Concerns over ‘deeply subjective’ criteria for extra English places

Good to see that low quality courses (without citation marks) are being dealt with. They definitely exist and exploit gullible students.

This would have more credibility if there was any coherent assessment of what constitutes a 'low-quality course' - none of us set out to teach badly after all. There's also a need to get away with the false linkage between subject studied and jobs. For a start, not everyone (except maybe medics, lawyers and some engineers) actually go into the subject they've studied. University-level study is about a lot more than the job you do after you graduate. (I have a first degree in botany, but am a chartered fellow of the British Computer Society and now work in a university Computer Science department...)

Earnings by degree correlate with ideological proximity of faculty and students to the government. Closing down courses with low economic prospects means shutting down the fiercest critics of the government.

This is a crude way for the Government to reduce student choice and the independence of individual Universities. Some people are not going to like it but I believe it has to be done to prevent inappropriate growth in the sector. The Government should go back to controlling costs by limiting the number of under graduate and post graduate students and prevent cross subsidising between course type and subsidising research from student income budgets. We need clarity of costs and outcomes and greater specialisation of skills related degrees. Universities should be encouraged to develop new courses designed to support the jobs of the future in sectors such as Data Mining, AI, Robotics, Cyber Security etc even if it means a reduction in places for more traditional arts and social science studies.

Has anyone determined which MPs rose to their dizzy heights on the back of 'low quality' degrees?