试题详情

Text 4 The two-year degree is back.The idea of increased flexibility in higher education is,in the broadest sense,a good one.But it is a sign of how captured we have been by market-centric thinking that"flexibility",to this government,is manifested as"squeeze the same amount into a shorter period of time to maximise your financial returns later".The sector has undergone a"catastrophe"as part-time student numbers have collapsed;that the government"s response is a degree format-the polar opposite of part-time-is indicative of its approach to governance in generaL For most demographics whose access to higher education is restricted,condensing the course doesn"t address the barriers they"re facing.If you"re balancing employment and childcare with a full-time education,especially if you"re relying on sketchy public transport infrastructure,it"s unrealistic to squeeze any more into your schedule.Many universities currently structure their courses around the reality that many students work,at least part-time,while studying.None of this is to mention those with disabilities who may face additional barriers to access.There are no doubt some-the independently wealthy,for example-who may benefit,but it seems perverse that these people should be the focus of a major policy change.Troublingly,we seem to have fully accepted the shift from education as a social good to a product sold to students on grounds of higher earnings in the job market.Often,the grand promises of access to employment don"t hold up.The labour market has been increasingly casualised and"hollowed out",with a gap emerging between the skilled and"unskilled".Progression through the ranks is vanishing,with a degree becoming a requirement for all sorts of jobs beyond simply those with high wages.Even beyond the gap between the promise and reality,though,lies a philosophical flaw with the current approach.The two-year degree,in and of itself,is neither a good nor a bad thing.For some people it will be a positive,for the majority of others an irrelevance.What is troubling is what it represents about how Britain"s political establishment sees education.It fits well into the reductive free-market philosophy,where every aspect of life can be sold as a commodity.A government that sees the price of everything and the value of nothing will inevitably be drawn to the idea of squeezing maximum output into minimum time.A government that really wanted to make higher education more flexible,open and accessible would be exploring options that made sense for those with restricted access.There is no evidence,though,that this government thinks the choice between being stuck in a low-wage hellscape or taking on thousands of pounds in debt to play a roulette wheel with better odds is a bad thing.The days of education policies that address none of the problems with education are far from over Which of the following is true of education?