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

[Thersites]

Well done on your report about the many non-courses that fill our Universities. It is depressing to realise how much money is wasted on some of the absurdities you mention, not least because that money could certainly be better used elsewhere.

My only complaint is that you were a bit hard on Staffordshire University (Stop Motion Animation and Puppet Making BA) and UCCA (BA Hons Modelmaking), as their 'offending' courses do in fact offer a range of skills and training comparable to most other art, craft and design degrees, as do UCCA's Silversmithing degrees.

Perhaps you were alerted to them by their unusual subject matter, but that is not in itself a reason to stick the boot in. And at the very least, they sound much more fun than three years of Baking Technology.

Still, you can be forgiven when millions are wasted on Equine Journalism and Fire Safety degrees.

[Aye Up]

What a complete load of tosh! Your article or more so report, I find it rather odd that in constant use for your "sources" is The Telegraph or more astutely put.... The Torygraph!

Wake up! You even list yourself for Fashion Buying degree at Manchester Metropolitan University consists of Marketing Management, Computer Aided Design, Business Management, Data Management Systems.

Does the title of the course content(s) not imply that it is in fact a business degree? It actually contains academic study, which you seemed to have overlooked.

Your article seems more about propaganda than real hard facts. Thank god we live in a country that doesn't believe half the tosh right wing politics throws out!

[Disgusted]

What a complete and utter load of guff. Firstly if those 2591 odd students didn't do one of these courses they would study something else, so there would be no savings. Secondly not all graduates (even with so called proper degrees such as science or IT) go into careers related to their subject so there is little to back your argument there either. You seem to have forgotten its the act of going to university and learning in that environment that employers look for, not necessarily the subject. After all those who wrote this article probably did Politics at University 10-20 years ago - everyone else back then thought Politics was a non-course. Thirdly - the number of 401 non-courses seems to have been come up with rather creatively. Look at Adventure Course Management at the University of Gloucester - the course appears 13 times, because its a joint degree with another subject. That doesn't mean there are 13 different versions of the course you idiots. And what do you have in for Equine management. Do you have any idea how much equine related businesses generate for this country? Many times more than the savings you propose by removing the courses. The majority of these courses you've picked on are teaching needed and valuable skills - if you had a look at the sylabus you will find they teaching key business, management, IT and other skills as well, all packaged up into a specialist package. Also the majority of the internal sub courses will be being taught to other degree students at the same time - so actually trying to calculate the savings of removing these courses are nowhere near as simple as you have made out. It would have been more worthwhile to look at the number of specialist teaching hours a course and use that to work out any savings - I'm sure you'll find that the figure would be nearer 10% of what you've quoted. One final thing for you to ponder - imagine sending your kid on a school adventure/activity weekend. Would you rather have the person running it a degree qualified adventure management graduate who's worked on a course written by industry and no doubt hands on experience and is fully qualified in health and safety, equipment management, business management and is doing things by the book - or some young person who's has a one day NVQ course and on the job training because they couldn't get a qualification at university because the course isn't run? Think about that whilst sitting in your ivory tower.

Get real - this sort of political point scoring guff is not real news. Go away and research properly - then come back to us.

[Erik]

I agreee. There are FAR too many non-degrees.

But there are far too many drop-outs too.

Alas, I was one of them - finishing only 2 of my 3yrs in "BSc Applied Electronics", but they did offer me 60k in 1997 to leave Uni, and head straight into my chosen industry. Sadly, this was not the case for the others costing the UK 300M a year as drop-outs.

Nice job of exposing all the non-degrees though... 10/10. Keep up the good work.

[Barrie redfern]

I never knew all these degree courses existed. I do not doubt that information can be conveyed about such subjects but to elevate their status to degree level would seem ridiculous. I am sure that many courses must contain a large amount of pseudo-intellectual babble in order to fill their three year duration. Perhaps course lengths should be reduced and alternative titles awarded. Otherwise degrees are devalued to nothing more than the bogus qualifications purchased online from America! Hey, that's not a bad idea. Go and get good practical experience somewhere and then award yourself a fancy "paper" title for all your hard work. Just think of all the money it would save everyone.

[Christian Haselwimmer]

What a load of BS!
£40 million, gosh golly...
What is wrong with a university education for the sake of a university education: hell, the students pay for it so why can't they decide to take a turf management course....after all that is they market at work is it not....if people didn't want to do these courses then they wouldn't exist.

[Christian Haselwimmer]

What a load of BS!
£40 million, gosh golly...
What is wrong with a university education for the sake of a university education: hell, the students pay for it so why can't they decide to take a turf management course....after all that is they market at work is it not....if people didn't want to do these courses then they wouldn't exist.

[Bob Key]

Well done to you, TPA, for bringing to light the (sadly) growing trend of admitting young people to university to read such nonsense.

Those here defending Fashion Buying are too easily fooled by course descriptions, which inevitably try to make a worthless course sound creditable. "Computer aided design", in the context of a Fashion Buying degree, probably refers to searching for handbags on EBay.

[Mike G]

In the interests of full disclosure, I demand that the report authors publish their full academic records, including full details of "option" courses taken at school, sixth form/college, and university (if they attended).

[Jo Wyles]

I have to disagree although I think there are MANY pointless degress you have most of them wrong in your list! Did you know the Equine industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the country? Do you also realise the importance of having trained professional dealing with the food chain process from farmer to shop? No because you dont look past the end of your nose, you are VERY shortsighted. The degrees you should have included are things like sociology, ancient history and fine art, all degrees which do not have any relevance to any sort of career, whereas the ones you have picked on do. Did you know some of theses degrees involve only a couple of hours a week work? Yet these students still get the same amount of student loan? Get your facts straight before you go accusing people of being on pointless degrees!

[Mike G]

Also, it is noteworthy that the report authors do not indicate the level to which these courses have been accredited - I believe that many of them are offered at HND level, which is entirely appropriate for more vocational courses.

[Shakeel Suleman]

I have just skimmed read the main report, but can someone- perhaps from the Alliance- confirm if all the courses listed are offered at degree level and are not short courses or modules attached to some other course?

[Vindico]

Thanks for helping to expose the sham-degree culture. If people finance a course themselves then i have no issue what they choose to do, but if the taxpayer is expected to lend a helping had then they can go swivel!

[Andy Topping]

Non degrees? whatever next, non-sensical websites? Non reports, promoting a Non researched report..

I think whoever did this may have benefited from going to university and maybe took a course in ' writing balanced reports based on fact, rather than pandering to the daily mail reading immigrant hating single mum condeming middle classes BSC at the university of teeside.'

but then we know the people who write these sorts of things wouldn't dare step foot in one of the new univeristies

[Anthony Fitzgerald - Careers Adviser]

You are a conservative Conservative organisation so by nature you will not embrace change. Do some research yes, don't look for some anecdotal evidence, just because the whole question of what is academic and what are skills has become more complex is what this is all about.
New degree courses meet labour market needs which is more than I can say for History at Bristol or PPE at Oxford - a great way to flex your brains at the cost of the taxpayer but not really providing any useful transferable skills for the labour market. Get 21st century get real and try to find real evidence rather than Daily Mail evidence.

[Graham Spencer]

You seem to target many land-based qualifications in your list - horticulture, equine management, floristry, golf and turf management. These are large and serious industries that are desperately short of young people with industry-specific qualifications. Perhaps your report authors should spend a little time interviewing the leaders of these industries (perhaps the relevant trade bodies) to find out if there is a demand in businesses up and down the country for people with these qualifications. Maybe you would find then that these courses are not such a waste as you perceive.

[John Moorcraft]

How can Manchester Metropolitan University be both number 23 and 25 in your list of 91 educational institutions offering non courses and Salford University be both number 84 and 89. I assume the double counting of these universities has led to some of the subsequent analysis being slightly skewed?

Could I therefore (somewhat tongue in cheek) suggest to the TPA they employ somebody with a BA in Proofreading before publishing reports in the future!

[Peter]

John, thanks for pointing that out. The institutional table in the appendix was subsequent to everything else, so the research and analysis won't be skewed, but it is worth correcting that table.

[John Moorcraft]

Good stuff. The typing error just amused me Peter so I thought I would point it out (sorry mate!). The actual report is excellent and I agree with the vast majority of what is stated. Young adults (in my opinion) would be far better off in many cases if they had the option of on the job training or undertaking apprenticeships rather then wasting their time and money on a degree course they either fail to complete or which, if successfully finished, is of little worth in the job market. Still, as somebody who has spent 7 years at university getting a Politics BA, MA and PhD (hopefully), I suppose people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

What are London Guildhall and the University of North London doing as separate entries? They merged to form London Metropolitan over half a decade ago.

[Davey]

In the report, it is argued that BSc degrees should not be offered in subjects that are not science at all. So why aren't all the BSc degrees in Theology on offer across the country on the list too?

Your report seems to forget that what is on offer in universities is driven by the market. Courses which don't attract students close down. If scientists were given a higher profile in this country, and were respected and portrayed in a positive light (rather than treated as geeks), and were paid better, then perhaps more 18 year olds would be attracted to degrees in those subjects. But we live in a culture where the most revered and idolised are football players, pop stars and "celebrities" who are rich and famous simply because they were on Big Brother, or (claimed to have) slept with a married footballer, or are the girlfriend of a footballer.

So don't blame the universities, blame the culture in which they have to survive.

[Michael]

Tables A2 and A3 also disagree with one another. Some universities described in A2 as offering only one 'non-degree' are listed multiple times in A3.

[Tim Greening-Jackson]

The non-courses report was spot-on, and confirms what I have thought (as an employer) for the past several years. The entire currency of the degree has been devalued by the government's barking targets with respect to keeping illiterate and innumerate children off the dole for a few years.

One question, though. Table A2 (The Full List of 91 Institutions Offering Non-Courses) lists Manchester Metropolitan University twice (places 23 & 25). Is this for a reason, or have you just not bothered proof-reading the report properly?

[Philip]

I can see from the universities mentioned on the list that your organisation is probably one of those who wanted to keep universities for the elite and did not want polytechnics offering degrees to be thought of as universities. Many of the courses you list as non-courses just expose your ignorance of the real world and the skills and knowledge needed these days. For example, what is wrong with a degree in baking technology management? Do you honestly think the vast quantities of bakery goods are produced by people in aprons slaving away, kneading and pounding dough? No - this area requires management, planning, innovation, logistics, scientific knowledge to ensure quality and safety, etc.

Perhaps you think that only degrees from Oxbridge in Classics, PPE, etc are worthwhile and that the others wanting to study at university in other areas should be disregarded.

These "non-courses" would have been developed carefully with plenty of input from the industry which require these types of graduates and are not the product of a whim or fancy.

Your report is a product of old-fashioned elitism, a narrow view of present day UK life and an academically flawed and biased approach to research in this area.

[Peter]

Thanks to the eagle-eyed commenters above for pointing out some things that needed to be corrected in the appendix. Table A2 has now been updated in the report.

[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.

[The Wilted Rose]

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.

[Dave's Journal]

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.

[Scott]

Congratulations. Your report manages to be elitist, patronising and offensive all in one fell swoop. Realistically, irrespective of what you think/hope you're acheiving, what use are you to society? Oh, hang on, you're invaluable when there's a need for someone to be utterly wrong about something they don't know anything about.
Give yourslves a pat on the back. Oh, and a word of advice: you're more likely to get people on your side if you don't come across like complete cretins.

[David]

What a load of rubbish. You have wasted money preparing such an inaccurate list.
You pick on tourism, one of the fastest growing industries in the world. What little you know.

[Henrik Ornebring]

I note that the report refers to the universities "London Guildhall" and "North London" when discussing universities with high dropout rates. It is worth pointing out that these universities do not exist anymore. They merged in 2002 (the year the reference is taken from) to form London Metropolitan University.

[Peter Bunyan]

Interesting, my first instinct was to jump up and down, but after a few minutes I realised that there was nothing new about comments such as this. What's wrong with an opportunity to study Adventure in a higher education context? Why is it different from Ancient Greek? Maybe just snobbery and archaic though! the Adventure Education degree at Chichester provides students an opportunity for individuals to study the subject area at graduate level, it is not to provide 'workers' for the outdoor sector, although some may wish to work in this field after graduation. The diversity of the outdoor sector presents a wide range of graduate employments. I'm sure those who have been involved in management development would favour being 'facilitated' by an informed graduate rather than 'instructed' by an on the job trained NVQ level 1 worker.

The 'Non Courses Report' lacks sound methodology and logical thinking, it lacks an approach that has really looked inside the degree titles. It hinges on words that in the minds of these shallow thinkers do not reflect academia. Maybe the train of thought should be extended to the closing down of any university that academically sanctions any of the 401 courses. The report would appear rather damming of QAA approved protocols, the fact that these courses are yearly monitored, have external examiners and regular QAA scrutiny seems to be overlooked. Maybe as an aside they would like to withdraw my Doctorate in Adventure Psychology!

Finally let's not forget that student's are also tax payers, surely they also have a stake in this arguement, in numerical terms they surely out number the members of this finite insignificant group.

[Peter Bunyan]

Read what you losely term a 'report' again, as an academic (one who actually heads up one of the listed courses) I am taken back by the absence of rationale and methodology. Who are you and how do can you possible judge 'dubious academic merit'. Come on now how can this be a creditable piece of research!

[D Cain]

Although I do support the tax payers alliance in many ways, this report reveals an ignorance about higher education. I pay my fees and I study one of the listed courses "Modelmaking".

I can't speak for other courses listed but modelmaking is a very fine art that needs at least 3 years to get even anywhere near industry standard which opens up some very good job oppurtunities in film, media, restoration, product design, architecture to name a few. I hope the TPA will research properly in the future before they mistake "Non Courses" for "Niche Courses". Not every degree or art of learning is mass popular that doesn't make it any less worthy

PS: I know someone who works as a fashion buyer and they earn very good money and I know it took them allot to learn the skills.

[FREDDY]

It seems to me the TPA have brashly critised so called "Non Courses" based merely on a course title! Shame on them for their ignorance!

Higher education in any form is a good thing, anyone I know that's been to university even if they did study something unrelated to what they may end up doing for a living is a much more enlightened and focused individual. I am a taxpayer and i would gamble to say I probably pay more tax than most on the TPA commitee as a high income easrner and I have no problem with it, better tax spent on creating open minded people than spending £2000 a second on the Iraq war! Which is more pointless??

Here's a good idea, lets scrap all courses that don't directly benefit the goverment where noone can learn anything creative and we'll all be data entry monkies for Gordon Brown.

[jade goody]

The report is a load of BS in most cases, I read an artixle on this site related to the Australian "non Course" problems. I hope this isn't what spawned this report.

How can you compare a course in "Surfboarding" and "Aromatheropy" to "Equine managment" or "Modelmaking"??

[Jack Matthew]

This 'report' seems more like an extract from a radio 5 live 'phone in' rather than a piece of research. As someon studying for a degree in that field I can say with 100% certainty that this little document wouldn't even merit a third.

[Don G]

When the bloggers suggested Jade Goody bought herself an education from her Big Brother cash I don't think they meant a non-course....
I think the tpa have every right to question courses which are a net drain on taxpayers. Anyone who complains about the methodology used, please send a donation to this privately funded organisation to help improve the methodology in the next report.
Most comments seem to be about the course content, perhaps defending the writers' own courses. But there are also plenty of traditional courses with low scheduled attendances like 8 hours a week (plenty of time for Radio 5 live phone-ins).
And what about the shocking dropout rates - surely that's more worthy of comment?

[Mark Irwin]

I have just read your report an I am rather amused, dismayed and depressed by its lack of proper methodology, poor use of statistics and the way that it seeks to sensationalise a very tired and rather old issue. The writers could have saved some time by simply talking to the university sector - or failing that employers and students?

I understand the tpa is self funding - but surely your money could be better used - this report is simply a waste of time.

I am sure that many of us in the sector would be happy to engage in a debate but not one from such a narrow and self opinionated viewpoint.

[Rob Taylor]

I am taking outdoor sports with management at marjon in plymouth and I have to say that it is not the most useless course. The outdoor sector is growing by £60 million pounds a year. It is getting more exposure on TV and at conventions across the UK and the world. So really the only way is up for the outdoor sports sector.
Courses like art studies are by all means hard but do they have any bearing on modern society? Also a residential outdoor trip has been a key part of the key stage 2-3 curriculum for a number of years now and the goverment are planning on making more intergral in their secondary curriculum plan.
Outdoor sports can help people fight obesity and it has been proven to help disabled participants in things like sailability from the RYA etc.
Outdoor sports is not a new thing it has been in main circulation since the 1940's and Kurt Hahn (the creator of outward bound) but its roots are deeper in history. ever since the native indians have people been canoeing and although it was not a sport who else can claim that their courses roots can go back that far?

[Racel]

[url= http://ryno.krovatka.su ]сиськи[/url]

[Ingijr]

http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3926 buy cialis
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3927 Generic cialis
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3928 Buy Cheap Cialis
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3929 discount cialis
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3930 ORDER CIALIS
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3933 Buy Soma Online
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3935 Cheap Soma
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3936 ORDER SOMA
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3937 generic soma
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3938 Buy Viagra ONLINE
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3939 ORDER VIAGRA
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3940 Buy viagra online
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3941 cheap viagra
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3942 Discount Viagra
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143 Buy Viagra
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144 Generic VIAGRA
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145 Buy viagra online
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146 Cheap Viagra
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147 Discount VIAGRA
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=148 Order viagra
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=149 BUY CIALIS ONLINE
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150 Generic cialis online!
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151 Buy cheap Cialis

[Keling]

Could you please add "Information Technology/Computer Science" to the mix of useless degrees. The truth is that with the internet and tomes upon tomes of free programming resources, one can be self-taught to the professional standard without ever having to step into a class and incurring an increasingly unserviceable debt as more IT jobs are shipped to the subcontinent.

Also it is a common IT graduate bane as most IT degree courses impart "skills" that are 5-10 years obsolete upon graduation.