Number Of University Students example essay topic

There have been many developments in higher education since 1992, including the rapid increase in student numbers, the introduction of tuition fees and the choice to study in different ways. These new options have been made available through new courses such as General National Vocational Qualifications (G NVQs) and the expansion of the Internet. This essay will discuss how these changes have come about and how they have affected the expectations of universities, students and employers. The essay will also look at current issues affecting higher education such as the decrease in the number of lecturers in the UK and the Government's new plan of Top Up tuition fees and what effects these might have. The essay will examine these expectations by looking at how the three groups have reacted to the changes in higher education over the last ten years and their future plans they have as a result.

It will analyse university programmes, student's actions and employer's attitudes as a consequence of the various changes. In particular the essay will look at the funding of universities, especially from the students aspect in respect to tuition fees and the quality of teaching and researching. It will also examine what the three groups expect students to get out of going to university. One of the biggest developments in higher education over the last century was the rapid increase in the number of university students. From 1962 to 2001 the number of university students in the UK rose from three hundred and forty thousand to over two million, half of this increase took place in the 1990's.

Tony Blair's Labour government has actively encouraged this growth, mainly by trying to get more underrepresented people into universities, as the UK economy benefits from having more skilled workers in it. At the moment 41.5% of eighteen to thirty year olds in the UK go to university, the governments target for 2010 is 50%. At the moment the 'poor' are underrepresented in UK universities. How do you define poor? Perhaps as those who do not have to contribute towards tuition fees, anyone whose family income is less than twenty thousand pounds. The fact that they are underrepresented in university is shown by the fact that a child of a professional is four times as likely to get to university as a child from a working class home, (Department for Education and Skills, 2002) and a student from a poor background stands only "a one in a hundred chance of getting into one of the nineteen elite Russell group universities".

(The Guardian, 2001) Since the 1960's the proportional gap between the 'rich' and 'poor' going to university has grown (On the Record, Hodge, 2002), however, universities are now taking an active role in trying to attract more of these students. Some universities, such as Bristol, give pupils from poorly achieving state schools offers by assessing potential as well as results and the University of Salford has a policy of accepting home-based students. Policies such as these give more poor students a chance to study at university. A graduate can expect to earn 60% more than someone without a degree, or four hundred thousand pounds more during their lifetime (Department for Education and Skills, 2002). Thus poorer students expectations are enhanced and the possibility of closing the social gap increased.

Our Universities are in crisis... this government has encouraged a massive expansion of university education and hasn't provided the money for it... That has the implication on teaching standards, on the quality of infrastructure, the capital buildings, on the facilities, the books... that is intolerable. (On the record, Hodge, 2002) The increase in student numbers is generally seen as a good thing but to keep teaching standards high the universities need a rise in funding as well. So where is the money going to come from?

There are three possible sources, the taxpayer, businesses and students. However, the taxpayer already funds 90% of university fees and businesses are not willing to fund universities any more than they already do unless the money they give goes into research rather than into teaching, which is where the money is most vitally needed. The government also has the view that for industry to compete for emerging global markets it requires a low tax regime. (The Times, 1997) So that only leaves students. In 1997 the government introduced tuition fees, this meant that most students, based on a means tests, had to contribute towards university fees - usually one thousand two hundred pounds a year. This meant many students had to take out a loan to pay for the fees.

The thought of being in so much debt scared people off going to university, especially poorer students. We estimate over 30,000 people each year miss out on university education as a result of tuition fees... The year before fees were introduced fees the number of new students increased by 13.7%, the year after it decreased by 2.0%. (web) Those who do go to university are not getting the full benefit from their time there as to be able to afford the fees many students work. Around 65% of students work during the academic year (Department for Education and Skills, 2002), which means that time is being taken away from study and some even miss lecturers because of their job. Now the government is proposing a new system, called Top Up fees.

This is the idea that students will pay an amount depending on which university they attend. Letting market forces control the price of higher education. This could mean that to go to a top university, such as Oxford, students may have to pay up to fifteen thousand pounds a year, pricing most students out of attending. "The result would be a two-tier public service with choice only for the privileged few".

(On the Record, Humphreys, 2002) Howard Glenn erster argues against this proposal saying that making graduates pay some of the costs of higher education was a positive step but that "there is no room for colleges to compete on price and quality". (The Guardian, 2001) It also seems to go against the Minister for Higher Education, Margaret Hodge's statement that, "we need to ensure that our most talented young people are able to access a place at university without a fear of debt". It is everyone's right to have the same, good education, and that means that a child born into a poor family should not miss out on the best school teachers and going to the best university, with the best lecturers if he or she is good enough intellectually. It is the student's right to expect and demand to be able to go to university. "Top Up fees are a really bad idea".

(Short, 2002) Some argue that instead of making students pay more, in the form of Top Up fees, grants should be brought back. Grants are necessary to achieve the government's target of 50% of young people going into higher education... The cost of going to university may be putting off the very people we are all anxious to see more of in our universities - those from the poorest households. (The Guardian, Flood, 2001) Another option of raising funds for universities, other than Top Up fees, is Graduate Tax. This is the system used in Scotland and is supported by the Chancellor Gordon Brown. This system sees students pay the cost of going to university after they pass an earning threshold.

This means more students, especially from less well off backgrounds would be willing to go to university in the knowledge that they only have to pay off their debt when they can. The problem with this system is that the government has to pay for the education now and will not be paid back for some while. This is not ideal with the economy in a disappointing path of growth as it is. (The Times, 2002) With the increase of student numbers there was the need for a similar increase in funding, this has not happened. This has meant that university standards have fallen, which affects both students and employers. Students are not getting a good education and as a result employers are not getting workers of their potential standard.

More than half of academics think that expansion should be halted because academic standards are suffering. (The Times, 2001) As a result of a lack of funds there is a staff problem in UK universities, mainly in the number of lecturers. The student staff ratio in 1980 was 1: 9 but by 1998 it had fallen to 1: 17. This means that lecturers have to teach to bigger classes and have less time for one to one help.

They cannot spend as long with an individual person as before and as such the teaching standards students are receiving is not as good as it potentially could be. "As class sizes increase and budgets decline, personal tutors have been able to devote less time to each individual student". (The Guardian, 2001) In 1994 lecturers were working on average almost sixty hours per week, which stops the lecturer performing to his or her best. Even though between 1995 and 2000 staff numbers actually grew by 6.5% the number of lecturers fell.

The reason there is a lack of lecturers in the UK is that they have to do such long hours, almost as long now as a schoolteacher - shorter hours were once a main attraction to the job - and again funding. Lecturers in the UK at a top university can expect to earn only half that of his US counterpart. (Department for Education and Skills, 2002) Whilst there is a lack of lecturers there is also a lack of specialisation in the UK. 84% of lecturers do both teaching and researching. The ideal would be to have new universities leaving the bulk of the researching up to the old universities, thus specialising and hopefully improving productivity. Some employers argue that university standards have been reduced because of the undergraduate expansion and that too many graduates lack the skills needed to work in modern business environments, especially communication skills.

This may have something to do with bigger class sizes and the consequence that lecturers spend less time with individual students. (Department for Education and Skills, 2002) The education system in the UK should allow access for all and should serve the interest of everyone whilst providing choice to do the course all students want to do, when they want to, how they want to. Students will this way get the most out of their studies. One way this choice is being increased is through the development of vocational degrees. These are foundation degrees that develop skills by covering the theory and practice of different vocational areas; there are no time limits, age limits or special entry requirements. They address the shortage of skills such as technical and administrative professions.

Through these courses students can learn when, what and how they want, and develop the skills needed to enter the work place. Employers also get workers skilled in the skills they actually need and do not need retraining. This is one reason modern apprenticeships are popular with many specifically skilled industries. A degree shows that the student is intelligent enough to pass their course but does not mean that they will have the skills needed to do the job ahead of them. Students have been very influential in getting schemes like these started, Students are behaving more like customers and are more likely to take an active role in planning their education. In the US students tend to be older and come from diverse backgrounds.

They are less accepting of standardized curriculum and are prepared to use their 'purchasing power' to demand more relevance and more choice. Work and family commitments severely limit their available time, thereby creating demand for part-time, compressed and continuing education programmes offered at times and locations convenient to them. (Geyer, 2002) The government is not providing this system which gives students choice, and is instead building a system which best serves the interests of business. They are happy to provide students with enough practical skills to be useful commodities in the labour market. Their privately owned 'education action zone's cools set by their 'New Deal just forces students off the courses they want to do and onto ones that will guarantee skills in the labour market. "The last ten years have witnessed significant development in information and communication technology".

(Geyer, 2002) One of the biggest developments has been the Internet; it has vastly helped students in their studies by making it possible to access more information and thus do more research and by making it easier to learn at unsociable hours, when the library is shut, and from great distances. It also means that tutors can contact students with greater ease. New 'ideas's uch as "league tables for universities create perverse incentives" (The Times, 2001) as universities are under pressure to give better grades for work that do not deserve them. This has led to employers paying less attention to degrees and concentrating more on the individual through interviews. This means students now have to have good personal skills as well as degrees and it is up to universities to try to provide them with these skills and not just throw information at them. Over the last century there have been major developments in higher education, the main being to do with the increasing student numbers without an increase in funding.

This is still an issue and looks set to be 'solved' with the introduction of Top Up fees after Labour and their manifesto get re-elected at the next general election. Student's expectations have grown, not because standards have risen but because they are starting to have their voices heard. They are demanding courses that they want to do, in a way convenient to them. Employers are telling students what they want and are asking for specific skills, through vocational courses they can get them. More underrepresented students, such as children from 'poor' homes and students that cannot work in the traditional daytime because of work or family commitments are now going to university and universities have to adapt to offer courses they want.