Is getting a degree worth it?

scorpio_princess

What is so wrong with an arts degree? I was always under the impression that the important thing about higher education is that you learn transferable skills. For example, i'm studying English, but I doubt i'd ever be tested on my knowledge of Jane Austen's narrative style etc by a prospective employer. What would be useful, i'm guessing, is my ability to analyse/read beween the lines and construct a coherent argument, amoungst other things.

I find it really annoying how only graduates from science-based subjects seem to be held in high regard, as if all arts subjects are pointless. Not true!! Imagine a world with no visual arts, no novels, no museums, no newspapers, no historians, translators - you get the picture. I know you don't necessarily need a degree in an arts subject to work in these industries, but we'd live in a very dull and colourless world if people were only interested in science!

Obviously you need a science based degree to work in the science/technology industry, but why do you need one to get onto a graduate training scheme for instance?

Blacksheep1979

I was under the impression that you went to university to show your ability to think and learn to a certain level. Transferable skills can be picked up anywhere in life - its how you use these skills that makes them transferable.

Scientific degrees lend more to a logical thought process whereas art degrees lend more to a creative process is probably the major view though. Your point on imagine a world without xyz. Well alot of novels and newspapers are written in by people without degrees, museums rely more on the medium than the people who own it/run it - it needs enthusiasm and by definition a historian is one who studies history so of course there would be none of those without people studying history - its kinda like saying there would be no paedophiles without children. Visual arts and films etc again aren't always created by people who go and do arts based degrees.

If someone is truely creative then they don't need a university and an understanding of shakespeare, keats etc to write themsleves. Did shakespeare go to university? Did many of the great classical writers? Did many of the great painters go to xyz college and get a diploma in art?

To get on a graduate scheme depends on what that scheme relates to. If you can show you have the skills to get on it then so be it if you don't then maybe your subject wasn't correct, maybe you didn't learn all you could from your subject or maybe you weren't right for the job.

cupid_s

scorpio_princess wrote:

What is so wrong with an arts degree? I was always under the impression that the important thing about higher education is that you learn transferable skills. For example, i'm studying English, but I doubt i'd ever be tested on my knowledge of Jane Austen's narrative style etc by a prospective employer. What would be useful, i'm guessing, is my ability to analyse/read beween the lines and construct a coherent argument, amoungst other things.

I find it really annoying how only graduates from science-based subjects seem to be held in high regard, as if all arts subjects are pointless. Not true!! Imagine a world with no visual arts, no novels, no museums, no newspapers, no historians, translators - you get the picture. I know you don't necessarily need a degree in an arts subject to work in these industries, but we'd live in a very dull and colourless world if people were only interested in science!

Obviously you need a science based degree to work in the science/technology industry, but why do you need one to get onto a graduate training scheme for instance?

There is nothing wrong with arts degrees. However a couple of recent studies have found that by the time you take into account student loans and loss of earnings whilst studying you are financially worse off over your lifetime by doing an arts degree than leaving education with just A-levels. Obviously though there will be some individuals who get an arts degree and then go on to get a great and very well paid job. Just not very many.

Though I got a first class degree in science from a good uni. Looking for jobs afterwards I'd have been lucky to earn 13k. My husband who did a similar degree and got a first got a job straight after paying £12800. And this job required a 2:1 or above at degree. We are both now doing PhDs (after I did a masters as well) to be able to stand any chance of earning enough to even start paying back our loans. And we didn't even have top up fees, in fact I didn't have to pay any fees at all luckily. Knowing what I know now, and taking into account that an average degree probably gets you about 20k of debt, I wouldn't bother.

The government say we as graduates earn 500k more over a lifetime. This is an excuse to charge more and more fees, when in fact the figures they spout are rubbish.

[Deleted User]

13K pay after graduating with a 1st? That's shocking, you could earn more than that temping - what sort of jobs were you both looking for anyway?

cupid_s

We wanted to do something in scientific research - something related to our degrees. My husbands job was as a full time research technician working in cancer research.

[Deleted User]

I started as a Research Assistant straight after my MSc on 18k...

This is the downside of science degrees - actually doing science with them pays crappy. That's why I quit after I was refused a payrise even though I'd been promoted to Research Fellow (not bad for 2 years after MSc with no PHd )

merlinormartin

I think it depends entirely on the individuals drive and motivation to succeed.... my partner left school with poor qualifications spent several years going through college and uni while holding down 2 jobs, he finally finished uni with a software degree ..and started on 23k .. his brother left school with great qualifications and started full time work at 16 .. 9 years later his brother is now manager .. and earns 18K. But ... several of his uni friends are still unemployed and one is still working in a well known fastfood chain.

myself on the other hand wanted to become a teacher so had no choice in going to university.

Gemmzie

I really think it depends on what you want to do, what relevant work experience you've gained towards the career.

A degree is very useful, and necessary in some fields. But it isn't the be all and end all of everything career-wise

cupid_s

ringo_24601 wrote:

I started as a Research Assistant straight after my MSc on 18k...

This is the downside of science degrees - actually doing science with them pays crappy. That's why I quit after I was refused a payrise even though I'd been promoted to Research Fellow (not bad for 2 years after MSc with no PHd )

It is annoying. Scientists are needed and the pay is so awful.

Although my husband quickly progressed up the pay scale to a whopping 13.5k, he couldn't go onto the next scale without a masters or PhD. I am currently looking for research assistant posts and all require a PhD now and still aren't paying brilliantly. There are so many rules and regulations that they probably cannot pay you more than a certain amount without a PhD regardless of how clever or able you are which seems silly as experience should count for something. However in our field anyway there are more people than jobs so employers can afford to be fussy and demand whatever they feel like from job candidates.

To be honest I'm at the point now where I don't care if I continue in science or not I just want an ok wage but my OH is in love with science and never wants to do anything else.

[Deleted User]

It is a crazy world, my gf is 25 and an A&E nurse (without the full degree and with only 1 GCSE to her name) earns more than my 30 year old friend with a BSc, MSc, PhD and 2 years post-doc experience.

Academic scientists are paid terribly for the expertise they hold