments, universities and potential students to discern a pattern in these results and learn something from them…
