…or equivalent experience
There has been a lot of reaction and interesting discussion relating to the current government’s proposed cuts to university funding, particularly their impact on arts and humanities. In this post I’ll present some of my own thoughts on the matter.
Many times in reading job adverts or person specifications for jobs, I read the phrase “…or equivalent experience”. The context is usually something like “the candidate must have a degree in computer science or equivalent experience” or “the role requires a PhD or equivalent experience”. Now having taught at two schools, worked for four years at an FE college, studied at three universities to PhD level and worked as university lecturer and tutor, I can say with some authority that the notion of ‘equivalent experience’ is a myth. It’s a concept which trivialises the true value of university education.
The word ‘equivalent’ literally means ‘equal value’, and can also mean ‘of equal significance’, or ‘having the same effect or meaning’. So when we say ‘equivalent experience’, we are implying that it is possible to measure the value added by university education, and that it is in some way possible to gain experience of equal value in the ‘real world’.
I disagree with this on almost every level. I don’t believe it is possible to measure the value of university education (although it may be possible to perceive it); I don’t think there is any process that can provide the same benefits as university education, and I think the polarisation of ‘academia’ and ‘the real world’ as complimentary opposites is a myth — I view the relationship as continuous and reciprocal.
Continuing this line of thinking, I think that ‘…or equivalent qualifications’ is also an inappropriate expression (although I’ve rarely seen it). University study and work experience are simply two different activities offering a different range of skills and knowledge. Both have value, but they don’t have the same kind of value and they are in no way interchangeable.
So how does this relate to the current debate on university funding? Well, I’m inclined to agree at least in part with what Stewart Lee has to say on the matter.
However, whilst Stewart is talking primarily about the arts, I’d go further by adding that we should try to shift the debate towards the value of the pursuit of knowledge for it’s own sake in general. What I would love to see is for universities to become more academic, not more vocational. For some careers (e.g. science, medicine) the two are very closely linked, but for many professions (business, engineering, nursing, teaching!), an academic qualification has little to offer in direct terms — practical, hands-on experience is in these cases a much better qualification.
That’s not to say the fruits a university education have no value in business (for example), they just aren’t equivalent to experience. What university can (and should) produce is individuals with the ability to ask meaningful questions about the world around them, to form a reasoned argument, to value knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge for it’s own sake, to understand the networks and interconnections of people and things…
So, I hope that as universities start to compete for student fees, they sell themselves to their true strengths and don’t simply become factories for the capitalist workplace. If universities do play to their strengths as centres for the pursuit of knowledge, the sector will surely shrink as more potential students enter work instead of study. But as it shrinks over time and clearly defines its role as ‘more than equivalent’, perhaps the university sector will once again become publicly fundable.
