University degree not worth as much as touted

Mr.Brown_4

Absolutely agree with SingleSue, but my thanks especially to StevieJ for the "delusional lemon" quote.

bouche

SingleSue wrote: »

The way I see Carolt's posts about this is pretty much the same as me.....I AM having trouble getting even to the interview stage because I don't have a degree, hell, I'm getting turned down because I don't have 5 GCSE's, only O Levels (too blooming old to have GCSE's!)

Jobs which I can do standing on my head whilst eating a chocolate egg are asking for at least A Levels..something which was not required at all when I started out in work life.

This is in the line of work where I have years of experience, know the ropes etc...and qualifications are not really needed to be able to do it.

You're overqualified Sue!! I'ts not a new phenomenom but in this climate, where, jobs are scarse and few, you'll find it hard to gain employment. Things aren't like they were when you could even walk into a retail outlet on a Friday and start on MOnday.

The main concern about older workers keeping thier jobs isn't that they're not capable, but taking up opportunities from the young jobless.

lostinrates

snugglepet20 wrote: »

I don't see why everyone is so against nurses being highly qualified, they are professionals. Medicine has evolved drastically in the past 50 years never mind way back in Florence and Mary's day when they basically couldn't cure anything. They have people to do bed baths and take people to the toilet called healthcare assistants and there needs to be more of them to free nurses up to concentrate on proper medical procedures and treatment.
If you have ever been in hospital and waited an eternity for medication because the nurses were run off their feet you will know where I am coming from and I'm sure no one wants an unqualified nurse doing their morphine drip!
As for the suggestion that doctors should be doing all the medical treatment dream on :rotfl:, the house doctors are used like slaves as it is covering 80+ patients each and more at night and the consultants only roll in off the golf course every few days to do rounds.
Also it takes 3 years to train a nurse and they typically earn £25k and 10 to train a doctor and they earn £80k + so it is more cost effective to utilise nurses as much as possible.

Who is against nurses being qualified? I care they have the right qualification for he job/jobs. Is a degree really what is required for a morphine drip? Personally I would hope that the nurse had adequate experience, a mixture of practical and theoretical education. All the academic education in the world would not find me actively wanting to be a nurses first patient in a life and death situation.

In fact you highlight the problem here: cost and over work. Perhaps, if all become degree holders, nurses doctor pay gap should narrow? How can the average nurse be qualified to graduate level in three years with enough practical experience and enough time to research for a thesis? Many could be (I condensed a degree) but many, many more could not. To be well versed in theory and to have had some experience, sure, but enough to be ''qualified'', really? What are the compromises?

FWIW I see an excellent nurse practitioner as part of my team....she's great...and she refuses mundane work (my bloods and bld pressure which are taken weekly she doesn't do) ..because ''shes too qualified for that''

niccatw

lostinrates wrote: »

How can the average nurse be qualified to graduate level in three years with enough practical experience and enough time to research for a thesis? Many could be (I condensed a degree) but many, many more could not. To be well versed in theory and to have had some experience, sure, but enough to be ''qualified'', really? What are the compromises?

I've got to agree with that to a certain extent. I'm a speech and language therapist and did my degree in 3 years (didn't stay on to do honours because I had that from my previous degree and it made no difference to my starting salary but was going to cost me a lot!). When you add up the amount of practical hours that you have to do, it doesn't amount to a lot in real terms - even though you do have to pass all of you placements to a high level.

In order to to the job well (or any like it), I think you need to be a "people person" or have a lot of life experience behind you. Sod the first degree, the best asset I had going into my second degree were my years as a bar manager in the student's union! Not much was going to shock me or ruffle my feathers after that :rotfl:

Evidence-based practice is what we should be advocating in the work-place - but not every-one has the skills - and vey, very few of us have the time!

niccatw

I probably should have double checked my sentence structure and spelling in my post above, given I've admitted to being a speech and language therapist!

snugglepet20

StevieJ wrote: »

I think there is a potential concern that like many 'professionals' some nurses care more about the next step on the promotion ladder than looking after the patient. BTW can we get those cute Barbara Windsor like uniforms back does wonders for the moral of the patients (well the male ones anyway)

Just to point out that top whack pay for senior nurses is about £40k. It is not a career you go into for the money (you have to wipe too many bums for that!).
Also lostinrates nurse training is 50% theory and 50% practical including the degree version which has been available for many years and indeed many nurses currently hold degrees and masters degrees. The training is incredibly hard going and nurses are at university all year not the 33 weeks most students get and it is 50 hours a week minimum so by the time you qualify you are quite experienced.
The issue at the moment really is that many student nurses do not take the degree option even though they are academically capable due to the bizarre bursary system which will pay you more money (not means tested) for taking the diploma, than the degree option (which is means tested). That is why I did the diploma even though I have 3 grade A's at A-level and could have got onto any degree I wanted.

lostinrates

snugglepet20 wrote: »

Just to point out that top whack pay for senior nurses is about £40k. It is not a career you go into for the money (you have to wipe too many bums for that!).
Also lostinrates nurse training is 50% theory and 50% practical including the degree version which has been available for many years and indeed many nurses currently hold degrees and masters degrees. The training is incredibly hard going and nurses are at university all year not the 33 weeks most students get and it is 50 hours a week minimum so by the time you qualify you are quite experienced.
The issue at the moment really is that many student nurses do not take the degree option even though they are academically capable due to the bizarre bursary system which will pay you more money (not means tested) for taking the diploma, than the degree option (which is means tested). That is why I did the diploma even though I have 3 grade A's at A-level and could have got onto any degree I wanted.

Thank you for the explanation of the course structure.

Why is it three years, not four years, like other degrees with industry relevance/sandwiches?

How does it benefit the patient to have a degree holding nurse rather than a diploma and practically trained nurse? what is taught to a degree holding nurse not taught other wise? why not have more doctors paid less? Who will do the unskilled work when nurses are all very qualified, like my nurse practitioner?

I'm honestly trying to get a better understanding of this

(ETA: often my GP does my bloods etc, to touch base with me...it was I that opted for nurse rather than doctor for this, as I felt it was inappropriate use of doctors time...my doctor doesn't feel over qualified to do it though....)

Radiantsoul

moggylover wrote: »

There is one thing that I am afraid you are missing out on here! Money is NOT everything in a job and if your son really has a hankering to do Law or Accountancy then you are doing both him and yourself a serious diservice!

I think most people go into accountancy and law for the money!

Really2

carolt wrote: »

No - reread my posts - you appear to be confused.

I supose my example after thinking about it like your cousin situation.

You are trained as a teacher and I presume your degree is fairly specific to that.
If like your cousin there was no call for education of any type in your locality and your other half would not move what job could you get with the same wages with your degree?

If you could give me a true example that you can do one degree related job for year then go to a totally different career needing a degree and earn the same wage or better I will accept what you say.

But I really can not see that. Your degree is part of training for your job and if the work is not there I can't see you being in any different situation to your cousin. Perhaps you could tell me how it would be different?

Mr.Brown_4

Radiantsoul wrote: »

I think most people go into accountancy and law for the money!

Maybe most people who didn't, then wished they had. But law is an opportunity to uphold our legal system, or challenge it, to right wrongs, to defend the state or the individual, to constantly challenge and redefine the very rules of our civilised society. And accountancy is for people who like numbers.