Not a real university programme?
In the late 1990s a number of commentators got all hot and bothered about the decision by Thames Valley University in England to introduce a degree course on ‘kite flying’. According to some, this proved that the former Polytechnic of West London should never have become a university; and there were even some who insinuated that a Vice-Chancellor with an earring and a ponytail (which is what Mike Fitzgerald, then the Head of the university, sported) could not lead a reputable institution. In fact, not very long afterwards, the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency produced a damning report on the university, as a result of which Mike Fitzgerald stepped down and a new emergency management team was brought in.
Now the Sunday Times newspaper has pointed out that a number of UK universities run programmes that might, depending on who is making the comments, not be seen as serious university courses. The list includes a programme in Golf Management Studies offered by the University of Birmingham, Brewing and Distilling offered by Heriot-Watt University, and Surf Science and Technology offered by the University of Plymouth. Get ready, you might think, for the latest onslaught on university standards and cries of dumbing down. But actually, no. The article reports that the graduates of many of these programmes find employment more easily than those of, say, traditional humanities programmes in traditional universities. And there also are the UK Conservatives, arguing that such vocation-specific courses are what many punters now want and the state needs.
There are two issues here: the question of how vocational we should allow university programmes to be; and whether programmes that are as specific as these, and whose subject matter seems so trivial (as some may argue), are of any value. Or is there another, bigger question: whether the traditional university that teaches its programmes in the context of ‘disciplines’, set apart from the vocational world in which these might be translated into use, is now out of date?
It would seem to me that every university programme, however applied or abstract it might be, must pass a test of intellectual and academic rigour. The serious criticisms in the late 1990s of Thames Valley University had little to do with its programmes on kite flying, rock music and curry making (which all existed there), and were more about the chaotic management of the university’s ‘new learning environment’. Two of the more recent programmes mentioned above are offered by pre-1992 (‘old’) universities, so that an association between such offerings and ex-polytechnics is unjustified.
I don’t, to be honest, have the answers to these questions, but I suspect they raise for us an issue about how we identify universities and what activities in such institutions are appropriate. It seems to me to be right that there should be some diversity in the system, and that not all universities should aim for the same pattern of programmes. But that may not mean that there is no limit to the subject matter that constitutes appropriate material for university programmes. Or does it?
Share this:
This entry was posted on September 14, 2009 at 12:39 am and is filed under higher education, university. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: degree programmes, dumbing down, kite flying, polytechnics, Thames Valley University
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
September 14, 2009 at 6:30 am
How about Course Design, maximize the quality of the cross country, for the gel with a thousand or so acres. Event Management, as above acres-wise, but with a focus on music. And can be taken as Joint.
Mostly I do not see how it matters all that much when involved in a study of management. What real difference is there between Hotel management and say Racecourse management, or any other study with a narrow definition.
My issue would be the narrowness and that the skills could transfer. And why should they not, for years the half-pay retired but active military officers have moved seamlessly. And realistically is the person doing Surf at Plymouth not a refugee from some now defunct county regiment. And there is the hope that the North Atlantic can re-define pass or fail.
September 14, 2009 at 9:29 am
I have no problem with these odd, unacademic sounding courses and I agree absolutely with the idea that there are lots of different types of universities, each emphasizing a different selection of the huge number of roles we are expected to play. I do wish though that we, in Europe, in these islands particularly, also facilitated more general study. Could we not, all, have a degree that allowed the students to do any courses they want, adding up to the required 60 ECTS and timetabling permit. Those few special students brave enough to do such a degree and with enough points to get in could do strange and unusual options to suit exciting and unusual ambitions.
September 14, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I agree, Aoife. Ironically Thames Valley University’s ‘New Learning Environment’ was precisely such a framework, allowing students to assemble their own ‘menu’ of modules. What went wrong, as I understand it, was that nobody was monitoring the standards achieved by the students.
September 14, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Very surpised that Brewing and Distilling included in the list of ‘mickey mouse’ subjects. These processes require a thorough grounding in microbiology, biochemistry and bioprocess engineering, not to mention other areas like genetics, automation etc.
September 14, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Yes, I agree, I was surprised also. It is a very reputable degree programme.
September 14, 2009 at 10:06 pm
TCD has a degree in theology so one could hardly object to them having a degree in astrology or homeopathy.
September 15, 2009 at 8:56 am
The academic worth of theology rests on the wealth of thought invested in religious belief, not on the validity of that belief.
September 15, 2009 at 8:05 am
I note ‘Universitydiary’ doesn’t comment on interesting point by kevin denny – and I can understand why. But it really is the essence of the subject matter… what we regard as “real university programmes” changes with social mores, customes etc. One time theology would have been regarded as probably the most prestigious ‘discipline’. Now, I for one, regard Richard Dawkins views on religion being damaging to society as more accurate. So how about ‘Atheism Studies’ with modules like ‘morality as separate from religion’ etc?