Are degrees in the UK value for money?

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Its nonsense I have had many student renters in my time and their experience is living in a shared house mostly broke as they mostly are too lazy to get a part time job. They sit at home or go to university sleep eat and repeat. Almost none of them are staring companies or inventing new stuff or even forming proper relationships that lead to marriage and kids.

The kids would be better off staying at home and getting a job and saving 75% of their income.
Working is just as much of an experience as university in fact it's much better as its better routine and with a wider range of ages. With university many don't even go to tutorials or lectures

Not only has excessive 'education' lead to lots of debt and lots of lost earnings but it has also lead to people starting lives much later. My parents left school at age 15 and got jobs got married when they were 21 and had me at 22. Now the kids leave school age 22 broke and in debt. They work for 8 years and then get married (if at all) and start having kids in their 30s. Life has been pushed back a decade. Most the kids are miserable as they have no real responsibilities. I recall an actuary friend telling me suercides peak around age 25-35 as the kids realise they are alone have no responsibilities and their lives don't look like the made up Facebook and TV lives.

Also keep in mind life expectancy hasn't risen that much between the two generations which makes it even worse. Female biological clocks certainly hasnt improved either.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Lots of kids are brainwashed into feeling that they have to leave home at 18 so the kids probably would want to go to the far away university. However the reality when they get there is not freedom and great things. Its a shared house that ends up as a tip that you just about accept and bear.

The kids would be better off living with their parents and saving the £15-20k in rents/bills.
That saved money can give them more freedom later on or they can spend it on more useful stuff maybe a holiday or two rather than independence living in squalor in a HMO

I lived in halls for my first year and then commuted for the rest from my family home. My friends asked me to join them in their "HMO" but i said nah, i gotto study to get a good grade as i was finding my course pretty tough.

I am unusual in that i also commuted from my family home to work for 7 or so years.

If people want an experience, why not work for a couple of years after Alevel, take a 6 month sabbatical and go backpacking around south america and then come back to a job. Much better life experience IMO then being lazy in a HMO wasting 3 years of life.

SingleSue

economic wrote: »

If your son had a choice between:
a) doing a degree at a uni in your local hometown
b) doing a degree at a uni in a far away town

Assuming both degrees and unis are of equal quality and standards and everything is identical apart from the fact that one is local and the other is in a far away town, what would your son choose? And what would you want him to choose?

The one further away....for the reasons I gave above.

It also helps with their independence, something they won't get living at home and having things done for them.

economic

SingleSue wrote: »

The one further away....for the reasons I gave above.

It also helps with their independence, something they won't get living at home and having things done for them.

so you want your son to go into about 20k more in debt just so he can get some independence and a better student life?

How abou tthat 20k in debt is saved by him staying with you to study for the 3 years. This 20k isnt just 20k saved, its all the interest over the next 20-30 years saved as he pays down BOTH his debt AND compounded interest on the debt. That could amount to a lot dependong on what his wages will be and how much he can pay down voluntarily.

Now what if he were to save that 20k of debt and instead during his summers whilst at uni, get a job. After he graduates he goes off on a 6month south america back packing trip which he pays for in cash from his work. Shouldn't cost more then about 8k, he would be staying in hostels so his life would be as good as a hmo at uni. He would be a lot freer to do what he wants, take responsibility for every single hour of his 6 month trip rather then have a scheduled timetable of lectures that he probably wont go to all of them anyway. He would have a much better social interaction as he will have to take the initiative to make connections himself. At uni you are kind of forced to as you have to sit next to others in lectures and have to share kitchens with fellow hall mates.

zagubov

economic wrote: »

So from you are saying universities are like holiday camps for 3 years where students get to experience the local area? And get into 50k worth of debt for? Do you not see anything wrong with that?

I'm baffled how you got that from my post.

worried_jim

Being discussed now on BBC Radio 4 you and yours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qps9

SingleSue

economic wrote: »

It is pretty clear that there has been a huge expansion of the number of degrees/unis available over the last few decades. This has been funded by the taxpayer on day 1 (eventually repaid by the graduates but with the taxpayer taking a significant haircut).

Also clearly the local economies (including BTL landlords) have benefited hugely from this because effectively what has happened is that there has and there continues to be a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the local uni towns. Has there been genuine net wealth being created? I think very very little on an aggregate basis. Wealth would be created by teaching skills such as how to be a doctor so that they can save lives in the future. Wealth is not added by providing a photography grad skills on how to use a camera and take the best photos, when that grad becomes a tesco shelf stacker or a telephone customer service person.

This is because you really have to go back to fundamentals and ask yourself what actual value is a degree providing to both the student and the economy. Some degrees clearly show some benefit to both (and probably value too) like medicine, dentistry, most hard science degrees etc. Others do not like photography, women studies, media studies etc. Even history and English are debatable.

Now the benefits are clear for these certain degrees like medicine as they are training future doctors. It probably is worth 9k a year for them taxpayer for them to study this. But is it worth 9k a year for someone to study photography? What about a maths degree? I did one and i have forgotten 95% of the content and didn't use 99.9% in my jobs.

The massive rise in the number of graduates over the last few decades should correlate with a rise in skills too. Has there been a massive rise in skills? I am not sure there has.

When i was looking at universities to go to, a lot of my fellow students were primarily thinking about uni life and how fun it would be. subject choice was dependent on what they thought would be interesting and what they would be good at. No thought at all went into what they would do with the degrees (unless someone did a vocational degree). Of course back then degrees cost 1k a year, so the taxpayer really got shafted. Now the cost is placed more on the student, so as Cakeguts has said, its the B grade or below students who will be worse off.

So the question is are we really spending the taxpayer money wisely? Wouldn't we get better value for money elsewhere for the economy? Most people do not need a degree, i am confident that 90% of grads don't need to be grads. Companies need to stop requiring degrees and provide apprenticeship programs and on the job training straight after Alevel.

Otherwise this massive transfer of wealth will continue to uni towns who do not deserve it and uni chancellers getting paid 100s of thousands a year.

For youngest the social life and such like didn't even enter his thoughts. He is a non drinker, non party goer, non smoker, non socialiser.

He did things the other way around, he knew the career he wanted and so did the research of what was needed for that (European and USA requirements) and then searched for the courses/universities that would meet those requirements. This wasn't a last minute plan, he started planning for it before he was 16 and has a forward plan for the steps he has to complete. He is absolutely focused and has been for the last 4 years, normal teenage or.young person behaviour is (to him) a waste of time, money and brain power.

The social life was also not a consideration for middle son, he was more concerned with the actual course content and the industry contacts available.

Eldest it was a small part but not all of the consideration.

SingleSue

economic wrote: »

so you want your son to go into about 20k more in debt just so he can get some independence and a better student life?

How abou tthat 20k in debt is saved by him staying with you to study for the 3 years. This 20k isnt just 20k saved, its all the interest over the next 20-30 years saved as he pays down BOTH his debt AND compounded interest on the debt. That could amount to a lot dependong on what his wages will be and how much he can pay down voluntarily.

Now what if he were to save that 20k of debt and instead during his summers whilst at uni, get a job. After he graduates he goes off on a 6month south america back packing trip which he pays for in cash from his work. Shouldn't cost more then about 8k, he would be staying in hostels so his life would be as good as a hmo at uni. He would be a lot freer to do what he wants, take responsibility for every single hour of his 6 month trip rather then have a scheduled timetable of lectures that he probably wont go to all of them anyway. He would have a much better social interaction as he will have to take the initiative to make connections himself. At uni you are kind of forced to as you have to sit next to others in lectures and have to share kitchens with fellow hall mates.

Both eldest and youngest work full time during the summer. Middle son takes on the role of my carer whilst home.

Eldest whilst he was at uni worked, initially for the university itself (which gave him vastly reduced halls fees) and then for an outside company.

Eldest stayed in university owned halls for his entire time at uni as will youngest, middle son did do a year in private rental but is back in halls.

economic

SingleSue wrote: »

For youngest the social life and such like didn't even enter his thoughts. He is a non drinker, non party goer, non smoker, non socialiser.

He did things the other way around, he knew the career he wanted and so did the research of what was needed for that (European and USA requirements) and then searched for the courses/universities that would meet those requirements. This wasn't a last minute plan, he started planning for it before he was 16 and has a forward plan for the steps he has to complete. He is absolutely focused and has been for the last 4 years, normal teenage or.young person behaviour is (to him) a waste of time, money and brain power.

The social life was also not a consideration for middle son, he was more concerned with the actual course content and the industry contacts available.

Eldest it was a small part but not all of the consideration.

Your youngest reminds me of me. Except i wasn't as dedicated to my future as yours is. Good for him.

I think you will find your youngest son is not the norm but the exception and i think you know that. Most kids have no clue what they want to do and go with the flow of uni degree, uni life etc.

SingleSue

Oh I know he is not the norm, at the age of 5 he was described as a young eccentric. What makes him seem even more 'different' is he looks like a 12 year old as he barely scrapes 5ft tall and is very slight in build.