Are degrees in the UK value for money?

GreatApe

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.

IQ decreases with age.

I think the young have more information and knowledge today vs a generation ago but no higher IQ

Think of IQ as the processor speed and information/knowledge as the hard drive. The young have more information on their hard drove thanks to the internet. They do not have a faster processor as their processor is mostly inherited from their parents and genetics don't change much in the span of one generation

If the marginal kid goes to university then all the lower grades are devalued.
In the same way that if we pushed 50% of the kids towards PHDs that would devalue undergraduate degrees

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

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.

How many times must I repeate that 80% is excess to needs not 100%

The solution is to reduce numbers. Many ways that can possibly be done the one I think would most likely work is just give the kids the £60k and let them decide to buy an education or use the money for a house or pension or even to open a business. Doing this will likely save in excess of £10 billion which you could use to cut the deficit or expand the NHS

Companies will adapt just fine to the lower number of grads. Also isn't going to declare itself bankrupt because it can't hire grads into middle management. It will instead do what all the businesses did 30 years ago when they needed middle management which was to promote internally or hire other managers who were also promoted internally.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

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.

I think windy is an adult student at UCL the former OK university before it decided to let in anyone by expanding towards 60,000 kids per year.

He can hardly agree that university is surplus to requirements when he is handing over his earnings to be lectured and educated. Let's hope his investment pays off.

getmore4less

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.

?

I am new to this but it is clear that economic is still catching up with their missing primary school education.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

I think windy is an adult student at UCL the former OK university before it decided to let in anyone by expanding towards 60,000 kids per year.

He can hardly agree that university is surplus to requirements when he is handing over his earnings to be lectured and educated. Let's hope his investment pays off.

I had an offer from UCL to study maths. I declined them to go to a far superior university. I am glad i did.

economic

getmore4less wrote: »

I am new to this but it is clear that economic is still catching up with their missing primary school education.

How is it clear? You are only new to this as you say. Perhaps read through it and think about it more? Also your sentence is grammatically incorrect.

Lingua

economic wrote: »

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.

Yes, that would be why I pointed out the subjectivity of the argument.

economic wrote: »

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?

It means that more people have degrees. The reasons would have to be explored, but could be numerous and overlapping.

First, the UK has been a part of the Bologna Process since 1999 (Ref: ehea.info). Combined with freedom of movement, this makes the UK an attractive destination for EU students who are now able to more clearly navigate the UK higher education system. They are also able to more easily apply due to the harmonisation of EU education systems, arguably making intra-EU student mobility far easier than in previous decades. In 2015-2016 for example, there were 127'440 EU students in UK higher education institutions (Ref: universitiesuk.ac.uk), a percentage of 5.6%. As an attractive international destination, the UK also received over 300'000 non-EU students in 2015-2016 (Ref: universitiesuk.ac.uk), equalling 13.6% of all students in higher education (both undergraduate and postgraduate). That means that non-UK students accounted for 19.2% of all students, nearly 1/5 of the total. This can help explain why student numbers are higher, but not the increase in the number of UK students.

For this, an exploration of the UK’s educational system is required along with its changing social and cultural attitudes.

School leaving age was raised to 15 in 1947 (Ref: parliament.uk), 16 in 1972 (Ref: parliament.uk), and now it is 18 (Ref: gov.uk). Students are therefore encouraged to progress further in education to a level where, should they wish, they can go on to study at university. In earlier decades they would have been able to drop out earlier and before they had gained the qualifications necessary to progress to higher education, i.e., they could voluntarily leave with only GCSE-equivalent qualifications or less. Leaving school before 18 could have been encouraged by family wanting their child to start working and earning a wage. This is just one theory, and doesn’t explain why those individuals attaining required grades for university actually chose (and continue to choose) to go.

Perhaps the availability of funding to all students wishing to study at university, regardless of background, has encouraged studies at higher education by those who would not otherwise be able to attend for socio-economic reasons. In 1961, UCAS was created to help make university admissions meritocratic, with merit mattering more than financial acumen or family connections (Ref: historyandpolicy), thus opening up university study to a greater percentage of the populace. Evidence of greater educational attainment by disadvantaged students includes that "n 2016, 19.5% of 18-year-old English-domiciled young people from low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR3 quintile 1) entered higher education, compared to 11.2% in 2006." (Ref: universities.ac.uk). That increase may go some way to explaining why student numbers are increasing, as areas of the populace previously unlikely to go to university become more mobile and have greater agency. Where in the past only the children of the wealthy would have had the regular opportunity to attend university, now university is open to all if they have achieved sufficient results.

Given previous postulating by some on this thread, a prediction about any counterargument can also be made: that even if social mobility is partly to be thanked for increased numbers, it is grade inflation that is to be blamed for making everyone qualified to attend university. Where once a B might have been sufficient, now an A or A* is required. While a valid argument, it is important to note that the way examinations (both GCSE and A-Level) are marked has changed. As noted by Paul Bolton in his work for the House of Commons:

“Before the mid-1980s there were more or less fixed percentages of students who were awarded each grade and these proportions changed very little year to year. This ‘norm-referencing’ method meant that most improvements in national performance had to come from increases in entry rates. This method was replaced with ‘criteria referencing’ which attempts to set each grade boundary at a constant standard over time and hence if the performance of candidates improves then a higher proportion of candidates can gain top grades. Actual grade boundaries can vary year-to-year (as each years’ papers are different), but the standard required to gain each grade should remain the same.” (Ref: Education: Historical Statistics, pg.11).

As a result of replacing norm-referencing with criteria-referencing, a more equal exam system was produced. Rather than the top 10% receiving the equivalent of an A*, the next 10% an A, and so on, students were (and are now) marked on fixed criteria. This can lead to the perception that exams are becoming ‘easier’ as attainment increases. However, the reason behind the increase is that more students are understanding the criteria. Whether this is a result of better teaching quality, greater resources, or another contributing factor is beyond the scope of this rebuttal of your argument. Incidentally, this also counters your statement below:

economic wrote: »

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.

While general intelligence might not have increased, the number of students achieving the higher grades has. If a university needs a student to know facts a, b, and c to study a course, then why should all students who show understanding of all three facts not be offered a place? With examinations graded by norm-referencing, the inevitable result is that only the top percentiles of examinees will receive the highest grades. Whilst this might sound good in theory, in practice it means that the difference between percentiles (and therefore grades) can become very small. If all students understand facts a, b, and c as illustrated earlier, then the exam board might decide to add in fact d to increase stratification. However, the university does not need this fact to be learnt, either due to insignificance to the course or because it will be taught at university. This then means that exams become unnecessarily difficult as they broach irrelevant topics, or topics which will be covered in their degree.

Here as well one could make the counter-argument that if something can be learnt at A-Levels, it should not be taught at university, or that the point of university is hereby invalidated. Whilst this argument is understandable, there has to be a limit to how much material can be included in a period of two-year, and crucially multi-disciplined, study. It is the same reason that GCSEs do not tend to cover a great deal of A-Level material: students studying 10+ subjects do not need the detail of an A-Level intended to be studied as just one of four others.

As a final rebuttal:

economic wrote: »

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?

Yes. How many employers ask for more than 5 A*-C GCSEs?

economic wrote: »

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.

This is a misunderstanding of the original point borne from incorrect inference. The point was not that any 1st is better than any 2:2, but that a graduate with poor GCSEs but a 1st in, say, Maths, is a better candidate than a graduate with excellent GCSEs but a 2:2 in Maths. One had to average above 70%, while the other averaged between 50% and 59.9%. Would you therefore argue that the lower second-class graduate has “the most intellectual potential” because they managed to get a few better grades in examinations designed for 15-16 year-olds? I would hope not. Moreover, GCSEs are in many different disciplines. If I were hiring a statistician then I would look for the graduate with the best degree, not the best GCSEs in Religious Studies or Graphics.

Finally, I do not believe that university is the right route for everybody. Those looking to enter into industries such as aerospace, oil & gas, construction etc., would do just as well taking apprenticeships and learning on the job. On this I am sure we agree.

economic wrote: »

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.

Ignoring the ad hominem: I agree that not all degrees are necessary or relevant, but removing funding for some degrees would inevitably be a slippery slope to removing funding for other more pertinent degrees. Imagine a situation where Media Studies is not funded, and so an MP pushes to make English Literature unfunded too – for example, they argue that both have similar graduate unemployment rates. I don’t know if they do, but then again MPs don’t always stick to the facts either. From there, you might get the ruling party trying to defund certain Politics degrees at only certain universities because they contain content considered inflammatory against the party’s ideologies. It’s not a likely scenario, but it shows how difficult a regimented system can be to fairly regulate. Making specific career routes more apprenticeship-based, exclusively or in a hybridised system, is something I can agree on too. However, that already exists in many cases. To my knowledge, nurses and junior doctors have to spend time in hospitals to gain hands-on experience. This is the same as would be expected on a vocational course.

Instead of removing funding for degrees or giving students £60'000 up-front, I would suggest providing sixth-formers with the relevant information to make an informed choice. Make sure that apprenticeships are available and of appropriate quality and there will be students filling the places.

Unrelated to the actual debate, the cavalier attitude of some on this thread (not only those against the widening of university education) through the use of fallacy (ad hominem, false cause, evasion) and brusque tone indicates a general disregard for the opinions of others. If you would like to challenge somebody’s argument, do so with a polite tone and with evidence to support what you say. Otherwise, you succeed not in changing opinion but in alienating others to your views.
For example:

getmore4less wrote: »

I am new to this but it is clear that economic is still catching up with their missing primary school education.

Both sides seem to be attacking the individual rather than the validity of their argument.

Again, I look forward to your reasoned and structured responses.

Lingua

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

How is it clear? You are only new to this as you say. Perhaps read through it and think about it more? Also your sentence is grammatically incorrect.

Which bit is grammatically incorrect? Oh the irony given the standards of your posts :rotfl:

Windofchange

Lingua wrote: »

Again, I look forward to your reasoned and structured responses.

Lingua

You're barking up the wrong tree with Economic and the Ape I'm afraid.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

And this is what you call sarcasm? It just pollutes this thread with nonsense.

Says the person who has put 5 posts onto one page trying to make a point about how void my life is of anything? :rotfl:

economic wrote: »

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?

If making up an imaginary me in your head, full of imaginary problems and imaginary anger helps you get through the realities of your current existence, then have at it. I tend not to get all that bothered by randoms on the internet :kisses3: