Are degrees in the UK value for money?

GreatApe

And what's with all the get degree to be a modestly paid employee

About one third of all jobs in the economy are self employed or working for yourself in some capacity and these people on average seem to make the most lifetime earnings as seen by the size of the estates they leave.

If university is an investment into a better financial future there are much easier ways to do that.

adindas

GreatApe wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

GreatApe wrote: »

And what's with all the get degree to be a modestly paid employee

About one third of all jobs in the economy are self employed or working for yourself in some capacity and these people on average seem to make the most lifetime earnings as seen by the size of the estates they leave.

If university is an investment into a better financial future there are much easier ways to do that.

This is contradicting to what you have said previously.

"All universities and subjects* are useless"

And I raise a few questions which are based on the fact that challenge this and you even do not touch or bother to answer any of that challenges.

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 electric!!!8217;s 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.

Educating and training a future engineers at the universties have been proven for many centuries and are still beeing used by the industries in recruiting graduate. If the industries find a better and more efficient ways of doing that they would have done that since a long time ago.

Could you claim yourself to be better than the leading people in relevant industries or in higher education about the best and most efficient ways of educating future engineers.

True that some engineering graduates are not working in engineering related subjects. But this is also true on other subjects as dentistry, medicine, pharmacies. Also the standard have been slipping with some universities just pass the student who should not become an engineering graduate in the first instance.

I have heard a story of college in the UK delivering degrees in Aeronautics and they are assessing all modules/units with coursework because theyjust want topass the students. In fact there is nothing to prevent some students just ask their collegues or pay professional to do the work.

Those who are up to standard might have many personal reasons for it such as. Family commitment, starting business, have a rich mum and dad, married to rich spouses, change their mind / interest. Also finding work something to do with luck.

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.

John-K_3

GreatApe wrote: »

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.

You are writing some strange posts on this thread, but this is as good as any to respond to.

You seem to have this idea that someone has done the wrong degree if they use the knowledge in a job with a different name. My physics degree was necessary for my doctorate in physics, and the maths and programming and experimental skills that I learned there are very useful in my job in finance.

I see above that you think that people don’t use calculus in the “real world”, which is maybe why you don’t understand its usefulness, but ai use it daily, it underpins everything that I do.

Most people understand that no, we don’t produce too many scientists and engineers, we could do with even more, but that it’s the case that Finance creams an awful lot of us with the better degrees off in our twenties when we realise that we can have an enjoyable job that directly uses our skills and that pays large multiples of what research does.

I’ll quite likely do another doctorate when I leave finance in a few years, and then go back into research anyway.

adindas

John-K wrote: »

I see above that you think that people don't use calculus in the ;real world, which is maybe why you don!!!8217;t understand its usefulness, but ai use it daily, it underpins everything that I do.

GreatApe wrote: »

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.

Just to add this important bit.
People who said this might be engineer working in management in engineering job or in lower level skills of engineering. Keep in mind in engineering there are people who are just using / operating the tools /equipment. But there are also engineers who are making and design that tools / equipment's working in product development, R&D.

There are engineers who are just using / operating the software but there are also engineers who are working in higher level skills such as the one who are making / designing that software to help other people / engineers who are just using it.

If calculus is not used in real world. How do you thing the people calculate the trajectory of guided missile / space shuttle / Space satellite, the movement of robotics arms for instance. How do you think the people calculate acceleration needed of space shuttle, guided missiles satellite to reach some point in a specific time?

Well, just use the software ? What about the people who are making designing the software ?? Not all engineers are just using the software, you will also need the peopple who are making that software. Even people are just using the engineering calcualtion of simulation software they will still need the basic understading / knowledge underpinning of how the software has been programed in order to make judgement if the software produce strange unexpected result. In engineering many simulation and calcualtion software most of them are based in understanding of calculus.

There are engineers working in higher level of engineering the one who are making that software, the one who are making and designing the products, the one woking in product development, R&D. Without these people you will not get the software to help engineers who will just use it. You will not see guided missile, space satellite space shuttle that you see today.

adindas

GreatApe wrote: »

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.

Is it a serious comment ??

If taking one week course on money savings investments business and tax could gurantee or at least 80%+ chance of prosperity for everyone this course would have been oversubscribed.

Poeple who organsise such course will become a multi millionaires.

Cakeguts

adindas wrote: »

Is it a serious comment ??

If taking one week course on money savings investments business and tax could gurantee or at least 80%+ chance of prosperity for everyone this course would have been oversubscribed.

Poeple who organsise such course will become a multi millionaires.

There are some degrees on offer now that the average worker would be able to finish completely and pass in about 2 weeks. There are some really really easy ones about. They have to be easy because otherwise no one would pass them starting from the qualifications they need to get a place.

adindas

Cakeguts wrote: »

There are some degrees on offer now that the average worker would be able to finish completely and pass in about 2 weeks. There are some really really easy ones about. They have to be easy because otherwise no one would pass them starting from the qualifications they need to get a place.

I am not arguing otherwise. You could even get a degrree online without doing any work, if it is a pointless paper what you are after.

But GreatApe was saying
"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."

There are a lot of people want financial stability. If taking one week course on money savings investments business and tax could guarantee (or at least 80%+ chance of prosperity) for everyone taking this course, this course would have been oversubscribed.

GreatApe

adindas wrote: »

This is contradicting to what you have said previously.

"All universities and subjects* are useless"

And I raise a few questions which are based on the fact that challenge this and you even do not touch or bother to answer any of that challenges.

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 electric!!!8217;s 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.

Educating and training a future engineers at the universties have been proven for many centuries and are still beeing used by the industries in recruiting graduate. If the industries find a better and more efficient ways of doing that they would have done that since a long time ago.

Could you claim yourself to be better than the leading people in relevant industries or in higher education about the best and most efficient ways of educating future engineers.

True that some engineering graduates are not working in engineering related subjects. But this is also true on other subjects as dentistry, medicine, pharmacies. Also the standard have been slipping with some universities just pass the student who should not become an engineering graduate in the first instance.

I have heard a story of college in the UK delivering degrees in Aeronautics and they are assessing all modules/units with coursework because theyjust want topass the students. In fact there is nothing to prevent some students just ask their collegues or pay professional to do the work.

Those who are up to standard might have many personal reasons for it such as. Family commitment, starting business, have a rich mum and dad, married to rich spouses, change their mind / interest. Also finding work something to do with luck.

Do universities add to the intelligence of the kids they take on?

I knew more stuff at the end of my degree than I did at the start but I don't think think I was any smarter. The companies you mention had they hired me at 18 by age 21 I would be no less useful to them than had I gone to university. So why do they hire 21 year old grads well it is a simple reasonably accurate tool to sort by interest and IQ and its free. If ABB (and more importantly the workers in the HR department of ABB) had a reliable way to accurately gauge interest in electronics and IQ other than an electrical engineering degree they would probably use that.

adindas

GreatApe wrote: »

Do universities add to the intelligence of the kids they take on?

I knew more stuff at the end of my degree than I did at the start but I don't think think I was any smarter. The companies you mention had they hired me at 18 by age 21 I would be no less useful to them than had I gone to university. So why do they hire 21 year old grads well it is a simple reasonably accurate tool to sort by interest and IQ and its free. If ABB (and more importantly the workers in the HR department of ABB) had a reliable way to accurately gauge interest in electronics and IQ other than an electrical engineering degree they would probably use that.

I do not know any university ever claim they add intelligence to people. If there was such university exist, the people who enroll to such universities are not suitable to study at the university in the first instance as only the dummiest people on earth will ever believe that. Belong to the dummiest people on earth make them not suitable to study at the universities. Unless of course a university which during the process they could mutate someone genes close the genes thet the people like Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci or the people like Bill Gates, Elon Musks, Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Berner Lee, etc have got.

Majorities of the companies I mentioned did recruit some teenagers 18-19 old with very good A-level results and engaged them in apprenticeship as part of their recrutiment strategies to get their future engineers. They then enrol them on part time courses at a university to become proper engineer in the future. The fact that you are not aware of this, prove that you have a very little knowledge in these areas but try to introduce a very controversial idea teaching the leading industries how to recruit their future engineers.

It seems you have a good idea (at least based on your self-assessment). If it could work, it will be breakthrough as it will be minimising the cost of making the future graduates needed by the industries, governments. If you could sell your ideas to the industries and government across the globe and they convince, you will become a multi-millionaire.

But how many big companies, governments are going to believe a person proclaiming themselves to have a revolutionary idea coming from non-unknown person, a person who is not the leading expert in the area??

The fact that majorities of the companies keep recruiting their future engineers from universities graduates, tell everything. Had they found a better way of recruiting graduates they need they would have done that since a long time ago.

GreatApe

adindas wrote: »

I do not know any university ever claim they add intelligence to people. If there was such university exist, the people who enroll to such universities are not suitable to study at the university in the first instance as only the dummiest people on earth will ever believe that. Belong to the dummiest people on earth make them not suitable to study at the universities. Unless of course a university which during the process they could mutate someone genes close the genes thet the people like Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci or the people like Bill Gates, Elon Musks, Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Berner Lee, etc have got.

Majorities of the companies I mentioned did recruit some teenagers 18-19 old with very good A-level results and engaged them in apprenticeship as part of their recrutiment strategies to get their future engineers. They then enrol them on part time courses at a university to become proper engineer in the future. The fact that you are not aware of this, prove that you have a very little knowledge in these areas but try to introduce a very controversial idea teaching the leading industries how to recruit their future engineers.

It seems you have a good idea (at least based on your self-assessment). If it could work, it will be breakthrough as it will be minimising the cost of making the future graduates needed by the industries, governments. If you could sell your ideas to the industries and government across the globe and they convince, you will become a multi-millionaire.

But how many big companies, governments are going to believe a person proclaiming themselves to have a revolutionary idea coming from non-unknown person, a person who is not the leading expert in the area??

The fact that majorities of the companies keep recruiting their future engineers from universities graduates, tell everything. Had they found a better way of recruiting graduates they need they would have done that since a long time ago.

Your argument that the system is the system and therefore must be fully valid and correct because it is the system is very weak

A good degree from a doog university shows interest and intelligence most companies hire as a proxy for interest and intelligence. If you go work at the big banks they hire mostly engineers physicists and math grads because those people have an interest and intelligence with mathematics and logical thinking. An investment bank really doesn't need an aeronautical engineer or a chemical engineer most the degree is fluff that will never be used but the degree shows the interest and intelligence which is what the banksbare hiring on.

Is there a way to show your intelligence and interest in a certain area. Sure but it means being interviewed and hired by someone in the fonoany who can see that. So with big companies and HR departments that is not going to happen. With small conaonies or talking directly to the directors they can and do hire on those terms.

I just hired five full time people and all I did was talk to them for a couple of hours to gauge their competence interest and work ethics. 3 don't have degrees 2 do. If I was a big company and with a bug HR department and I needed five good people i probably couldn't say go find me five capable people I would have to say must have degree in subjects X from universities Y.