Young people are fortunately cleverer than government or Universities UK give them credit for.
Many surveys demonstrate that employers demand mainly generic transferable skills, which can be demonstrated by school-leavers from their general education. When jobs are available, it makes sense to get on, get experience and get paid. The "concerned vice-chancellors" should have been telling government that students attend universities to gain knowledge, not because higher education institutions "care for their clients" (as suggested by Christine King, vice-chancellor of Staffordshire University, addressing the UK Council for Graduate Education conference last Friday). Potential undergraduates look at the content of courses; at the postgraduate level they want to work with specific staff. Customer care is a courtesy (and obligatory!) but it is not the raison d'être for a university.
The crisis in higher education teaching revolves round the heresy that teaching at this level can be planned in detail with fixed and measurable objectives. But teaching that is linked to research must constantly evolve. Intellectually, our mission is not to meet expectations but to challenge them, and that process must be uncomfortable for many students.
It may seem obvious to a middle-aged mandarin that a degree was a stepping stone in his career and, in that sense, an "investment" that paid off. An 18-year-old now is offered the prospect of graduating with a large debt and a degree that does not offer a cachet, after three years of slog that looks increasingly like schoolwork and offers few chances to shine or to network.
Deferring higher education until it becomes professionally or personally relevant looks intellectually and economically sensible; are the (non-)students teaching the planners a lesson?
R. Allan Reese
University of Hull