"Technological Universities" - window dressing?

veryangryman

This rebranding of the I.T's seems a bit desperate and likely a huge waste of money. Alot of wishy washy language about strategic this and momentum that.

I guess the same when they became I.Ts from RTCs.

Are you fed up with new buzzwords which effectively becomes the same aul same aul? Agile/Lean I'm looking at you!:eek:

banie01

I 100% agree with you regarding the rebranding of I.Ts.
Without any meaningful merger of institutions, move to 4 year degrees or indeed a concurrent rise in the expected standard of education that additional resources will allow, it is putting lipstick on a pig.

On to your lean/agile point, if it's your experience that those tools have led to similar outcomes and talking shops.
They weren't implemented correctly. Agile I don't have huge experience of as software isn't my bag.
But lean/6 sigma when implemented correctly really have the potential to drive huge initial improvement and allow it to be maintained and incrementally improved.

Quite often however it's a case of companies hiring in an external consultant and using a buzzword for a few months of meetings and faux enthusiasm before they leave and everything stays pretty much the same.
For any improvement strategy to work it has to become embedded and that can't be done the way most Irish companies approach it.

topper75

I never understood the rebranding attempts in any context.

They are just as meaningless in the corporate world. Eircom is now Eir. No idea what that was supposed to achieve.

Lots of money spent on them so the assorted recipients won't complain about that.

Can anybody recall a rebranding that was in any way meaningful or successful?

Bob Harris

topper75 wrote: »

Can anybody recall a rebranding that was in any way meaningful or successful?

Marathon => Snickers.

o1s1n

Bit of a difference in being able to say your degree came from an 'I.T' and an institution with university status.

If I were a student, I know which I would rather.

gctest50

Hospitals be at that old trick too


Windscale

---

>> Sellafield

Bob Harris

o1s1n wrote: »

Bit of a difference in being able to say your degree came from an 'I.T' and an institution with university status.

As a student, I know which I would rather.

Students would rather cheap booze, getting up in the afternoons and playing Xbox in their jocks living off tea and toast.

ted1

veryangryman wrote: »

This rebranding of the I.T's seems a bit desperate and likely a huge waste of money. Alot of wishy washy language about strategic this and momentum that.

I guess the same when they became I.Ts from RTCs.

Are you fed up with new buzzwords which effectively becomes the same aul same aul? Agile/Lean I'm looking at you!:eek:

There’s some differences rather just a branding. In Ireland only universities can award degrees.

So UCD can give a degree, but an degree from an IT is issued by QQI.

Your Face

Like the above poster said - this is more than just a rebranding.

https://hea.ie/policy/he-reform/technological-universities/

super_furry

It’s much, much more than just a rebranding exercise.

Harry Palmr

These technological universities are a swizz - a university requires a level of investment in teaching and facilities that are a quantum above the current I.T's. I see nothing to suggest that funding will be forthcoming.

biko

super_furry wrote: »

It’s much, much more than just a rebranding exercise.

Like....?

nkl12xtw5goz70

Like it or not, only a certain proportion of people leave school equipped for university-level study.

For instance, the State Examinations Commission has found that even among the roughly one-third of students who sit the higher-level maths paper, a significant minority don't have basic maths skills and have difficulty completing even simple procedures. Given this, how many students overall are equipped to attend a "technological university"?

It's also worth noting that some courses in computer science and engineering already have an drop-out rate of 80 percent, indicating that many students just aren't prepared for the kind of rigorous study that a technological university would offer. Predictably, students who enter with lower CAO points — frankly, the kind of students who often end up in an IT — are more likely to drop out of their course.

Institutes of Technology offer a valuable avenue for students who want a more practically or vocationally oriented education. Their value, in other words, stems from the very fact that they are not universities. Trying to turn them into universities has obvious benefits for education insiders — academics will always lobby hard for anything that has prestige or funding attached — but it doesn't seem to serve the needs of students.

Raconteuse

biko wrote: »

Like....?

I suppose read Your Face's link.

Why do people always have to say "This is bad" about anything new without researching it?

"Cynicism for the sake of it is cool" should be something people leave behind in their early 20s.

loyatemu

banie01 wrote: »

I 100% agree with you regarding the rebranding of I.Ts.
Without any meaningful merger of institutions, move to 4 year degrees or indeed a concurrent rise in the expected standard of education that additional resources will allow, it is putting lipstick on a pig.

they are merging - ITB, ITTallaght and DIT have merged into TUD. Also merging:
Athlone+Limerick IT
WIT+ITCarlow
IT Tralee+CIT

I assume Sligo, Letterkenny and GMIT will probably merge as well, not sure where that leaves Dundalk.

veryangryman

Raconteuse wrote: »

I suppose read Your Face's link.

Why do people always have to say "This is bad" about anything new without researching it?

"Cynicism for the sake of it is cool" should be something people leave behind in their early 20s.

I did research it. Everywhere has wishy washy strategic language without specifics!

topper75

Raconteuse wrote: »

I suppose read Your Face's link.

Why do people always have to say "This is bad" about anything new without researching it?

"Cynicism for the sake of it is cool" should be something people leave behind in their early 20s.

But the burden is not on us (be we cynics or otherwise) to say why it isn't meaningful.

This is THEIR proposal.

mikhail

loyatemu wrote: »

they are merging - ITB, ITTallaght and DIT have merged into TUD. Also merging:
Athlone+Limerick IT
WIT+ITCarlow
IT Tralee+CIT

I assume Sligo, Letterkenny and GMIT will probably merge as well, not sure where that leaves Dundalk.

I think this is the point. We had a lot of low-grade institutions. This is a mechanism to merge a ****-load of them, which will save some money on replicated functions, allow a broader variety of courses to be offered, and focus capital investment. The "university" branding is just a sweetener to make this politically painless, though TU Dublin might have the scale to consolidate into something better than the sum of its constituent parts.

I actually think it's a good idea, for once. Usually these rebrandings are a complete waste of money.

ToddyDoody

Why bother with mergers though? How about just upgrade some of them as they stand.

banie01

loyatemu wrote: »

they are merging - ITB, ITTallaght and DIT have merged into TUD. Also merging:
Athlone+Limerick IT
WIT+ITCarlow
IT Tralee+CIT.

Sorry, I should have explained my thoughts a bit better.
That is my point, in this instance mergers, saving money and raising graduate standards is a good thing.

Rebranding solely for the sake of it, is a waste of course but in the example of the I.T's merging.
Its IMO well overdue.

nkl12xtw5goz70

banie01 wrote: »

That is my point, in this instance mergers, saving money and raising graduate standards is a good thing.

About raising graduate standards, it's worth asking what will become of Joe Bloggs who got 200 points in his Leaving and just wants to get onto some kind of a course that will lead to a job.

In other words, are the ITs abandoning a core constituency in their pursuit of higher standards?

Raconteuse

In the UK, the polytechs became universities. Here, the National Institutes of Higher Education became universities in the early 80s (UL and DCU). This seems like the same kinda thing.

banie01

Margot Miniature Slugger wrote: »

About raising graduate standards, it's worth asking what will become of Joe Bloggs who got 200 points in his Leaving and just wants to get onto some kind of a course that will lead to a job.

In other words, are the ITs abandoning a core constituency in their pursuit of higher standards?

Barring some significant jump in foreign numbers the number of students Vs the number of places available is a known.

The CAO points system will allow course to be allocated in pretty much the same way as now, as demand drives the entry points total required.

That the I.Ts tended to offer lower points to enter isn't the issue IMO.
Its whether the final graduate, who has been through the education system of both IT and University is of a comparable standard.

If an employer knows the new UNI is now doing 4 yrs honours degrees and that it gives either co-op or comparable industry experience the new uni grad is just as employable and attractive a graduate as the established Uni's.

Raising the standard of graduates on an ongoing basis, is an admirable aim as is consolidation of support and management services to reduce costs and increase spend on research and actual student services.

nkl12xtw5goz70

banie01 wrote: »

If an employer knows the new UNI is now doing 4 yrs honours degrees and that it gives either co-op or comparable industry experience the new uni grad is just as employable and attractive a graduate as the established Uni's.

Yes, but that ignores that non-progression rates are already jaw-dropping at some ITs, up to 80 percent in some engineering and computer science courses. If the goal is to make courses even more difficult as part of the upgrade, surely even more people will drop out.

So what are the options for Joe Bloggs with his 200 CAO points? He doesn't have the ability to complete an honours degree at a "technological university." He just wants to do some vocational course so that he can get a job — but it seems to be these courses that the technological universities will move away from offering, in the interests of improving standards.

TallGlass2

topper75 wrote: »

They are just as meaningless in the corporate world. Eircom is now Eir. No idea what that was supposed to achieve.

Telecom Eireann, Eircom, Eir, few more years maybe just E.

banie01

Margot Miniature Slugger wrote: »

Yes, but that ignores that non-progression rates are already jaw-dropping at some ITs, up to 80 percent in some engineering and computer science courses. If the goal is to make courses even more difficult as part of the upgrade, surely even more people will drop out.

So what are the options for Joe Bloggs with his 200 CAO points? He doesn't have the ability to complete an honours degree at a "technological university." He just wants to do some vocational course so that he can get a job — but it seems to be these courses that the technological universities will move away from offering, in the interests of improving standards.

But that to my mind is more a matter for career guidance and the Department
Vocational skills are a huge necessity and do need to be addressed.

The issue with the ITs IMO is that they have over the course of the last 30yrs moved more and more away from those core vocational competencies in hard engineering, mechanical, tool making and so on to offer more and more courses that directly compete with Uni offerings.

There are far more computing, business, tax and even law course on offer via IT's than the Uni's.
Is that an issue?
Yes of course, the very core of what the ITs were intended for is being subverted and that can be seen in the high 1st year drop out rates.

But even leaving the ITs as is doesn't address that, there needs to more focus paid to showing vocational educational paths as both progressive and worthwhile then affording those students a pathway to the attainment that is better than the quasi-university that many ITs are.

nkl12xtw5goz70

banie01 wrote: »

The issue with the ITs IMO is that they have over the course of the last 30yrs moved more and more away from those core vocational competencies in hard engineering, mechanical, tool making and so on to offer more and more courses that directly compete with Uni offerings.

Agreed.

However, only a certain proportion of school-leavers are equipped to go on to university-level study. In the 2019 Leaving Cert, for instance, 37 percent of students achieved over 400 points, but roughly the same number got under 200 points. Yet, it now seems that the goal of every university and IT/technological university is to attract more 400+ points students, but this will necessarily happen at the expense of students with lower points. There will be far too many courses aimed at the top-achieving students and too few options for others. The whole system seems entirely unbalanced.

LirW

Margot Miniature Slugger wrote: »

Yes, but that ignores that non-progression rates are already jaw-dropping at some ITs, up to 80 percent in some engineering and computer science courses. If the goal is to make courses even more difficult as part of the upgrade, surely even more people will drop out.

So what are the options for Joe Bloggs with his 200 CAO points? He doesn't have the ability to complete an honours degree at a "technological university." He just wants to do some vocational course so that he can get a job — but it seems to be these courses that the technological universities will move away from offering, in the interests of improving standards.

I think the issue just simply stems from the fact that you need a degree in something, anything really to be deemed worthy to succeed.
Joe Bloggs clearly isn't someone who's doing particularly well in a rigid academic setting, the issue is though that many companies that have even remotely a name out there, have the requirement of a 3rd level education.
Doing a certificate, get a level 6 and go build your CV is a long outdated option that will see your CV binned by all these brilliant automated HR programs.

I believe ITs are simply answering this demand, it's companies demanding an educated workforce no matter the cost and it's students with the fear of being left behind and have limited options because they come from "just an IT" and not some fancy schmancy university.

TallGlass2

TallGlass2 wrote: »

Telecom Eireann, Eircom, Eir, few more years maybe just E.

Department of Posts and Telegraphs first which is why you still see P⁊T on some telephone manhole covers.

Dravokivich

Tallaght, blanch and DIT merged with this "rebranding".

Some of the ITs have merged before. And I believe there's other merging in the works.

nkl12xtw5goz70

LirW wrote: »

I think the issue just simply stems from the fact that you need a degree in something, anything really to be deemed worthy to succeed.

Yes. You're absolutely right. And so we can't simultaneously raise the standard of all degrees while also expecting everyone to acquire a degree.

The powers-that-be won't accept the evident reality that a significant number of students simply are not oriented toward university-level academic study. If they do get onto a high-level course, they will only waste their time and money, drop out, and feel like failures. And what are they to do then?

We need to expand post-secondary opportunities for all students, not just the best and brightest.

knipex

What people forget is that the old RTC's did more to transform the Irish economy than any university.

They graduated people with real skills that were immediately needed by industry. They produced the technicians, the "engineers" with practical knowledge and skills and well as providing the academic training to generations of apprentices..

Its those graduates that set up the industries in Ireland that provided the skills that drew in the FDI, supported the FDI and late became exporters in their own right.

They also provided an alternative to generations of students, those that didn't want to or were not suited to go down the purely academic route of university.

To some they gave the first introduction to skills and areas of knowledge that later resulted in further academic qualifications, to others the training they provided set them up in rewarding, and often well paid careers.

Over the last 20 years they appear to have forgotten that role and become obsessed with the idea of becoming universities.

In my opinion this has let down generation of students and significant damage to our indigenous economy,,

Who is training our CNC programmers ? our skilled technicians, our lab techs, processes techs our project engineers, our cad techs or draftsmen \ women etc. ??

Do you really need a level 8 degree so that an employer will take you on and then spend the money to actually train you in house to fill a role that they used to be able to fill out of an RTC ??

Greyfox

TallGlass2 wrote: »

Telecom Eireann, Eircom, Eir, few more years maybe just E.

And they will still be the most incompetent company in Ireland, still takes an hour to get through to them. When they changed from Eircom to Eir ABSOLUTELY nothing changed

With all companies including universities they would rather rebrand the name rather then actually make a change for the better

mikhail

Margot Miniature Slugger wrote: »

Yes. You're absolutely right. And so we can't simultaneously raise the standard of all degrees while also expecting everyone to acquire a degree.

The powers-that-be won't accept the evident reality that a significant number of students simply are not oriented toward university-level academic study. If they do get onto a high-level course, they will only waste their time and money, drop out, and feel like failures. And what are they to do then?

We need to expand post-secondary opportunities for all students, not just the best and brightest.

Merged institutions are better equipped to do that. As it stands, they have enough staff to run three similar programs. All three programs are pitched too high for the lads you're talking about. If you pool the staff, you can devote some of them to running 2 year courses or whatever that are much better targeted to weaker students.

LirW

mikhail wrote: »

Merged institutions are better equipped to do that. As it stands, they have enough staff to run three similar programs. All three programs are pitched too high for the lads you're talking about. If you pool the staff, you can devote some of them to running 2 year courses or whatever that are much better targeted to weaker students.

It's a mistake to think it's only weak students. Often it's also people that simply want to return to college to give themselves a better chance to grow or change career because they never had the option to go into third level.
The whole system is very poor in catering different needs.

I'm currently in a course that would allow me to finish with a degree, but the only option on their campus is doing it full-time. I'm an adult with commitments, I can't just go and attend college for 3 more years full time with a 4 hour commute each day. With a lot of fighting and tinkering I found the option to transferring to another campus because they offer a part-time option.
Half the course attendants already dropped out because they can't fit their course into their schedule because of the lack of e-learning.

It's 2019, the demand for a highly educated workforce is high but it's not that straight forward for anyone who isn't suited for 3rd level or older. The lack of distance learning or part time options for students is a real problem.
And let's face it, if you really want to upskill, nobody gives a crap about your Level 6 cert.

sydthebeat

TallGlass2 wrote: »

Telecom Eireann, Eircom, Eir, few more years maybe just E.

I think that may be taken already

knipex

LirW wrote: »

It's a mistake to think it's only weak students. Often it's also people that simply want to return to college to give themselves a better chance to grow or change career because they never had the option to go into third level.
The whole system is very poor in catering different needs.

I'm currently in a course that would allow me to finish with a degree, but the only option on their campus is doing it full-time. I'm an adult with commitments, I can't just go and attend college for 3 more years full time with a 4 hour commute each day. With a lot of fighting and tinkering I found the option to transferring to another campus because they offer a part-time option.
Half the course attendants already dropped out because they can't fit their course into their schedule because of the lack of e-learning.

It's 2019, the demand for a highly educated workforce is high but it's not that straight forward for anyone who isn't suited for 3rd level or older. The lack of distance learning or part time options for students is a real problem.
And let's face it, if you really want to upskill, nobody gives a crap about your Level 6 cert.

I don't get the obsession with level 7 and 8 degrees.

No offense to graduates but its normally months to years with in-house training before they offer any real benefit to an organization.

Highly skilled does not equate to level 8 degrees or masters and doctorates.

It means just that skills.

Have you tired to hire a 5 axis CNC programmer recently ? or a decent project engineer (and I'm not talking about IT or construction here which have their own issues) or a good technician with automation, PLC and drives knowledge ?

They are real skills, skills that are in demand and are well paid.

None of them require a degree. Some of the best tech's I have ever seen served apprenticeships. Someone with a degree assuming they have the right aptitude,
will take at least 2 years to train to a reasonable standard.

A good tech, can make 50K+, More if they are willing to work shift. The old RTC's used to graduate people with certs or diploma's who were perfect for these roles. Most of the companies that used to run apprenticeship programs have stopped as parents were telling their kids that they weren't good enough for them.

The IT's should be talking to industry, training these people, giving them the skills that the economy actually needs, working with companies to support and build apprenticeships, provide the academic support for these... not trying to turn into a university..

To be 100% open I did my degree part time, while working. I did it purely because it was expected that I have one to do the role I was in at the time and the fact that I didn't have it was causing my boss problems and was going to affect my pay at review stage..

I am not for one second saying that it didn't provide me with additional skills, it did, but I have also done multiple short courses over the years, (and continue to) that offer very specific training in a very narrow area that provided me with skill that were of equal of not higher benefit to me and my employer.

GarIT

If all the low quality institutes rebrand to universities how can we easily identity varying standards of education. 10% of CAO listed institutions being universities made sense, heading over 30% is getting ridiculous.

The "everyone is the same" model hurts the high achievers and hurts business investment in Ireland when multinationals are hiring low quality employees based on their claims of having university degrees.

Not everyone is up to university standards, people who can't handle university need access to education too.

knipex

GarIT wrote: »

If all the low quality institutes

That is the problem right there.

They weren't "low Quality"

They offered a different type of education to Universities, providing different skills.

Not worse skills, not lower quality skills just different,

tdf7187

o1s1n wrote: »

Bit of a difference in being able to say your degree came from an 'I.T' and an institution with university status.

If I were a student, I know which I would rather.

In that case you have bought into the prejudice. Anglo culture undervalues engineering/technical disciplines.

LirW

knipex wrote: »

I don't get the obsession with level 7 and 8 degrees.

...

Listen I fully agree with you there and while it depends a bit on the field, this is the game you have to play nowadays.

So many fields that previously required different training moved more and more into 3rd level and employers are asking for it.
A good example is Childcare. The sector is in bits yet workers are encouraged to get a degree in childcare while it wouldn't change anything in pay compared to a Level 6 in it.

Since so many young people are in college and many companies make it a (sometimes unspoken) requirement to hire people without a degree, this is the competition. Everyone who didn't go down the route of college grind will have to compete with a myriad of graduates. A degree will never look bad in a CV.

And you can believe me, I despise that things are this way. It basically makes it more difficult for people that don't do well in an academic setting to get valid qualification and experience because the requirement are high and the competition is there.
Over in PI you see students from time to time that hate college and don't know what to do. Almost always people tell them to stick it out.
As much as I hate it, this is the new status quo.

RacoonQueen

o1s1n wrote: »

Bit of a difference in being able to say your degree came from an 'I.T' and an institution with university status.

If I were a student, I know which I would rather.

MIT is consistently one of the highest ranking institutions, if I am hiring a tech graduate I don't care whether their degree came from an IT or a University.

tdf7187

RacoonQueen wrote: »

MIT is consistently one of the highest ranking institutions, if I am hiring a tech graduate I don't care whether their degree came from an IT or a University.

Indeed and you don't see them rebranding as a university to impress the easily led.

vriesmays

GarIT wrote: »

Not everyone is up to university standards, people who can't handle university need access to education too.

These people would be better off doing a trade instead of going to a crap college.

Outkast_IRE

This is just another topical item that the average joe is more than happy to wade into with fairly baseless opinions. The lipstick on a pig analogy on pg1 was poorly made with regards to some of the ITs looking to gain technological university status.

1. consider the reasons they are doing it , when push comes to shove it will always be because of ……….. Funding. Outside of Dublin , ITs have been starved of capital investment for over 10 years now. They see this new status as coming with a higher level of funding , of course they are going to chase it.

2. The ITs that have decided to go for this status have been making massive strides to push their staff to the next level, many of them have undertaken Masters & PHDs. The bar for new entrants now to lecture is generally raised to masters level but exceptions are made. They have also pushed for research to take a key role and expect lecturers to be publishing papers and research.

3. With regards to the number of students dropping out - Both Universities and ITs are massively guilty of this. It occurs for a few reasons firstly the government funding for these institutions is tied to numbers of students. More students = more funding so the universities and ITs take on as many as they can fit. But at the same time class sizes are larger than ever , so the struggling students will not be spotted as easily . The ITs are pushing hard to up the retention numbers with "good start " programmes now in place in most to help students with the transitions and have learning centres to help students in difficulty with subjects.
Second Level Institutions and Solas need to take their share of the blame also - Second Level metrics are based on progression to 3rd level being a measure of success , this should be banned.

Solas need a kick up the hole to get new exciting apprenticeships started around the country - we need more apprenticeships in the likes of building controls and automation systems, more progression options after the traditional apprenticeship for example in Germany a carpentry apprentice has a very clear and accessible route all the way to PHD level - Some of the best lecturers in building physics in Germany are carpenters who have gone all the way to PHD. We need the apprenticeships to be so well funded and supported that they are a real option .

I completed my apprenticeship and went back and did my honours degree and will be soon be doing my masters whilst working full time . But it is not easy in this country direct routes of progression are just not there.


The ITs in this country need to remember their key role is to be more agile and respond to the needs of employers in this country . They are not agile anymore and are afraid to start new courses because they don't have the funds. The course I qualified in was cancelled in Cork a few years ago, cancelled in Waterford and now runs in Dublin only, but I can go on Irish jobs and find hundreds of openings nationwide for positions in it. The numbers applying were low , so rather than getting investment in the programme and raising their game to attract students they just shuttered it cause it was a loss making course.

Poor_old_gill

They should close a good number of these institutions and bring in a proper apprenticeship scheme.

If you have gotten 150 points in your leaving and the only course you can get into is Business in LIT then education just isnt for you but you may have other skills that could be utilised.

When going into a lot of these courses - you are so far down the list of potential employers that you will probably end up in a job after doing your course that you could have gotten into via an apprenticeship whereby you were earning a wage and not costing the tax payer.

Montage of Feck

Its an absolute load of ****, MIT in Boston hasn't been held back by being an IT.

mikhail

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Its an absolute load of ****, MIT in Boston hasn't been held back by being an IT.

This is apples and oranges. The ITs here are a completely different beast. Trinity and UCD are competing with MIT (perhapse not especially well). Dundalk IT is not.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Its an absolute load of ****, MIT in Boston hasn't been held back by being an IT.

MIT is one of the top universities in the world, with an endowment of over $17 billion, affiliated with 95 Nobel laureates. It's not exactly in the same ballpark as Sligo IT.

knipex

knipex wrote: »

I don't get the obsession with level 7 and 8 degrees.

No offense to graduates but its normally months to years with in-house training before they offer any real benefit to an organization.

Highly skilled does not equate to level 8 degrees or masters and doctorates.

It means just that skills.

Have you tired to hire a 5 axis CNC programmer recently ? or a decent project engineer (and I'm not talking about IT or construction here which have their own issues) or a good technician with automation, PLC and drives knowledge ?

They are real skills, skills that are in demand and are well paid.

None of them require a degree. Some of the best tech's I have ever seen served apprenticeships. Someone with a degree assuming they have the right aptitude,
will take at least 2 years to train to a reasonable standard.

A good tech, can make 50K+, More if they are willing to work shift. The old RTC's used to graduate people with certs or diploma's who were perfect for these roles. Most of the companies that used to run apprenticeship programs have stopped as parents were telling their kids that they weren't good enough for them.

The IT's should be talking to industry, training these people, giving them the skills that the economy actually needs, working with companies to support and build apprenticeships, provide the academic support for these... not trying to turn into a university..

To be 100% open I did my degree part time, while working. I did it purely because it was expected that I have one to do the role I was in at the time and the fact that I didn't have it was causing my boss problems and was going to affect my pay at review stage..

I am not for one second saying that it didn't provide me with additional skills, it did, but I have also done multiple short courses over the years, (and continue to) that offer very specific training in a very narrow area that provided me with skill that were of equal of not higher benefit to me and my employer.

I think it's more of a hr thing needing a degree for some companies. Most of the really skilled people I work with in I.T. don't actually have them and others just got them to have the piece of paper required to get past this hr filter

nkl12xtw5goz70

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

If you have gotten 150 points in your leaving and the only course you can get into is Business in LIT then education just isnt for you but you may have other skills that could be utilised.

One possible solution is to remove free college for anyone with under 300 points. Instead, create more vocational training and apprenticeship options, but don't try to turn everything under the sun into a "degree."

That way, you don't have everyone trying to pursue a four-year university path, and those who don't want to go that route feeling pressured into it. University should be for those with academic aptitude, but there should be respectable career paths for others to follow as well.