Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Jackieboy

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I would advise a teenager today to only go to university if it's a STEM subject at a decent university, or if it's to study something vocational that they're passionate about ie midwifery or veterinary nursing.

I know an enthusiastic but not overly bright teenager who wants to do Politics at Portsmouth. I think this will be mostly a massive waste of money.

That's more to do with Portsmouth than to do with subject choice, I feel.

borkid

GreatApe wrote: »

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

I would argue that you just have the basic skills to start work in a specific field. I graduated with a chemistry degree and started in research. It was only when I met others in the field I realised how little I knew and I just had the basics. This was many years ago when maybe 5% went to uni.

I few years ago I went for music lessons with someone who had a 1st from the OU. It soon became very obvious they lacked alot by not interacting on a daily basis with other musicians. Their musical theory was good. but in many ways they were limited.

Jackieboy

borkid wrote: »

I would argue that you just have the basic skills to start work in a specific field. I graduated with a chemistry degree and started in research. It was only when I met others in the field I realised how little I knew and I just had the basics. This was many years ago when maybe 5% went to uni.

That's a generational thing, unfortunately.

If you're older and had a decent education, you learned at every stage how little you knew. Nowadays, school children tend to be encouraged to believe that they're experts from an early age, leading to the attitude displayed by the previous poster.:(

lobbyludd

Jackieboy wrote: »

That's a generational thing, unfortunately.

If you're older and had a decent education, you learned at every stage how little you knew. Nowadays, school children tend to be encouraged to believe that they're experts from an early age, leading to the attitude displayed by the previous poster.:(

I'm not sure that's true at all - I think it's more about what you do with your life after your degree - if you use the degree as vocational training - so after STEM degrees go into research, or after a medical or nursing degree you go into medicine or nursing - then you realise how little your first degree has been able to skim the surface of current knowledge.

If you go on to an allied profession, using only the generic skills that your degree has taught (which are hugely valuable in their own right) then that will have been the peak of your knowledge base in that area, no matter what other knowledge and skills you learn on the way.

this was my experience (1st degree 25 years ago) and my parents, a generation before.

back to the original query, yes they are value for money for a STEM subject at Russell group, these are subsidised not only by the university as a whole - but also in part by the research activities of the staff, which pull in an enormous amount of money comparative to the student fees, and are at least 37.5 hrs of student-staff interaction a week (so - much more than a-levels). There are also specific courses in some music/drama colleges and others where you simply won't get a look in for your chosen career without having studied there. And some cracking courses in the old polys. However, unless my kids choose those subjects, I'll be heavily suggesting they look at studying in a different country so that they have that string to their bow and don't end up with a degree in "marketing" or "event management" and find they are floundering because they don't have anything to offer at entry level jobs compared to people who have work experience.

FYI - the last university I worked for (Russell group) had a change in approach to giving out "firsts" whilst I was there: to begin with it was very hard to get a first - we only expected a few candidates a year to be given them - respecting the fact that a first from X university would have more cache than one from a former 6th form college. However as I was leaving it was decided that as our students had to get at least triple A's to get into the course, then we should reflect that in the numbers getting a first, otherwise we'd be open to accusations that the teaching was holding them back - this was a huge mistake - now nearly half of them on the specific courses my research related to get firsts. This leads to spoon-feeding to get them through.

When I started university, the vice-dean gave us a talk: we were there to read X subject, the formal teaching was there as a framework, a pointer to the areas we should be investigating, but we weren't expected to slavishly trip up to lectures. The onus was on us to find the best sources of material, experience and learning, many of which the university provided on tap for us to investigate (research journals etc), or could guide us to, but we were not kids at school, and this was down to us.

that's what has changed for the worse with many of the newer institutions offering degrees IMO

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

Well, except that "the so-called Russell Group premium" originates from the Russell Group's research, so it is not exactly "jumping to conclusions", while the research you've cited originates from two individuals at non-Russell Group universities (Lancaster and Kent) and was commissioned by the state around the time it introduced tuition fees and needed evidence that they were always worth paying.

So their conclusions are not wholly unexpected, in the same way that if they had been asked whether Lancaster and Kent were second-rate universities, we also know what they would have said (constructively that's what they were asked).

The point is that going to a Russell Group university is the best available proxy indicator for the type of skills that tend to mark out those equipped to be successful. As I noted before, there may be reasons why not everyone so equipped attended a Russell Group university and it may be worth spending the time to identify those if you can.

Shouldn't your post say getting into a Russell Group university as opposed to going to a Russell group university?

In which case you and the report seem be saying similar things. That the kids who get the good A-Level results do well later in life. This seems to make sense. As I said before you could probably take the first year engineering or physics take for imperial and give them a tent a kerosene lamp and a smartphone and tell them to come back in a year and they would all still more or less get the same grade. I recall one university math paper I got 100% on I hadn't attended a single lecture or tutorial I just read the books did some practise past papers and enjoyed the subject. The Russell group select the brightest at A-Levels and just ride the wave.

kinger101

Interesting set of stats here;

http://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Fig10_Comparative_hires_0.png

Germany is perhaps Europe's most successful economy, yet compared to the UK, they send relatively few people to university.

westernpromise

GreatApe wrote: »

I do wonder sometimes how easy or not the lessor universities are. One of my pals went to a top university and only got a 2.2 largely for losing interest in the subject mid way. He is a very cleaver chap and has done well despite that result and earns a very good wage. However it still hangs on him as a regret and I wonder if the life of someone is the same circumstances would play out as well today.

At the same time I meet plenty of young ones who have firsts or upper seconds who can't tie their shoe laces and who can't seem to speak clearly properly and in an appropriate manner.

Is it really fair that there is no direct comparison between universities or subjects when lots of companies act and recruit like there is (ie blanket 2.1 necessary for application even though that means completely different things depending on the subject and institution)

I knew several people I was at school with who got into Oxbridge, bombed out, had to leave, and then found places at universities in London and were hailed as godlike geniuses. They would certainly want to argue that their 2:1 from KCL or wherever was better than the 3rd or the spesh they might have scraped had they made it that far at Oxbridge; but then they would, wouldn't they?

kinger101

zagubov wrote: »

Some people are good autodidacts and can learn from the web and by reading books, and good luck to them.

I doubt that works for everyone.

Plus, being educated isn't just about being well-read or well-informed.

Very good point. Not everyone learns in the same way. The lecture isn't there is an alternative to the book. Indeed, lectures aren't the only form of teaching. There are tutorials, seminars and practical elements as well, all of which develop numerous skills. Such as critical thinking, working in groups or applying knowledge. Simply being able to recall facts is often of little practical use nowadays, as the information is usually at our fingertips.

silvercar

back to the original query, yes they are value for money for a STEM subject at Russell group,

In financial terms, they are value for money if the benefit of having one, less the cost of achieving, is greater than total income would be without one. Of course, there are non financial gains too, so you may consider a sum of money to be well spent if the gain doesn't outweigh the cost.

SingleSue

westernpromise wrote: »

The point is that going to a Russell Group university is the best available proxy indicator for the type of skills that tend to mark out those equipped to be successful. As I noted before, there may be reasons why not everyone so equipped attended a Russell Group university and it may be worth spending the time to identify those if you can.

For youngest - it wasn't the best course content on offer, the campus was too far away from everything, not as much scope for research in his UG years....he is however thinking of applying to them for his PHD as they have an excellent course.

He did find himself wavering for a little while though because they are an RG uni and because of the very quick response from them plus an email from a senior lecturer which massaged youngest's ego somewhat. In the end though, he remembered what was important to him in the degree and at that uni, it was only an 80% fit compared to the 100% fit at his first and eventual firm choice.