Are degrees in the UK value for money?

zagubov

kinger101 wrote: »

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.

Part of the experience of the degree is obtaining a coherent body of knowledge, mastering it, gaining additional knowledge in related fields that support on the core subject and build on it, including tough subjects you wouldn't pick if you were learning out of interest.

As its been the norm for decades now to do Bachelor's degrees to honours level, the end stage is you learning from researchers and contributing to research by adding your additional work to the existing body of knowledge.

You'll have ploughed a path, and pushed the field forward a tad. It's a personal quest and overcoming the difficult parts are part of the battle. When you finish, your degree is meant to be a certificate of your intellectual horsepower, even if the actual knowledge gained doesn't stay with you.

You can learn stuff on, your own, the easy ways, by going on the internet or reading a well-written book. I'm not knocking becoming well-read and better-informed; these are great things in their own right and deserve to be encouraged for their own sake. But having a degree of education is something else.

You don't have to do it at a Russell Group uni to find it challenging and widely recognised (as any St Andrews' student would tell you).

It's the first level of education that's internationally recognised, unlike school leaving certificates. The fact that the UK has a good reputation for it bodes well.

Cakeguts

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.

It is not just the massive waste of money it is also the loss of seniority when they come to get a job. The job they get won't need someone to have a degree so why would an employer want a 21 year old when they can get an 18 year old?

Cakeguts

If a Russell group 2nd year is roughly the same standard as an A level taken (sometimes I feel 200) 50 years ago then that could mean that a low ranked university is offering degrees that are the same level as those A levels?
So there are students who are paying for 3 years of study in order to get them to an A level that they used to get for free at school? Nice for the university staff of these universities not so good for the students. What are schools doing?

Jackieboy

lobbyludd wrote: »

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

Possibly, but you will also appreciate how low that peak actually is, I would hope.

Jackieboy

Cakeguts wrote: »

It is not just the massive waste of money it is also the loss of seniority when they come to get a job. The job they get won't need someone to have a degree so why would an employer want a 21 year old when they can get an 18 year old?

Very few companies seem to want to employ post A level 18 year olds, unfortunately. If you don't intend to go to university, you're often much better doing a vocational course or genuine apprenticeship (if you can find one:().

Jackieboy

Cakeguts wrote: »

If a Russell group 2nd year is roughly the same standard as an A level taken (sometimes I feel 200) 50 years ago then that could mean that a low ranked university is offering degrees that are the same level as those A levels?
So there are students who are paying for 3 years of study in order to get them to an A level that they used to get for free at school? Nice for the university staff of these universities not so good for the students. What are schools doing?

Absolutely, it's the biggest con trick ever performed. Let young people get into £35k/£54k of debt to achieve the same standard that their parents achieved for free.

All to massage the youth unemployment figures and keep up the pretence that Britain's education system is still excellent.:(

silvercar

Cakeguts wrote: »

It is not just the massive waste of money it is also the loss of seniority when they come to get a job. The job they get won't need someone to have a degree so why would an employer want a 21 year old when they can get an 18 year old?

Why would an employer employ an 18 yr old when they can take on a 21 yr old who is more mature, has applied themselves to study for 3 yrs, has lived independently for 3 yrs etc

Jackieboy

silvercar wrote: »

Why would an employer employ an 18 yr old when they can take on a 21 yr old who is more mature, has applied themselves to study for 3 yrs, has lived independently for 3 yrs etc

Well, they'd be cheaper, I suppose.

kabayiri

Jackieboy wrote: »

Well, they'd be cheaper, I suppose.

From the contact centres I know here in the NW, graduates are being taken for Team Leader roles, but it used to be A-level/school leavers.

The labour rate didn't vary much. The agencies have statistical based models to work out rates based on meeting desired numbers.

We had grads with geology and biology degrees earning 21K or so. The differential to justify the education costs isn't there in this part of the service economy.

GreatApe

Cakeguts wrote: »

If a Russell group 2nd year is roughly the same standard as an A level taken (sometimes I feel 200) 50 years ago then that could mean that a low ranked university is offering degrees that are the same level as those A levels?
So there are students who are paying for 3 years of study in order to get them to an A level that they used to get for free at school? Nice for the university staff of these universities not so good for the students. What are schools doing?

Childcare to give the parents a break