Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Lingua

economic wrote: »

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.

Quite true. Research-based Master's are going to be more productive for research than taught Master's, but both are still worthwhile if they help to deepen understanding in a chosen field.
As for the choice of PhD, it's subjective as to which are worth more than others. I'd feel more trusting of someone's knowledge on a subject if they'd studied it to PhD level. If it's their passion, then it's worth doing, but the value should still be considered in terms of time, money, effort, and overall benefit to the individual.

Lingua

economic

Lingua wrote: »

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:

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

Value depends on who's perspective it is. Someone coming in from the EU or China would obviously see value for themselves if they want to take on debt or fork out of their own pocket to do a degree in the UK. Now the EU student doesn't have to pay upfront, he takes on debt so would be considering this as well and see value based on this whole picture.

But the real question you should be asking is is this value for money for the taxpayer when it is the taxpayer who is providing the funding.

Now this results in the question of what is the added value of someone doing a degree to the UK economy. Surely you agree this is the most important question and in fact the only consideration right? The whole point of funding for a degree should only be for the person doing the degree to add something back to the economy. Unless of course the uk SLC is in the business of making oney from student loans (which of course is silly since its a bad way to make money not to mention politically wrong).

Lingua

economic wrote: »

What is the question we are trying to answer?

"Are degrees in the UK value for money?"

economic

Lingua wrote: »

Quite true. Research-based Master's are going to be more productive for research than taught Master's, but both are still worthwhile if they help to deepen understanding in a chosen field.
As for the choice of PhD, it's subjective as to which are worth more than others. I'd feel more trusting of someone's knowledge on a subject if they'd studied it to PhD level. If it's their passion, then it's worth doing, but the value should still be considered in terms of time, money, effort, and overall benefit to the individual.

Lingua

Again this is irrelevant to the discussion. People who study whatever they want to study out of their own pocket is fine. Its the education funded by taxpayers which is what we are discussing here.

economic

Lingua wrote: »

"Are degrees in the UK value for money?"

but this is just taken from the subject title. the question is a lot deeper then that and if you understood that you would have saved yourself a lot of time by not posting what you had posted.

Read Michaels original post on this thread as well as the rest of the thread in particular GreatApe's posts. He has made it clear what it is about and after a very lengthy thread it comes down to in simple terms whether degrees are value for money for the taxpayer.

economic

This is what i have come up with on how the system works in simple terms. I posted this a few weeks back:

"Its a classic bubble that has been allowed to form and self feed onto itself.

Taxpayer funding for degrees
-> More useless degrees
-> More employers require a degree for filtering
-> more demand from students (also schools encouraging this too)
-> Politicians see more votes if they provide more funding for degrees
-> Taxpayer funding for degrees
-> AND THE CYCLE REPEATS

This must have been going on for decades from labour and conservatives hence the existing bubble as we see it today."

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

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.

Those who study with their own finances is fine by me. Why should i have a say in it? Those who study using taxpayer money needs to be scrutinized on whether the taxpayer is getting value for money on providing the education.

SingleSue

Windofchange wrote: »

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.

I can answer that one....busy, stressful and blooming tiring!

Or at least it was until it had to go on the back burner because my family had to come first and there was just not enough time to devote to my studies. Still, I do now have the right to have initials after my name, which is some consolation after all the work I put in even if I didn't actually reach the end.

*Self funded part time degree course before anyone starts shouting about wasting tax payers money.

Windofchange

SingleSue wrote: »

I can answer that one....busy, stressful and blooming tiring!

Or at least it was until it had to go on the back burner because my family had to come first and there was just not enough time to devote to my studies. Still, I do now have the right to have initials after my name, which is some consolation after all the work I put in even if I didn't actually reach the end.

*Self funded part time degree course before anyone starts shouting about wasting tax payers money.

Well done. No shouting from me whether you had self funded or not. Bettering yourself is always a worthy pursuit. Guess you’ll be joining me on economic’s those who can’t naughty step though - maybe along with him, though he still seems conflicted as to whether he is a can or a can’t in life following his return to studying.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Well done. No shouting from me whether you had self funded or not. Bettering yourself is always a worthy pursuit. Guess you’ll be joining me on economic’s those who can’t naughty step though - maybe along with him, though he still seems conflicted as to whether he is a can or a can’t in life following his return to studying.

You are making stuff up again. I was referring to those who keep going to university to study over and over again. Because it is in my opinion that by far most university degrees are worthless.

Those who can study by themselves a subject are the ones who can "do". Not the ones who need to be spoon fed.