next »

[oddlyodd]

Here is the end result of the government's 'freeing up' of the university sector. New College of the Humanities, at £18,000 a degree: http://www.nchum.org/
BBC report here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13659394
Some interesting fact finding and criticism on this blog: http://infinitethought.cinestatic.com/

I oppose it for the following reasons:
1. the cost to students and lack of transparency about admissions
2. the lack of transparency about funding, costs, staffing [I presume the staff were headhunted; hardly any women or people from other cultures/countries]
3. that they do not provide their own library/facilities/student services, instead expecting students to use the (publicly-funded) Senate House and British Library and University of London student services
4. that it reinforces the divide between arts and sciences
5. that it is in Bloomsbury. If these people really cared about providing a top quality education, they should situate it in a disadvantaged area that has no university.

[qrypt]

Fascinating.  Many years ago I was told that the university of choice among those with money but insufficient grades for Oxbridge was Exeter.  Looks like there might be some competition.

Interesting article at "Crooked Timber", with some rather tart comments as well. 

[theblondeassassin]

These days it's Oriel that's the double cream of Oxford colleges (rich and thick).

[totoro]

Sounds from the news article that it is going to be a private college that awards University of London degrees. Given that, I am sure they will need to pay fees to the University of London and it's up to the University to charge them for the library and other services. Sounds like a good idea to me in terms of providing competition. Question is whether it is a good idea for students to study there. Time will tell I guess. I don't know why one would be so opposed to it. Sounds like a SLAC, UK style.

[oddlyodd]

The course program is identical to the Univ. of London's international program, presumably to get round the problem of accrediting new courses. See for example:  http://www.nchum.org/courses/history; compared with: http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/prospective_students/undergraduate/holloway/history/syllabus.shtml#HISF002 An academic I know is annoyed that NCH is offering a module that they devised a few years ago, without consultation or permission.

I think people are annoyed about this because the brand image they're giving out on the website is that this is a new form of independent university, offering an intellectual experience completely different from what's currently on the market. But in fact they haven't the intellectual independence to create their own courses. Also, their pretenses to inclusivity (a promise to offer bursaries to disadvantaged students) don't really seem sincere.

[hegemony]

It's clearly and explicitly modeled on American small liberal arts colleges.

[qrypt]

It's clearly and explicitly modeled on American small liberal arts colleges.

Except for the bit about being (as I understand it) a privately-held profit-making corporation.

[theblondeassassin]

It's clearly and explicitly modeled on American small liberal arts colleges.

Except for the bit about being (as I understand it) a privately-held profit-making corporation.

And where the star professors are not responsible for examining, teaching, or marking undergraduate work, or indeed ever coming within 20 feet of an actual undergraduate student, but only for delivering the equivalent of the annual Reith or RS lectures or (more likely) BBC talking heads broadcasts (or have I misunderstood the American SLAC model?).

[betterslac]

It's clearly and explicitly modeled on American small liberal arts colleges.

Except for the bit about being (as I understand it) a privately-held profit-making corporation.

And where the star professors are not responsible for examining, teaching, or marking undergraduate work, or indeed ever coming within 20 feet of an actual undergraduate student, but only for delivering the equivalent of the annual Reith or RS lectures or (more likely) BBC talking heads broadcasts (or have I misunderstood the American SLAC model?).

If it were really modeled on an American slac:

1) It would not be a for-profit venture. There really isn't much profit in the American slac model if it is done correctly. Vocational training (aka Phoenix) is where the big bucks are. No need for laboratories, faculty offices or libraries, you know, all that non-revenue-producing space. (Dorms are a different question-- some big outfit is going to catch on sometime and come up with a predominantly residential, Phoenix-type operation, where students can party away from their parents while taking classes online).
2) It would not be confined to the social sciences and humanities. It would also include the natural sciences and the arts.
3) It would have its own dedicated campus, residential halls, libraries, etc. (see above)
4) It would not like the label of separating teaching from research. The big selling point of American slacs now is that faculty do both and do so in ways that involve students.

I doubt that any of the "stars" will do more than put in token appearances. The whole thing just looks slimy.

[parispundit]

"If these people really cared about providing a top quality education, they should situate it in a disadvantaged area that has no university."

For two brownie points, spot the non sequitur in the above statement by the OP

[drspouse]

A friend who works at Birkbeck posted this link on his FB page:

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/news/news-releases/new-college-of-the-humanities

Assuming all the other UofL colleges will say the same, how are their students going to have access to anything?

[cayenne]

It's clearly and explicitly modeled on American small liberal arts colleges.

The UK doesn't need another elite small liberal arts college. Oxbridge already fits the bill quite nicely.

[hegemony]

A brouhaha about copying the course descriptions/modules from UCL, here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/06/ac-grayling-private-university-syllabus

They say they'll pay lecturers above market rates, although there are the predictable doubts and caveats.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

It sounds to my ignorant ear that what New College will be doing is just doing independent tutoring for an established online program (the "international programme") at Univ. of London, and the students will be examined, get credit, etc at the latter.  Is this right?

PS: I love the Mayor's alternate name, "Reject's College" - opponents of the college should start now to make this stick.

PPS: It looks like Dawkins is starting to back away from the idea.  - DvF

[theblondeassassin]

From the Grauniad:

'Leunig said: "American liberal arts colleges have huge endowments, own their own buildings and don't have stars. They have staff who are good middle-range academics, not Nobel prize winners. They are people who didn't get jobs at Stanford."' Discuss.