I just stumbled across an article on BBC (link at bottom) about a head girl in an Australian school criticising the school for being "elitist" (among other things) in her end-of-year speech. When I read it, I thought it was certainly something that, had I been in a similar position, I would've definitely spent time considering saying myself! Nothing better than a bit of drama, and her speech caused controversy not just within the school and the country, but worldwide as well.
The "elitist" comments were linked to her belief that the school prioritised financial benefits and reputation above the needs of the students there. This got me thinking about where I am now and it just so happens that I had the best conversation I've had at uni yesterday with a few course mates. Unfortunately we are now in a system of education where money determines almost everything, and I can't help but think (as part of my ridiculous ideology) that a collaborative education system would solve many of the problems we have created for ourselves in recent times. Here goes my manifesto:
- Bring all universities under one name that simply has institutions distributed across the country. For example, naming it 'The University of Great Britain' and simply having colleges in all major towns/cities (maybe even less institutions than at present). This then has the following implications:
- With one university in the country, competition for places is vastly increased and instead of people getting in to university just to "fill up quotas" and "maximise income", students actually have to be good enough to go to university. There are reasons why there are too many graduates for graduate jobs and it is partly because almost everyone going to university (over half the current generation) are walking out with decent degrees. This also means that universities can actually select the people that they want and not just take as many as they can so they can fund their research.
- Speaking of research, this can now be a lot more inclusive and collaborative. Each institution could carry on with whatever research they liked, but having multiple institutions contribute to what would be an increased research output means that they can focus more on quality and not quantity. In science, I've read too many times about people just publishing papers as a need. Obviously money drives this again because if the financial input doesn't match distinguished output then the books won't balance. But publishing through one university that could comfortably be world-leading with the efforts of so many people in the country.
- The traditional universities will be extremely butt-hurt at losing their individual status but unfortunately "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Life in general would be much better if we worked together.
- A-levels and GCSEs have a big bearing on getting to uni and having multiple exam boards does students no good. Why not have one big exam board that is suddenly run by the best people from each of the current ones? Surely 5 clever people in the same room is better than 5 clever people individually? This means they can devote more people to getting the jobs done properly (overcoming subjectivity and marking inconsistency). Never again should I have to hear about teachers marking papers on buses or people gaining 20 marks in a Maths paper remark.
This has to be by far the most I've ever written in a blog but I hope it's been thought-provoking. I think I could write for days to come. Again I'm out of time for now but I'll be happy to discuss anything I've said :)
Thanks,
Oli
Twitter: @Chowerz
(That article on BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-34971956)
