The Non-Courses Report 2007

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has compiled Britain’s first ever list of university “non-courses” – university degrees that lend the respectability of scholarly qualifications to non-academic subjects – and calculated their annual cost to students and taxpayers.

The huge expansion in student numbers in recent years, encouraged by the Government’s 50 per cent higher education target, has resulted in a proliferation of different degree courses on offer.

Unfortunately, a number of these new courses are of dubious academic merit, offering training better learned on-the-job.  In the worst cases, they offer neither intellectual stimulation nor any improvement in employment prospects. 

The cost of these “non-courses” falls on tw o groups: students, who are diverted from useful training and work experience by the lure of a degree; and taxpayers, who still pay for most of the cost of educating every student, despite university tuition fees.

Download The Non-Courses Report 2007 (PDF)

The key findings of this report are:

• “Non-courses” are costing taxpayers over £40 million a year. 
• If the £40 million cost of “non-courses” was spent on other undergraduates, it could cut their fees by £104 a year, or pay for a pint of beer a week for each student.
• There are 401 “non-courses” across Britain in the 2007-08 academic year.
• 89 different institutions offer one or more “non-courses”.
• The institution with the greatest number of “non-courses” on offer is the University of Derby, which offers 41 “non-courses”.
• In our judgement, top of the list for “non-courses” is “Outdoor Adventure with Philosophy” at Marjon College in Plymouth.

Comments

[Nonkey1]

As a supporter of the Taxpayers' Alliance, I was disappointed by this report.
Firstly, the growth of these degrees is a sign that market forces are at last making some impression on higher education. Universities are [or should be] in the business of satisfying student demand. They can do this either by sticking to their academic guns, and trusting in the reputation of their courses; or by offering new courses in the hope that students will find them attractive.
If these courses are no good, students won't pay for them, employers won't value them, and they'll wither on the vine. What's wrong with that?
Secondly, as another correspondence points out, scrapping these courses won't save any money, since universities will just offer places on other courses.
And thirdly, you need to be careful about letting employers dictate what can and can't be taught at university. Golf studies might survive their scrutiny. Would Ancient Greek or Anglo-Saxon literature?
There is money to be saved in higher education, but not here. Frankly, this was a cheap shot at an easy target.
While I'm on, I'm also disappointed by your web site. It looks juvenile. If you want people to take your organisation seriously, you should take it seriously yourselves.
This isn't a game, you know. Cutting taxes is important for our country, and it's also important for people like me who work hard, but see a huge chunk of their money wasted by the state.
So a little less self-indulgence, please.

[Michael]

Now that you've corrected the more visible mistakes is it time to let the public in on your methodology in case there are more fundamental flaws in your research?

[Alan Fisk]

Some of these courses are vocational and only look silly because they are called "degrees". They should be HNDs or other vocational qualifications. I miss the polytechnics, too; I took a University of London economics degree at Liverpool Polytechnic.

[tpa]

See the "Methodology" section of the report...

[Michael]

If that is really the sum total of your methodology then this is surely a study of which courses are not well represented on their websites. Considering the state of most academic websites it is a wonder that you got so few results.

Did you actually do anything else to gather information on these courses besides reading their websites?

[Tim Boon]

When someone lists all the non-reports written this year, we can only hope they include yours. What a load of utter rubbish. Get on with your own lifes and stop sniping.

[Mountjoy]

I have worked in education and also in the private sector, and the perspective from both is that education should be about 'employability', i.e. getting students into a decent job, by providing analytical, communication etc skills. There's no point kids wasting their time doing a BA in Blogging Studies if they're not actually going to be professional bloggers :-)

[Scott Carlton]

After reading this report I am completely shocked and appalled at the narrow mindedness of the author.

I have studied a FD Degree in Professional Culinary Arts at the University of Derby in Buxton and I have found it very rewarding as an individual. Not only has it allowed me to develop as a person, but it also has helped me build the skills that are necessary to work in the industry that I am choosing to go into. This apparent 'non-course' has left me with plenty of employment opportunities and it has even seen me be offered a placement by Gordon Ramsey. This 'non course' is also allowing me to work towards setting up my own business, of which I am in the active stages of doing.

I generally find this report completely flawed, as your research shows that you have only looked at Universities websites, and not even attempted to explore the true depths of what courses such as University of Derby offer.

I have been a big advocate of what the University offers here in Buxton and across the other sites, as I feel that this University and many others are working towards building up the skills that are missing in this country, (something that the Leitch report noted), particularly in areas that I believe are growing rapidly, areas of industry such as Hospitality and Catering, Travel and Tourism, Events and Public Services that are crying out for people to work in those areas, and this report completely works against what this country should be working towards.

[Scott Carlton]

After reading this report I am completely shocked and appalled at the narrow mindedness of the author.

I have studied a FD Degree in Professional Culinary Arts at the University of Derby in Buxton and I have found it very rewarding as an individual. Not only has it allowed me to develop as a person, but it also has helped me build the skills that are necessary to work in the industry that I am choosing to go into. This apparent 'non-course' has left me with plenty of employment opportunities and it has even seen me be offered a placement by Gordon Ramsey. This 'non course' is also allowing me to work towards setting up my own business, of which I am in the active stages of doing.

I generally find this report completely flawed, as your research shows that you have only looked at Universities websites, and not even attempted to explore the true depths of what courses such as University of Derby offer.

I have been a big advocate of what the University offers here in Buxton and across the other sites, as I feel that this University and many others are working towards building up the skills that are missing in this country, (something that the Leitch report noted), particularly in areas that I believe are growing rapidly, areas of industry such as Hospitality and Catering, Travel and Tourism, Events and Public Services that are crying out for people to work in those areas, and this report completely works against what this country should be working towards.

[SpudHead]

Good on the TPA for highlighting what a waste these non-courses are. We waste too much on getting 50% into university, which is worthless when our kids leave school and can't read or write.

These pointless polytechnic pinkos should go back to their common-rooms and let us all get on in the real world. Good on the TPA and keep these reports coming.

[Steve]

Well done on the report. The howls of outrage from the liberal apologists for the rubbish which passes as a degree these days were always pretty likely.

I had to laugh though at the guy who claimed we should leave as is since "this is the market at work". "If people want to pay for these degrees leave them to it" he says. Except that students aren't paying for it - just for a fraction. It's muggins the taxpayer who's paying for the bulk of it!

Let universities charge the full tuition fee for all these courses and let's see how many last...

[Roger Rabbit]

About time, these non-courses should be exposed for what they are: nothing but a total waste of time and money - for the taxpayer, and also for the individuals taking them. It's a shame the majority of people in this once great country do not recognise the degree (no pun intended) to which our university system has been degraded, and, more broadly, the complete dumbing-down of educational standards.

Example: I believe it has been calculated that ~52% of the A-levels taken this year were in subjects that "good universities" do not recognise as being of any significant value or relevance.

Good on the TPA for exposing the sham and scam.

[James M]

This is a disappointing report.

I find the methodology weak - looking at websites, module guides and then utilising a vague notion of "academic scholarship" that is not set out in any depth as far as I can see in order to pass judgement on the said course does not make rigorous research. A more useful way may have been to investigate how these courses were taught and how those who teach them justify their methods. Yes it would be time consuming and even costly in manpower, but it would produce a more rigourous report.

More generally - I find the whole premise of the report just a little arrogant. I fully accept that the government's 50% target for undertaking university education is probably misguided and I also acknowledge that some of the courses you list may benefit from "on the job" training, but I would guess that most do have that already.

I also accept that we need to remind people that apprentice and worked based education is not of secondary value to an education gained at university, but calling their subjects "non-courses" seems unlikely to produce that effect.

I would also suggest that many of the subjects listed in your report could well provide real enlightened learning for their students - if they are taught in a rigorous manner.

Furthermore and as others have more than adequately made it clear - reducing what you describe as "non courses" and pushing the students towards work place schemes will not necessarily save money, in particular at the levels you suggest. I also agree with those who point out this is the market in action. If employers do not want to employ those individuals with these degrees, there popularity will soon drop.

[Fiona]

For information - Leicester College is not a University, it is an FE College. The degree listing shown indicates a degree in beauty - this is incorrect, it is a Foundation Degree in Artistic Make-up and Special Effects. The College offers 16 Foundation Degrees that are based upon vocational relevance. I do not work for Leicester College, but have the intellectual ability to check their website: http://www.leicestercollege.ac.uk/courses/index.asp

[Phil]

As someone with teaching experience at one of the country's lowest ranked Universities, as well as one of the highest ranked, I can confirm that a large part of what is being taught in *some* Universities is a load of complete tosh -- even on the more apparently "technical" courses (forget about your "non courses" which are badly chosen anyway). The reason for this is the same as the reason that we have all these 'non-courses': University courses run according to a market system of supply and demand. This gives the students complete power over the University -- if students fail, the University loses money. So, instead, the Universities are forced to make the courses as easy as possible so that students cannot fail, and must reinvent their subjects in new "sexier" (aka easier) forms so that the students will come to them in the first place. I have seen this happening in person with new courses deliberately being devised so that they were easier than the previous ones.

What happened to the good old days when it was a privilege to go to uni? Now it is a privilege for the University to get a student, and the students don't mind making them aware of that by going out drinking 24/7 and then complaining that the courses are too hard when they fail after having done no personal study. Of course this does not represent all students, nor all universities (the older universities are in my experiencve much more competitive), but believe me this happens on a large scale, and is going to be the death of our "knowledge economy".

To reiterate -- UNIVERSITIES CANNOT AFFORD TO FAIL STUDENTS -- and if students know they can't fail, they will not learn much.

[Iainsp]

One of many that you seem to have missed-

Oxford University, Honour Moderation in Classics. Modules in Homer's Iliad, Virgil's Aeneid, Lucretius - De Rerum Natura IV, Thucydides and the West, Greek and Latin Language and Translation.

I think that "These pointless Oxford pinkos should go back to their common-rooms and let us all get on in the real world.". I may be wrong here, but methinks many of the "non-courses" offer a far greater improvement in employment prospects. Unless employment is down to old-school tie over academic merit and relevance. Oops, the Tax Payers Alliance, of course old school tie wins over merit every time.

[Jason]

I'm slightly confused about who this report is supposed to benefit. You make great play out of the £104 per year savings for students, but aren't you the Taxpayer's Alliance? If we divided this £40M per year amongst taxpayers, we'd each be better off to the tune of ... erm, roughly £1.

Anyone reading this, currently studying a 'non-course', give me my quid back, now.

[Scott]

I think that you have not researched your material at all.

Focusing upon such courses as Equine Psychology is pretty ignorant and shows exactly where you are coming from.

Maybe you should try some peer-reviewed research, I for one believe you are doing this for either political gain or to further your own agenda.

You could have made a point if you had researched this fully, but thats not what you are doing it for, is it.

[Onl00ker]

There needs to be a debate on the future of HE in this country. But it's not helped by poorly researched work like this report. It's unlikely the authors actually did what they said in terms of looking at module details. For a full explanation look here: http://www.davidrowley.com/

[Caroline B]

How on earth did you manage to miss the kind of nonsense & piffle degrees in so-called PARAPSYCHOLOGY being purveyed at Liverpool Hope and the new Northampton "University"? Established universities such as Edinburgh and reputable researchers such as Professor Richard Wiseman do offer excellent research into anomalous experiences and deceptive behaviour, but should the taxpayer really be expected to help fund paranormal hobbyist research into ESP, ghosts, hauntings and such trite and utter nonsense as a PhD in the Phenomenology of mediumship and the "Science" of the Seance? This is madness, Pseudocience and ill-informed market forces at their worst. It seems as if the bottom end institutions are totally prepared to grant degrees in absolutely anything if funding is available, which tragically at the moment it is. In the end this cannot be in the service of students, or indeed or society, for it would appear that the only relevant employment such students can hope to attain is in purveying similar drivel at equally dubious educational establishments. And so it goes on.

[Sarah]

What is a degree for? As a student of history 5 years ago, I was told my degree was an 'elastic band for my mind', a chance to explore learning and knowledge for it's own sake and in the process learn more about who I was and what I wanted to do with my life. The employability bit would come through my developing problem-solving skills, presentation and communication skills and the degree of initiative, time-management and self-motivation that is required to complete a degree. Employers could take those elements and then mold me into a person useful to their specific company. The obvious difference now is that that experience costs up to £3000 a year whereas I was in debt only for living costs. Degrees have to have a guarantee of employment attached to them for young people to think the investment of money worthwhile. And this is in my mind where the problem is. Not all careers lend themselves to essays and research - what is the use of someone writing 3000 words on fashion buying when they could be out there shadowing someone and learning the nuances and skills needed to be successful? The proliferation of these types of very technical degrees is illustrative of a system gone wrong. Put vocational training back with employers [through apprenticeships and training schemes] and leave universities to focus on subjects which merit three years of intense study - and investment.

[lowcatjo]

In my opinion, there are many thousands of non-courses at universities, however, many of the ones listed here have good academic merit, others which are abundant across universities have been missed.

Unfortunately the assessment of the merit of any one individual course is a very subjective thing. To objectively assess the merit is difficult.

One of the questions we should be asking is whether non-subjects really need to be studied at degree level, or if they would be better administered by other means, maybe in the same or other institutions.

Further, in my opinion the BSc Fire Safety has more academic merit than the degree in Stop motion animation and puppet making. Puppet making is a "trade", whereas fire science is an established branch of physics/chemistry.

[hervé]

You should check out the poor excuses for courses at Kingston University:

Smells Like Teen Spirit: Writing Popular Music Lyrics
Those Who Can, Teach

http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/undergraduate/modules/module_full.php?code=CW3148

[Stephen Newton]

Thanks for visiting my blog. You need to be a bit cleverer about leaving anonymous comments.

From the notification email:
'New comment on your post #1158 "Mickey Mouse thinking from Taxpayers’ Alliance"
Author : Anonymous Hack (IP: 80.229.35.66 , taxpayers.plus.com)'

By the way, has Peter graduated yet or was this his summer job?

[Xenophon]

It is interesting that you pick on land-based courses and Equine Science in particular (while curiously the Animal Science courses that tend to run alongside them which must be damned by the same token.
You supposedly asked the question "Does the course require scholarship in areas that could reasonably be described as academic?" yet you obviously failed to read any of the course descriptions (probably just picking up on the word "Equine" and skipping the rest) or you would know that all of those courses involve instruction in general anatomy, physiology, microbiology and related sciences as well as horse specific versions of those subject as well as exercise physiology, behaviour and reproductive physiology.
How can any of these subjects be described as "not academic" when they are perfectly acceptable when studied as part of biology, animal science or veterinary medicine courses?
In short sir, your report is biased and your methodology has holes that even a pitiful Equine Science graduate could find.