Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Cakeguts

jamesmorgan wrote: »

There are a relatively small number of vocational degrees which are effectively training for a specific job. The rest are more generic in nature where the content is largely used as a vehicle to develop soft skills (analysis, research, communication etc). They are used as some evidence to an employer that the student has acquired a rudimentary level of soft skills to be considered for a job. They are effectively a foot in the door. In my previous company we recruited a large number of graduates from many types of university (from Oxbridge to modern ex-polys). Once in the door they all start equal. Within a year or two it is clear who are the high-flyers. There was very little correlation between the type of university and who these high flyers were. The skills required to be successful in business are much broader than those developed within a typical university degree.

So are degrees useful? Well, without one it is very difficult to get a foot in the door. Beyond that, it ends up being simply a line on your CV. The current ' graduate tax' approach means that you only pay back if you get a high paying job, so it is relatively low risk for most youngsters. The greatest benefits are probably outside the course studied - eg gaining independence, meeting people from different backgrounds and cultures. All my 4 children have gone to university. It remains to be seen who will most successful afterwards, but I suspect it will have little to do with what university they attended or what subject they studied.

You could do the gaining independence and meeting people from different cultures if you just got a job and moved out of your parents home. You don't need to go to university to do this.

Cakeguts

Jonbvn wrote: »

A basic undergraduate degree is not about the specific content of your course. It is a test of your ability to assimilate and utilise information in an open ended manner. I did engineering at a Russel Group Uni (200 years ago ). Of the friends I am in contact with on the same course, one is a partner at a top 5 accountancy firm, one a director of a bus company and one is a director at a bank in the city.

That was a good university. If you had gone to Wolverhampton or Falmouth your friends would probably be working as a cashier in a supermarket and driving a bus. I will give you an idea. When I did my A levels (also 200 years ago) there was a particular aspect of the A level music course that you had to be able to do. About 5 years ago I was doing a part time course at an ex Poly level university department and there was a student who had been assigned the same thing as I did for my A level. I was a bit surprised but even more so when I found out that they were in the 3rd year of a 4 year degree course. What had they been doing in the other two years that an A level student of 200 years ago had done at school? Some of the courses start from a really low level. Some of the degree courses finish at a level that is below the level required to get into a top ranked university to start one.

westernpromise

Jonbvn wrote: »

A basic undergraduate degree is not about the specific content of your course. It is a test of your ability to assimilate and utilise information in an open ended manner. I did engineering at a Russel Group Uni (200 years ago ). Of the friends I am in contact with on the same course, one is a partner at a top 5 accountancy firm, one a director of a bus company and one is a director at a bank in the city.

And none of them is an engineer. What was useful about these degrees was that they demonstrated you would stick with something difficult for 3 to 4 years and that you were capable of absorbing and processing information. You then turn that facility to something else.

Arts degrees were of comparable value with the added advantage that (eg) historians get used to the idea of there being no right answers to most questions, only answers that seem right at the time, and which change over time. Accounting partners know this feeling very well.

It was this sort of thing rather than the course's actual content that made degrees valuable. If you did a course in Business Studies at a third-rate university it didn't mean you were a budding business genius; it meant you couldn't hack a demanding course among smart people.

The other day I was looking at some operational data on one of our product lines for 2016. It occurred to me that was stuff in it that might be useful to other managers, the board, and probably to customers, suitably packaged and anonymised. What I would like to do is hand it to a graduate and say "Find the interesting stuff in there, and put together what you think are the interesting stats, please". This is not possible, because when I ask them to do things like this, my grads glaze over, look hunted and eventually ask me what I want to be included. In other words, they will expect to be given the answer, to regurgitate it,. and then receive praise and promotion.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

GreatApe wrote: »

It really does or can work for everyone. Teaching yourself is the most efficient method.

The internet is now fully interactive. You can sign up to a physics or mathematics or electrical engineering forum and have someone explain it to you in a way a tutor might do face to face.

Distance learning can work well up to a point. But science and engineering courses have a practical element that can't be replicated by staring at a screen. I did an Open University degree in my 20s that required three residential summer schools; including an intensive molecular biology week and a geology field trip. You couldn't get a BSc without these residential options, and I think this is absolutely correct. I was actually not very good at lab work, and realised I wasn't cut out to be a biologist.

The other thing you have at real universities are large labs with a range of high end equipment, plus technicians on hand to help, and mandatory group work which forces students to work with people they don't know/like (just like in employment).

We are very choosy about which students we take on for PhDs; we have plenty of applicants with high undergraduate marks, but we are also looking for confident, personable and inquisitive types who can work well with a mixed nationality group, collaborate with researchers in the same area and liaise with our industrial sponsors. I'm not sure how cut out for this they'd be if they'd spent the preceding three years hunched over a computer in their bedroom.

GreatApe

Jonbvn wrote: »

A basic undergraduate degree is not about the specific content of your course. It is a test of your ability to assimilate and utilise information in an open ended manner. I did engineering at a Russel Group Uni (200 years ago ). Of the friends I am in contact with on the same course, one is a partner at a top 5 accountancy firm, one a director of a bus company and one is a director at a bank in the city.

Great news that they have done well.

What do you think might be the outcome if all universities were shut today. In 50 years time would we have no directors of bus companies, of banks and accountancy firms?

GreatApe

jamesmorgan wrote: »

There are a relatively small number of vocational degrees which are effectively training for a specific job. The rest are more generic in nature where the content is largely used as a vehicle to develop soft skills (analysis, research, communication etc). They are used as some evidence to an employer that the student has acquired a rudimentary level of soft skills to be considered for a job. They are effectively a foot in the door. In my previous company we recruited a large number of graduates from many types of university (from Oxbridge to modern ex-polys). Once in the door they all start equal. Within a year or two it is clear who are the high-flyers. There was very little correlation between the type of university and who these high flyers were. The skills required to be successful in business are much broader than those developed within a typical university degree.

So are degrees useful? Well, without one it is very difficult to get a foot in the door. Beyond that, it ends up being simply a line on your CV. The current ' graduate tax' approach means that you only pay back if you get a high paying job, so it is relatively low risk for most youngsters. The greatest benefits are probably outside the course studied - eg gaining independence, meeting people from different backgrounds and cultures. All my 4 children have gone to university. It remains to be seen who will most successful afterwards, but I suspect it will have little to do with what university they attended or what subject they studied.

If the aim is to teach 18-21 year olds independence, to meet people from different backgrounds and cultures, or as others have suggested the aim is to teach them how to learn etc then why not do that directly? Why do you have to have them study quantum mechanics or waste management and dance in the hope that on the way the true aims are met?

Also why do you think those things could not be met by someone working a job between the ages if 18-21

jamesmorgan

GreatApe wrote: »

If the aim is to teach 18-21 year olds independence, to meet people from different backgrounds and cultures, or as others have suggested the aim is to teach them how to learn etc then why not do that directly? Why do you have to have them study quantum mechanics or waste management and dance in the hope that on the way the true aims are met?

Also why do you think those things could not be met by someone working a job between the ages if 18-21

Of course, all of your points are true. In many instances the need for a degree is being driven by employers. If I am getting hundreds of applications for each role, I need a simple filtering method to get the number down to a manageable level. A degree is used as a simple benchmark to demonstrate that the candidate has reached a certain minimum standard in a range of soft skills. The content of the degree is often irrelevant, but you do need some content in order to develop these skills.

In some ways it is like a driving test. Once you have passed your test you are by no means an expert driver - just considered safe enough to be let loose on the roads. Once you have passed your degree, you won't be particular strong in most graduate jobs, but your employer has a degree of confidence that you are ready for the real training on how to do the job.

justme111

They could have just moved out of family house into some youth camp , one does not need to pay tuition fees for it.

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

And none of them is an engineer. What was useful about these degrees was that they demonstrated you would stick with something difficult for 3 to 4 years and that you were capable of absorbing and processing information. You then turn that facility to something else.

Arts degrees were of comparable value with the added advantage that (eg) historians get used to the idea of there being no right answers to most questions, only answers that seem right at the time, and which change over time. Accounting partners know this feeling very well.

It was this sort of thing rather than the course's actual content that made degrees valuable. If you did a course in Business Studies at a third-rate university it didn't mean you were a budding business genius; it meant you couldn't hack a demanding course among smart people.

The other day I was looking at some operational data on one of our product lines for 2016. It occurred to me that was stuff in it that might be useful to other managers, the board, and probably to customers, suitably packaged and anonymised. What I would like to do is hand it to a graduate and say "Find the interesting stuff in there, and put together what you think are the interesting stats, please". This is not possible, because when I ask them to do things like this, my grads glaze over, look hunted and eventually ask me what I want to be included. In other words, they will expect to be given the answer, to regurgitate it,. and then receive praise and promotion.

Great post. The only thing I will add is that it seems a tremendous waste of resources to have the kids jump through these hoops to prove themselves (or not) and there must be a better way

Higher education is what maybe 2% of GDP. The lost potential of 1.5 million? Adults in study rather than work is maybe closer to 4% of GDP. These seem maybe trivial 6% of GDP but its the sort of sums that can solve almost all the UK additional needs and problems.

Nobody seems brave enough to change this system. Maybe when the brain modification chips come in education at 6% of GDP will be replaced by Amazon brain chips that cost six dollars a month or half that with advertising

GreatApe

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Of course, all of your points are true. In many instances the need for a degree is being driven by employers. If I am getting hundreds of applications for each role, I need a simple filtering method to get the number down to a manageable level. A degree is used as a simple benchmark to demonstrate that the candidate has reached a certain minimum standard in a range of soft skills. The content of the degree is often irrelevant, but you do need some content in order to develop these skills.

In some ways it is like a driving test. Once you have passed your test you are by no means an expert driver - just considered safe enough to be let loose on the roads. Once you have passed your degree, you won't be particular strong in most graduate jobs, but your employer has a degree of confidence that you are ready for the real training on how to do the job.

I'm not sure the comparison to a driving test and driving lessons is at all valid. Using that analogy would be closer to apprenticeships which are valid and useful. There is no easy way to teach yourself to be a carpenter without spending a few years making low quality items while you improve your skills.

I would also argue that at the point of leaving university you are at you peak in the subject you studied. I've forgotten almost all of the physics I learnt at univerty. So again the opposite.

I like the idea WP put forward. That a good degree at a good university just shows an employer that the person is capable of persevering and finish a though subject and that that will be a skill that is of benefit to employers. But then again this probably only applies to a handful of companies as the HR girls at most companies won't know or care about the difference between a chemical engineering degree from UCL and a automobile engineering (mechanic) degree from Luton


You are correct in that the system seems to only function as a second rate filtering system but one that is actual quite costly to employers indirectly via higher taxes