Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Arklight wrote: »

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.

I really hope you're not in a position to poison too many youngsters with this pathetic attitude.

Cakeguts

Arklight wrote: »

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.

It depends on the level of the degree and that is one thing that doesn't seem to be explained to young people. A lot of them don't realise that degrees are not all the same. The more C/D they are the less likely they are to realise that a degree from university in the bottom league tables is easier to pass and a lower standard of education than a degree from a university in the top of the league tables. Which means that the C/D student is more likely to be exploited to provide jobs for university workers.

Many of the students who get less than A* or A who are not very bright (A levels are easier than they have ever been) aren't studying something they want to study they are studying because their school made them out to be failures if they didn't go to university.

What it means is that most of the students who can't get three As at A level are in danger of being exploited by the universities and their schools. The ones who get As and A*s at A level can work it out and are less likely to be taken in by either their schools or the university advertising material.

It could turn out to be a huge scandal in which the less able students are being manipulated by schools into a position where they can be exploited by universities.

The point is that if someone spends 3 years getting a degree because they have been manipulated by their school and then exploited by a university the chances are that the tax payer will finish up paying for it but not only that the student has wasted 3 years to suit other people when they could have been getting a good job and making progress in it.

It is the wasting 3 years to suit other people that bothers me about all of this. 3 years of no benefit to the student but benefitting an area of the country where the university creates employment by students spending what is going to end up being taxpayers money. 3 years wasted to suit the league tables of the school they went to.

If these were all A and A* students then you could say that they just hadn't done enough research on universities but because the students most affected are the not very bright ones it becomes very very unfair on them. They are being sold a lie.

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

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.

That is not true I have known friends who got crap grades and then did another year and got very high grades. The first year they knew little to nothing of the subjects the second year they were masters of it. Why go on to university if you have not mastered your A-Levels. If you are thinking of saying A-Levels are unnecessary for the degree then why not skip the A-Levels and go straight to the degree?

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.

Was it not so that until very recently we used to have a cap but this government reduced the cap so even if you did really really !!!! in your A-levels you could still go

Why not have zero government or student loans company funding.
Let the employers or institutions fund the degrees if they are so necessary, but of course 80% of the employers who specify a degree for a job would like in the past decide a degree is surplus to needs for the role.

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.

Its fine if the kids are going to it out of their own pockets with the full understating of risk and reward. The problem is that is not the case most the kids have no idea of the risk and reward and very little idea about life wages taxes jobs. What makes it worse is that it is £25 billion sunk each year surely better to contract the industry back to levels they were 30 years ago and use the saved people and capital to hire 500,000 more staff for the NHS (or to build 100,000 council homes a year)

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.

You are out of touch and the problem is the kids dont live two parallel lives to compare which one is better for them. At age 20 I was in university and if you asked me then was I doing the right thing I would have said sure definitely but now more than a decade later I believe I had no real reason or gain from going to university. And I got 3 As and went to a good university and did a subject that is seen as difficult and useful. Whats more I was ignorant and very poorly informed. I was a master of my subject and a master at mathematics too but I had no idea at all about other factors that I should have been informed about before going.

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.

Seriously what business in this country that hires graduates would if graduate numvers fell to 1987 levels say oh crap now that there are much fewer gradautes we will not be able to function and will need to go bankrupt and rot? Would Aldi with its graduate program go bankrupt or would they just promote internally for middle management as most business did in 1987?

only about 5% of the workforce needs a higher education and maybe another 5% has marginal benefits to be higher educated. The rest is a scam to pretend kids that could not pass 5 O-Levels in 1987 are worth a marginal university degree today. That fantasy is the difference between having 500,000 extra staff for the NHS

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.

That is because most employers dont need graduates. To be a middle manager like in the Aldi graduate program do you think you need a degree in mathematics or a degree in PPE or a degree in women studies? No the only reason they ask for a degree is because the country is awash with people with degrees. If we had 1987 numbers of university grads then Aldi would not go bankrupt for lack of university graduates to hire Aldi would just hire A-Level kids or just promote internally

Going by your own logic if we trained 50% of the kids to PHD level probably by further inflation of education then you would say the same thing. What do you have against PHDs students the employers are not howling in pain waiting at BSci graduating days crying that the kids are going onto do PHDs rather than starting work with their BSci. what do you have against PHDs

GreatApe

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

I really hope you're not in a position to poison too many youngsters with this pathetic attitude.

There are many kids who do poorly one year and go on to totally master a subject on their second try (I dont mean students who get 75% which would get them top grade but students that get 95% which means they are true masters of that level of that subject).

I think that is a great thing to do for the kids let them stay back a year and master their A-Levels and if they want then go onto university. With the current system you can literally fail 2 A-Levels and only get a E grade on just one of your A-Levels and a university will say sure come study with us its no problem you failed and dont know how to walk we will never the less be able to teach you how to run and then fly. They dont give a !!!! about the kid they just want the tuition.

Arklight

Cakeguts wrote: »

It depends on the level of the degree and that is one thing that doesn't seem to be explained to young people. A lot of them don't realise that degrees are not all the same. The more C/D they are the less likely they are to realise that a degree from university in the bottom league tables is easier to pass and a lower standard of education than a degree from a university in the top of the league tables. Which means that the C/D student is more likely to be exploited to provide jobs for university workers.

Many of the students who get less than A* or A who are not very bright (A levels are easier than they have ever been) aren't studying something they want to study they are studying because their school made them out to be failures if they didn't go to university.

What it means is that most of the students who can't get three As at A level are in danger of being exploited by the universities and their schools. The ones who get As and A*s at A level can work it out and are less likely to be taken in by either their schools or the university advertising material.

It could turn out to be a huge scandal in which the less able students are being manipulated by schools into a position where they can be exploited by universities.

The point is that if someone spends 3 years getting a degree because they have been manipulated by their school and then exploited by a university the chances are that the tax payer will finish up paying for it but not only that the student has wasted 3 years to suit other people when they could have been getting a good job and making progress in it.

It is the wasting 3 years to suit other people that bothers me about all of this. 3 years of no benefit to the student but benefitting an area of the country where the university creates employment by students spending what is going to end up being taxpayers money. 3 years wasted to suit the league tables of the school they went to.

If these were all A and A* students then you could say that they just hadn't done enough research on universities but because the students most affected are the not very bright ones it becomes very very unfair on them. They are being sold a lie.

Well actually a C grade student is bang on average, the same way someone with an IQ of 100 is average. Students who score more than that are exceptional. We don't grade like the US where less than an A is a failure.

Should average people not get to go to a university?

I do, reservedly, agree with you that not everyone should go to university but I think we established earlier that far fewer students of low ranked universities get 2:1s and 1sts than at top ranked ones, which demonstrates that it is not easier to do well at them.

Quite the reverse often.

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

That is not true I have known friends who got crap grades and then did another year and got very high grades. The first year they knew little to nothing of the subjects the second year they were masters of it. Why go on to university if you have not mastered your A-Levels. If you are thinking of saying A-Levels are unnecessary for the degree then why not skip the A-Levels and go straight to the degree?



Was it not so that until very recently we used to have a cap but this government reduced the cap so even if you did really really !!!! in your A-levels you could still go

Why not have zero government or student loans company funding.
Let the employers or institutions fund the degrees if they are so necessary, but of course 80% of the employers who specify a degree for a job would like in the past decide a degree is surplus to needs for the role.



Its fine if the kids are going to it out of their own pockets with the full understating of risk and reward. The problem is that is not the case most the kids have no idea of the risk and reward and very little idea about life wages taxes jobs. What makes it worse is that it is £25 billion sunk each year surely better to contract the industry back to levels they were 30 years ago and use the saved people and capital to hire 500,000 more staff for the NHS (or to build 100,000 council homes a year)



You are out of touch and the problem is the kids dont live two parallel lives to compare which one is better for them. At age 20 I was in university and if you asked me then was I doing the right thing I would have said sure definitely but now more than a decade later I believe I had no real reason or gain from going to university. And I got 3 As and went to a good university and did a subject that is seen as difficult and useful. Whats more I was ignorant and very poorly informed. I was a master of my subject and a master at mathematics too but I had no idea at all about other factors that I should have been informed about before going.



Seriously what business in this country that hires graduates would if graduate numvers fell to 1987 levels say oh crap now that there are much fewer gradautes we will not be able to function and will need to go bankrupt and rot? Would Aldi with its graduate program go bankrupt or would they just promote internally for middle management as most business did in 1987?

only about 5% of the workforce needs a higher education and maybe another 5% has marginal benefits to be higher educated. The rest is a scam to pretend kids that could not pass 5 O-Levels in 1987 are worth a marginal university degree today. That fantasy is the difference between having 500,000 extra staff for the NHS



That is because most employers dont need graduates. To be a middle manager like in the Aldi graduate program do you think you need a degree in mathematics or a degree in PPE or a degree in women studies? No the only reason they ask for a degree is because the country is awash with people with degrees. If we had 1987 numbers of university grads then Aldi would not go bankrupt for lack of university graduates to hire Aldi would just hire A-Level kids or just promote internally

Going by your own logic if we trained 50% of the kids to PHD level probably by further inflation of education then you would say the same thing. What do you have against PHDs students the employers are not howling in pain waiting at BSci graduating days crying that the kids are going onto do PHDs rather than starting work with their BSci. what do you have against PHDs

Why don't you go an watch Educating Rita.

If you were the manager of Aldi would you rather hire Rita pre or post degree?

economic

I think the other problem with useless degrees is that it is a brainwashing conveyor belt of grads coming out and becoming social justice warriors. The very same people who think like Arklight. The same people who will vote labour who want degrees to be completely free and paid for by the taxpayer.

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

Why don't you go an watch Educating Rita.

If you were the manager of Aldi would you rather hire Rita pre or post degree?

A google search brings up
Educating Rita is a British 1983 drama/comedy film directed by Lewis Gilbert
What has a drama/comedy got to do with this discussion?

If I was the manager of Aldi I would hire primarily on conscientiousness which certainly is not taught at universities

If I was hiring for a role that needed IQ I would hire on IQ and conscientiousness. You do not need a degree to prove IQ/intelligence you could like many companies just give them an online IQ/Intelligence test if you feel the job requires that. Likewise most the top jobs also require an interview and I have had jobs where I was given mathematics questions in the interview.

In fact in Q1 next year we are expanding and will look to hire about 5 people. The pay will probably be £40,000 which is a little over median full time wages. I could be an !!!! and specify a degree of 2:1 or higher but since it is not required for the job I will be happy to interview people without degrees and make sure it is advertised locally with the only requirement of having a C or higher grade in English and Maths GCSE. If they need additional training we can do it on the job.

The problem is, the kids, the schools, the parents and a lot of the HR ladies are slowly being lead to believe you are thick or a failure if you do not go to university and it is becoming a self fulfilling flywheel hence the boom in graduate jobs only in name.

Cakeguts

Arklight wrote: »

Well actually a C grade student is bang on average, the same way someone with an IQ of 100 is average. Students who score more than that are exceptional. We don't grade like the US where less than an A is a failure.

Should average people not get to go to a university?

I do, reservedly, agree with you that not everyone should go to university but I think we established earlier that far fewer students of low ranked universities get 2:1s and 1sts than at top ranked ones, which demonstrates that it is not easier to do well at them.

Quite the reverse often.

Actually that makes it worse not better. You are saying that people who can only get into low ranked universities have to work hard to get degrees that are basically worth nothing. It would actually be much better for them to work hard at a job or some form of training and become something.

The point is that if you got to a top university and you work hard and you get a good degree then you will get more opportunities with that degree than if someone much less intelligent works hard for a degree from a university low in the league tables. This is extremely unfair on the people who can only get into the universities at the bottom of the league tables. They work equally hard, pay the same fees get a degree and then find out that there are no opportunities for them because their qualification doesn't count. What makes this worse is that often no one has told them that this will be the outcome.

The fair thing to do would be to not have the the universities in the middle to bottom of the league tables called universities and to instead turn them into technical colleges.

It is the comparison between levels of degrees that is so unfair. If only people who got As or A*s went to university and everyone else went on training courses or apprenticeships it would allow most people to get a qualification that gave them opportunities related to the qualification. They could become something and be proud of what they had achieved.

When I hear an adult say that they had decided that their degree was worth less than the envelope the certificate came in it makes me feel sad for them. They have been exploited. They only find this out after they have done the degree. No one tells them before they start. They are being used. They are being used to pay university workers. Why should unintelligent people be exploited in this way?

It really isn't fair for the universities to use people in this way. It is always the less able students for who this is the least fair.

If someone is going to spend time doing their best and working hard then they should get a reward for their hard work not a qualification that they feel is worth less than the envelope it came in.

GreatApe

Arklight wrote: »

Well actually a C grade student is bang on average, the same way someone with an IQ of 100 is average. Students who score more than that are exceptional. We don't grade like the US where less than an A is a failure.

Should average people not get to go to a university?

You do realize that by doing that you devalue the lower tiers of education?

If the average kid of 100 IQ goes to university then you are setting up a system where the employers feel/think that those with just A-levels are below average and those with just GCSEs below even them

So you have set up a system which roughly seems to translate as

80 IQ = only GCSE
90 IQ = only A-levels
100 IQ = lower End university
110 IQ = higher end university
120 IQ = Masters or PHD or one of the top 5-10 universities at BSci

Whereas in 1987 it may have been

80 IQ = few low grade O-levels
90 IQ = middle grade O-Levels
100 IQ = good grade O-Levels
110 IQ = A-Levels
120 IQ = university


So in your haste to make the world a better more fair place what you have done is make supermarkets go from hiring 110 IQ students with A-Levels as middle managers to hiring 110 IQ students with university degrees. You just added £60k debt and three or four years of lost time and earnings to the kids

You say the economy has changed the nature of work has changed more and more employers want/need degrees. No all you did was inflate the value of education so someone in 1987 with 5 O-Levels now has to go to university and spend another 5-6 years at school to get the same types of jobs in 2017

This is a disaster a huge waste of time resources capital debt and people.
You have literally chosen inflating the egos of kids and parents by pretending that this generation is massively smarter than their parents so deserve degrees in place of hiring 500,000 more NHS doctors and nurses.