Are UK Universities a drag on our economy?

Oldernotwiser

posh*spice wrote: »

But we can't afford most of this research anymore. So we should just do without it. I'm sure a lot of it doesn't matter anyhow. When I was at Uni nearly all research went unread....

Your post has left me speechless - which is quite an achievement!

dopester

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Your post has left me speechless - which is quite an achievement!

Some research is too narrowly focussed for it to really be worthy, if my source about historians below is anything to go by. Also, sometimes I look around and see the belief in Gordonomics and people who believe in forever HPI and QE-ing hundreds and hundreds of billions after it fails.

Of course Universities and their graduates also do really go on to contribute a lot for some business sectors.. maths, sciences (not much by way of pay in jobs it leads to, for family experience), computer science.

In spite of the fact that professional historians have developed and refined knowledge of the past as never before, they have largely abandoned the old-fashioned notion that history has lessons. The glut of historians means the optimal strategy for accommodating all of them has been to divide the work into almost infintisesmial specialisations.

With some honourable exceptions, historians have sought academic status by turning the microscope to its highest power in examining some episode in minute detail. One will study "Prussian Plans for Constitutional Reform in 1808"; another "Pontchartrain and the Grain Trade During the Famine of 1693." Still another is the world's authority on "The Denigration of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles a Court Repington."

These are no doubt worthy studies but they are focused at a level of detail that is not calculated to reveal long-term historic patterns. To recognise patterns requires taking an overview, and resorting to simplifying generalisations. Such generalisations are professionally dangerous for academic historians, subject to critisisms which could not be leveled at narrowly focused research. That is partly why you will find thousands of studies that nitpick a narrow topic for every attempt to develop an overview of broad historic patterns. With a few exceptions, historians as a group have become narrow specialists, with a vested interest in complexity. As has often been said of specialists, "they know more and more about less and less."

Almost all historians are employed in universities, foundations, or public institutions under terms that free them from having to sell their work directly in the market. Once professors achieve tenure, they may divert themselves more or less as they please - documenting the evolution of loud check trousers. If historians had to sing for their supper, there would be fewer of them, and their focus would change. They might or might not produce better history, but more of what they did produce would involve an attempt to recognise history's patterns.

It is rare to find a historian with money or an interest in markets. It is rarer still to find a historian who actively trades in markets. As a consequence, few historians are familiar enough with the lore of markets to recognise patterns and factors that recur from one episode to another. Historians, like almost everyone else, have tended to share a limited vision of the range of patterns that exist to be discovered. In particular, there is a broad presumption among many historians that future developments are more or less random and therefore unpredictable.

jennikitten

dopester wrote: »

Of course Universities and their graduates also do really go on to contribute a lot for some business sectors.. maths, sciences (not much by way of pay in jobs it leads to, for family experience), computer science.

So how do you factor in the people who end up with jobs in a different field to what they studied (which is 50-60% of graduates)? I did an English degree (could just as easily have been History), but I work in IT and always have done.

vivalagloria

lostinrates wrote: »

Depends on the subject. I rolled my eyes at B-i-L'scurrent project..but would hate to see funding stopped into developing the minds and skillsets in most science disciplines.

I strongly disagree with cutting funding from any subject over another. There seems to be a divide between humanities and science subjects, as science is seen as more valuable. And while yes, it contributes more directly to the way our society lives in the modern world, cutting funding for humanities subjects isn't the answer. I've heard people saying things about subjects like History and English, among other humanities and arts subjects, being useless as degrees because they don't directly lead to a profession, but what's wrong with that? What's wrong with people learning about something they're interested it? Surely that's what makes for a well rounded and knowledgeable society?

I think people outside of the university system don't appreciate it for what it is. They see it as students taking an expensive three year holiday to delay the transition into adulthood. And yes, to some students that's what it is. But I don't think there is ever a time when it is right to say that research in any subject is less valuable. This recession is being presented as some kind of major catastrophe, but it really isn't. It's just a silly government who make bad decisions, ruling over silly people who make bad decisions, living in a society wrongly based on momentary gratification centered around finance, and forgetting about what's really important - education, peace and respect.

jennikitten

posh*spice wrote: »

But we can't afford most of this research anymore. So we should just do without it.

Yeah..you're right. And we can't afford old or disabled people any more either, so we should get rid of those too :eek:

posh*spice wrote: »

When I was at Uni nearly all research went unread....

I think you mean, out of the limited amount of research made available to students, you didn't do any reading of it.

jennikitten

vivalagloria wrote: »

I've heard people saying things about subjects like History and English, among other humanities and arts subjects, being useless as degrees because they don't directly lead to a profession, but what's wrong with that?

The problem is that people like commonplace jobs that they understand. Do medicine? Become a doctor. Do law? Become a lawyer.

The concept of doing English leads most people to say 'Do you want to be an author or a teacher?', which drove me mad. There are hundreds of directly related jobs, including journalism, editing, copywriting, publishing, technical writing, various online careers (I myself am employed by a company for blogging & other online marketing), print/offline marketing, advertising etc. etc. In a lot of ways, it's an advantage because if you don't like something or you can't find a job, you can try another niche.

I have friends who studied chemistry and biology, and they can't find any science jobs at all.

Oldernotwiser

vivalagloria wrote: »

I think people outside of the university system don't appreciate it for what it is. They see it as students taking an expensive three year holiday to delay the transition into adulthood.

Worst than that is the number of people who think that universities are just schools for adults; that's the most pernicious belief.

lostinrates

vivalagloria wrote: »

I strongly disagree with cutting funding from any subject over another. There seems to be a divide between humanities and science subjects, as science is seen as more valuable. And while yes, it contributes more directly to the way our society lives in the modern world, cutting funding for humanities subjects isn't the answer. I've heard people saying things about subjects like History and English, among other humanities and arts subjects, being useless as degrees because they don't directly lead to a profession, but what's wrong with that? What's wrong with people learning about something they're interested it? Surely that's what makes for a well rounded and knowledgeable society?

I think people outside of the university system don't appreciate it for what it is. They see it as students taking an expensive three year holiday to delay the transition into adulthood. And yes, to some students that's what it is. But I don't think there is ever a time when it is right to say that research in any subject is less valuable. This recession is being presented as some kind of major catastrophe, but it really isn't. It's just a silly government who make bad decisions, ruling over silly people who make bad decisions, living in a society wrongly based on momentary gratification centered around finance, and forgetting about what's really important - education, peace and respect.

I personally would rate some humanities as more important to maintain funding for than some sciences (which is why I said ''most'' sciences in my first post). I value education for its own sake, and many subjects as valuable...but not all courses. If I had to choose -in a time where money is limited and education is only one very important area where money is being cut- whether to fund ''medicine'' or a masters in ''Cult film and television'' my choice wouldn't be hard. Likewise physics and Puppetry, or even an undergrad degree in Sports Science...where there is a breadth of work afterwards and a thesis taken could specialise in football...and Football studies. This is not saying advanced study into anything isn't sometimes valuable, but that priorities have to be addressed. A possible answer is often that a specialised area of interested can be the subject of your own research projects, not necessarily needing a whole undergrad course devoted to it, another is that if you can get work from an undergrad course you save to pay for a more specialised Masters course.



* source for this admittedly puerile line of argument taken by me...I'm rushing out:o

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/magazines/a-guide-to-unusual-degrees-413838.html

dopester

jennikitten wrote: »

So how do you factor in the people who end up with jobs in a different field to what they studied (which is 50-60% of graduates)? I did an English degree (could just as easily have been History), but I work in IT and always have done.

Is your English degree seing you contribute a lot at the cutting edge of IT? I doubt it.

Many degrees just show an employer an candidate can focus and work and be organised in a lesser role. So yes, you can study History or English and show your degree to seek a job in a different sector. Does that make the fees of upto £9K a year for you to study English or History worth it?

My brother has a Computer Science degree, and after working for a few companies in Cambridge he's now on big money running computer systems for an investment bank. Not all people who study IT are that lucky, especially not the way things are going at the moment.

My Dad did a chemistry degree, and for certain, in the last recession when he was made redundant, there wasn't much call in the UK for chemical engineering jobs with any proper money on offer. Not sure how different it is today. Good luck to people paying upto £9K a year for chemistry degrees.

gauly

vivalagloria wrote: »

I strongly disagree with cutting funding from any subject over another. There seems to be a divide between humanities and science subjects, as science is seen as more valuable. And while yes, it contributes more directly to the way our society lives in the modern world, cutting funding for humanities subjects isn't the answer

I don't think there is any great conspiracy against humanities subjects. I think it is simply that science subjects are considerably more expensive courses to run. The level of funding cuts for science courses mean that they will have to charge large fees too - probably even more than for humanities courses. If the sciences had had all funding cut then they would no longer exist (except mathematics anyway).