Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Arklight wrote: »

.................
Sophistry.

You think that the difference between "investment" and "worthwhile investment" is sophistry? That explains a lot.

economic

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

You think that the difference between "investment" and "worthwhile investment" is sophistry? That explains a lot.

He sounds like Diane Abbott. Doesnt think, just comes up with nice sounding words like investment and equality and future and jobs. He has no clue how to think constructively and shows no intelligence whatsoever apart from how he can spell buzz words.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Just because an employer or a kid says their job is a graduate job does not mean it is what should be classed as such

For instance lets say we went back to 1987 university numbers. Would Aldi the supermarket which has a graduate program for middle management close up and declare bankruptcy as they could not recruit graduates or would they do what business in 1987 did which was to promote people internally to middle management?

Degrees also discriminate against kids who did not go. In the past maybe you were not that keen on school or a bit lazy or destructive at age 17 but maybe you got a lot better by age 25 you could then get your life on track and get better paid employment. Now that same kid is forever tared by not having a degree and much more limited. What is worse is as time goes on company HR departments will be filled with women with mostly worthless degrees and to maintain the illusion of the worth of their useless degrees they will slowly make sure more and more jobs require a degree. A self fulfilling cycle




Everyone in the UK has access to jobs
Youth unemployment is very low in the uk and is in fact made to look a lot worse by the fact that FULL TIME STUDENTS who are looking for Part Time work count as unemployed yooof.

Do you really think this generation is so much smarter than their parents?
More kids get degrees now than their parents got 5 x O-Levels

We spend £25 billion a year to give degrees to kids that failed their A-Levels and failed most their GCSEs but at least we can give them a certificate saying they are a graduate from luton.

£25 billion for a pretense.
Would you rather not hire 500,000 additional nurses and doctors instead of have this nonsense?

Investment banks have departments where "quants" work where a maths or physics degree is very useful. But apart from that all other departments couldnt care less what the degree is in, as long as it shows you may have a high level of IQ.

Cakeguts

Arklight wrote: »

Bedordshire's Media course is 88th in the country, with 39% of graduates in graduate level jobs or further study within 6 months of leaving.

https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=Communication+%26+Media+Studies

While this isn't very good, it is hardly secret. Again though, what do you know about Bedfordshire's intake and why do you think the kids who go there have access to jobs from school?

Graduate prospects doesn't mean graduate level jobs. This is one of the misleading bits of information. It means prospects of people who have a degree. I would read this as 39% get a job or go onto further education within 6 months not that they get graduate level jobs. The other 61% are still unemployed after 6 months. It could also mean that only 39% of the course complete it and the rest drop out.

I started off by reading that graduate prospects meant graduate level jobs but then I realised that there were too many people with these silly degrees getting graduate level jobs from all the universities offering the courses. When you just think of 5 years worth of students with these degrees you can see that they can't all be getting graduate level jobs. Of course it doesn't say that they get graduate level jobs it just says what the prospects are in a percentage. This could mean anything.

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

Just because an employer or a kid says their job is a graduate job does not mean it is what should be classed as such

For instance lets say we went back to 1987 university numbers. Would Aldi the supermarket which has a graduate program for middle management close up and declare bankruptcy as they could not recruit graduates or would they do what business in 1987 did which was to promote people internally to middle management?

Degrees also discriminate against kids who did not go. In the past maybe you were not that keen on school or a bit lazy or destructive at age 17 but maybe you got a lot better by age 25 you could then get your life on track and get better paid employment. Now that same kid is forever tared by not having a degree and much more limited. What is worse is as time goes on company HR departments will be filled with women with mostly worthless degrees and to maintain the illusion of the worth of their useless degrees they will slowly make sure more and more jobs require a degree. A self fulfilling cycle




Everyone in the UK has access to jobs
Youth unemployment is very low in the uk and is in fact made to look a lot worse by the fact that FULL TIME STUDENTS who are looking for Part Time work count as unemployed yooof.

Do you really think this generation is so much smarter than their parents?
More kids get degrees now than their parents got 5 x O-Levels

We spend £25 billion a year to give degrees to kids that failed their A-Levels and failed most their GCSEs but at least we can give them a certificate saying they are a graduate from luton.

£25 billion for a pretense.
Would you rather not hire 500,000 additional nurses and doctors instead of have this nonsense?

You can read it how you want, a graduate level job is not shelf stacking and such occupations aren't included in the stats.

I wonder what will happen about your misogynistic comments. Seems like 1987 would be a leap about 30 years into the future for you.

economic

Cakeguts wrote: »

Graduate prospects doesn't mean graduate level jobs. This is one of the misleading bits of information. It means prospects of people who have a degree. I would read this as 39% get a job or go onto further education within 6 months not that they get graduate level jobs. The other 61% are still unemployed after 6 months. It could also mean that only 39% of the course complete it and the rest drop out.

I started off by reading that graduate prospects meant graduate level jobs but then I realised that there were too many people with these silly degrees getting graduate level jobs from all the universities offering the courses. When you just think of 5 years worth of students with these degrees you can see that they can't all be getting graduate level jobs. Of course it doesn't say that they get graduate level jobs it just says what the prospects are in a percentage. This could mean anything.

Arklight is just full of confirmation bias.

Arklight

economic wrote: »

He sounds like Diane Abbott. Doesnt think, just comes up with nice sounding words like investment and equality and future and jobs. He has no clue how to think constructively and shows no intelligence whatsoever apart from how he can spell buzz words.

I would be happy to sound like Cambridge graduate and once fast tracked civil servant, Diane Abbott.

I'd be less happy to sound like a rather remedial Teletubby typing with my feet.

economic

Arklight wrote: »

I would be happy to sound like Cambridge graduate and once fast tracked civil servant, Diane Abbott.

Happy to be a bit dim?

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

You can read it how you want, a graduate level job is not shelf stacking and such occupations aren't included in the stats.

There are four questions I would like you to think about and answer

1: Do kids today have intelligence notably superior than their parents? If not then what value do marginal degrees today have when more kids get degrees today than kids got 5 O-Levels in 1987?

2: How did the economy function in 1987 with so few graduates?

3: If a kid fails his A-Levels or gets poor grades in them and they dont do particularly well at their GCSEs what does that say about the integrity and value of their degrees?

4: What about the non grad kids do you not think this education inflation has done them harm. A non grad kid could get a decent job 30 years ago now its a lot harder for them

I wonder what will happen about your misogynistic comments. Seems like 1987 would be a leap about 30 years into the future for you.[/QUOTE]

There was nothing misogynistic about what I typed you need to try harder when you fabricate fiction

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

There are four questions I would like you to think about and answer

1: Do kids today have intelligence notably superior than their parents? If not then what value do marginal degrees today have when more kids get degrees today than kids got 5 O-Levels in 1987?

2: How did the economy function in 1987 with so few graduates?

3: If a kid fails his A-Levels or gets poor grades in them and they dont do particularly well at their GCSEs what does that say about the integrity and value of their degrees?

4: What about the non grad kids do you not think this education inflation has done them harm. A non grad kid could get a decent job 30 years ago now its a lot harder for them

I wonder what will happen about your misogynistic comments. Seems like 1987 would be a leap about 30 years into the future for you.

Someone who is a C/D grade student is going to be a C/D grade student whatever they do. They'll have C/D in their GCSE's, then C/D in their A Levels and then they'll be a C/D grade in their degree. It doesn't mean they aren't educated to graduate level.

The level within that band is delimited by the grade they got.

This isn't Soviet Russia where the government decides there are going be 8000 doctors, 569 ballerinas and 1432 nuclear technicians on a given year.

There are people with Media degrees who have successful careers in and out of the media. There are people with Engineering degrees who are unemployed. Universities offer those courses because they are both industries that employ people and people who want to get into them think they'll have more luck if they do a degree.

I am baffled as to why you hate education so much that you'd begrudge someone three years of their life, mostly at their own expense, studying something they want to study while they are young.

It isn't like 1987 anymore. I think if you maybe accommodated that fact you would understand why things are like they are a bit more.

There aren't lines of employers standing outside school gates desperately trying to tempt school leavers into sensible trainee programmes followed by life long jobs, and howling in despair as they see them go off to Glywndr to study Pop Music Studies instead.