Graduates expect to earn more than they do....

melancholly

gadgetmind wrote: »

I have dabbled a little with psychology as part of my writing, and while it's rather too soft a science for my liking, I have found doing Myers-Briggs Personality Type "analyses" for my characters has helped to give them a few extra dimensions.

Regards taking a degree in it, I just don't really understand spending years learning things that aren't relevant to the field in which you intend working.

I always knew exactly what I wanted to do and started a company doesn't exactly this during my final year at university.

Perhaps I'm just strange.

but most of psychology isn't about personality that's arm wavy soft psychology, and a lot of it is neuroscience or clinical or cognitive! most of psychology isn't about questionnaires (i personally blame big brother - everyone thinks that is what psychology is, when in reality, a lot - hopefully most - if it is different!)

i guess if everyone did degrees that were immediately commercially relevant we wouldn't have basic science research, history, politics etc, so i'm glad there are a mix of people out there. i just don't think either way is 'better'. the mix of things is what makes society better

gadgetmind

melancholly wrote: »

a lot of it is neuroscience or clinical or cognitive!

So why not do a degree in Biological Science or Medical Science?

i guess if everyone did degrees that were immediately commercially relevant we wouldn't have basic science research

Why not?

i'm glad there are a mix of people out there. i just don't think either way is 'better'. the mix of things is what makes society better

Unfortunately, even as university numbers have swelled, we don't seem to be getting a better flow of solid STEM grads, which is something the country is desperate for IME.

neas

Alot of people at my engineering company did Maths and Physics at uni and went onto different related professions.

Nobody has done psychology in an engineering role as while there is a common 'statistics' link. one is more about statistics of things and another is statistics related to people.

Oh and engineering requrie a complex understanding of things like software, systems and electronic theory.

I guess its suppl and demand lots of psych graduates and not as many jobs means depressed starting salary.

melancholly

gadgetmind wrote: »

So why not do a degree in Biological Science or Medical Science?



Why not?



Unfortunately, even as university numbers have swelled, we don't seem to be getting a better flow of solid STEM grads, which is something the country is desperate for IME.

1. why pick a highly mathematical engineering course instead of maths? why pick art history instead of history? why pick materials science instead of physics? the question could be asked in a lot of places..... some courses offer a really interesting mix of topics that appeal to some students. that's surely just sensible?

2. because basic research (not directly leading to drugs, the stuff a few stages back that is needed but not really commercially relevant while it's being done) is mainly uni run research, which isn't the career for those who want mega bucks! plus science budgets have taken a hit already and will get worse in the next 5 years so the UK won't be the place to be. some private industry does do basic science, but that's not going well (Pfizer is closing it's facility in kent employing about 2000 odd people as one example).

3. the problems with STEM graduates are more related to school science teaching. if fewer students take science A levels, fewer will go to uni. the cause, imo, is earlier in the system. but it needs addressing - it's scary and bad in the long term. one of the reasons i don't like universities being 'customer' driven is because hard science courses are more expensive to run in terms of facilities and are less popular. it would be awful for them to lose out versus other subjects purely because others can mainly be taught to bigger groups in lecture theatres alone. so many unis have closed chemistry departments already in the last 10 years. the new system won't do anything to improve an outlook for STEM subjects that some already consider to be bleak.

Oldernotwiser

melancholly wrote: »

3. the problems with STEM graduates are more related to school science teaching. if fewer students take science A levels, fewer will go to uni. the cause, imo, is earlier in the system. but it needs addressing - it's scary and bad in the long term. one of the reasons i don't like universities being 'customer' driven is because hard science courses are more expensive to run in terms of facilities and are less popular. it would be awful for them to lose out versus other subjects purely because others can mainly be taught to bigger groups in lecture theatres alone. so many unis have closed chemistry departments already in the last 10 years. the new system won't do anything to improve an outlook for STEM subjects that some already consider to be bleak.

One of the most depressing developments in recent years has been the closure of Chemistry departments and the growth of Forensic Science degrees. Particularly ironic given that he Forensic Science Service asks for a degree in Chemistry or Biology for trainee Forensic Scientists.

The trouble I've had putting this over to Patricia Cornwell fans over the last few years!

AnnBar

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

One of the most depressing developments in recent years has been the closure of Chemistry departments and the growth of Forensic Science degrees. Particularly ironic given that he Forensic Science Service asks for a degree in Chemistry or Biology for trainee Forensic Scientists.

The trouble I've had putting this over to Patricia Cornwell fans over the last few years!

Watching too much CSI I think!

Person_one

Ah yes, the CSI Effect:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/15/csi-effect-forensic-science

"The government-owned Forensic Science Service currently finds 1,300 scientists sufficient for its crime-solving needs. The UK's largest private provider, LGC Forensics, employs 500 people. In 2008 alone, 1,667 students embarked on forensic science degree courses. In order to ensure there are enough jobs to go round, more than half of them will have to retrain as serial killers."

melancholly

just had a thought - architecture is 7 years at uni (including placement year), with a 14% unemployment rate after it with a graduate job starting salary of £20K... with the new fees, you'd really have to love doing that.... at least with medicine and dentistry you have pretty much guaranteed employment and significant salaries.
i (naively!) thought architects earned a lot more than that....

gadgetmind

melancholly wrote: »

i (naively!) thought architects earned a lot more than that....

Architecture is a highly cyclical industry. Practices hang onto people as long as the can in lean times, but the ranks definitely thin. Then, when it all kicks off again, they find it hard to hire.

Estate agents also "enjoy" these cycles, and recruitment companies, but come the upturn, they can pull in anyone who looks good in a cheap suit, give them 15 minutes of training and a Mini, and they are back in business.

Reactive

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

One of the most depressing developments in recent years has been the closure of Chemistry departments and the growth of Forensic Science degrees. Particularly ironic given that he Forensic Science Service asks for a degree in Chemistry or Biology for trainee Forensic Scientists.

The trouble I've had putting this over to Patricia Cornwell fans over the last few years!

The core mathematics and science content of these "forensic science degrees" is vastly inferior & watered-down compared to a 'proper' degree.

The problem is that it costs too much money to train chemistry graduates, compared to say, historians. During my practical training as a chemical engineer (often being taught alongside chemists) we would frequently use extremely expensive equipment and consume expensive chemicals on a regular basis. On one occasion I remember being told that the chemicals/compounds we were about to use (and ultimately discard) had cost the department £500/head, and that was just for 2 weeks worth of lab-work. In total there were nearly 80 of us doing that one experiment.

On top of that, you have the expensive labs running constantly, people to supervise us in the labs constantly, expensive engineering software running on all compueters, and a large number of contact hours (about 28 h/week including labs).