next »

[mingus]

A few of these seem to be making a serious effort to become real universities.  On the other hand, many others seem to exist solely to keep people, employees and students, off the streets.  Any theories as to why the differences, given that they all appear to have started at the same level?

[expatinuk]

Not really sure what you mean by 'REAL universities'. Post 92 universities have a different mission than the Russell Group/Red Bricks. Some of the Post 92 universities are in a position where they can, and do, have a research agenda, and some are not in that position.

As an example: A lot of folks 'rag' on Thames Valley as being an example of a poorly performing Post 92, but TVU has to deal with a large number of universities in the same catchment area (London) and therefore is the university where students who wouldn't/couldn't go to a Russell Group or Red Brick end up. The majority of its students are from an immigrant population and therefore have all those issues that cause them to have a high drop out rate.

I certainly don't remember hearing the disparagement of regional LAC/universities in the States the way that I hear Post 92's rundown in the UK. The last RAE was certainly a shock for a lot of folks when many of the Post 92s did much better than expected.

I work at a Post 92... and we're extremely mid-range in the league tables... I'm lucky in that I get excellent students who leave their program with the knowledge and skills to be extremely successful in a competitive field. In fact, over the past 10 years, 100% of the undergraduate students in my area are in either full time employment or further education within 2 months of graduation - unless they have taken a year off for travel.

As for post-grad students (the ones I work with) 90% of them are already in full time employment in the field and are doing an MA to advance their career. Additionally in the past 5 years I've had 12 of my MA students stay on for a Ph.D.... all while working full time.

I get all the research support I need/want from the administration at my Post 92 university. I've had many more research opportunities than many of my colleagues at Russell Group universities.

[hphphp]

but TVU has to deal with a large number of universities in the same catchment area (London)

I think it's not just about Location. QMUL, for example, seems to be doing something right and did quite well in the RAE (and produces some very good research). Arguably it also serves a 'tougher' area of London. But it does very between institutions and fields within a university as well, and it isn't clear (to me at least) what causes these differences.

[wegie]

but TVU has to deal with a large number of universities in the same catchment area (London)

I think it's not just about Location. QMUL, for example, seems to be doing something right and did quite well in the RAE (and produces some very good research). Arguably it also serves a 'tougher' area of London. But it does very between institutions and fields within a university as well, and it isn't clear (to me at least) what causes these differences.

Well, for one, QMUL is a pre-92 with a century or so of history as a selective intake institution. QMUL serves a completely different intake from TVU, UEL, LMU or Greenwich.

Post 92s adjacent toi areas of social deprivation do have a really hard time. A large number of their students may never have known about another university than the one down the road, or may be under significant pressure to stay at home. Combine the previous with a relatively open-access admissions policy and you're always going to have significant drop out numbers. By comparison. mingus seems to be talking about places like Brookes, which purely because of location will always get a better qualified intake. 

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Didn't most of these institutions already exist pre-92 as polytechs, with very nearly the same mission?  I'd always assumed that the change was an attempt by the Tories to devalue the state universities, disguised as a move to elevate the polytechs.  In any event, that mission was valuable then, and is no less valuable now.

One thing that I loved about the UK universities when I was there in the 80s, and which seems to be gone today, was the idea that promotion came mainly through lateral movement; this meant that most Chairs at Oxbridge had been at a redbrick at one point in their career.  This hugely enhanced collegiality.  Contrast the US system, where in many fields professors from top-10 institutions simply will not mix with lesser beings.

Incidentally, is "Post-92" an accepted term for the new campuses?  I thought it should be something like "Clearglass Universities", or maybe "Steelbeam Universities", in analogy with "Redbrick".  Also, I think the whole "Russell Group" thing is very funny: a set of schools meets in a coffee shop and declares themselves the best, and the rest of the academic establishment just falls in and agrees.  Some of these Russell Group schools are by many measures markedly inferior to my own middling US R1 university. - DvF

[mingus]

Is it just the students?  I've looked at the bios of some professors in Post-92 universities and know they could not have made SL in a real university.  Similarly, it is disturbing to look at bios of senior management in some Post-92s and find that apart from perhaps a few years as a postgrad in a real university--and sometimes not even that---VCs, DVCs, etcs. have never been out of polytechnics and Post-92 universities.  Do such people really understand how proper academia works? Can they make the required changes?

[science_expat]

Is it just the students?  I've looked at the bios of some professors in Post-92 universities and know they could not have made SL in a real university.  Similarly, it is disturbing to look at bios of senior management in some Post-92s and find that apart from perhaps a few years as a postgrad in a real university--and sometimes not even that---VCs, DVCs, etcs. have never been out of polytechnics and Post-92 universities.  Do such people really understand how proper academia works? Can they make the required changes?

<SE unfolds lawn chair, opens bottle of wine>

[sueenglish]

Post-92 universities adhere to the pay modernisation framework. This means that L/SL is based upon a raft of job roles matched to a HERA profile. It is there to help (it won't cure) pay inequalities.

Senior management in a number of HEIs is poor or knee-jerk. Look at the number of pre-92s in debt and shedding jobs.

Post-92s vary in their capacity to nurture or invest in research. Sometimes, post-92s are guilty of doffing their hats to the Russell group, floundering about trying to market the student experience, yet do not effectively tackle what studnets always want: smaller  class sizes etc. At the same time, they compete with wealthy unis who have the cultural capital (and money) to keep on reproducing the same hierarchies and inequalities - something the post-92s can't break.

Rather than talk about the changes required by one part of the sector (which are?), is not wiser to talk about the whole sector? Afterall, anyone of us could set an exam that students at any other uni would fail, so it seems rather nebulous to discuss some mythical meritocratic bar that post-92s have to reach. It could easily work the other way round. Post-92s often offer courses that Russell group kids could not manage.

Surely, working in education is about a commitment to just that: shouldn't the whole sector be working together to fight for it?