Roland Perry wrote:
Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked:

he potential students. The University admissions process is not capable
of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if
at all).

Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for.

Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean they succeed in their objective.

As 40% of students are dropping out of some Universities, I suppose I'll
have to agree with you.


The original proposition (original = "what started this discussion", not
"novel") was that not everyone would benefit from a University education
(whereas they probably would from nursery education).

It means that although not everyone would benefit, we should at least
give them the benefit of the doubt.

It seems a pity to lay on 3 or 4 year courses, for students who then
drop out. Doesn't that have funding implications for the Universities?

Yes, at least insofar as everything has funding implications for the
universities! But don't most universities expect a certain dropout rate?

Why not perhaps start them on a 1-year, then reconsider (both student
and university).

For some types of degree, the first year covers a lot of stuff that's
essential for the rest of the degree, but unlikely to impress employers,
so there's no advantage. For other types of degree, I'm not sure there
would be much advantage in doing the first year (out of one) over doing
the first year (out of three).

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it.

If the courses are inappropriate to their needs, that seems a bit of a
waste of everyone's time.

But who's to say what their needs are?

They are often fairly self-evident. 40% of students don't seem to be
having their particular needs properly satisfied.

Minus the proportion who drop out for financial reasons.

If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.

Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those
for whom a University education is inappropriate.

Whereas I regard the first semester or two as a far better tool for that
purpose. An admissions process will still be needed of course, because
universities can't all offer enough places to satisfy the demand for
every course.

Ah, close to my suggestion above.

The dropout rate from many of the more recent Universities demonstrates
that they are currently accepting some students who perhaps shouldn't
have been there.

Perhaps, but you've got to be in it to win it!

"Nearly 40% of students are dropping out of some universities
because of high debts,

Which proves my point!

Except they aren't all that high compared to what graduate earnings
"ought" to be, nor all of the 40%

So England and Wales should copy Australia, where students don't have to
repay their debt before they're earning over a certain amount. It could
probably be incorporated into the national insurance system.

poor teaching or an inability to cope with their coursework,
according to new figures published last week.

"Critics claim one of the reasons behind the high drop-out rate
is that too many students are being admitted who cannot cope.

If they cannot cope, at least they know what it is they can't cope with.

Hmm, I think I'll take a 3 year course in brewing, at the taxpayers
expense. I'm not sure if I can cope or not, but we'll find out
eventually...

....probably within the firs semester.