Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

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.

If your ability to form sentences and employ grammar is a testament to university education then I do believe you have inadvertently proven your point that it is a waste of time.

As I've already pointed out to you, you don't need to do a 3 year degree to become a nurse. You can do it in less time if you have relevant skills or experience. Same as with medicine, physio, occupational therapy etc etc. The structure for more experienced individuals to fast track themselves already exists.

Stop. Take a look at how many others on this thread have taken issue with your statements that nursing is a low skilled profession. Maybe question well am I actually right? Then maybe try to develop your arguments beyond poorly constructed sarcasm. You yet again highlight your ignorance by commenting on things you have no idea about. The only person you are impressing is yourself.

Lingua

GreatApe wrote: »

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.

As much as I hate personal anecdotes as a reference:
I was talking to my auntie about a puzzle she'd been stuck on for Professor Layton (welcome to the family). She had to find the area of a shape between four circles. I told her to find the area of one circle and subtract it from the area of the square formed by its diameter^2. She didn't understand because when she was at school some 60-odd years ago, geometry wasn't taught to the masses, nor were most of the complex elements of science, language, etc.*. You learnt your three Rs and went to work, or if you were lucky you went to a grammar school and went into a slightly better job.*

The point I'm trying to make in a roundabout way is that education has changed a lot in since my auntie was at school, and I imagine the same is true between the abolition of O-Levels and now. There could be a multitude of reasons: better teaching quality, better resources, wider social equality resulting in disadvantaged students having more support, etc. You did a degree in physics. Surely you know that correlation =/= causation? Just because more people are getting higher grades does not mean that those grades are any easier to achieve than before. It means that more people are getting higher grades.

Also, an IQ of 100 is not marginal. It's average. Aside from the fact that IQ is a terrible measure of intelligence, your suggestion that an average person shouldn't go to university is ridiculous. Intelligence does not equal common sense, and I'd rather have a doctor who is reasonably bright but who has plenty of common sense than one who is blisteringly bright but hasn't an ounce of common sense. It's the latter who will make the mistakes. They're the kind of person who mixes whites with coloureds and puts them on a wash at 60.

Moreover, a person of average intelligence could very easily score better in tests and exams than someone of a higher intelligence simply by trying harder. If you've been through the education system to tertiary level, then you've seen that the brightest are sometimes blinded by their inflated sense of intelligence and presume that because they can breeze through GCSE they can do the same at degree level. Meanwhile, the student who has always had to try hard will be getting a first because they put in the effort. I know who I'd hire.

Lingua

*according to my auntie, which is why I dislike anecdotes: relying on fallible secondary sources and all that.

GwylimT

It depends on the individual.

My degree enabled me to enter a career I both enjoy and that provides well financially, I could not undertake this career without a degree.

My wifes chosen career required a degree and further study to masters level. Not only did this allow her a career she enjoyed, she has also financially paid off.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

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.

So, sum up what your solution is? Demand that every business has xxx number of apprenticeships? Who then pays for the education of these apprentices? If you are suggesting that you then channel all university funding into businesses to help them do this, then why bother shifting this away from a centralised university system? It might work for specific trades or professions to learn on the job, but can you apply this to everything? Can you apply this to even 50% of everything? I would suggest not.

I agree with you for what it's worth that the education system seems to have been dumbed down over the years. Modular A levels, endless resits, a kind of nobody fails environment where everyone gets some sort of prize at the end. I agree with you as per the above that people need to give more consideration today as to whether racking up 50k of debt is worth a degree in some random subject. I agree with this because I am not thinking black and white like you are. Life, and the economy at large is far too complex to make blanket statements such as those which you put on here.

I don't see having more university educated individuals as a bad thing. We happily as a society chuck money at other things and nobody bats an eyelid, but for some reason you have a bee in your bonnet about this? There are too many factors at play here for you to make any sort of convincing argument that all university is a waste of time for all individuals all of the time.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Stop. Take a look at how many others on this thread have taken issue with your statements that nursing is a low skilled profession. Maybe question well am I actually right? Then maybe try to develop your arguments beyond poorly constructed sarcasm. You yet again highlight your ignorance by commenting on things you have no idea about. The only person you are impressing is yourself.

Poorly constructed sarcasm?? You are a hypocrite. Have you seen what kind of posts you make on a regular basis?

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

Poorly constructed sarcasm?? You are a hypocrite. Have you seen what kind of posts you make on a regular basis?

My sarcasm is perfectly constructed thanks. The adults are trying to have a sensible discussion about degrees here. Please run along and go play with your python - probably something you do regularly whilst thinking about all those unskilled nurses tottering around in their heels and low cut tops.

economic

Lingua wrote: »

As much as I hate personal anecdotes as a reference:
I was talking to my auntie about a puzzle she'd been stuck on for Professor Layton (welcome to the family). She had to find the area of a shape between four circles. I told her to find the area of one circle and subtract it from the area of the square formed by its diameter^2. She didn't understand because when she was at school some 60-odd years ago, geometry wasn't taught to the masses, nor were most of the complex elements of science, language, etc.*. You learnt your three Rs and went to work, or if you were lucky you went to a grammar school and went into a slightly better job.*

The point I'm trying to make in a roundabout way is that education has changed a lot in since my auntie was at school, and I imagine the same is true between the abolition of O-Levels and now. There could be a multitude of reasons: better teaching quality, better resources, wider social equality resulting in disadvantaged students having more support, etc. You did a degree in physics. Surely you know that correlation =/= causation? Just because more people are getting higher grades does not mean that those grades are any easier to achieve than before. It means that more people are getting higher grades.

Also, an IQ of 100 is not marginal. It's average. Aside from the fact that IQ is a terrible measure of intelligence, your suggestion that an average person shouldn't go to university is ridiculous. Intelligence does not equal common sense, and I'd rather have a doctor who is reasonably bright but who has plenty of common sense than one who is blisteringly bright but hasn't an ounce of common sense. It's the latter who will make the mistakes. They're the kind of person who mixes whites with coloureds and puts them on a wash at 60.

Moreover, a person of average intelligence could very easily score better in tests and exams than someone of a higher intelligence simply by trying harder. If you've been through the education system to tertiary level, then you've seen that the brightest are sometimes blinded by their inflated sense of intelligence and presume that because they can breeze through GCSE they can do the same at degree level. Meanwhile, the student who has always had to try hard will be getting a first because they put in the effort. I know who I'd hire.

Lingua

*according to my auntie, which is why I dislike anecdotes: relying on fallible secondary sources and all that.

This is just waffle and doesn't prove anything. Nonsense arguments.

Just because your auntie couldn't do a simple maths problem doesn't mean it wasn't taught back then. Maybe your auntie forgot? You have a weak argument.

If standards were identical between your aunty's generation and your generation and more people have degrees in your generation compared to number of those with 5 O'levels in your aunty's generation, what does this mean?

A degree should be a higher level of educational attainment then O'levels. Surely based on the facts that therefore general intelligence should have gone way up? Has intelligence increased significantly between generations? The answer is no.

your last point is one of the most weakest arguments i have ever heard. So you are saying someone who did poor in his GCSEs but then goes onto get a 1st is somehow more employable then someone who did good at GCSE and got a 2:2?

What if the 2:2 was a maths grad and the 1st was a media studies grad? In fact it is very likely this is the case compared to the reverse as someone who did poor at GCSE is unlikely to do a intellectually hard subject.

I know who i would hire and its the one who had the most intellectual potential.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

My sarcasm is perfectly constructed thanks. The adults are trying to have a sensible discussion about degrees here. Please run along and go play with your python - probably something you do regularly whilst thinking about all those unskilled nurses tottering around in their heels and low cut tops.

And this is what you call sarcasm? It just pollutes this thread with nonsense. Go back to training your rich clients, being envious of them on how they have such a great life and then come back here to moan and get frustrated. Is that what your life looks like? Day after day of frustration and envy?

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

There are too many factors at play here for you to make any sort of convincing argument that all university is a waste of time for all individuals all of the time.

When did he ever say ALL university is a waste of time? Your frustration/anger problems is causing you to type vomit day in day out. Perhaps starting with the facts with no sarcasm would help with a more constructive argument.

But i wont hold my breathe.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

As I've already pointed out to you, you don't need to do a 3 year degree to become a nurse. You can do it in less time if you have relevant skills or experience. Same as with medicine, physio, occupational therapy etc etc. The structure for more experienced individuals to fast track themselves already exists.

If you don't need to do a degree then why are you complaining and getting frustrated? That's the point we were making! To scrap useless degrees like nursing. We are not saying all training should be stopped. We should just stick to training of nurses at a more cost and time effective manner. And focus more on the job training.

But nursing is just one example, there are many many more degrees that really are a waste of resources in terms of time and money. Which we have been through to death on this thread.

i think bagofwind - you just enjoy getting frustrated and getting angry. It's just part of who you are.