Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Cakeguts

dunroving wrote: »

Aargh! We live in an era of learned helplessness, absolution of self-responsibility and a blame culture.

It is shocking that parents will put hours of research into what mobile phone or television to buy but (supposedly) are unable to figure out how to guide their child in one of the most important decisions of their lives.

Give me a break!

I am not sure that the parents of the students who don't know that most university courses are a waste of time do any research on anything.

If the parents come from a non university background they may just be pleased the the child has got a university place after all they would expect the school to tell their child if the university that the child had chosen was rubbish. I think most people would expect teachers in schools to know more about universities than they do.

There is the problem also of the more rubbish the university the better quality the advertising or their courses because the good universities will get students without lots of advertising.

What needs to be done is to make the public aware that it isn't worth going to university unless you go to one where the entry requirements are at least AAB. All the others offer degrees that are literaly just money making exercises for the university. You could educate yourself to the level of all the other university courses using a local library for free.

GreatApe

GreatApe wrote: »

Men and women don't get into relationships with some aggregated average man or woman they get with individuals who are a wide spectrum of dominant to submissive smart to dumb pretty to ugly.

What does it add to state that men and women are equal. Equally important? Sure it's so obvious it doesn't need stating. Equally strong smart driven? Maybe but since people get together with individuals they won't be equals one of the two will be smarter or stronger or more aggressive or earn more. What should those women or men feel that are lessor than their partner on some trait if everyone is running around proclaiming were all equal at everything? Should they blame their partner or the opposite sex or society itself? Or grow up and accept you are not some average aggregate nor will your partner be. If you want a meek man go find a meek man if you want a dominant one go find a dominant one. You won't be able to change the dominant or the meek man from what they are to some aggregate average.

Anyway there is something wrong with current western culture.
With uk born women having only 1.5 kids that isn't sustainable.
And one of the reasons for this unsustainable situation is the university bubble

dunroving wrote: »

Aargh! We live in an era of learned helplessness, absolution of self-responsibility and a blame culture.

It is shocking that parents will put hours of research into what mobile phone or television to buy but (supposedly) are unable to figure out how to guide their child in one of the most important decisions of their lives.

Give me a break!

You've not lived long enough or seen enough of the world if you think the vast majority are of sound mind and habits.

GreatApe

Cakeguts wrote: »

I am not sure that the parents of the students who don't know that most university courses are a waste of time do any research on anything.

If the parents come from a non university background they may just be pleased the the child has got a university place after all they would expect the school to tell their child if the university that the child had chosen was rubbish. I think most people would expect teachers in schools to know more about universities than they do.

There is the problem also of the more rubbish the university the better quality the advertising or their courses because the good universities will get students without lots of advertising.

What needs to be done is to make the public aware that it isn't worth going to university unless you go to one where the entry requirements are at least AAB. All the others offer degrees that are literaly just money making exercises for the university. You could educate yourself to the level of all the other university courses using a local library for free.

Even most the top univerisites and subjects are not worthwhile

As a nation we probably would function just as well just as productively with just 5 percent of the population as graduates maybe even as low as 3%

In fact we would be a lot more productive as we would have less digging holes and filling them back up again or the modern version learning crap that you will never use.

economic

The only group of people who benefit from the education system is the university, the employees of the university, the town the university is in and the landlords who let properties to students.

These benefits are effectively robbed from the taxpayer and the students.

If students worked instead of doing silly degrees, they would be productive for the economy thus actually adding value to the economy and making our nation richer.

Cakeguts

GreatApe wrote: »

Even most the top univerisites and subjects are not worthwhile

As a nation we probably would function just as well just as productively with just 5 percent of the population as graduates maybe even as low as 3%

In fact we would be a lot more productive as we would have less digging holes and filling them back up again or the modern version learning crap that you will never use.

I think scrapping modules would be a good idea for a start. You can get a lot more done if you don't have to do it in bits and then take small exams in it. The problem is that if you don't pass a module you can do it again so what with the short terms now in semesters instead of the old university year what you can achieve at a rubbish university in the 3 years is getting close to nothing. Basically people are paying for the staff to turn up to work.

For most jobs that need a degree you have to be able to remember quite a lot of what you have learned. You can't nip off in the middle of taking out someone's gall bladder to look up what to do next in a text book but these short module courses mean that no one has to learn anything. A semester is something like October to end of January with a break for Christmas so basically about 14 weeks not including weekends. When you take into account that some students doing these courses start with 3 GCSEs and 2 A levels or 3 A levels at BCC you can see that in those 14 weeks they can't really learn anything at all fast because their speed of learning is just too slow. There might be two modules in that time which of course would have to be the sort that the average person over the age of 50 could complete in about a fortnight otherwise no one would pass the course and if no one passes the course the staff don't get paid.

The worst bit about all of this is that someone with one of these degrees where they have learned nothing could train to become a teacher. You can do a degree leading to a qualified teaching for a primary school starting from A levels at BBC. Primary school children need someone who can give them a good education not someone who is too thick to get more than 3 A levels the standard of 3 old O levels. You had to have 5 O levels to study teaching and at least one A level when I was young so we now have "graduates" who are teaching in primary schools who wouldn't pass an A level before the time that someone decided that all teachers had to be graduates.

The problem with having teachers who can't learn fast enough to get 3 A levels at A and above is that about 2/3rds of every class they teach are going to be more intelligent than they are.

Cakeguts

economic wrote: »

The only group of people who benefit from the education system is the university, the employees of the university, the town the university is in and the landlords who let properties to students.

These benefits are effectively robbed from the taxpayer and the students.

If students worked instead of doing silly degrees, they would be productive for the economy thus actually adding value to the economy and making our nation richer.

The big problem is how to get the message to basically unintelligent people that the degrees they are studying are worthless and they are only being allowed to do them so that people can make money from them. The intelligent students don't do these silly degrees at universities where everything is made easy so that you don't have to learn anything. If you were intelligent but just bad at exams you would find a different way to get qualifications like an apprenticeship or working your way up. So the problen is all the students who wouldn't get As at A level because after all the A levels now are a lot easier than they used to be so it isn't all that difficult to get an A. Anyone thinking of doing a degree could just start from there.

Somehow there are so many vested interests that no one wants to tell all these unintelligent students that they are being conned. Really it is like being conned by a con man where something looks too good to be true. If you can't get 3 As at A level any university you get into is going to be one of these ones that is too good to be true and your degree is going to be worth nothing. One person told me that he reckoned his degree was worth less than the envelope the certificate came in. Doesn't anyone think that these students are going to be bitter about this situation? They feel as if they have been taken for a ride and that is because they have. 3 years of completely wasted time and money but actually the time is more important because you can never get that back.

BikingBud

GreatApe wrote: »

The only way to get the university sector under control is for the students to be given choice.
Give them a £50k coupon they can use to buy an education or a house or put it into a Pension/LISA.

It will get ownership up. It will get kids starting adult life sooner. It will have kids start working 3-4 years sooner allowing them to earn/save and pay taxes sooner.

Who's paying for that?

SingleSue

Cakeguts wrote: »

I am not sure that the parents of the students who don't know that most university courses are a waste of time do any research on anything.

If the parents come from a non university background they may just be pleased the the child has got a university place after all they would expect the school to tell their child if the university that the child had chosen was rubbish. I think most people would expect teachers in schools to know more about universities than they do.

There is the problem also of the more rubbish the university the better quality the advertising or their courses because the good universities will get students without lots of advertising.

What needs to be done is to make the public aware that it isn't worth going to university unless you go to one where the entry requirements are at least AAB. All the others offer degrees that are literaly just money making exercises for the university. You could educate yourself to the level of all the other university courses using a local library for free.

I have to admit that with eldest, I had no idea of the process, of rankings...pretty much anything really to do with universities and eldest being eldest, even if I had known, he wouldn't have taken my advice anyway.

He freely admits he chose wrong and should have had his insurance choice as his firm choice or gone through clearing when his results came in much better than expected but luckily for him, it has worked out ok for him. He is now in his first graduate job (in a competitive graduate scheme) and although the company business is not in line with his degree, one of the reasons they took him on is his degree subject. They saw a way of double utilising an employee and saving themselves some pennies (or major pounds) in the process although eldest is suitably (and very well) compensated for his extra duties and he gets to use his degree.

By the time it was youngest's turn, I was very well informed on the subject but we had the added issue of his disabilities. He could have gone to a higher ranking and better thought of university (he was offered a place at a top 10 university just 2 hours and 40 minutes after applying) but after a lot of visits, lots of heartache, stress and indecision, it didn't ultimately suit his needs as well as his firm choice did.

GreatApe

BikingBud wrote: »

Who's paying for that?

I dont think it will cost more than the current situation

Right now a kid can take a £60k university+ living loan to study photography and never earn enough to pay any of it back. If the same kid took his £60k coupon and met a partner with also a £60k coupon that is £120k enough to buy a 2-3 bedroom home outright in most the country

What would be better for the kids an education that has not increased their earning power and in fact taken 3-4 years of earnings away from them or having no rent or mortgage to pay?

The coupon can be recovered in the same way student loans are 10% on earnings above £20k or whatever it is. There can also be a charge on the property so the government recovers the full amount when they die. There would also be a lifetime less of housing benefits to pay and likely lower state help in other ways to the twin that bought the house with the coupon vs the twin that got a second at luton poly in photography

GreatApe

SingleSue wrote: »

I have to admit that with eldest, I had no idea of the process, of rankings...pretty much anything really to do with universities and eldest being eldest, even if I had known, he wouldn't have taken my advice anyway.

He freely admits he chose wrong and should have had his insurance choice as his firm choice or gone through clearing when his results came in much better than expected but luckily for him, it has worked out ok for him. He is now in his first graduate job (in a competitive graduate scheme) and although the company business is not in line with his degree, one of the reasons they took him on is his degree subject. They saw a way of double utilising an employee and saving themselves some pennies (or major pounds) in the process although eldest is suitably (and very well) compensated for his extra duties and he gets to use his degree.

By the time it was youngest's turn, I was very well informed on the subject but we had the added issue of his disabilities. He could have gone to a higher ranking and better thought of university (he was offered a place at a top 10 university just 2 hours and 40 minutes after applying) but after a lot of visits, lots of heartache, stress and indecision, it didn't ultimately suit his needs as well as his firm choice did.

The problem is you assume wrongly that the degree created the job.
It does not matter on aggregate if you think the degree got your son the job the fact is that job would have been advertised and filled almost irrespective of 5% of the nation going to university or 95%

Marginal additional university education is only valuable if it has a marginal improvement in productivity. That is to say we should only be sending the marginal kid to university if it is a net benefit to them and the nation

We are so past that point that the marginal university kid is creating negative productivity to the tune of around £100,000