Are degrees in the UK value for money?

westernpromise

My children will probably inherit enough not to need student loans but I'll suggest they take them anyway and keep their inheritances invested. There has to be a chance a future government will cancel the loans to buy their votes, so it would stupid to pay the loan off.

GreatApe

ElwoodBlues wrote: »

Whilst I fully agree that far, far too many young people are being sent down the higher education conveyor (and rinsed along the way), I think that only AAB or above, or 1 in 1000 progress onto higher education is a bit too extreme. Although it is over 20 years since I sat A Levels, and pass rates have allegedly risen, so maybe AAB is right for current standards.

A lot of the time you can value the course by taking a step back and asking yourself "what exactly do I want to learn from this, and what I'm going to need that knowledge/skillset for in the workplace".

My point is that there are subjects (engineering, and some sciences), where the academic stuff taught in degree level education is actually relevent and invaluable - i.e. it's used every day in the careers that follow on from it. We are supposed to have a lack of engineers in this country as it is, but that would be much worse if only 1 in 1000 engineering students/graduates existed. That must be offset somewhere else by a load of other 'worthless' subjects, and what we really need to do is cull the subjects (or at least dramatically reduce them). I'd go with a minimum of there being 50% too many uni places at present, maybe 75-80%, but that's about the upper limit. We do still need some graduates in some fields.

One massive problem is the number of 'academics' employed by these institutions, that are teaching rubbish degrees. Cut the courses/number of students/places, and a huge number of people would end up redundant. And many of them are career academics that don't stand a chance in the real labour market.

Another issue is that a lot of what was traditionally further education/vocational courses have been rebranded as higher education degrees. It shouldn't be necessary to get a degree to become a nurse etc. There shouldn't be a stigma against vocational qualifications. We need more people doing apprenticeships and learning a valuable skill that way, and less packed off to uni to study a load of rubbish that they'll never, ever need again. But no, the govt has crazily decided to try and cash in on apprenticeships by recently introducing a levy on that. Lo and behold, the number of apprentices is tumbling.

My brother flunked his GCSE's and left school at 16 - he was never particularly academic or expected to do great things. But he got onto a good apprenticeship scheme with a big company, learnt a good trade (all paid for by his employer). And now he earns a very healthy wage, way better than a lot of graduates of mickey mouse subjects probably ever will. A bit of work ethic and a learning a decent trade goes a long way.

It's 9 years until my eldest child will be school leaving age. On the one hand I'd like it for my kids to be able to go to university, but only if it's a worthwhile subject, and they have a reason for doing it. But the current fee structure (actually, more the giant debts that you graduate with), leaves me wondering if it's worth it, even for a technical degree from a resepctable university. I do wonder if it might make more sense to have a gap year (or 3) between A levels and uni, where they can get a taste of full time work, and accumulate some savings to help them through uni?

Another problem is the sheer debt culture that the up front tuition fees and loans are creating. It isn't just the fees that are causing the students to get into debt, it's all the other expenses that seem to be the norm these days. They don't want or expect to live like The Young Ones any more. They want studio apartments rather than shared houses, the latest phones, sky tv, exepnsive food and drink, and many of them are even leasing cars while they study. !!!!!!, what's wrong with a push bike! I believe that a big part of the reason for these spending/debt fuelling habits is that they know they're going to graduate with massive debts just from the fees, so they might as well live it up for 3 years and spend even more of what they don't have anyway.

The current loan scheme, in terms of repayment terms and interest is pretty horrendous compared to the older schemes that were much more 'at cost'/rate of inlfation. Yet there's still a lot of graduates from the 90's and 00's with their student debts still burdening them. It's going to be much worse under the current schemes. And the debt collection companies will be circling like vultures when this loans start being sold off.

We have too many engineering and science grads not too few. Its just the media heads that complain we have too few. If we had too few engineers and scientists it would show up in their wages. Most the engineers and scientists I know work in finance or own their own businesses almost none of them work in a directly engineering position. I started off as an engineer the wages were so bad I soon left.

That aside. Yes its not just the university tuition fee it is living costs too and the inability or unwillingness to get a part time job. This means the kids end up with £60-80k in debt

My view is we don't actually need more than 5% going to university.
If necessary just increase school standards
Move GCSEs to age 14 and have A-Levels at age 14-16 and have the current college ages of 16-18 be a fast track two year degree. The kids save £80,000 get the same level of education and also end up with 3 additional work years.

I recall my year was the last that did our batch of A-Levels Mathematics. I recall my teacher saying the new batch was pretty much the same but with about one third less content. That is to say we were doing 50% more than the current lot. I believe the reasoning was to get more people to study A-Level Mathematics but it was a stupid decision we don't bees a lot of people doing a levels mathematics and those who are able and willing don't need the course cut down

GreatApe

Teaching and learning is much easier today thanks to video tutorials
Kids should and could be learning a lot faster.
A-Levels at age 14-16 taught in secondary schools
Degrees age 16-19 taught in local colleges

Higher education costs solved
If necessary (probably not) you can reduce the 6 week summer holidays to 2 weeks its not like the kids are needed to pick the summer harvest anymore.

Maybe even faster than that is possible. Perhaps even extend the school hours instead of ending at 3.30 keep them in until 5 or 6 this would also benefit working parents

Cakeguts

ElwoodBlues wrote: »

Whilst I fully agree that far, far too many young people are being sent down the higher education conveyor (and rinsed along the way), I think that only AAB or above, or 1 in 1000 progress onto higher education is a bit too extreme. Although it is over 20 years since I sat A Levels, and pass rates have allegedly risen, so maybe AAB is right for current standards.

A lot of the time you can value the course by taking a step back and asking yourself "what exactly do I want to learn from this, and what I'm going to need that knowledge/skillset for in the workplace".

My point is that there are subjects (engineering, and some sciences), where the academic stuff taught in degree level education is actually relevent and invaluable - i.e. it's used every day in the careers that follow on from it. We are supposed to have a lack of engineers in this country as it is, but that would be much worse if only 1 in 1000 engineering students/graduates existed. That must be offset somewhere else by a load of other 'worthless' subjects, and what we really need to do is cull the subjects (or at least dramatically reduce them). I'd go with a minimum of there being 50% too many uni places at present, maybe 75-80%, but that's about the upper limit. We do still need some graduates in some fields.

One massive problem is the number of 'academics' employed by these institutions, that are teaching rubbish degrees. Cut the courses/number of students/places, and a huge number of people would end up redundant. And many of them are career academics that don't stand a chance in the real labour market.

Another issue is that a lot of what was traditionally further education/vocational courses have been rebranded as higher education degrees. It shouldn't be necessary to get a degree to become a nurse etc. There shouldn't be a stigma against vocational qualifications. We need more people doing apprenticeships and learning a valuable skill that way, and less packed off to uni to study a load of rubbish that they'll never, ever need again. But no, the govt has crazily decided to try and cash in on apprenticeships by recently introducing a levy on that. Lo and behold, the number of apprentices is tumbling.

My brother flunked his GCSE's and left school at 16 - he was never particularly academic or expected to do great things. But he got onto a good apprenticeship scheme with a big company, learnt a good trade (all paid for by his employer). And now he earns a very healthy wage, way better than a lot of graduates of mickey mouse subjects probably ever will. A bit of work ethic and a learning a decent trade goes a long way.

It's 9 years until my eldest child will be school leaving age. On the one hand I'd like it for my kids to be able to go to university, but only if it's a worthwhile subject, and they have a reason for doing it. But the current fee structure (actually, more the giant debts that you graduate with), leaves me wondering if it's worth it, even for a technical degree from a resepctable university. I do wonder if it might make more sense to have a gap year (or 3) between A levels and uni, where they can get a taste of full time work, and accumulate some savings to help them through uni?

Another problem is the sheer debt culture that the up front tuition fees and loans are creating. It isn't just the fees that are causing the students to get into debt, it's all the other expenses that seem to be the norm these days. They don't want or expect to live like The Young Ones any more. They want studio apartments rather than shared houses, the latest phones, sky tv, exepnsive food and drink, and many of them are even leasing cars while they study. !!!!!!, what's wrong with a push bike! I believe that a big part of the reason for these spending/debt fuelling habits is that they know they're going to graduate with massive debts just from the fees, so they might as well live it up for 3 years and spend even more of what they don't have anyway.

The current loan scheme, in terms of repayment terms and interest is pretty horrendous compared to the older schemes that were much more 'at cost'/rate of inlfation. Yet there's still a lot of graduates from the 90's and 00's with their student debts still burdening them. It's going to be much worse under the current schemes. And the debt collection companies will be circling like vultures when this loans start being sold off.

It is more than 40 years since I did my A levels and since then in the last 15 years I have studied in a music department of a university where the students were doing A level harmony in their 3rd year that I did for A level. Standards have slipped a lot. Anyone who passed an A level when I did mine would now get an A. So DDD then would be A*A*A*. Anything above a D then is now about the same level as the 2nd year of a degree course which is why so many people now take 4 year degree courses to get a masters which is about the same standard of an old 1st degree.

What has happened over the years is that standards have dropped a lot and students are now paying £9000 a year for a level of education that used to be free at school and called A levels. Most students now don't realise this and many parents don't realise this but this is what has happened.

MallyGirl

Apparently the grade boundary for a 2:1 is now only 60% at uni - 30 years ago, on my course at least, it was 70%. Many more are now getting Firsts - any indication that it has all been devalued.

Filo25

MallyGirl wrote: »

Apparently the grade boundary for a 2:1 is now only 60% at uni - 30 years ago, on my course at least, it was 70%. Many more are now getting Firsts - any indication that it has all been devalued.

Depends on the course and uni though I would imagine, I finished uni about 25 years ago and 2:1 cutoff on my course was 60% then, 70% for Firsts, not that they handed out many

westernpromise

When I was at Cambridge I heard a stat that the mode degree class was a 2:2.

In arts subjects about 3% got Firsts, 35% got 2:1s, 55% got 2:2s, 5% got Thirds and the rest failed or got a spesh (a degree without honours) - roughly.

The irony was that if you spent your third year cramming for Finals to get a better degree so as to improve your employment prospects, you probably did yourself a disservice. You might get a high 2:1 where you would otherwise have got a low 2:1. You would then miss the grad recruitment boat in your graduation year and would essentially start looking for a job in September armed with a degree no better than the current third years' expected result. Unless you got a First and were looking for a job where degree class mattered (such as law typically), swotting hard was likeliest to land you with a year of unemployment for no surefire gain.

Cakeguts

Filo25 wrote: »

Depends on the course and uni though I would imagine, I finished uni about 25 years ago and 2:1 cutoff on my course was 60% then, 70% for Firsts, not that they handed out many

It started in a big way once GCSEs were introduced. GCSEs were about the standard that most people got to at age 14. The were never as difficult as O levels. Once that happened the standard of A levels had to drop because otherwise the gap between GCSEs and A level was too big. Then A levels just got easier and easier to pass until now they are about the standard of an old O level but there are only 3 of them. The students who used to get 5 A levels following O levels take 5 A levels and get 5 A*s.

The people I feel sorry for are the ones who could do much more difficult work at A level but are prevented from doing it because the standard is now so low. All you can do now is more of them.

Overall the standard that teachers have to get school pupils too has got lower and lower and lower. Parents and students should be complaining. If it carries on all secondary school level education will be paid for at £9000 per year.

What needs to happen is for school level education standards to be raised to the point that most people can complete what is now university level while still at school for free. They might even get round to calling it A level again. To make everyone pay for this now is very unfair when previous generations got it at school for free.

GreatApe

I spent the afternoon with someone from a not so great university and it got me thinking what was the biggest positive I got from university and is she getting the same from her university.
What came into my head was not the university or course or content all of that was pretty much useless knowing the fundamental forces and equations of nature or complex calculus doesn't get you very far in the real world.

The biggest positive I thought of perhaps even the only positive was that I made a few good close friends who were just as smart if not smarter. Often smart in different ways too (the close friends I made were doing different courses). The saying is you become the average of your three closest friends. I believe that to be true and if there is truth in that statement going to a good university got me good smart friends and we drove each other higher. I think that is actually the only benefit I got at my university. Its a dam expensive way to make a few smart friends but in my case it was worth it.

The problem is with the lower universities I don't think this applies. And it might even do the reverse.
If universities stratify roughly into intelligence and ability the lower universities generally will put lower ability kids together. If low ability kids make low ability friends there will not be much of a benefit for them. In the olden days you still had very cleaver people not go to university so there was a more random pool for people to mix in and you could have groups of friends were one was super smart and the others were about average with the smart one pulling the rest up with him perhaps directly (giving them good jobs just because they are Friend) and indirectly (improving their thinking and reasoning skills). Now with pretty much everyone going the smart kids get put into one university and the dumb kids into another and no mixing.

Worse yet those that don't go to university are placed in one other big group the untouchables (some what exaggerated) and get few opportunities to progress

Random thoughts of today
Probably worth deleting rather than posting but hey some random not well thought out ideas should see daylight too. Here you go internet some data for your AIs to munch on.

adindas

GreatApe wrote: »

I spent the afternoon with someone from a not so great university and it got me thinking what was the biggest positive I got from university and is she getting the same from her university.
What came into my head was not the university or course or content all of that was pretty much useless knowing the fundamental forces and equations of nature or complex calculus doesn't get you very far in the real world.

The biggest positive I thought of perhaps even the only positive was that I made a few good close friends who were just as smart if not smarter. Often smart in different ways too (the close friends I made were doing different courses). The saying is you become the average of your three closest friends. I believe that to be true and if there is truth in that statement going to a good university got me good smart friends and we drove each other higher. I think that is actually the only benefit I got at my university. Its a dam expensive way to make a few smart friends but in my case it was worth it.

The problem is with the lower universities I don't think this applies. And it might even do the reverse.
If universities stratify roughly into intelligence and ability the lower universities generally will put lower ability kids together. If low ability kids make low ability friends there will not be much of a benefit for them. In the olden days you still had very cleaver people not go to university so there was a more random pool for people to mix in and you could have groups of friends were one was super smart and the others were about average with the smart one pulling the rest up with him perhaps directly (giving them good jobs just because they are Friend) and indirectly (improving their thinking and reasoning skills). Now with pretty much everyone going the smart kids get put into one university and the dumb kids into another and no mixing.

Worse yet those that don't go to university are placed in one other big group the untouchables (some what exaggerated) and get few opportunities to progress

Random thoughts of today
Probably worth deleting rather than posting but hey some random not well thought out ideas should see daylight too. Here you go internet some data for your AIs to munch on.

[FONT=&quot]Some degrees typically non-STEM subject offered by low rank university indeed are useless.

Even the degree which seems to be a science degree degree in fact it is not.

In the Computing, IT for instance many (if not most) of people working in IT are not studying computer science or IT. If they study at a university normally because they have been working in these areas and just a mean to get a degree, thus a promotion. The subject like IT is most like a hobby, intelligence, talent rather than science and keep up to speed that let them to become a great programmer. I know people who are doing IT/computer science degree at the university working in IT, study at the university but never attend the lecture but they keep pass because most of the assessment are assessed by the coursework. They could actually pay people to do the coursework, submit them and then pass.

Some students study business and management degrees do not even know the basic tenet of doing business / management but they get degree even from top university. Other people without degree are doing better in Business and Management without degrees. Look at for instance Managerial position in big chain supermarkets, hotels, leasure centre, sports, how many of them get degree in management . How many acute businessmen get degreee in business ??
No wonder you often find people with MBA degrees stacking item on the shelves working in Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury and other big supermarkets, dept stores some even from top universities.

But what about aeronautics engineers, nuclear engineers, doctors, dentists, electrical power engineers, Structural engineers (not technicians). How many people working in these areas do not get degree in releveant subjects (if any) ?

So getting a degree at a university might be useless especially if you study a subject which is widely known as not rigorously assessed, mostly assessed by the coursework or just writing essays. [/FONT]