Are degrees in the UK value for money?

kabayiri

GreatApe wrote: »

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
...

My DD started Uni this autumn. If I pretended I was ultra confident that this was the stand out route to deliver her a clear career, I would be lying.

It's a risk based assessment, based on some generally projected ideas that say it's worthwhile.

The UK outlook; technological development; the superior development from elsewhere...any of these factors could undermine the job prospects of DD and thousands like her.

Given this backdrop, I can't argue for the value for money side. We won't really know until years down the line.

economic

kabayiri wrote: »

My DD started Uni this autumn. If I pretended I was ultra confident that this was the stand out route to deliver her a clear career, I would be lying.

It's a risk based assessment, based on some generally projected ideas that say it's worthwhile.

The UK outlook; technological development; the superior development from elsewhere...any of these factors could undermine the job prospects of DD and thousands like her.

Given this backdrop, I can't argue for the value for money side. We won't really know until years down the line.

The problem is the issue we are raising isn’t as simple as doing a degree or not because the job market (in by far most cases) requires degrees irrespective of whether a degree is actually any use in terms of skills/knowledge for the job.

It’s simple game theory really - a students optimal decision is to actually do a degree since nearly all jobs paying in the top 90th percentile (or there abouts) of wages require a degree. But that doesn’t mean the degree in itself was any use. It’s just the way the whole system is setup (see my bubble cycle post).

GreatApe

kabayiri wrote: »

My DD started Uni this autumn. If I pretended I was ultra confident that this was the stand out route to deliver her a clear career, I would be lying.

It's a risk based assessment, based on some generally projected ideas that say it's worthwhile.

The UK outlook; technological development; the superior development from elsewhere...any of these factors could undermine the job prospects of DD and thousands like her.

Given this backdrop, I can't argue for the value for money side. We won't really know until years down the line.

It really isn't worthwhile for the majority
I did an undergraduate degree and worked in R&D for about 3 years before realising how pointless a road it was. I could have done all my work at the R&D labs with just my A-Levels. While the pay was OK for someone just out of university (equivlant of about £30k today plus about £10k on pension) the progression was not.

So I left and started my own business and made a much better living that way.
I feel I wasted 3 years at university and 3 years at my grad job. Had I just started working 6 years sooner I would probably be financially a lot better off.

I really don't think we need much more than 5% of the workforce as graduates
More than that and it just becomes grade inflation

Its a waste of time and lost earnings for the kids.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

It really isn't worthwhile for the majority
I did an undergraduate degree and worked in R&D for about 3 years before realising how pointless a road it was. I could have done all my work at the R&D labs with just my A-Levels. While the pay was OK for someone just out of university (equivlant of about £30k today plus about £10k on pension) the progression was not.

So I left and started my own business and made a much better living that way.
I feel I wasted 3 years at university and 3 years at my grad job. Had I just started working 6 years sooner I would probably be financially a lot better off.

I really don't think we need much more than 5% of the workforce as graduates
More than that and it just becomes grade inflation

Its a waste of time and lost earnings for the kids.

Did you require a degree for your first job?

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

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

I'm not really sure I understand much past the I'm not belittling you bit. As per my post, I have a lot more than a bit of a state funded pension. I have a private pension accumulated through 8 years in a FTSE 100 that is worth 10's of thousands, and am accumulating a third pension within the NHS currently. So, upon retirement as it stands I will have a full state pension entitlement, a large (I'm hoping well into 6 figures) private pot, and also a NHS pension scheme that will be paying out about 3/4 of my final salary, which today if I were at retirement age would be around £30k per annum. How is that not not notably pulling ahead of someone who will just get £600 a month in state pension? I'll likely be a higher rate taxpayer based on pension income alone!

Add to all this, without my degree I would have been earning significantly less over the past 16 years or so than I have been. As per the above, what do you reckon I would have earned doing a 9-5 as an office admin or working the tills as compared to what I have done? If I go on the agenda for change NHS pay scale - non professional roles are earning around 15 - 22k per annum. Professional (Band 5) starts around £25k and then heads up to £100k at the top end. For the last 7 years or so, I have been earning dramatically more than non graduates, and recently in the past two or so around 25 - 30k per annum more than our admin ladies. This gap will only get bigger as I (hopefully) get higher up the pay scale. How many 100's of thousands more than someone stuck as a non-professional will I have earned in 30 years time?

As above, this is all n=1 and useless in proving any sort of cause and effect from degrees. In my n=1, doing a degree was 100% worthwhile for me, doing a masters will be 100% worthwhile as it will allow me to go for more senior posts, and doing all of that will have been 100% worth it for the taxpayer as they have more than had their investment returned to them over the years, and will continue to do so. I'm sure you have a story of an old mate of a mate who did a degree who is now an alcoholic and sleeps under a bridge somewhere in Wolverhampton. None of this proves either side of the argument.

So, you either present some sort of argument based on data applicable across all grads or non grads, or you continue with anecdotes and stories about your friends and relatives. If you think that giving everyone 60k not to go to university is better for them, then I can present you with a whole load of data that proves grads earn well into six figures more than their non-grad counterparts over a lifetime. Shock horror, a lot of these grads will also buy houses and benefit from house price inflation as well as a bigger earning potential. This is not a binary choice - uni or house.

kabayiri

GreatApe wrote: »

...
I really don't think we need much more than 5% of the workforce as graduates
More than that and it just becomes grade inflation

Its a waste of time and lost earnings for the kids.

I have a lot of time for this argument personally. But it feels like you are swimming against the tide.

I think the cost of borrowing money is generally too cheap as well, but the concensus is against me there as well.

Really, we need a few entrepreneurial 'blackhats'; the kind who can conjure up the next Google/Amazon/Ebay/AirBnb etc; and the rest who can help support the visionaries to translate ideas into profitable UK endeavour.

I think we squander too much degree money on low grade activity. But....ultimately, I have to support any decision DD makes.

Because they will carry the risks of their decisions going forward.

Cakeguts

Lingua wrote: »

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.




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.




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.



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.




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.
 


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




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.




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.




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



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.




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

1984 is too late. The dumbing down of A levels and O levels had started by then. You need to look at papers in the 60s and 70s to get a better idea.

The questions on the papers were deliberately not intended to lead the student to the answer. It meant that you could include not the just the obvious in the answer but show that you really knew about the subject.

Your aunt may have done CSEs they were more like GCSEs but harder.

There is leading in the Versailles treaty question in GCSE or A levels now you wouldn't get a question like that in O levels. What you would have been asked is about important treaties. You would have had to have provided the information about the Versailles Treaty and the Wiemar government in your answer to show your knowledge. You may have been given a range of dates to narrow the answer down. That information would not have been part of the question. This is one of the reasons why GCSEs and A levels are easier now. The answers are partially included in the questions.

You may have had something like 4 O level questions so there was plenty of time for you to name the important treaties and the effects that they had. The information was not included in the question. The questions were designed to find out how much you knew not what you knew about small aspects of the course.

Modules are a complete disaster. They make the courses easier because they are broken down into smaller amounts of learning.

The point about academic courses was not to teach you a course in some subject but to teach you how to learn in a particular subject so modules had no place in that because you didn't need to be tested on what you had learned part way through the course. The final exam tested not only what you had learned but how you had learned it. A university course was supposed to help you to learn how to learn so that you could continue to do this after the course.

The dumbed down university courses now spoon feed information in small chunks called modules. This is why they are so much easier to pass because you don't need to know how to learn and you don't need to know very much about anything. Not only that students choose modules that they know they will get a good mark in because the modules affect the overall grade at the end of the degree. So now you can get a degree in bits of things and at the end know virtually nothing about lots of bits and have no idea how to study something in any depth that takes longer than the length of time to work on a module.

People who have done these degrees are unemployable because they don't know how to learn. A job training course that lasted more than a year would be impossible for them because at no time have the been expected to learn any subject for more than a couple of months.

Of course the intelligent students can learn much more than the course offers but the students who can't get grade As at A level will only do what is described as being in the module and no extra which leaves them at a complete disadvantage when they come to get a job. If you only learn what you are told to do in a module how do you realise that you need to research what work the company does that you are going to for an interview for a job? They won't know where to start because of the module spoon feeding.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

Did you require a degree for your first job?

Yes couldn't even apply without a degree
They took in about two hundred grads that year (at about a dozen sites)

From the looks of things the HR Ladies hadn't a clue what they were doing. There were everything from oxford electrical engineers to grads from universities I had never heard of doing some oddly named degrees. From what in could gather their aim was to put these people into middle and lower management positions. I worked in various part of the business but mostly in the R&D labs

In hindsight things are worse than they appear.
Not only did they hire 200 grads who did not need to be grads
But they also by that decision displaced promoting 200 of their employees internally

So not only has the university bubble cost huge amounts in debt and lost earnings
It has also cut off a lot of working your way up Jobs

Fortunately when the recession hit they wanted to make some redundancies and I was very happy to volunteer leaving with 6 months pay I was planning to leave anyway so that was a nice bonus.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

I'm not really sure I understand much past the I'm not belittling you bit. As per my post, I have a lot more than a bit of a state funded pension. I have a private pension accumulated through 8 years in a FTSE 100 that is worth 10's of thousands, and am accumulating a third pension within the NHS currently. So, upon retirement as it stands I will have a full state pension entitlement, a large (I'm hoping well into 6 figures) private pot, and also a NHS pension scheme that will be paying out about 3/4 of my final salary, which today if I were at retirement age would be around £30k per annum. How is that not not notably pulling ahead of someone who will just get £600 a month in state pension? I'll likely be a higher rate taxpayer based on pension income alone!

Add to all this, without my degree I would have been earning significantly less over the past 16 years or so than I have been. As per the above, what do you reckon I would have earned doing a 9-5 as an office admin or working the tills as compared to what I have done? If I go on the agenda for change NHS pay scale - non professional roles are earning around 15 - 22k per annum. Professional (Band 5) starts around £25k and then heads up to £100k at the top end. For the last 7 years or so, I have been earning dramatically more than non graduates, and recently in the past two or so around 25 - 30k per annum more than our admin ladies. This gap will only get bigger as I (hopefully) get higher up the pay scale. How many 100's of thousands more than someone stuck as a non-professional will I have earned in 30 years time?

As above, this is all n=1 and useless in proving any sort of cause and effect from degrees. In my n=1, doing a degree was 100% worthwhile for me, doing a masters will be 100% worthwhile as it will allow me to go for more senior posts, and doing all of that will have been 100% worth it for the taxpayer as they have more than had their investment returned to them over the years, and will continue to do so. I'm sure you have a story of an old mate of a mate who did a degree who is now an alcoholic and sleeps under a bridge somewhere in Wolverhampton. None of this proves either side of the argument.

So, you either present some sort of argument based on data applicable across all grads or non grads, or you continue with anecdotes and stories about your friends and relatives. If you think that giving everyone 60k not to go to university is better for them, then I can present you with a whole load of data that proves grads earn well into six figures more than their non-grad counterparts over a lifetime. Shock horror, a lot of these grads will also buy houses and benefit from house price inflation as well as a bigger earning potential. This is not a binary choice - uni or house.

The problem with data for graduate earnings vs non graduate earnings is that they include people like me who are grads and don't do any grad level work. My income should count as non graduate income.

I don't think its even possible to compare grads to non grads today.
You will probably have to look at middle management jobs a generation ago which didn't need degrees vs middle management jobs today which do need the.

Overall if universities are adding so much value why are wages roughly the same as a decade ago? Why are so many grads in non grad jibs. Why do so many grads earn leas than median full time earnings?

Cakeguts

Lingua wrote: »

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

The problem with everyone being able to study for a degree is that for people going to the 75 or so universities in bottom of the leagues tables in the UK it is a total and complete waste of 3 years. In those 3 years they could have been learning something that would help them in their future job or done an apprenticeship. At the moment there are about 75 universities in the UK that only employ people they don't do anything for the benefit of the students. One of the reasons for this is that for people with less then 3 As at A level the degrees have to be very easy to pass and my argument is that since everything has been significantly dumbed down this level of education that is now called a degree and studied at university used to be reached at school or technical college for free and 3 years earlier. So what is happening now is that students are losing 3 years of education at school or technical college. They should be learning more because technology and decimalisation has made a lot of subjects easier so what we should be seeing is students getting to the standard of an old degree at school not what is happening which is reaching the education level of a 15 year old 40 years ago.

The other problem is this. To go to teacher training college you needed at least one A level at grade E. That is now one A level at grade A. Now you can go to university with no As. So that would be only 3 O level standard qualifications. So we now have teachers in schools who are only educated to the standard of an old A level or less because that is the standard of their degree. We used to have teachers who were educated to what is now a masters degree from a top university. So lots and lots of children are now being taught subjects by teachers who don't know anything about the subject they are teaching. It is no wonder that the level of education is dropping. The teachers have done university degrees in module they don't know how to learn they don't know much about the subjects they are teaching and yet they are supposed to educate the next generation?