Are degrees in the UK value for money?

[Deleted User]

Nurses are taking on more and more non-traditional roles within healthcare, and pushing well into Doctor territory; especially in terms of delivering specialist care. The 'modern nurse' needs more training than they use to. This continues through-out their careers.

My wife has been sent off to do several university modules, several years into the job. She doesn't have a full degree since she qualified before it was a requirement. The newer nurses don't get sent out from work to do these since they've already covered them in their degrees.

Lingua

Malthusian wrote: »

The arts are important. Arts degrees are not. If we made it illegal to study the arts at university, on pain of death, the number of actors, painters and novelists in the country would remain exactly the same. People would still try to forge careers in the arts, they just wouldn't go to university for three years before they started doing so.

I have no problem if somebody wants to expand their horizons by studying the history of art for three years, but the case for making Joe Bloggs pay for it is very weak.

To hone their craft, it's surely beneficial for artists to develop their skill and technique further. I imagine, though can only speculate, that an arts degree would include exposure to various mediums and techniques, thereby providing additional artistic stimulus that would otherwise not so easily be encountered. I'm not trying to suggest that a degree is the only way to further train in art, but it's a route that should remain open to those so inclined.

As for there being no case for Joe Bloggs to pay: 1) why pay for the NHS? Let people get private healthcare. Why pay for state benefits? Some people never become unemployed. Why pay for any rail networks? Some people never use the train. The point is, sometimes we do things together because it's for the common good. 2) If Joe Bloggs doesn't want to pay for someone to study the history of art, why should the rest of us pay for him to ever study art, music, or indeed any 'non-economically important' subject at GCSE or A-Level? Before you counter with the cost of university, recall my previous argument that £9.25k is far too much for any arts or humanities degree, and that fees should be gradated; also recall that the government expected a fee so high to only be charged by the top institutions. It's not the fault of students that universities decided to take all the money they could get.

Malthusian wrote: »

Most students are required to do around ten GCSEs and four A-levels (dropping to three in the second year). No student should be locked into one degree at A-level stage - they are actively encouraged to spread their interests and indeed, it makes them more attractive to universities.

The closest you get to a completely specialised A-level student would be Maths, Further Maths and something else and mathematics is pretty unlikely to be "no longer in demand".

Yes, they study roughly ten GCSEs and four A-Levels. They do so out of a selection of a great number of subjects, however. With the EBacc (English Baccalaureate), students must study:

• English Literature
• English Language
• Mathematics
• History or Geography
• Triple sciences (Biology/Chemistry/Physics)
• At least one foreign language

That makes eight subjects, and most schools also require R.E (religious education), with a general focus in secular schools and a religion-specific focus in faith schools. That leaves one or two 'optional' GCSEs, except some GCSEs are vocational and take up two GCSEs - for example, Engineering. Deciding which GCSEs to study is in fact a choice that can impact one's specialty at A-Level and beyond.
As for A-Levels: a student who studies Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Maths would of course be able to apply for numerous science or maths-related degrees. Should a sixth-former want to study English, they would likely take English Literature, English Language, and at least one other A-Level. Therefore, any change in funding for English Literature or related degrees would almost entirely remove any alternative option for that student.

Sapphire

getmore4less wrote: »

Of course anyone can, some of us are old enough to be the creators of new lines of education or have contributed to the content of courses or even been part of the creation of whole new sectors that never existed a few years before.

The same will happen today there are those that are creating the future where their knowledge and expertise that they self create gets compressed into a form to accelerate the distribution of that knowledge.

Unlike lower education that gets dumbed down much of decent higher education keeps up with where the subject matter is going.

It depends what one understands by 'decent higher education', I suppose. The 'higher' education these days too often seems to result in … nothing. There appear to be people doing degrees that are not preparing them for work, but giving them unrealistic expectations – insisting that all must go to 'uni' benefits no one but the money-making businesses that 'universities' have become.

Above all, in this country, many people around school-leaving age need to be taught about the importance of work when it comes to your self-respect, progression in life and achieving something to be proud of, and the rewards of being able to stand on your own two feet rather than going for the easy option and ending up in the rather demoralising situation of relying on others to support you (whether it be family or taxpayers). In the past, people had to work when they left school – there was never any question of lounging around, going on gap years and so on. The hard slog was how many achieved progression in their lives.

Windofchange

getmore4less wrote: »

You are well out of touch with the depth of knowledge required.

I've done this to death with Economic over the months and he doesn't get it. Neither does Great Ape of course. Experts in everything the pair of them regardless of the reality that time and again they keep making stupid comments like Nursing is a low skilled profession.

I was down in A&E resus today with a 91 year gentleman who had been rushed in by ambulance starting to head towards cardiac arrest. If it wasn't for the expertise and knowledge of the nursing staff in attendance this man would have died a few hours ago. No consultant present as he was dealing with another case next door. Myself and the nurses got the man on a ventilator, inserted various needles, cannulae, drips. Ran diagnostic blood tests and assessed the biochemistry to work out what was wrong with his respiratory system. Dosed up the medicine to the correct amount, prepped him and got him rushed up to the intensive care unit where care was taken over by another nurse and her team. This isn't GCSE maths level stuff.

Economic, if you think that the above could have been achieved by a bunch of school leavers on a years work experience then you are more of an idiot than I give you credit for. Why don't you stop making ignorant comments on things you know nothing, absolutely nothing about?

Windofchange

kinger101 wrote: »

I don't believe you have an A-level in maths. Otherwise you wouldn't invent fictitious cherry-picked cohorts of 10 to make your point. The statistics part would include something on sampling error.

As for the top 1%, are you telling me there were in total 1.6 M A-level students in 2017 (as 16K took further maths), and that the top students always take further maths, even if their skills are in languages, the sciences or the arts.

You've also cherry picked by selecting maths. That's actually seen less grade inflation than all the other subjects. Biology for example. Why do you think universities now all want AAB when in 1992, BBC might have got you into a Russel Group uni?

Stop trying to make a point by inventing your own facts.

It's what he does. Go and read a few of his posts. Basically, invent a few 'facts', talk about a few of his mates who have done this and that which proves everything, and then make 50 exceptions to arrive at the conclusion that he's right because he just said so. It's boring which is why I've stopped engaging with him and his sidekick.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

I've done this to death with Economic over the months and he doesn't get it. Neither does Great Ape of course. Experts in everything the pair of them regardless of the reality that time and again they keep making stupid comments like Nursing is a low skilled profession.

You got me wrong, I think anything and everything can be learnt outside of a university so irrespective of how much 'skill' it takes you do not need to sit in some one way lectures for 3 years to be able to do it. Like I have said before I worked in R&D labs and although I had a degree in physics I did not need it I could have started age 18 and been just as good

I was down in A&E resus today with a 91 year gentleman who had been rushed in by ambulance starting to head towards cardiac arrest. If it wasn't for the expertise and knowledge of the nursing staff in attendance this man would have died a few hours ago. No consultant present as he was dealing with another case next door. Myself and the nurses got the man on a ventilator, inserted various needles, cannulae, drips. Ran diagnostic blood tests and assessed the biochemistry to work out what was wrong with his respiratory system. Dosed up the medicine to the correct amount, prepped him and got him rushed up to the intensive care unit where care was taken over by another nurse and her team. This isn't GCSE maths level stuff.

How long do you think it would take to teach a 120+ IQ 18 year old kid to do all those things? 3 days? 3 weeks? 3 months?

Economic, if you think that the above could have been achieved by a bunch of school leavers on a years work experience then you are more of an idiot than I give you credit for. Why don't you stop making ignorant comments on things you know nothing, absolutely nothing about?

The ignorant thing to assume is that everything takes exactly 3 years to learn and that learning can only be done in a building designated a unviersity

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

You got me wrong, I think anything and everything can be learnt outside of a university so irrespective of how much 'skill' it takes you do not need to sit in some one way lectures for 3 years to be able to do it. Like I have said before I worked in R&D labs and although I had a degree in physics I did not need it I could have started age 18 and been just as good

Of course you can learn outside of university, I don't think anyone on here has said you can't. How do you assess that core items have been covered by that person? The biggest and longest interview mankind has ever known? Take medicine - you are saying that everything can be learned without the need for a course. 10 wanna be doctors turn up and say give me a job. How do you assess which ones you are going to employ? Give them all a job and gradually whittle it down by firing one each time they kill a patient? Ask them questions in an interview covering the entirety of medical knowledge?

No. You need a degree to get to the point of assuming that they have all acquired a basic fundamental level of knowledge. This type of learning can't be done on the job, there isn't the time, and again what if one consultant teaches someone completely different things to another i.e. a surgeon and a general medical doctor have totally different specialities and knowledge bases. Are you going to somehow rotate a few thousand medical students between them (and many others) over a few years? How does the student work full-time and then go away and learn huge amounts of knowledge - have you found a way for humans to no longer require sleep?

GreatApe wrote: »

How long do you think it would take to teach a 120+ IQ 18 year old kid to do all those things? 3 days? 3 weeks? 3 months?

Probably about 3 years? What is the entrance requirement for medicine? Physio? Pretty much top grades hey? These are your 120+ IQ kids. Who teaches them? You think there is a room full of doctors and other healthcare professionals somewhere sat twiddling their thumbs? Do you realise how much of a nightmare it would be in the middle of an emergency trying to talk an 18 year old through what you are doing whilst explaining basic anatomy, the laws of chemistry, ventilator settings etc etc etc etc etc? You have no idea.

GreatApe wrote: »

The ignorant thing to assume is that everything takes exactly 3 years to learn and that learning can only be done in a building designated a unviersity

No, the ignorant thing is to say that university is a waste of time and money for everyone. I've not been reading this too closely, but I doubt anyone has said that you can't learn anything outside of university. You need to find some middle ground. I would agree with you that some courses are pointless, and there is some waste, but you have to move from your apparent point of view that all university is pointless and a waste of money.

You and others on here can't possibly hope to be taken seriously when you comment about the pros / cons of every course for every profession. It is obvious that you don't know the peculiarities of every subject - nobody does. This is the definition of ignorance - taking your world view and just applying it to everything.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Of course you can learn outside of university, I don't think anyone on here has said you can't. How do you assess that core items have been covered by that person? The biggest and longest interview mankind has ever known? Take medicine - you are saying that everything can be learned without the need for a course. 10 wanna be doctors turn up and say give me a job. How do you assess which ones you are going to employ? Give them all a job and gradually whittle it down by firing one each time they kill a patient? Ask them questions in an interview covering the entirety of medical knowledge?

No. I'd probably hire 10 physics and 10 computer science grads from the top 5 universities and get them programing the best diagnosis software available and then deploy that into hospitals and probably give it out as a free app to the poor nations too. That probably isn't required as people smarter than you and me are working on general AI when that hits you have the worlds best doctor in your smartphone and go to any high street shop that has the robotic version and it will be able to do any and all operations

No. You need a degree to get to the point of assuming that they have all acquired a basic fundamental level of knowledge. This type of learning can't be done on the job, there isn't the time, and again what if one consultant teaches someone completely different things to another i.e. a surgeon and a general medical doctor have totally different specialities and knowledge bases. Are you going to somehow rotate a few thousand medical students between them (and many others) over a few years? How does the student work full-time and then go away and learn huge amounts of knowledge - have you found a way for humans to no longer require sleep?

A lot of tasks doctors do are simple repetitive tasks.
Anything and everything can be learnt on the job.
You can have the new people slowly take over tasks when it is seen that they are competent

Either way medicine is not one I object to primarily because the spaces are limited. His stupid is it when medicine places are limited but media studies places or law places are not?

Probably about 3 years? What is the entrance requirement for medicine? Physio? Pretty much top grades hey? These are your 120+ IQ kids. Who teaches them? You think there is a room full of doctors and other healthcare professionals somewhere sat twiddling their thumbs? Do you realise how much of a nightmare it would be in the middle of an emergency trying to talk an 18 year old through what you are doing whilst explaining basic anatomy, the laws of chemistry, ventilator settings etc etc etc etc etc? You have no idea.

The kids don't leave universities and jump straight in they receive on the job training. Can the university elements be taught outside of university. For instance what if instead of doing an A levels in maths physics and chemistry and law there was a quad a level in medicine? How much could the kids learn if they specialised at a younger age?

No, the ignorant thing is to say that university is a waste of time and money for everyone. I've not been reading this too closely, but I doubt anyone has said that you can't learn anything outside of university. You need to find some middle ground. I would agree with you that some courses are pointless, and there is some waste, but you have to move from your apparent point of view that all university is pointless and a waste of money.

I didn't say all I said ~80% is not necessary

You and others on here can't possibly hope to be taken seriously when you comment about the pros / cons of every course for every profession. It is obvious that you don't know the peculiarities of every subject - nobody does. This is the definition of ignorance - taking your world view and just applying it to everything.

I don't need to know the details of every course to determine most of them are surplus to requirements. All I need to know is how many kids go to university and how many jobs require a university level education. Perhaps only 10% of jobs require an understanding of higher education so more than that is surplus

economic

BagofWind - you are right 3 year degrees in nursing are required. How stupid of me. I am sincerely sorry for being such a fool to believing you don’t need to do a 3 yr degree in nursing to be a nurse.....



......if the wanna be nurse has an iq less the 90!!!

Because you see perhaps three year degrees are required for those less intelligent people who find it difficult to reason with information at a fast enough pace to condense the course in say 3 months.

GreatApe

Marginal University education has been so dumbed down that more people get degrees today than their parents got 5 O-Levels. Intelligence can't have risen much in just one generation its all down to education inflation.

The result is graduates go into non graduate jobs. And many jobs that do not require university education (like middle management eg Aldi graduate program) now do require it. The parents are slowly waking up even if windy is still asleep.

We have decided to have a poorer country with higher taxes and lower services just so we can pretend a marginal kid with an IQ of 100 deserves a degree. This is a national disaster.