Are degrees in the UK value for money?

zagubov

Lingua wrote: »

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

Lingua

Lingua

zagubov wrote: »

I'll take that as nobody having any

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

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

Do you suggest i waste my time and money on a 3 year degree in English? Maybe that would improve my grammer. Hate to be a university student at 34 though but you would know about that, so please tell me how is it like being s student at your age?

How old are you again, in your 40s right?

economic

Lingua wrote: »

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



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.


Lingua

Your point on there being non uk students in higher education proves nothing and is irrelevant. What we are concerned about is the rise in students entering university that is funded by the UK taxpayer. That's what really matters. Not Mr Chen from China who is going to study at Imperial College using his own funds. This includes all UK citizens and also EU too as the UK taxpayer provides all EU citizens with funding to study in the UK.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

Do you suggest i waste my time and money on a 3 year degree in English? Maybe that would improve my grammer. Hate to be a university student at 34 though but you would know about that, so please tell me how is it like being s student at your age?

How old are you again, in your 40s right?

For you it wouldn't be a waste.

1) Grammar not Grammer
2) Hate to be a university student... Tut tut, lazy, you need an "I'd" in front of that little lot.
3) how is it like - poor sentence structure, please correct, this isn't Spain.
4) How Is it like being s student - How it is like being a student, not s.

Now, the class is still waiting for you to let us know what was grammatically incorrect about the post made by getmore4less earlier that you took such chagrin with? And we could do with either yourself or Great Ape (the other side of the argument) making a reply to Lingua's well thought out and reasoned post above.

It would appear that your far superior university did not equip you with many language or reasoning skills. Is this a very elaborate way of proving that even top universities really will accept anyone? If so, bravo.

And you're still posting away about how void, empty and wasted my life must be. The forum is probably getting a bit bored of it now, much as it makes me chuckle.

economic

Lingua wrote: »

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.

What is the point in saying all this? This is obvious stuff - you are wasting your time with this waffle. We know access to education has gone up through funding. Which has led to more degrees. The question is what is the point (and added value) of the increase in supply of so many graduates now when all that was needed (where supply met demand) in the past were 5 or 6 O'Levels?

westernpromise

I am sitting here drinking a glass of my old university college's port.

Last time I was passing through I asked them to put a case aside for me to pick up, me being a donor and all, and they did. It is very smooth, and excellent with a nice Stilton and a slice of russet apple.

What is the point of a degree where you cannot go back 30 years later for the port?

westernpromise

Windofchange wrote: »

For you it wouldn't be a waste.

1) Grammar not Grammer
2) Hate to be a university student... Tut tut, lazy, you need an "I'd" in front of that little lot.
3) how is it like - poor sentence structure, please correct, this isn't Spain.
4) How Is it like being s student - How it is like being a student, not s.

Now, the class is still waiting for you to let us know what was grammatically incorrect about the post made by getmore4less earlier that you took such chagrin with? And we could do with either yourself or Great Ape (the other side of the argument) making a reply to Lingua's well thought out and reasoned post above.

It would appear that your far superior university did not equip you with many language or reasoning skills. Is this a very elaborate way of proving that even top universities really will accept anyone? If so, bravo.

And you're still posting away about how void, empty and wasted my life must be. The forum is probably getting a bit bored of it now, much as it makes me chuckle.

I did an English degree and I'm on £350k a year, so defibrillate that.

It is a big mistake to assume that a degree is useful for the information it imparts. Although I write reports as Joseph Conrad would.

economic

Lingua wrote: »

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:



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.

Again nonsense waffle. Sure the marking system has changed and there are more A grade students, but what about exam/subject standards? Have they really stayed the same? Or have they gotten easier and hence students are finding it easier to get an A grade now?

But more importantly how does any of this even come close to answering the question of the value of having so many more graduates???

Windofchange

westernpromise wrote: »

I did an English degree and I'm on £350k a year, so defibrillate that.

It is a big mistake to assume that a degree is useful for the information it imparts. Although I write reports as Joseph Conrad would.

It's a valid point. Given the assertions you can learn everything outside of university, and things like English degrees are a waste of time, I wonder if Economic will get the irony of his poor grasp of the English language after 34 years at the university of life? It would appear maybe some formal education may be of use after all?