Are degrees in the UK value for money?

economic

Lingua wrote: »

As a final rebuttal:


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



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.

Ok but what if the 2:2 maths grad went to Cambridge and the 1st maths grad went to Luton university (a scenario that is much more likely then the reverse given both performances at GCSE)?

Employers ask for degrees - but they also look at university attended. they realize for the most part Cambridge uni is far superior to Luton uni and the intelligence of both grads is still going to be vastly different even if the Cambridge got a 2:2 and the Luton grad got a 1st.

economic

Lingua wrote: »

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.

Well yes we can agree on this but do you agree 80-90% of degrees should not be funded by the taxpayer?

economic

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 dont really care what your life must be like all i am asking is what life is like as a 40 year student.i think its quite relevant to the discussion on this thread. But thanks for the English lesson, i am really chuffed that you care so much about me

Also you ever heard of the saying - "those who can, do and those who can't, teach"? Well i am adding to that statement and it is those who really can't, end up going to university to study again and again and again.

Lingua

economic wrote: »

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?

The question was whether degrees are currently value for money. You're changing that question to "given that a few O-Levels sufficed in the past, are degrees currently value for money?". Much of what I wrote was in regard to the reasons behind the increase in student numbers, which some on this thread have indicated as a reason behind what they perceive to be the lessening power of a degree to secure a well-paid job. To explain why a degree is still value for money, even in large numbers, it is important to explore why those numbers exist. If they are inflated by foreign students, that indicates that a UK degree is an attractive prospect, enough to leave one's home country for 3-4 years to gain one. It also shows that a significant number of people are willing to pay twice the home tuition fees (£9.25k/yr) for the privilege. It can be surmised then that UK degrees are value for money given that non-EU students are willing to pay twice the fees of a UK or EU student. Would they pay so much money if those degrees were not valuable?

Also, the points made were important in highlighting the importance of degrees to specific demographics. You acknowledge that access to education has gone up through funding. The effect of this on disadvantaged students is to provide a vehicle for greater social mobility, especially if they can gain entry to a Russell Group university or what you might perceive to be a more 'rigorous' course (STEM, Medicine, etc.) as these do statistically provide better financial prospects (Ref: emolument). Again, I would stress that these are averages and a graduate can often use the skills learnt from their studies to follow a variety of career paths, ones not necessarily related to their field.

That many EU students want to study in the UK also shows the value of a degree, and particularly a British degree, in Europe. This follows the argument for non-EU students in that they are willing to leave their home countries to come to the UK, so it must be worth it for them to do so.

Finally, I would point out that the original commenter was asking why university costs are so much more than for sixth forms, and also whether some courses are less expensive to provide than others. Again, they do not ask whether degrees are less value for money now than they were in the past.
In answer, I would reference Southampton University's webpage (Ref: Southampton) which shows that there is a large overhead involved in running a university.

I have to admit, I've seen a lot of wasteful expenditure whilst at university, so I can't say I'm particularly pleased with the way my own university spends its tuition fees.

Universities also invest significant resources into sciences and technologies, which are capital-intensive. Humanities degrees, meanwhile, can no doubt be provided for a much smaller outlay. I don't have the actual figures because universities tend to understandably be cagey about them - if students knew they were being overcharged, they'd ask why.

As for:

economic wrote: »

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???

Instead of posing questions to counter an argument, it would be better to provide an actual counterargument. Find sources, use them to construct a detailed response, and see what you come up with. If you can't find the time or energy then that's your concession to bear. Calling it "nonsense waffle" isn't an actual response, it's a dismissal, and really quite rude.

As for whether it comes close to "answering the question of the value of having so many more graduates???" - it doesn't, because that wasn't the question.

Lingua

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

i dont really care what your life must be like

Why have you dedicated three pages of this thread to it then?

economic wrote: »

all i am asking is what life is like as a 40 year student.i think its quite relevant to the discussion on this thread. But thanks for the English lesson, i am really chuffed that you care so much about me

I don't know, you'd have to ask a 40 year old student, I'm in my 30's. Anyway, life is pretty busy what with working a full-time job to keep you unemployed lot in the manner to which you are accustomed, and studying on top, but I'm getting there.

economic wrote: »

Also you ever heard of the saying - "those who can, do and those who can't, teach"? Well i am adding to that statement and it is those who really can't, end up going to university to study again and again and again.

You need a 'have' in there - "have" you ever heard of the saying...How's your change of career into python going? Are you someone who really can't too then?

Lingua

economic wrote: »

Also you ever heard of the saying - "those who can, do and those who can't, teach"? Well i am adding to that statement and it is those who really can't, end up going to university to study again and again and again.

Just to quickly pop in again: it really depends on your level of study. If a student is working towards a Master's or PhD, then they are in fact researching - that means they are actively contributing to global knowledge and understanding. There is a lot of research across all fields coming from universities, from material science to philosophy. In my opinion, that's "those who can, [doing]".

Lingua

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

You need a 'have' in there - "have" you ever heard of the saying...How's your change of career into python going? Are you someone who really can't too then?

Pretty good actually. And considering i am self taught didn't have anyone teach me and pay 9k a year for the pleasure, and able to use it practically now, i would say i have made very good progress. Thanks for caring

economic

Lingua wrote: »

Just to quickly pop in again: it really depends on your level of study. If a student is working towards a Master's or PhD, then they are in fact researching - that means they are actively contributing to global knowledge and understanding. There is a lot of research across all fields coming from universities, from material science to philosophy. In my opinion, that's "those who can, [doing]".

Lingua

Some masters but most masters are not research based, they are like extended versions of undergrad degrees.

The benefits of doing a PhD to do research on a particular theory depends entirely what it is. A PhD in economics alone is worthless as economics is not a science and very subjective. Something like physics is a different story though.

economic

Lingua wrote: »

As for whether it comes close to "answering the question of the value of having so many more graduates???" - it doesn't, because that wasn't the question.

Lingua

What is the question we are trying to answer?

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

Pretty good actually. And considering i am self taught didn't have anyone teach me and pay 9k a year for the pleasure, and able to use it practically now, i would say i have made very good progress. Thanks for caring

Good stuff! So it seems that maybe retraining or furthering yourself later in life isn't perhaps a those who can't sort of pastime seeing as you are doing it? Hang on a minute though, I thought on the previous page you were giving sarcasm another go and insinuating that those who do exactly that are the dregs of society?

Which one is it then? Oh, and I'm still waiting for the answer to your grammatical correction from a few pages back by the way.