University degree not worth as much as touted

chucky

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!)

but that's my point - studying at whichever university that you go to is exactly the same for 95% of people that have a degree. it doesn't matter if you go to Oxford university or to the University of Wigan., employers just want a degree.

for the other 5% who study a technical degree or even law it's more of a requirement as you will be using the knowledge gained in your job.

my other point was that being able to pass a degree and a get a degree has no bearing on intelligence at all - there are people who have got degrees and have learned the subject parrot fashion and have learned to pass the exam but are unable to apply their knowledge in a job situation - there are many of these out there.

i'm pro getting a degree by the way just not it being the be al and end all and if you have degree it puts you ahead of others. it doesn't...

lostinrates

I was thinking: what about securing a job contract..say for two years... before university funding availability? Much like legal training contracts? That way the grads no they have employment to refund some debts, industry gets the students it wants and can in some part influence the course content to be applicable and students at the end of that two years can be retains, or have some experience for other jobs or self employment. Self funding could have to remain an option ....

StevieJ

chucky wrote: »

but that's my point - studying at whichever university that you go to is exactly the same for 95% of people that have a degree. it doesn't matter if you go to Oxford university or to the University of Wigan., employers just want a degree.

.

I don't think that is true, the major blue chip employers seek the traditional red brick/Oxbridge graduates first when doing their 'Milk round' to find candidates for their fast track management training programmes.

chucky

StevieJ wrote: »

I don't think that is true, the major blue chip employers seek the traditional red brick/Oxbridge graduates first when doing their 'Milk round' to find candidates for their fast track management training programmes.

that's why i said the 5% it does matter

Pobby

Flexibility is the key and I learnt that very early on. I had a great job as sales director for a small importer but with a great technical product ( worked me way up from being a sales rep within the company). Things were going great, really good. We were slowly expanding and it was exciting. Then the recession of the early 80`s. The pound collapsed against the dollar. We kept posting price increases which made us uncompetitive, Sadly we laid off staff. In the end we were bought out by another company.

Things changed and I resigned. Next job was in retail, and retail management and then ownership for the next 15 or so years.

It`s not always been a comfortable run but at least it has been interesting ( at times ), often hard work.

ukcarper

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i haven't bothered to read this thread - so the point i make may have already been made.

This is obvious. The more people that attend university, the less worth a degree has.

if everyone attends, then they will be worth nothing - until subdivided. So then, only having a first will mean something, or only having it from a redbrick or oxbridge institution will mean something.

Or will a 1st class law degree from an ex poly be worth more than a 3rd in sociology from Bristol? who knows.

The point is, Uni should not be for everyone. Only the top 20% or so should have it. it is HIGHER education. It is not for everyone -despite what labour thinks.

I think this might be the first time I have agreed with you although I think 20% might be a bit on the low side. But the problem is that how do you make sure that candidates from less well off back grounds get a place if they deserve it. Also there must be something put in place for the people who don’t go

donaldtramp

The problem is far too many mickey mouse arts degrees.
What value do they create? A huge number of the art degees seem to have been dreamt up simply to allow Labour to get 50% of our population into university.
It is ludicrous to dumb down our higher education simply to hit targets.
Why on Earth do we need qualifications in "hotel management" and "tourism," "sports science" etc etc?
M Mouse degrees are wasting years of peoples lifes and at the end, all they will have acheived is masses of student debt and no job prospects.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6754287/A-university-degree-is-worth-2500-a-year.html

It follows the publication of a report that found rising numbers of graduates failed to find jobs last year after leaving university in the midst of the economic downturn.
Those finding employment were also much more likely to be in low-paid jobs, with some working as bar staff, labourers, shelf stackers, parking attendants and cleaners.
The fees review, which is being led by Lord Browne, the former head of BP, will analyse arguments for and against a rise in the existing £3,250-a-year tuition fee.
There is already speculation that the report will eventually recommend a sharp increase in the cost of university under pressure from vice-chancellors for more funding.
In the consultation document, Lord Browne insisted that a degree was a worthwhile investment.
“Graduates, on average, earn £100,000 more over their working life net of taxation than an individual whose highest qualification is two or more A-levels,” said the document.
It added that graduates were also more likely to be rewarded with other benefits, including better employment prospects and improved health. The £100,000 premium would equal £2,500 over a 40 year career.
But critics have questioned the true benefit of a degree to all students.
A recent report said that students graduating with arts degrees earned barely more than those who left school at 18.

Plus their debts
Scrap all these nonsencical arts degrees and save the country a fortune.
I read an another article (can't find it) that showed that if you take an arts degree, your lifetime earnings are actually LESS than if you started working at age 17/18!!
What's the point? Scrap them.

vivatifosi

ninky wrote: »

the popularity of media studies i feel is not so much that the course is easier but rather the jobs it leads to are perceived to be fun......

...i had offers of places at several so called russell group unis to do eng lit but on balance i chose media studies at a then poly. i had a job lined up straight off the back of my course.

ninky, my issue isn't with the fact that media studies degrees exist per se, it is that there are so many courses that there can't possibly be enough jobs in the media for all those coming out. I don't think the issue is whether you study media at a poly or Russell Group uni, for many applied subjects the best college in the country is never going to be at a top uni - take furniture design for example - one of the best colleges is in High Wycombe because that's where traditionally there has been a large furniture industry. My point is that there are just too many students, and those at the bottom of the league schools or possibly even those from good schools but without the first that you managed to get, just won't cut it.

StevieJ

ukcarper wrote: »

I think this might be the first time I have agreed with you although I think 20% might be a bit on the low side. But the problem is that how do you make sure that candidates from less well off back grounds get a place if they deserve it. Also there must be something put in place for the people who don’t go

That is an easy one, free degrees (when will I see you again ) and full grants.

vivatifosi

Pobby wrote: »

Flexibility is the key and I learnt that very early on. I had a great job as sales director for a small importer but with a great technical product ( worked me way up from being a sales rep within the company). Things were going great, really good. We were slowly expanding and it was exciting. Then the recession of the early 80`s. The pound collapsed against the dollar. We kept posting price increases which made us uncompetitive, Sadly we laid off staff. In the end we were bought out by another company.

Things changed and I resigned. Next job was in retail, and retail management and then ownership for the next 15 or so years.

It`s not always been a comfortable run but at least it has been interesting ( at times ), often hard work.

Great post pobby. Adaptability and flexibility are the other side of the equation. While there are some jobs that (hopefully) society will always need and value - doctors for example - for the vast majority of the population there may well be a need to be adaptable. Gone are the days when we follow our family's profession (thank goodness or I'd be a cleaner like my Mum was, though she was also an inventor on the side...) or where there are jobs for life. We just have to adapt to the way the world changes.

In the 1980s we had the start of the PC age (remember typewriters?), the end of large scale manufacturing projects such as ship-building, the end of mining and a growth in structural employment in areas such as South Wales, the de-regulation of banking (where did all the bowler hats go?) and service industries.

In the 1990s we had the initial widespread adoption of the web, the growth of portable computing and the set-up of pioneers in on-line retailing. Since the late 90s there has also been something of a growth in government. Approximately 1996 we also had a boom in call centres enabled by the new technology. By the new millennium many jobs had already been offshored in outsourcing. Far more people worked in offices than in the 1970s.

Then in the 10 years since the millennium we've had widespread adoption of telephone and then net services (shopping, banking, betting) etc that have changed the face of the high street. We network and react with our colleagues differently as a result of web 2.0 applications. Companies from China, that communist country of the past, now set up branches in the UK. Gone now are secretaries, clerks and many white collar jobs of years past, as well as many blue collar ones. How can we possibly expect to get by without adapting? Degree or no degree, no adaptability and the best you may hope for is to be a well-educated dinosaur.