Are degrees in the UK value for money?

economic

Andy_L wrote: »

I don't think anyone said that except you.

Did you see post 1355 then?

Lingua

economic wrote: »

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).

I don’t believe £9’250/yr represents the true cost of university education. Perhaps it does for the sciences, but most certainly not for Humanities etc. To combat the growing cost to the government of university education, it should work to create a truly fair tuition fee system that reflects real-world costs of studying. That’s not the fault of students, it is the fault of government.

economic wrote: »

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.

Arguably, the education we receive up to sixth form is paid for by us from future paycheques. I don’t see student debt as a real issue because, in my opinion, it’s not meant to be cleared except by the most wealthy. Instead, it provides a type of graduate tax that can be collected internationally. The government would be wise to make use of this, but it doesn’t because of political concerns.

economic wrote: »

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.

True, but I was responding to the questions GreatApe had posted. You then told me that I wasn’t answering the question, and I wanted to know which one so I could answer more accurately. I hope I have done so in this post! I do actually think that the changing of polytechnics to universities was a mistake: vocational subjects should remain separate from academic subjects. Again, that’s an issue for government to fix.

economic wrote: »

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."

I’ll reiterate that not all degrees are equal, and some are therefore going to be more attractive (and thus more valuable) than others. Employers might use a degree for filtering, but they are still going to favour the more ‘rigorous’ degrees, so the issue would be trying to solve the growing numbers undertaking what you perceive as being “useless degrees”. As I have previously mentioned, a solution could be investing in a comprehensive apprenticeship system.

economic wrote: »

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.

A fair point we both agree on. However, this does put you at odds with GreatApe and his idea of using taxpayer money as a coming-of-age endowment to be spent on whatever eighteen year-olds desire. The repayment rates for degrees are very low due to the nature of how they are repaid: for post-2012 loans, the rate is 9% over a repayment threshold that has been increased to £25’000. That’s a rather large wage for a graduate.
 

GreatApe wrote: »

Someone should sell fake degrees online.
£60 instead of £60,000 student debts.
Not like many HR departments are going to check if your 2:1 in film studies from Luton polly is real or not its worth about the same either way.

This is actually a growing problem. See: (Ref: NY Post).

Cakeguts wrote: »

You are one of the people who has lost out by education being dumbed down. I am old and did O levels and A levels. There wasn't a big jump from O level to A level and there wasn't a big jump from A level to university. O levels were much much harder than GCSEs and A levela then were much harder than they are now so the university courses just carried on from A levels. If you had done A levels when I did them you would only have needed to study at university to get a degree that would be at least the standard of a masters from a top university now. Very few people got 1st class degrees not because they were more stupid but because it was so much harder. These days anyone can get a 1st class degree. The problem is that it devalues the currency. So in the past when having a degree was an achievement because so few people had one a first class grade made you exceptional. Now it is the norm so you are just ordinary with all the other 1000s students who get a 1st without actually knowing anything.

I was intrigued by the constant mentions of how much harder O-Levels were than modern GCSEs, so thought I’d do a bit of research. Apparently I’m the only one keen on actually providing evidence that is not hearsay or anecdotal (and yes, I realise even I provided an anecdote vis-à-vis my auntie). I found some examples of past O-Level exam papers (Ref: Cambridge Assessment), including maths papers. Aside from the inclusion of matrices, I can’t see any difference between the 1984 O-Level maths paper and one for current GCSE maths. The French is harder, although I can’t say whether it compares to A-Levels as I studied an alternative qualification. The English O-Level is comparable to GCSE. History is vastly different, but not necessarily harder. In the 1984 paper there is a greater focus on British and European history pre-WWI. From my own experience, GCSE History is (wrongly) focused on WWI, WWII, the Depression Era, and the Cold War / Soviet Russia.

I do have to say that the biggest surprise came in the sciences. The materials in the 1984 Biology paper are comparable for testing analytical skills, but significantly harder in terms of expected knowledge. I can’t be sure as it’s been a while, but I don’t remember studying genotypes/phenotypes until sixth form. The same goes for structure of the eye and kidney (I definitely didn’t study the Bowman’s Capsule until sixth form …)

So overall, I’d say that the expected range and depth of knowledge is about equal aside from in the sciences. However, I will say that the material covered is quite different and the way the questions are posed is also more ambiguous, supporting the point made earlier in the thread that GCSEs potentially lead the student to the answer.

Cakeguts wrote: »

I went to a Polytechnic for which you needed at least 2 A levels at grade E that would be two As now. I also had to be able to play 3 musical instruments which is why it was only 2 A levels. The course was 3 years. There were exams at the end of the each year where the results did not count towards the final degree. You were awarded the degree if you passed the exams at the end of the 3rd year. Course work and end of year exams did not contribute any marks to the end of 3 year result. You could be examined at the end of the 3 years on anything you had studied during the 3 year course. There were no modules. To pass any degree you had to really know your subject because there weren't any modules. So you didn't get the credits that you get now towards the final exam.

For most degrees, first year doesn’t count towards the overall classification as it is considered an equalising year to bring all students up to speed (I am well aware of the questionable need for this year …).
Second year is then worth 40%, and third year 60%. The amount of coursework varies per subject and per module, with some being entirely coursework-based and others entirely exam-based. I do find a balance between the two fairer as having a bad day in the exam hall could completely derail three years (and tens of thousands of pounds) of study. Modules are important to allow students to specialise in certain areas. There’s the argument that the further along in education you go, the more you learn about less.

Cakeguts wrote: »

A levels were 2 years. Most people took 3 subjects. The exam at the end of the 2nd year gave you your grade. There was course work and an exam at the end of the first year but the marks from the course work and the end of 1st year exams did not count toward the grade you got in the exam at the end of the 2nd year. You could get questions on anything that you had studied during the two years so you really had to know the subject. There was nothing in the questions to give you an idea of what they wanted you to answer in the question you had to work it out. O level questions were the same. You had to come up with the answers there were no clues as to what you should write just a question which you answered.

A-Levels are returning to this linear system, with AS levels no longer being examined at the end of first year.

Cakeguts wrote: »

I have studied a few years ago at a not very good university and the course was divided up into modules which you could retake to improve the mark and the marks of the module counted towards the final degree result. This was so much easier than what I did at a polytechnic. You could finish the university course knowing hardly anything because you only did little bits of everything and then got marked on it. The year finished in middle May. My polytechnic course went on until July each year.

This is something that I can relate to. I pay £9000 for essentially six months of teaching. Even then, it’s far fewer hours teaching than other subjects. As for modules however, my university is quite strict about resits. There needs to be a compelling reason (death in the family, you were on your death bed, etc.) and if you do resit then you get your grade capped at 40% regardless of how well you then do. I think that’s fair, as it all but excludes you from receiving a first-class degree.

Cakeguts wrote: »

I feel sorry for people who go to school and university now because they are missing out on so much education by not getting to the standard that they used to at school. In fact I often wonder how they manage to waste the time needed to reach such a low level before they leave. Somewhere there must be a lot of time wasted. I don't know where it is wasted. There is about 3 years of wasted time at school which people used to be educated in. What they do in that time I have no idea but it meant that you degrees were mostly 3 years and harder so when you left university you knew more about the subject and you had had a lot of practice at knowing how to learn.

Lots of students might tell you its wasted on Netflix or nights out, others on studying and getting good grades. It depends on the academic calibre of the individual.

Cakeguts wrote: »

When your aunt was at school 60 years ago there was no decimalisation. So arithmatic was done in old measures where nothing added up to 10. There were no calculators if you wanted to work things out you had to use tables. So to work out weights you had ounces, pounds and stones. 16 ounces in a pound 14 pounds in a stone. Feet and inches. 12 inches in a foot. 3 feet in a yard. You can try working out compound interest in pennies, shillings, and pounds. Once you realise that you are not working in 10s and 100s and people could do it you also realise how much easier it is to do it now and yet people can't. They arrive at work unable to do simple arithmatic.

Please remember that when you aunt did geometry the cirlces could have been in inches and the square in feet.

My aunt didn’t go to a grammar, so her education wasn’t the best. She can in fact do all the conversions in ‘old money’ as she used them daily in her work. She had no idea about geometry, either from forgetting or poor education at the time.

Maths with decimalisation is far easier, and it still worries me how many people don’t reach a sufficient standard by GCSE level.



The point I made about essay-writing wasn't clear: essay-writing IS taught in school and in sixth form, but the method changes drastically at university. University essays are far different, requiring a specific focus on referencing and the analysis of said references, as well as a greater level of questioning for the original question. At GCSE and A-Level, you are essentially prohibited from questioning the question. If in a History exam you are asked "In what way did the Treaty of Versailles contribute to the outbreak of WWII?", you can't argue that the question focuses on the presumption that there was any contribution and is leading. You are also encouraged to simply rote learn the answers given by the teacher (WWII was caused by Treaty of Versailles, weakness of Weimar govt, Appeasement, etc.) and not to put forth your own argument for fear of failing. At university, you're encouraged to argue against widely-accepted views.

Lingua

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

What is the 200k-300k better off mean exactly? Is that the sum of all his gross salaries every year since he graduated? On average at most that would amount to £20k, hardly worth the degree given average grad salaries.

If it means additional pay compared to if he did not do a degree then that's different. It would help to to know what he means by 300k better off.

Well what do you want to assume my pay would have been without my degree from say age 21 - 36? Then you can make some assumptions regarding how that might have increased, and how that might equate to my current pay which is slightly north of 50k, and has been around that point for a good few years. If you wanna take non graduate me for the last 5 years at 20 - 25k per year to be generous? Graduate me at 50 - 55k per year. There is a 150k or so difference straight away without thinking about the 10 years preceding that. If we are to believe that you earned 100k per year from your job, what would you have earned being a cashier in a bank and then trying to work your way up to management? 100k as opposed to 15 - 20k per year. Makes you some £800,000 better off for doing a degree (exclude taxes etc). Looking at figures like this, does this make university a bad choice for you or the taxpayer who have more than recouped their outlay on our degrees? What am I paying at the moment, some 10 grand of tax a year? My student loan is fully repaid and I'm self funding my masters.

As for my credit card debt - there are a multitude of reasons for that, some frivolous, some not. Having a debt doesn't equate to being poor / stupid if that is what you are getting at. £1500 or so left to pay and then it'll be gone. It's parked on 0% for another 2 years (36 month initial offer), so there's no rush, hence taking my time. I could pay it off tomorrow if I needed to. I've had a great time with it, squandered some of it, spent some of it wisely / invested in my future. How many people in the UK at large do you suppose you would find with no debt? How will those half million pound mortgage debts look if prices start to fall rapidly? Consumer credit card use and things like PCP on cars is going through the roof. I think you will probably find I am at the more sensible / well off end of things than your average punter on the highstreet.

Recent article suggests a graduate could be some £500,000 better off than a non-graduate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11744118/Graduates-earn-500000-more-than-non-graduates.html

There's 500,000 reasons for someone to go to uni!

economic

Lingua

Thanks for your reply. I am posting this separately as i want to make this point very clear as its important:

There is a world of difference between requiring a degree for the sake of having a degree (2:1 from a good uni for e.g. that HR departments state or want as a filter) then having the degree that is actually useful for the job.

Sure all the stats point to having a degree gives people more earning power. The real question is has the degree provided actual usefulness for a person to do a specific job. The fact that the taxpayer is funding the degrees (and students taking debt and spending 3 years of their lives) is what makes it such an important question.

Have job skills requirements actually gone up so much over a generation that the degrees that are being done are actually required? So much so that is is worth 60k of debt per student and giving away 3 years of their lives not being productive?

Lingua

economic wrote: »

Lingua

Thanks for your reply. I am posting this separately as i want to make this point very clear as its important:

There is a world of difference between requiring a degree for the sake of having a degree (2:1 from a good uni for e.g. that HR departments state or want as a filter) then having the degree that is actually useful for the job.

Sure all the stats point to having a degree gives people more earning power. The real question is has the degree provided actual usefulness for a person to do a specific job. The fact that the taxpayer is funding the degrees (and students taking debt and spending 3 years of their lives) is what makes it such an important question.

Have job skills requirements actually gone up so much over a generation that the degrees that are being done are actually required? So much so that is is worth 60k of debt per student and giving away 3 years of their lives not being productive?

One could argue that a degree provides more than just knowledge about a specific field. It allows you to encounter people from other backgrounds, ethnicities, etc., and to engage in an exploration of self in a (hopefully) open environment. I made this argument earlier. I believe that for many going to university, the experience is a liberating and liberalising one. I don't use liberalising to mean it converts everyone to hardcore Corbynistas (though that is their prerogative), but rather it makes them less biased or prejudiced. For those from wealthy backgrounds, it can be humbling to find out that not everyone goes on a skiing holiday to the Alps every summer. For those who are from rural areas, they can engage with urbanites and vice versa. They can even meet a non-white person for the first time! (That sounds like hyperbole and sarcasm, but it's surprisingly not so far from the truth ...)

Yet, I do acknowledge that not all degrees are pertinent to the jobs or careers that graduates will pursue. Sometimes, it can seem that a degree is just another qualification to be put on a CV to open the doors to certain career paths; however, I don't believe that the overall increase in student numbers or those gaining degrees is a bad thing. Should the costs be lowered? Absolutely, but by making universities open their books (ha ha) and show how they are spending their money to then identify savings. I don't think it is all being spent on the student experience.

Lingua

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

What is the 200k-300k better off mean exactly? Is that the sum of all his gross salaries every year since he graduated? On average at most that would amount to £20k, hardly worth the degree given average grad salaries.

If it means additional pay compared to if he did not do a degree then that's different. It would help to to know what he means by 300k better off.

Its just windy mouthing off hence the £100,000 margin of error that's just coins down the back of the sofa for windy

He probably assumes people who didn't go to uni in his time were unemployed from 16-21 and then only managed to get min wage jobs thereafter. The reality of course is that non grads (even more so when he were a kid) have a spectrum of earnings

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Well what do you want to assume my pay would have been without my degree from say age 21 - 36? Then you can make some assumptions regarding how that might have increased, and how that might equate to my current pay which is slightly north of 50k, and has been around that point for a good few years. If you wanna take non graduate me for the last 5 years at 20 - 25k per year to be generous? Graduate me at 50 - 55k per year. There is a 150k or so difference straight away without thinking about the 10 years preceding that. If we are to believe that you earned 100k per year from your job, what would you have earned being a cashier in a bank and then trying to work your way up to management? 100k as opposed to 15 - 20k per year. Makes you some £800,000 better off for doing a degree (exclude taxes etc). Looking at figures like this, does this make university a bad choice for you or the taxpayer who have more than recouped their outlay on our degrees? What am I paying at the moment, some 10 grand of tax a year? My student loan is fully repaid and I'm self funding my masters.

As for my credit card debt - there are a multitude of reasons for that, some frivolous, some not. Having a debt doesn't equate to being poor / stupid if that is what you are getting at. £1500 or so left to pay and then it'll be gone. It's parked on 0% for another 2 years (36 month initial offer), so there's no rush, hence taking my time. I could pay it off tomorrow if I needed to. I've had a great time with it, squandered some of it, spent some of it wisely / invested in my future. How many people in the UK at large do you suppose you would find with no debt? How will those half million pound mortgage debts look if prices start to fall rapidly? Consumer credit card use and things like PCP on cars is going through the roof. I think you will probably find I am at the more sensible / well off end of things than your average punter on the highstreet.

Recent article suggests a graduate could be some £500,000 better off than a non-graduate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11744118/Graduates-earn-500000-more-than-non-graduates.html

There's 500,000 reasons for someone to go to uni!

At age 37 was is your net position? Roughly £0 ? A graduate following your footsteps would be at what -£30k net due to the higher tuition fees?

So you have basically just stood still since age 16? That is twenty one years lost for you
You will argue it wasn't lost you spent those 21 years becoming highly educated. How's that working out for you?

PS I don't mean to be an !!! and i don't post these to belittle you. I am just trying to get you to see that there are plenty of successful non grads and that the value of higher education is most likely negative for most grads today.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

At age 37 was is your net position? Roughly £0 ? A graduate following your footsteps would be at what -£30k net due to the higher tuition fees?

So you have basically just stood still since age 16? That is twenty one years lost for you
You will argue it wasn't lost you spent those 21 years becoming highly educated. How's that working out for you?

PS I don't mean to be an !!! and u don't post these to belittle you. I am just trying to get you to see that there are plenty of successful non grads and that the value of higher education is most likely negative for most grads today.

Of course there are successful non-grads - look at Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg etc etc. Where have I suggested there aren't? This is the issue with your argument - there is no logical conclusion. You can just pull anecdotes out of the air till the cows come home to try and prove your stance, and basically most people on here have seen through that long ago. As per Lingua - why don't you go find some data that actually backs up what you are saying as opposed to using fluffy language like 'most likely' in an attempt to prove what? You will find both grads and non-grads at every point of the earnings spectrum. Can you give me a statistic that points to non-grads as a cohort being generally better off than grads? Can you actually prove what you are getting at, or at least present a rational argument based somewhat in the real world? This is where you consistently fall down - you can't supply anything meaningful other than your gut feeling and anecdotes.

As for standing still - as per economic, you assume what you want about me if it makes you feel better... I'm not about to delve into the intricacies of my financial position on here, but in short I have a private pension fund from my 8 years working at a FTSE 100 that is worth 10's of thousands, a nicely accumulating NHS pension fund that should I complete another 30 years service will see me retire on around three quarters of my final salary, a secure and decently paid job, a very small amount of credit card / any sort of debt, and I've also owned and sold a property as well as currently paying a mortgage on a Zone 3 London pad. I am a long long way from being a 0 net wealth individual.

There is my n = 1, and as I've mentioned time and again to you both, I'm really not all that upset with life. You can give me as many n = 1's as you want and say ah well it is quite likely or in my view, but how about something we can base a debate around other than 10 pages of increasingly desperate attempts to belittle me which as per the above outline just make me chuckle.

kabayiri

Education is a volume product now, which makes discussing it on an individual basis somewhat difficult.

If 8 out of 10 people in your peer group have a degree, and you don't, then it's easy to see how you might feel isolated.

Since we mentioned IT, some companies use the degree qualification of their staff as a marketing tool. "All our consultants are degree level". I saw it first hand with a firm I worked for. Rightly or wrongly, they trade on the perceived value of having a degree.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Of course there are successful non-grads - look at Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg etc etc. Where have I suggested there aren't? This is the issue with your argument - there is no logical conclusion. You can just pull anecdotes out of the air till the cows come home to try and prove your stance, and basically most people on here have seen through that long ago. As per Lingua - why don't you go find some data that actually backs up what you are saying as opposed to using fluffy language like 'most likely' in an attempt to prove what? You will find both grads and non-grads at every point of the earnings spectrum. Can you give me a statistic that points to non-grads as a cohort being generally better off than grads? Can you actually prove what you are getting at, or at least present a rational argument based somewhat in the real world? This is where you consistently fall down - you can't supply anything meaningful other than your gut feeling and anecdotes.

As for standing still - as per economic, you assume what you want about me if it makes you feel better... I'm not about to delve into the intricacies of my financial position on here, but in short I have a private pension fund from my 8 years working at a FTSE 100 that is worth 10's of thousands, a nicely accumulating NHS pension fund that should I complete another 30 years service will see me retire on around three quarters of my final salary, a secure and decently paid job, a very small amount of credit card / any sort of debt, and I've also owned and sold a property as well as currently paying a mortgage on a Zone 3 London pad. I am a long long way from being a 0 net wealth individual.

There is my n = 1, and as I've mentioned time and again to you both, I'm really not all that upset with life. You can give me as many n = 1's as you want and say ah well it is quite likely or in my view, but how about something we can base a debate around other than 10 pages of increasingly desperate attempts to belittle me which as per the above outline just make me chuckle.

I wasn't belittling you. You can't relive your life and most people are on auto pilot.
Its more talking about the future grads if its worthwhile or not for them
You as a grad from UCL you are not marginal UCL is what in the top 20 universities in the UK?

Your position as someone who is a grad at a top 20 university with 21 years of earned or lost years doesn't sound amazing it just sounds like the norm. A bit of a state funded pension and has a mortgage. Sounds well within the norm. Your highly educated self has not manages to notably pull ahead if anything it shows being highly educated isn't much of a guarantee of anything beyond the norm