Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Voyager2002

justme111 wrote: »

Exactly what I was worried about. I am foreign and find the HE system extremely confusing here. Can someone please advise me on what to look for when assessing HE establishments? Recently I looked at league tables and descriptions; the only parameter I found that could be of value was contact time. I was shocked it can be as low as 15-20 hours a week! All the scores - I know scores are pretty meaningless when looking at schools so I have no reason to believe they have any purpose in higher education.

Bear in mind that the traditional 'academic' universities have tended not to maintain close links with local industry, nor to train people to do a job: the assumption has been that a future employer will be willing to invest in one of their graduates. So, for example, a Cambridge degree in Engineering may miss out a great deal that a graduate would need to know in order to do a job, the assumption being that a graduate is such a bright and well-educated person that an employer will be willing to spend a couple of years training her/him before obtaining any real value in return. Whereas an engineering graduate from a "lesser" university may have gained more industrial experience and more skills that are immediately relevant to the workplace, and so would contribute more to the company in the short term. So someone who simply wants to be trained to do a job might do well to steer clear of places like Cambridge.

Voyager2002

Cakeguts wrote: »

Wikipedia is also a good reference. If you look up the history of any university on the site it tells you what they used to be before they changed their name to a university. What you want to look for are the ones that have always been universities, so avoid anything that used to be a college of Arts or a Polytechnic, or a technical college.

Anything that accepts BTEC for the course you want to do is best avoided and you want the course to ask for AAA minimum at A level. These are the universities that well informed students want to get into.

I disagree, I am afraid. A few of the former Polytechnics are now very good universities (or at least have some very good departments), while some well-established traditional universities are now really rather poor.

Many departments will ask for high 'A' level grades as a form of marketing but actually accept candidates with far lower qualifications. And some good institutions accept poorly-qualified candidates for special reasons: for example Birkbeck (London) provides a second chance to people who failed at school and so accepts candidates who could not get into any other university. Academic standards at Birkbeck are high, however, and so unfortunately the student 'wastage' rate is also rather high.

Tabbytabbitha

Arleen wrote: »

And that is part of the problem! Yes, most people enjoy the "uni experience", but then a lot of them wind up with qualifications that did not justify the cost of it. And people should be going for HE to either gain skills that will increase their marketability in the work place, in which case doing so on the loan is perfectly fine. The other is for pursuing ones interests, which doesn't have any marketabiltiy, and should only be done if you can afford it, without relying on public funds.

I disagree. An educated population is always going to be a worthwhile investment if that education has been of a high enough srandard.

CLAPTON

Tabbytabbitha wrote: »

I disagree. An educated population is always going to be a worthwhile investment if that education has been of a high enough srandard.

possibly a tautology showing a education of insufficent standard

Arleen

Tabbytabbitha wrote: »

I disagree. An educated population is always going to be a worthwhile investment if that education has been of a high enough srandard.

And that trend is the reason why undergread from open university (the option most resiliant when it comes to scaling up) costs about 20k GBP and keeps going up. It's much worse for brick and mortar universities, and as volume goes up then the quality has to go down, as there are only that many great lecturers.

So while I may agree with you in theory, in practical terms it simply doesn't work that way, and many of the people who go for that diploma for the sake of diploma, not marketability, wind up never paying what they owe in student debt. Call me a capitalist, but that means it wasn't a worthy investment, unless you can point to some external benefits that make up for the difference.

Jon_B_2

Have not read most of the thread. But as a graduate in 2009, I feel the university experience was worthwhile.

I came out with £22k of student debt, but I got myself into a graduate scheme (even with a 2:1 in History - those damned arts degrees!) and I am just about get a pay rise to take me to £50k. This would not have happened without my degree.

The only punishment is that £230/month comes straight out of my wages to pay off the debt. Probably another 5 or so years til it is paid off.

Tabbytabbitha

CLAPTON wrote: »

possibly a tautology showing a education of insufficent standard

"A education"?

Tabbytabbitha

Arleen wrote: »

And that trend is the reason why undergread from open university (the option most resiliant when it comes to scaling up) costs about 20k GBP and keeps going up. It's much worse for brick and mortar universities, and as volume goes up then the quality has to go down, as there are only that many great lecturers.

So while I may agree with you in theory, in practical terms it simply doesn't work that way, and many of the people who go for that diploma for the sake of diploma, not marketability, wind up never paying what they owe in student debt. Call me a capitalist, but that means it wasn't a worthy investment, unless you can point to some external benefits that make up for the difference.

You're a capitalist!

Tangiblle benfit of a good education - not voting for Trump, for one!

Arleen

Tabbytabbitha wrote: »

You're a capitalist!

Tangiblle benfit of a good education - not voting for Trump, for one!

You do realize that US has higer % of tetriary education graduates than UK, right? Not to mention that this isn't an argument, but some sort of populism non-truth.
And going for actually marketable education first doesn't mean that you cannot get further education at later time, when you can afford it and while being productive member of society.

Tabbytabbitha

Arleen wrote: »

You do realize that US has higer % of tetriary education graduates than UK, right? Not to mention that this isn't an argument, but some sort of populism non-truth.
And going for actually marketable education first doesn't mean that you cannot get further education at later time, when you can afford it and while being productive member of society.

I said a "good" education and I disagree that it's a populist viwpoint at all - not these days!