Are degrees in the UK value for money?

GreatApe

All universities and subjects* are useless and can be learnt elsewhere. The only benefit I can see is that the better universities put more capable people together and they form a better smarter unit as a result. That's a very expensive and time costly way to make some smart friends but it does seem to have benefits. But even that is probably now nullified by the internet where smart people can find each other or join really specialised forums.


*with a few exceptions like medicine which to me looks more like a long apprenticeship conducted in a university and partly in a hospitals.

adindas

GreatApe wrote: »

All universities and subjects* are useless and can be learnt elsewhere. The only benefit I can see is that the better universities put more capable people together and they form a better smarter unit as a result. That's a very expensive and time costly way to make some smart friends but it does seem to have benefits. But even that is probably now nullified by the internet where smart people can find each other or join really specialised forums.


*with a few exceptions like medicine which to me looks more like a long apprenticeship conducted in a university and partly in a hospitals.

The most recognisable ways and proven to be working of educating future aeronautics engineers, aerospace engineers, the engineers who will be working at Airbus, Boeing, Nasa, electrical power engineers, nuclear engineers working in Nuclear reactors plant, structural engineers (not technicians), etc doctors, dentists, are by studying the subjects at the universities.

It has been proven for many centuries. Why do you think there are a better ways of educating the people like these.

Why do you think the companies like Airbus, Boeing, Nasa send their apprentice to study, award scholarships or make contract to current students (with expectation they will be working at these companies after finishing their study) at Bristol university, Cranfield, Imperial college, Toulouse Polytechnics, MIT, Stanford.

Why do you think the companies like Siemens, ABB, AEG, General electrics send their engineers to study at the universities in Switzerland in Germany.

Why do you think the companies like Atkins, Arup, Skanska, etc send their apprentice to study structural engineering at the universities if they are useless.

Why do you think they are willing to spend money, and or even donating some money to universities to educate their future engineers.

One thing for sure is that you will not be able to argue that the people in the leading industries above do not know what they are doing especially especially if they will need to invest or donating money to universities.

The methods to educate future engineers, doctors, dentists have been proven for many centuries. Why do you think there are a better and more efficient ways of doing that especially if you are not a leading expert in either higher education or relevant industries. If the industries could find a better and more effective ways of educating their future engineers, they would have done that since a long time ago.

People who think they are better than the people in these industries, pretend or proclaim themselves to be experts could argue whatever they want. That is a freedom of speech. But any argument put forward against the leading industries and recognisable experts in the areas, the methods that have been proven to be working for centuries will be absurd. Let alone if the argument, the proposed methods come from non experts in the industries and higher education.

It will just sound like attention seekers trying hard to put forward their ideas / methods across that not many (if any) will believe or convince.

westernpromise

As Colin Chapman of Lotus once said, Any fool can build a bridge that will stand up, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that will only just stand up.

Clearly for some lines of work the content of the degree matters. The number of those jobs is small, and the incumbents aren't very well paid. A doctor on £100k is badly paid considering he's got two degrees and loses three years of earning potential getting the second one.

The value in most degrees is the skills, not the knowledge. Knowledge of historical events is not useful in many jobs at all, but someone with a history degree will, when s/he reads something, be skilled at working when out it must have been written, what the writer's biases were, what other sources should be consulted and where it all fits into the thinking on the subject matter. Historians don't in the main memorise facts; they ask themselves how we got from thinking X about the Reformation to thinking Y about it and what the major steps were. And they can write you a cogent summary of it.

There are plenty of work-related contexts where this sort of analytical thinking is useful. A numerate history graduate from a good university is a far more versatile employee than an engineering graduate who can just about read and write. The engineer is probably better at maths but very few jobs require more than basic arithmetic, so his advantage is not useful. If he's as literate as the average engineer you'd rather have the history graduate.

There seems to be a lot of resentment from what we've started calling "STEM" graduates about arts graduates, the former usually assuming the latter's degrees are easy and a waste of time, and should be belittled and discounted. Yet these supposedly superior numerate degrees have not on the whole been paths to high salary and responsibility, and some that have, such as Economics, are arts subjects anyway.

We need to focus less on knowledge and more on skills, including that of organising yourself and your time. On that basis, I suggest arts degrees are on balance more useful than most STEMs.

adindas

westernpromise wrote: »

A numerate history graduate from a good university is a far more versatile employee than an engineering graduate who can just about read and write. The engineer is probably better at maths but very few jobs require more than basic arithmetic, so his advantage is not useful. If he's as literate as the average engineer you'd rather have the history graduate.

Have you ever seen a numerate historian graduate become an engineer at Airbus, Boeing, Nasa ??

Want to see if you could find any.

It is not impossible to train them on the job, but it might take more time and money to make them an aerospace, aeronautical engineer in these field.

If the industry could find a better and more efficient way of making the future engineers in their industries than educating/ training them in the related subject at the university, they would have done that since long time ago.

westernpromise

adindas wrote: »

Have you ever seen a numerate historian graduate become an engineer at Airbus, Boeing, Nasa ??

Want to see if you could find any.

It is not impossible to train them on the job, but it might take more time and money to make them an aerospace, aeronautical engineer in these field.

If the industry could find a better and more efficient way of making the future engineers in their industries than educating/ training them in the related subject at the university, they would have done that since long time ago.

This is why I said for some jobs the content matters. For most jobs, however, an engineering degree brings nothing more and often less than a history degree.

scaredofdebt

Probably:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40965479

Cakeguts

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Probably:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40965479

It is rubbish. They can't possibly know if a woman will have this difference in lifetime earnings from a university that used to be a technical college because the rubbish universities haven't been universities long enough to have anyone have lifetime earnings with any of their degrees. I went to a polytechnic and I haven't reached state retirement age yet so anyone who has earned more went to one of the old "real" universities where you needed A levels to get a place not what we have now which is O levels called A levels that just about anyone can pass or degrees that are the standard of 3 old O levels.

I expect that a woman attending one of the top 30 universities now (not including ex polys in the league tables) would earn more than someone attending any of the other universities or not attending at all. It makes no difference because as only about 8% of jobs need degrees only 8% of students are going to get graduate jobs all the others won't so they won't gain anything from having a degree or not.

GreatApe

adindas wrote: »

The most recognisable ways and proven to be working of educating future aeronautics engineers, aerospace engineers, the engineers who will be working at Airbus, Boeing, Nasa, electrical power engineers, nuclear engineers working in Nuclear reactors plant, structural engineers (not technicians), etc doctors, dentists, are by studying the subjects at the universities.

It has been proven for many centuries. Why do you think there are a better ways of educating the people like these.

Why do you think the companies like Airbus, Boeing, Nasa send their apprentice to study, award scholarships or make contract to current students (with expectation they will be working at these companies after finishing their study) at Bristol university, Cranfield, Imperial college, Toulouse Polytechnics, MIT, Stanford.

Why do you think the companies like Siemens, ABB, AEG, General electrics send their engineers to study at the universities in Switzerland in Germany.

Why do you think the companies like Atkins, Arup, Skanska, etc send their apprentice to study structural engineering at the universities if they are useless.

Why do you think they are willing to spend money, and or even donating some money to universities to educate their future engineers.

One thing for sure is that you will not be able to argue that the people in the leading industries above do not know what they are doing especially especially if they will need to invest or donating money to universities.

The methods to educate future engineers, doctors, dentists have been proven for many centuries. Why do you think there are a better and more efficient ways of doing that especially if you are not a leading expert in either higher education or relevant industries. If the industries could find a better and more effective ways of educating their future engineers, they would have done that since a long time ago.

People who think they are better than the people in these industries, pretend or proclaim themselves to be experts could argue whatever they want. That is a freedom of speech. But any argument put forward against the leading industries and recognisable experts in the areas, the methods that have been proven to be working for centuries will be absurd. Let alone if the argument, the proposed methods come from non experts in the industries and higher education.

It will just sound like attention seekers trying hard to put forward their ideas / methods across that not many (if any) will believe or convince.

Things had changed a lot over the last 20 years even the last 10 years.
When I was a kid you have teachers and books
Now you have the internet more content than all the books ever written and you have ways to learn on the net which are as good as the worlds best teachers.

More importantly we far too many scientists and engineers so much so that most don't work in engineering or sciences they go into finance or business.

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

As Colin Chapman of Lotus once said, Any fool can build a bridge that will stand up, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that will only just stand up.

Clearly for some lines of work the content of the degree matters. The number of those jobs is small, and the incumbents aren't very well paid. A doctor on £100k is badly paid considering he's got two degrees and loses three years of earning potential getting the second one.

The value in most degrees is the skills, not the knowledge. Knowledge of historical events is not useful in many jobs at all, but someone with a history degree will, when s/he reads something, be skilled at working when out it must have been written, what the writer's biases were, what other sources should be consulted and where it all fits into the thinking on the subject matter. Historians don't in the main memorise facts; they ask themselves how we got from thinking X about the Reformation to thinking Y about it and what the major steps were. And they can write you a cogent summary of it.

There are plenty of work-related contexts where this sort of analytical thinking is useful. A numerate history graduate from a good university is a far more versatile employee than an engineering graduate who can just about read and write. The engineer is probably better at maths but very few jobs require more than basic arithmetic, so his advantage is not useful. If he's as literate as the average engineer you'd rather have the history graduate.

There seems to be a lot of resentment from what we've started calling "STEM" graduates about arts graduates, the former usually assuming the latter's degrees are easy and a waste of time, and should be belittled and discounted. Yet these supposedly superior numerate degrees have not on the whole been paths to high salary and responsibility, and some that have, such as Economics, are arts subjects anyway.

We need to focus less on knowledge and more on skills, including that of organising yourself and your time. On that basis, I suggest arts degrees are on balance more useful than most STEMs.

Close to all degrees are pointless

If someone wants financial stability and wellbeing they would do better to just take a one week course on money savings investments business and tax. And maybe a one week course on managing life and relationships.

A degree in physics just as pointless as a degree in history.

GreatApe

adindas wrote: »

Have you ever seen a numerate historian graduate become an engineer at Airbus, Boeing, Nasa ??

Want to see if you could find any.

It is not impossible to train them on the job, but it might take more time and money to make them an aerospace, aeronautical engineer in these field.

If the industry could find a better and more efficient way of making the future engineers in their industries than educating/ training them in the related subject at the university, they would have done that since long time ago.

Maybe you should check what proportion of engineers end up in engineering related jobs before you go on. I'd hazard a guess as under 20% and perhaps under 10% which means for the majority they are indeed wasting their time.