We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Are degrees in the UK value for money?
Comments
-
The average starting salary for grads is 19-22k. Instead of paying these sslaries at 22 years old, they pay them at 16 year olds. theywill have no choice as no one will be a graduate anymore, everyone will be looking for work at age 16 in the same numbers as those looking for work at age 22 after doing a useless degree. So the reality behind it is the reality. Companies are not going to reduce salaries on offer just because people have no degree anymore.
Erm, we were basing figures on reality now not some weird future prospect of little to no graduates.
The reality now is that those leaving education with just GCSEs will be the ones most likely to be in minimum wage, zero hour contracts. Even if they do strike lucky, they would more likely be in the upper end of the age group before they get anywhere near the higher end of your scale.
And companies will do what they will do to boost profits. Start low and gradually increment up, although there would be more scope for forward movement within the company than before but only for a select few.We made it! All three boys have graduated, it's been hard work but it shows there is a possibility of a chance of normal (ish) life after a diagnosis (or two) of ASD. It's not been the easiest route but I am so glad I ignored everything and everyone and did my own therapies with them.
Eldests' EDS diagnosis 4.5.10, mine 13.1.11 eekk - now having fun and games as a wheelchair user.0 -
Erm, we were basing figures on reality now not some weird future prospect of little to no graduates.
The reality now is that those leaving education with just GCSEs will be the ones most likely to be in minimum wage, zero hour contracts. Even if they do strike lucky, they would more likely be in the upper end of the age group before they get anywhere near the higher end of your scale.
And companies will do what they will do to boost profits. Start low and gradually increment up, although there would be more scope for forward movement within the company than before but only for a select few.
Erm, how many kids leave education system with just GCSEs as a % of overall number of kids in that same year? a very small %. With by far the bulk of kids doing degrees or some sort of further education, companies will obviously ask for a degree as why bother with anyone with GCSEs? If everyone just finds a job with only GCSE, companies will have no choice but to remove this filter but the choice of candidates has not gone up considerably so the starting salaries would not be so different.
And of course the quality of candidates remain the same.0 -
The maths is sound, the reality behind it is not.
Not many 16 year olds will be earning 20k a year and the same goes for 17,18,19,20 and 21 year olds with only GCSEs. The best they could hope for is minimum wage or very low paying apprenticeships for most if not all of those 5 years.
April 2016 data +5% to update to Dec 2017
16-17 year old male full time workers median earnings £10,050
18-21 year olds male full time workers median earnings £17,745
22-29 year old male full time workers median earnings £25,100
Even using those figures £10,500 x 2 + 17,745 x 3 = £74,235
That is median which means half will earn more than that
But that is for someone that leaves school aged 16 they are likely less capable than someone who makes it to university. So someone deciding not to go to university but is able to make it is likely smarter and more contentious and hence would earn more than the median maybe closer to the top 25% of that age group. Its harder to put a number on that but perhaps a 20% uplift is reasonable which takes us to £89,100 in lost earnings between ages 16-21
Not far from my first order guess of £100k
If the student would have done a 4 year course add another £25,100 in lost income so £114,200 in lost earnings for a 4 year course.0 -
Cambridge receives a quarter of their research budget through EU funding, Oxford a 5th of their budget, LSE 36%.
The other Cambridge (the not so good one), between 2006 and 2015 received almost 75% of their research funding via the EU.
Very little data but from that can we assume the worse universities receive much more in research funding from the EU in % terms compared to other avenues?
If so a HARD brexit should hopefully force the worse universities to shut down and good riddance i say. I am praying for a hard brexit.0 -
Actually a surprising amount. Ok, most of those now go onto low paying apprenticeships due to the education rules but there is still a sizeable number.
As before, we were talking about now not a future where there are no graduates...so we need to be discussing what is reality now.
I'm not sure when you left education but I know when I did and that was before it was normal to have A levels or degrees to the extent we have now (it was the norm to leave at 16). Back then, people started on very low money (more like the apprenticeship money now) and gradually progressed up the money ladder as you gained more experience and sometimes if you worked hard enough, more seniority.
Those very few who did have degrees commanded a much higher starting salary even back then.We made it! All three boys have graduated, it's been hard work but it shows there is a possibility of a chance of normal (ish) life after a diagnosis (or two) of ASD. It's not been the easiest route but I am so glad I ignored everything and everyone and did my own therapies with them.
Eldests' EDS diagnosis 4.5.10, mine 13.1.11 eekk - now having fun and games as a wheelchair user.0 -
Very little data but from that can we assume the worse universities receive much more in research funding from the EU in % terms compared to other avenues?
If so a HARD brexit should hopefully force the worse universities to shut down and good riddance i say. I am praying for a hard brexit.
Universities could well just drag out their 3 year degrees to 4 year degrees to full in the lost bums on seats.0 -
-
Actually a surprising amount. Ok, most of those now go onto low paying apprenticeships due to the education rules but there is still a sizeable number.
As before, we were talking about now not a future where there are no graduates...so we need to be discussing what is reality now.
I'm not sure when you left education but I know when I did and that was before it was normal to have A levels or degrees to the extent we have now (it was the norm to leave at 16). Back then, people started on very low money (more like the apprenticeship money now) and gradually progressed up the money ladder as you gained more experience and sometimes if you worked hard enough, more seniority.
Those very few who did have degrees commanded a much higher starting salary even back then.
See my above post with data for full time median male wages for 16-17 year olds and 18-21 year olds.
You get a figure of close to £90k lost earnings for a three year course or £114k lost earnings for a 4 year course. Plus of course the tuition fees and living loans of roughly £60-£80k
You are looking at close to £200k in lost earnings and loans for a kid that does a masters (or just needs to repeat one year of their undergrad degree) compared to a kid that stays at gone and just gets a full time job.
That nearly £200k will also give them an annual 5% return (eg if they buy a house and thus don't need to pay rent) so not only are they nearly £200k better off but they also have a £10k per year advantage from that point on vs their the n who just enters the workforce age 220 -
I see the reason why so many people don’t bother to comment in the MSE Forum …
Nobody is providing the slightest piece of evidence for their opinions.
Then use the link I generously provided to examine papers from those periods, and provide evidence to back up your point. It’s exasperating that nobody seems able to actually provide supporting evidence for their argument. A rigorous university degree would make such a thing par for the course.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.
She was long finished education by then. CSEs only began in 1965.Your aunt may have done CSEs they were more like GCSEs but harder.
Please see my previous comments on the benefits of modular teaching.Modules are a complete disaster. They make the courses easier because they are broken down into smaller amounts of learning.
Out of interest, what degree did you study and when? Perhaps the teaching for your degree was different, but for mine it is absolutely important to know how to learn, not least because you are forced to learn for yourself at university. The lecturer is there to offer advice on where to look, not to “spoon feed”. If you don’t think students know how to study something in any depth, then I remind you of theses. For some, it is equivalent to writing a book on one particularly specific point – if that’s not depth, I don’t know what you’re looking for.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.
Except when they’ve studied particular subjects throughout secondary school and sixth form, and then one entire subject for up to four years at university …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.
What is in the module is very specific to the topic, but you do have to research around the topic to do well. Writing an essay that rehashes the points made in a lecture will end in a fail. Students do actually know how to research.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.
As for the point about realising that you “you need to research what work the company does that you are going to for an interview for a job” – how is that possibly relevant to modules at university? In short, it’s not, and is something that you’d learn from career advice and from general world knowledge. I’d expect a non-graduate to exhibit the same level of diligence when applying for a job, wouldn’t you?
Except school leaving age is 18, and even if you get an apprenticeship for the last two years, they aren’t paid anywhere near enough to manage even £19’000/yr.The average starting salary for grads is 19-22k. Instead of paying these sslaries at 22 years old, they pay them at 16 year olds. theywill have no choice as no one will be a graduate anymore, everyone will be looking for work at age 16 in the same numbers as those looking for work at age 22 after doing a useless degree.
1) Please provide a reference for the ONS data. I suggest: ONS.£100k earnings over 5 years is only £20k a year
ONS shows Median full time earnings for 18-21 year olds for April 2016 is £16,380 however that is nearly 2 year old data up it 5% and you get towards £17,200
It shows the following median earnings:
Males 16 to 17: £9802/yr (52-week)
Females 16 to 17: £8528/yr
Males 18 to 21: £17’524/yr
Females 18 to 21: £16’099/yr
Why “up it 5%”? What for, wage growth? Provide the statistics that show average wage growth for that age group from April 2016 to present is 5% and I’ll concede.
Again, WHY the uplift? Find some evidence to support what you’re saying!April 2016 data +5% to update to Dec 2017
16-17 year old male full time workers median earnings £10,050
18-21 year olds male full time workers median earnings £17,745
22-29 year old male full time workers median earnings £25,100
Even using those figures £10,500 x 2 + 17,745 x 3 = £74,235
That is median which means half will earn more than that
But that is for someone that leaves school aged 16 they are likely less capable than someone who makes it to university. So someone deciding not to go to university but is able to make it is likely smarter and more contentious and hence would earn more than the median maybe closer to the top 25% of that age group. Its harder to put a number on that but perhaps a 20% uplift is reasonable which takes us to £89,100 in lost earnings between ages 16-21Long-Term Goal: £23'000 / £40'000 mortgage downpayment (2020)0 -
Also in theory the kids who are going to university should on average be smarter than the kids who are not going and also less destructive and less problematic so their earnings should be higher than the median 18-21 yr olds. If we attach just a 15% premium for that you get £19,800
Any reason that you applied a “15% premium”? It just seems a number conjured from mid-air. Please provide statistical reasoning for the figure.
Even doing that, you’re applying a subjective theory (without evidence!) to then reinforce your point. It has no standing. You yourself said that universities are letting everyone in – so if that is the case, how can they be on average smarter? You’re contradicting your own argument.
Being smart doesn’t guarantee you a good wage. Some students also work part-time while at uni – have you factored this into your maths? What about students who do a year in industry and receive a salary? What about students who study part-time and continue with their usual jobs?So if a kid who was going to go to university with OK grades decides not to go they would in theory earn more than the median full time for 18-21 year olds of £17,200 using just a 15% premium the lost earnings between 18-21 add up to £59,300£So £59,300 lost earnings plus £60,000 student loans = £119,300
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Earnings are not the same as debt. Could the student have feasibly spent their loan on a car? A portion of the maintenance loan, perhaps, but then they’d have nowhere to leave (except perhaps the car …). They can’t spend the loan as they would earnings. Moreover, those loans aren’t intended to be paid back as a normal loan – that’s why the repayment threshold is so high. It’s designed as a graduate tax!
Good luck getting away with that one. Who would employ somebody with no experience and only GCSEs?If you left school age 16 that is an additional two years of work at a combined £21,000
Not sure where you’re getting this from! The information is absolutely available. I suggest you peruse The Complete University Guide. Not only does it have each individual university ranked, but courses too. It shows some information on graduate careers, which can also be found online with a quick Google search. They even deliver booklets to sixth forms. Not only that, but most schools have an advisor to help with choosing a route post-18. That doesn’t always involve university, and is tailored to each student. I think it’s obvious which universities and courses to avoid just by looking at the data openly available to students both online and in booklet form. I didn’t need my parents to advise me on a university choice, I did the research myself.If you come from a poor background where your parents didn't go to university you have got no chance at all of getting the information that there are only about 30 universities where a degree is likely to make a difference to your job and to avoid going to any of the others. You have no chance of being told not to study fashion, media studies, journalism, performing arts, drama etc. No one is going to help you find an apprenticeship or a job with training because your school wants you to go to university so that your teachers can keep their jobs.
…
There are 1000s of students who are going to have their futures ruined by going to university. Most of them will come from poor backgrounds and backgrounds where there parents did not go to to university. Not going to university is not a problem not being able to advise a student because none of the information they need is available is. It means that students from educated backgrounds have parents who know which universities to avoid and which subjects to avoid. So what happens is that the students whose parents didn't go to university end up in all the dud universities because they don't know they are duds studying rubbish courses. How does that help them?
I’ve already mentioned that I do actually agree with something along these lines – that is, the separation of vocational and academic qualifications. You are wrong in saying that there is nothing available aside from university – apprenticeships and adult learning courses past 18 do exist. Check out your local college website and you’ll see.What is needed is to reduce the number of universities and to bring back the polytechnics and technical colleges that offer courses to non academic students. Currently there is nothing for them apart from useless university courses.
So … NVQs?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.
Good luck finding teachers then. With the increases in workload, cuts in funding, and stagnation of wages, teachers are flocking away from the profession. Why would A-Levels impact your ability to teach a specific subject? If a student gets BB in English Literature and English Language, but A* in Maths and Further Maths, then they should be allowed to teach Maths. You aren’t very clear, so perhaps you mean they should be in the top 10% for their subject. If so, then even then I would disagree: if they don’t do amazingly well at A-Level but have a first-class undergraduate degree and then a Master’s, they are incredibly well-qualified. But again, they’d get a job with better pay and prospects.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.Long-Term Goal: £23'000 / £40'000 mortgage downpayment (2020)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards