Are degrees in the UK value for money?

economic

Cakeguts wrote: »

Regarding nursing degrees https://digital.ucas.com/courses/details?coursePrimaryId=569ab88d-1ad6-69e3-9ac3-7ccb064e74d0&courseOptionId=62febdf6-32d7-8e27-1e7e-2700f6332390 this one needs BBB at A level that is the equivalent of the 3 O levels so nursing degrees are not the level of traditionals degrees they are technical college level. If we had technical colleges of the standard of the old ones nursing could be done at those.

Many of our nurses are educated to the level of 3 old A levels. There is no point in anyone needing to go to university to do a nursing degree this could all be done as an apprenticeship. They are educated to the same level as they always were or probably not quite as well. This is what happens when you dumb down you don't realise that everything is dumbed down.

Sending nurses to university instead of technical college is a huge waste of time and money. Nursing could be done as an apprenticeship. There are apprenticeships where you need As at A level.

We are becoming a nation full of unproductive people.

GreatApe

Cakeguts wrote: »

Why do we need to have all nurses get degrees? The people who clean the patients and hand out the medication don't need a degree. There are lots of jobs that don't actually need a degree. As long as someone is doing the more difficult jobs and they have been to a real university the others changing dressings etc don't need one.

So why not have standards of nursing where the people with responsibility need degrees and the rest don't? It would mean that all nurses had real degrees from real universities and all other jobs were learned on the job.

If this madness continues we will just get to a situation where everyone goes to university it might even become mandatory. Seems like college pretty much already is so university is next to be mandatory 10-20 years down the line

Maybe another 10 years down the line after that we can rename undergrad degrees Ordinary Level Degrees. We can rename masters Advanced Level Degrees. or O-Levels and A-Levels for short

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

How did the country manage 30 years ago?
And we could spend a lot more on healthcare if we spend a lot less on media studies



I would not have a hard cap at 5% I think that is perhaps toward the lower limit so something between 5-10 percent. 5% of the working age population is a lot of people it is close to 2 million people.

You can also strengthen standards at lower levels.

Why have a 3 year photography degree for £60k at a university why not have a triple A-Level in photography so the kids spend 16-18 learning what they would do at university but for free. Maybe even have colleges award them as undergraduate degrees. Why not have a triple A level in nursing where the kids learn nursing full time age 16-18? Maybe even call it a degree rather than a triple A level

Ok then, so to word it differently, you are the education secretary and you have to explain to the public what you are going to cut university attendance to. How do you justify your number? Where is the data to support you need xxx % of the population in university studying however many courses?

Cakeguts

economic wrote: »

We are becoming a nation full of thick people.

Intelligence and education are not the same the intelligent people are still doing the same jobs as they always did regardless of their education. The problem is always with the less able. At the moment they have no choice.

I will admit that I was shocked to realise that nurses are only educated to the level of 3 old A levels. No wonder the NHS is in such a state. You can't get a traditional level of degree starting from 3 O levels which is what 3 Bs are now because you had to have at least 5 O levels at grade C and above as well as 3 A levels above grade E. I actually think that they are probably not as well educated as they used to be when they had nursing schools. You would think that a nursing degree would have needed at least one A at A level?

Nursing could easily be done as an apprenticeship. 3 Bs at A level is apprenticeship level anyway. It isn't degree level.

This is the problem with dumbing down unless you have people who remember the old degree levels the universities the NHS and the government can get away with anything in health care. There is nothing stopping them from dumbing down A levels and nursing degrees qualifications further.

I wonder if private hospitals ask for nurses with higher educational levels?

economic

This can actually become quite dangerous if it spirals out of control. We have quite a large debt to gdp ratio. We have a very large baby boomer generation retiring who have been promised state pensions. If we do not get productivity going in a meaningful way, 10-20 years down the line we could very well have major problems on our hands. In 30 years, there may not be a state pension left for Windy, and he will complain why his NHS pension got repudiated on. He will only be left with a private pension to show for his MSc from UCL. All because people have to study for 3 more years at least and have 60k of debt each.

Lets hope tech/AI etc come to the rescue by then.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Ok then, so to word it differently, you are the education secretary and you have to explain to the public what you are going to cut university attendance to. How do you justify your number? Where is the data to support you need xxx % of the population in university studying however many courses?

If I were in government I would set no limit for university places.
I would give each kid a 'voucher' with £60,000 in it they can draw down to pay for their university fees (and living costs) or to draw it down on buying a house. Repayment on the same terms as now. Able to use it anytime upto age 40. Indexed to CPI.

Then let the kids decide which is best value.

Before you go into a rant about how it will cost money, no it wont it would likely save in the order of £10 billion a year. With the option of £60k for the education or the house or keeping it indexed at CPI to use later I think half as many kids would opt to use the funds for university maybe even 2/3rds fewer. The majority of the ones that do opt to go to university would be the better subjects and universities so medicine numbers wont shrink but business studies at Luton probably will

Cakeguts

Windofchange wrote: »

Ok then, so to word it differently, you are the education secretary and you have to explain to the public what you are going to cut university attendance to. How do you justify your number? Where is the data to support you need xxx % of the population in university studying however many courses?

I would cut it to 10% of the population. Then I would introduce polytechnics and technical colleges with new qualifications called diplomas that were vocational and were advertised as leading to jobs and I would make those courses free.

People going to university to do non vocational courses would pay for them but courses like medicine and any other vocational university course would be free but I would also limit the the number of people on each course.

Teachers would have to be in the top 10% of the population who got top grades in A levels. Without a university degree you would not be allowed to teach in a state school. A levels would be marked in percentages again. So if you didn't get at least 3 A levels that got you a university place you would not be allowed to teach in a state school.

Entry to technical college would be at 16 and the course would run for 2 years but all year without the long holidays. The holidays would be like what you get when you are at work. Polytechnic courses would be the same so no semesters and years ending in May.

There would be 1st class degree awards only for exceptional students.

Cakeguts

It gets worse. Mental health nursing in Luton can be 112 UCAS points which can be CCD. This is just awful. People with mental illness are being nursed by people who have qualifications that are not as high as 3 old A levels. This just shows the attitude of the NHS to mental health.

Seriously ill people with complex issues are being nursed by unintelligent poorly educated health professionals with extremely dumbed down degrees. I am horrified by the attitude of the universities and the health services to mental health. This is just awful.

SingleSue

CCD is 88 UCAS points.

economic

Cakeguts wrote: »

It gets worse. Mental health nursing in Luton can be 112 UCAS points which can be CCD. This is just awful. People with mental illness are being nursed by people who have qualifications that are not as high as 3 old A levels. This just shows the attitude of the NHS to mental health.

Seriously ill people with complex issues are being nursed by unintelligent poorly educated health professionals with extremely dumbed down degrees. I am horrified by the attitude of the universities and the health services to mental health. This is just awful.

Totally agree based on my personal experience. All i was offered was CBT for my mental health issues. I was skeptical but gave it a chance. After the therapy was over i felt better but then after a few weeks i was back to my old self again. I am not sure if it was the therapist or the therapy but i have read that CBT is only really effective if the therapist applies it properly.

I also have my doubts on CBT generally. It maybe good short term, but after a year or two is the person really any better then they were before CBT? I am not convinced its a good use of money despite it being quite cheap relative to alternatives (CBT is a bulk mental health service basically).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2828509/CBT-scam-waste-money-Popular-talking-therapy-not-long-term-solution-says-leading-psychologist.html