It is dangerous to assume that one’s experience of High School is the same as that for every other Scot who has ran that six year gauntlet. Not everyone will have had their trousers pulled down onstage during the school production (as rehearsed) or had to fast talk one’s way out of stepping into the middle of gang warfare (not rehearsed). Alternatively, some others may have had their heads flushed down the toilets, something that was promised me but thankfully never materialised, not that it didn’t stop me expecting it at every turn for the first few weeks. I’m just glad I didn’t ‘self-dunk’ over the school holidays to mentally and phyiscally prepare myself, like some sort of primary seven Marine.
Anyway, one thing that all Scottish High School pupils will have faced is the option of six years of education. S1 and S2 are exam and trouble free so pupils start getting properly motivated in S3 and S4, seeking to pass their standard grades; they then ideally find extra gears of motivation for Highers in S5, putting in their first ever stint of months long study; many students then achieve the grades that they need to get into university, finding out close to the start of S6 which institution they will be attending. In such instances, I would imagine most pupils would do as I did, drop classes to the bare minimum and spend as much time as possible hanging out in the common room and/or playing sport, motivation well and truly on the backburner.
Moving onto university, a sudden, sharp burst of passion and enthusiasm for one’s chosen subject is soon replaced by the peer pressure, seductive socialising and general waste of time that is Fresher’s Week and most of the year that follows. Time passes and the need to justify those four long, hedonistic years starts to bite so a 2:1 is salvaged with some last minute cramming in later years.
To chart the levels of motivation and application over these key years for any student, years that will probably shape the rest of their lives, the following could quite reasonably be applied (the first red arrow being S6 at High Achool and the second red arrow being first year university):
Is it not better to just scrap sixth year for those who do not need it and get pupils out there earning and learning? Isn’t it worth trying to smooth that line out and remove those two dips?
The fledgling education debate north of the border seems to be focussing on ways to finance the current process but if we improve and contract the current process then it will inevitably be more affordable. Not necessarily all problems solved but let’s at least get some quick wins under our belt before trying to pass on Tory cuts with no extra revenue.
Examples of such quick wins could include:
– Make Scottish degrees three years in length, instantly saving 25% from the total cost of a typical university qualification and stamping out what tends to be a wasted year for unfocussed students
– Promote the mentality of only doing a sixth year if you are actively studying towards something. Seeing out a year before taking a job or university/college place that is already awaiting you is a waste of a school’s resources and a waste of a student’s time
– Create opportunities for work experience for the period between receiving an unconditional university offer and the start of university, raising money for the studies to come and real life experience that will make studying all the more relevant and valuable
– Matching what a university student earns in a year, over a certain limit, with funding towards fees and/or living allowance
Many people are worried about a double-dip recession but we currently have a double-dip education system that creates unnecessary obstacles for students and prevents from them even wanting to get ahead by offering such tantalising opportunities to muck around and not do very much.
#1 by Doug Daniel on November 29, 2010 - 3:47 pm
I can definitely see parallels with my own education there, Jeff. Four As and a B was more than enough to get into Computing Science at Aberdeen Uni, so sixth year was a bit of a waste for me. I looked at it as being my own little “gap year” before uni, but looking back, I wonder if it was actually counter-productive. I loved maths, physics and chemistry at Higher level, but I found CSYS tedious – a mixture of less-than-brilliant teaching (well, why waste the good maths teachers on a class of four students?) and going into too much detail for no reward. Take physics for example – we took V=IR, and added in all these variables that made it slightly more accurate (but still the same answer when rounding up to 2 decimal places) and ridiculously more complicated. When I got to uni and had to choose the extra subjects other than computing, I steered well clear of physics as I had completely lost interest in it, only to hear from a friend who did physics that he was still using the “normal” equations. I even did a second degree in Electrical & Telecommunications Engineering, and never once used these overly-complex equations. CSYS maths was badly taught (although not helped by my skipping class a few times to go for ice cream with one of the other students in the class…), and while chemistry was generally still interesting (mainly due to Mr Leishman being the best teacher in the school), it was difficult not to become at least a little bit apathetic. I took maths and chemistry as my other subjects in my first year at uni, and lo and behold, it was basically just a rehash of what I’d learned in sixth year (or should have learned, in the case of maths…)
I think there are several problems with sixth year, the main one being an identity crisis. What is it for? I got the feeling it was at least partly an attempt to ease the student into university style learning, i.e. relying less on the teacher to tell you every single thing to learn, but if that’s the case, it failed massively. I went from being super-motivated in fifth year to completely lazy in sixth year, and this followed on into first year at uni, not least because so much of it seemed like a rehash of things I already knew. Another problem is the lack of uniformity over what is taught – for example, I know some schools taught a CSYS computing course, but mine didn’t. As a result, the lecturers in first year at university can’t assume everyone is starting on the same knowledge base. Being retaught things just encourages people to skip classes and tutorials, which is a bad habit to get into.
I’m not convinced both sixth year at school and first year at university are superfluous, but sixth year certainly is. When I look back at my first year computing courses, they were necessary for what I learned in the following years. Having said that, the very fact that I had to choose other subjects to make up credits in first and second year does suggest that perhaps there was some way the two could have been merged into one year – there’s no reason why Operating Systems couldn’t have been taught alongside Internet Information Systems and Introduction To Java and all squashed into one term with the remainder of second year made into the second term. Perhaps (and I can’t believe I’m suggesting this), the university year could have started a couple of weeks earlier and ended a couple of weeks later, to squeeze some more teaching time in there?
I’ve got to say though, I’m always slightly suspicious of the idea that more students automatically equals more costs – with the burden of buying study materials being placed entirely on the students and with lecture notes now online (unless some departments are still living in the 1990s?), I can’t really see where the extra costs come in, especially when talking about annual costs. A lecture hall of 200 students has just as many lecturers (one) as a room of 30, and it doesn’t cost much to print out another 20 exam papers. What are these massive costs that require the number of student places to be reduced? I’m genuinely interested, if anyone can shed some light.
#2 by Jeff on November 29, 2010 - 8:15 pm
I’m not sure I can shed any light on your poser there Doug; it may be that universities currently get x thousands pounds for each student that they get so perhaps the ‘costs’ are not so much university costs as governmental? Apart from that, extra costs could be paying for more tutors, finding extra student accommodation and/or paying for marking at exam/essay time. I agree though, it shouldn’t be ‘that’ much more.
Then again, I take more umbrage with Labour’s arbitrary aim of 50% of pupils going to university, a number plucked out of the air as far as I’m aware and perhaps even borne out of that old student philosophy that ‘50%’s a pass’.
#3 by Doug Daniel on November 29, 2010 - 8:57 pm
Halls of Residence could certainly be an added cost – I stayed at home for both my degrees, so I tend to forget that other people had to stay in Halls of Residences, and I have no idea how much parental/student contribution goes towards them, if any. Perhaps I should look into this, since it’s something that’s bugged me for a long time now.
The 50% aim was ridiculous, and it was obvious as soon as they announced it that it would just lead to degrees becoming worth less (rather than actually worthless). I’ve looked for jobs in the papers in the past where they’re asking for a degree for a job you would assume would once have been just on-the-job training, and having a degree isn’t even enough in some cases – there seems to be a lot more emphasis on degrees being 1:1s and 2:1s than there was when I first left uni in 2003. That in itself is a good argument for businesses footing the bill for university funding – if businesses want to demand people have degrees so that they don’t have to bother training them so much, then get them to pay for it!
#4 by Daniel on November 29, 2010 - 5:29 pm
If we got rid of the 4-Year Scottish Degree are we to assume that 6th year and Advanced Highers would therefore become compulsory as University would have to start at a higher level?
Personally I would hate this, by 4th and 5th year I was very ready to leave school and go to university, funnily enough my grades got a lot better once I got there too. I would be very much against this but can see a number of benefits, arguably now universities lose money per pupil so a 3 year degree provided funding was maintained at the current levels would lead to more money per student. Also Scottish Students would be more competitive for English Universities if AH’s were required for our best universities – with the Browne review this may not be too popular but the option would be there for more.
Personally I think the first year of University should be more rigourous for Arts and Social Sciences.. but there you go.
So, 6th year would almost definitely become required for University admissions. From my experience my Scottish friends were much happier with University than my English and International friends who had just been studying intensely for the IB or A-Levels. I quite like our education system.. and I’m happily still in it!
#5 by Jeff on November 29, 2010 - 8:12 pm
I don’t think that moving from a 4-year degree to a 3-year degree would involve something as straighforward as simply chopping off the 1st year and starting from 2nd year (in whatever subject) as per current syllabi. Some parts of the old first year could be condensed into most of the second year for the first of three years of study.
I accept that taking two whole years out of a student’s education shouldn’t be done lightly but I don’t see why most students can’t work 9am-4pm Monday-Friday to fit more into any given year, a solid bit of polyfilla to existing timetables I daresay. Maybe not everyone had the same luxury of an 11-hour week as I did back in university but even then I thought it was a bit of a shambolic way to prepare someone for the rigours of life beyond academia, not to mention a pedestrian way to go about getting a degree.
Most people I know who left school in 5th year went on to do very well as they maintained a consistent level of motivation, but that’s anecdotal of course so may not be true across the board.
#6 by Doug Daniel on November 29, 2010 - 9:19 pm
“Maybe not everyone had the same luxury of an 11-hour week as I did back in university” – this is just it, the current model requires that courses are stretched out to “fill” four years, regardless of how much effort is actually required. I have a few friends from school who did law, and I don’t believe for a second that I spent as many hours studying as they did. They certainly had more lectures than I did. Why can’t some degrees be shorter, if they don’t require such intense studying? The argument against that would be that students are probably spending those extra hours working part-time, but I could still have squeezed in more university in between what lectures/tutorials/practicals I did have and my part-time job.
#7 by Daniel on November 29, 2010 - 9:31 pm
I have a 9-12 hour week. (Politics and International Relations) and this would appear to be similar for most of the people I know outside science at most other Scottish universities. (Glasgow, Strathclyde, St Andys and Edinburgh) I
Doubling the contact time or even increasing it by 50% wouldn’t provide substantially better learning or even value for money on my course, or many other Social Sciences and Arts degrees. I think it’s more about the culture and getting people involved and reading.. more tutorials with 15-20 people in wouldn’t benefit me or others as much as fewer tutorials with significantly less people. Having had experience at a small private college in the US I can definitely say that two hours a week in a class of less than 10 is far superior to 3 hours of lectures with 50-200 people and a tutorial with 20 people.
It may be a shambolic preparation for the world outside academia but I would say place myself in the camp that says higher education shouldn’t be about preparing solely for work. In my extra year I got to enter university for Economics and Finance, take courses in Politics, IR, Law and History and change my degree intention in the process.
#8 by Shuna on November 29, 2010 - 8:27 pm
Interesting post. My son and daughter’s school had a slightly different sytem in that they had S1 exam free – then started working on their standard grades in S2 – sitting them all in S3. Both my kids therefore had S4, 5 & 6 to work on highers and Int 2s. For my eldest this system gave her a chance of getting some highers – that said she has ended up at college doing an HND that will see her into either 2nd or 3rd year of a degree course at Uni. She is a grafter and works hard for ever mark she earns – it does not come easy but she is now doing fine at college and really enjoying her studying.
My son sat 4 highers in S5 sailed through them all – wants to go to art school so we decided that another year at school (where they wanted him doing 2 AH and a further 2 highers) would do nothing but skunner him – so he too is now at college doing an HND that again will get him hopefully into the graphic design course of his choice at possibly 2nd or 3rd year. (and if nothing else help him prepare a better portflio to support his application to art school)
Two different kids but two good examples of how the school system latterly did not work for them. But both now heading in the direction they want and doing well.
Daniels point about Arts and Social Sciences 1st years needing to be more rigorous – I have to agree – but my experience through both my kids seem to show that college is much more rigorous than my experice of 1st year Uni (I completed a BD Hons in 2008).
Another interesting point is that because I had an existing degree – when studing for my BD I was given credit to the equivalent of half of third year so was able to do year 3 and 4 in one year (this equated to a year and a halfs worth of subjects) Whilst this was not always a walk in the park it certainly was not difficult to fit it in. (I also had a family to look after and a 2 hour round trip to Uni) I graduated with a 2:1 and was just a couple of marks off a 1st. An argument for a 3 year honours degree?
The pressure put on young people to achieve the highest academic standards is huge – what we need to do is work more closely with colleges and have a system that helps young people move smoothly from one sytsem to another, making steady progress. The 2&2 partnerships are a great idea.
#9 by Caron on November 29, 2010 - 10:27 pm
I want to respond in greater detail but it’s too late & I’m too sleepy. I will come back in the morning but suffice to say that it’s nice to see you endorsing the Lib Dem proposal for 3 year degrees in the education paper passed at our recent conference.
#10 by Jeff on November 29, 2010 - 10:44 pm
Good stuff Caron, looking forward to it. I, in turn, incidentally am too tired to reply to any of the thought-provoking comments since last I logged in.
But inadvertently backing the Lib Dems hey? How can I possibly get some kip with that knowledge… 😉
#11 by Chris on November 30, 2010 - 12:46 am
First of all there is the physical capacity. Bigger courses need more bigger rooms.
Secondly there is teaching time. It goes up with student numbers. In terms of answering queries, marking work, giving feedback etc, references. So more staff required, with the indirect cost of less qualified staff employed.
Third there are hidden infrastructure costs: no of books in the library, no of librarians, no of admissions staff, size of servers, IT capacity. Cost of cleaning goes up.
I can go on, but it’s late and I have an assignment to finish!
#12 by oldchap on November 30, 2010 - 10:16 am
As someone now working in higher education – I’m currently a research associate – I’m happy to agree that many degrees could easily take a year or more less than they do. Certainly that doesn’t apply in all cases – for example med students – but they already take a different length of time to qualify anyway. The idea of varying length degrees is an interesting one.
At the company I worked at before this job there were a couple of French employees who had come to Scotland to finish their degrees (and stayed because they loved the country). They couldn’t believe that 10-12 hours contact a week was enough to get a bachelors degree; they were used to twice that if not more. The intention with all that free time is often supposed to be to allow for “personal study” but obviously it’s quite a stretch to imagine that students need that much, and clearly given the French anecdote isn’t the whole story.
Clearly some of the onus is on lecturers to work the concept of increased private study in to courses – this is what I try to do when I get the chance to teach – and that is better preparation for life after uni. As for condensing more classes into the same time, a big problem is lack of time for staff preparation. It’s difficult to see from an undergraduate’s perspective but after I started my PhD some years back I grew an appreciation for just how stretched for time many lecturers are, balancing class prep, project supervision, research and commercial activities. I’m a firm believer that these things all go hand-in-hand together – and consequently in my view the only solutions to the time problem are either more money for universities or fewer students. (and yes, I think that the 50% quota was ridiculous too)
(by the way, nice blog, I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to post!)
#13 by Jeff on December 1, 2010 - 1:19 pm
Thanks for the comment.
I am now going to contadict my last comment but I can see what you’re saying about varying the length of degrees. I know chemists and computer students work long hours with lab work complimenting their lectures and tutorials. Those who have less of an applied nature to their degree don’t have this extra workload so there’s opportunity to vary there for sure.
The factor of the time of lecturers is of course relevant and I don’t really know how that works but it sounds like they have a lot to juggle. I believe they could do with more pay as things stand so more classes and tutorials would probably need to come with a payrise too.
And thanks for the last line oldchap, feel free to not leave it so long to reply the next time 😉
#14 by Cameron on November 30, 2010 - 10:29 am
I do tutorials at uni, they’d need to employ more people for more students for those. And they told us they spend around £1000 for every months labs we do. So from a science perspective there are massive costs associated with more students. Especially in fourth year. Glasgow uni is so oversubscribed they need to have lectures at 5-6 to fit everyone in, exams on saturdays and finishing at 8 too there just isn’t the space, it’s easy enough to say 50% should be university educated (it’s arbitrary but I’m sure we’d agree that more people should be university educated) but they didn’t seem to really work out where they’d study.
I’d say in a biology degree
9-5 monday, tuesday, Friday
9-1 wednesday
9-12 thursday
is roughly my timetable without revision studying. So a 28 hour week. Then studying. They’re trying to reduce the number of lectures (about 1 hour a day, 2 or 3 on Friday) we get and increase the number of tutorials.
#15 by theshooglypeg on November 30, 2010 - 9:08 pm
Good to see some debate on education that doesn’t focus on tuition fees in England: but I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. Sixth year can serve several purposes: for me it let me take an extra Higher, re-sit one from the previous year (which I maintain I’d only failed because of an incompetent teacher, but perhaps it’s time to let that go…) and do an SYS English, which I loved and which was good preparation for the different learning style need for uni.
I’m not sure that you could automatically make all degrees last three years, either: some need four years to cover all the content but more to the point, a four-year degree allows you some flexibility rather than locking you in right from the start. At Glasgow Uni, I was able to pick three subjects in first year, keep two on in second year as well as start an entirely new one, and only have to specialise in third year. That gave me plenty of time to decide what I really wanted to do, rather than embarking on one subject, realising it was wrong and having to try to apply for and fund a whole new degree.
Maybe there should be more choice for students though: it shouldn’t be impossible to structure degrees sufficiently flexibly that they can be done in four, three or maybe even two years in some cases.
#16 by Jeff on December 1, 2010 - 1:15 pm
Oh, I agree that 6th year can be useful and I thoroughly enjoyed Music and SYS Maths (class of only 6) but I still blame it for a massive drop in motivation once the unconditional offer came through. It’s surely not ideal to go from deep-seated lethargy in High School to a culture of massive binge drinking in university with the education aspect barely getting a look in on either side.
I appreciate though that if 6th year is the chance for getting into university or college or getting a job then that motivation will stay high so this is less of a concern.
As for your last point, maybe I’m being unfair, but most students would probably opt for the full 4 years as it’s the easier choice, especially if it was free. I think there has to be a hard and fast rule across the board (with exceptions for law and medicie etc of course).
#17 by Daniel on December 1, 2010 - 2:50 pm
Students will binge drink even if they have a 2 or 3 year degree with a heavier workload.. combine living away from home, lots of new friends and a more hands off style of work and of course people will ‘experiment’. Oxford doesn’t stop the Bullingdon boys…