Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Arleen

zagubov wrote: »

Yes, but those with Associate degrees are just above A level and well below HND.
Those with honours degrees are about ordinary degree standard.
Those with masters are about honours degree level.
So there's no comparison really.

Of course, but also that is why context is important, as this was a direct reply to absurd claim that lack of higher education apparently leads to "trump voters".

preciousillusions wrote: »

Well yes, true, but is 'marketability' truly the only objective that matters? Also I certainly didn't just do my degree to pursue my interests and did see a career outcome at the end of it, the lack of which resulting is largely health related as I said.

When you do it with public money then you better have a solid plan how you will repay that debt to society. When you do a degree with your own money th who cares what do you do with your own money at your own time?

Of course even if you will make the smart choice in terms of school stuff may not go as planned, that is nature of life and why we have strong benefits system where paying for that education will then be delayed. But I wager that those cases are rare given how popular arts history courses are, although I would love some comprehensive statistics on that subject.

Andy_L

Jon_B wrote: »

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.

but what proportion of graduates do get onto a graduate scheme these days rather than just a job compared to the "old days" when their were far less graduates

happyandcontented

Education is worthwhile in its own right. Yes, it may cost the taxpayer for those who do not repay their loans, but many will repay their loans. Nor does it mean that those who don't repay their loans fully because they work in low paid jobs have been a drain on taxpayers. There are many low paid jobs which are vital to society. I want educated people to do jobs at all levels because the service users will benefit.

Take care work/child care work. I want the next generation to be cared for by those with education rather than those who cannot string a sentence together. Ditto the older generation, I want the elderly to be cared for by those with the nous and education to check dosages, recognise issues and react accordingly. I want those involved in that sector and other traditionally low paid areas to be encouraged to take qualifications to increase their skills and knowledge.

Tabbytabbitha

Arleen wrote: »

Of course, but also that is why context is important, as this was a direct reply to absurd claim that lack of higher education apparently leads to "trump voters".

When you do it with public money then you better have a solid plan how you will repay that debt to society. When you do a degree with your own money th who cares what do you do with your own money at your own time?

Of course even if you will make the smart choice in terms of school stuff may not go as planned, that is nature of life and why we have strong benefits system where paying for that education will then be delayed. But I wager that those cases are rare given how popular arts history courses are, although I would love some comprehensive statistics on that subject.

I never sais HE, that's your interpretation - I said "well educated". I think many people with A levels 50 years ago were well educated and many present day graduates aren't. That's why I posted about the scandalous situation that exists where current students are ending up with thousands of debt to reach only a similar level of education that they would have in the past at 18.

CLAPTON

happyandcontented wrote: »

Education is worthwhile in its own right. Yes, it may cost the taxpayer for those who do not repay their loans, but many will repay their loans. Nor does it mean that those who don't repay their loans fully because they work in low paid jobs have been a drain on taxpayers. There are many low paid jobs which are vital to society. I want educated people to do jobs at all levels because the service users will benefit.

Take care work/child care work. I want the next generation to be cared for by those with education rather than those who cannot string a sentence together. Ditto the older generation, I want the elderly to be cared for by those with the nous and education to check dosages, recognise issues and react accordingly. I want those involved in that sector and other traditionally low paid areas to be encouraged to take qualifications to increase their skills and knowledge.

what evidence do you have that people who have 3 extra years at college are better at looking after children or doing care work.

what evidence do you have that this is the best use of the money available and e.g. it wouldn't be better spend having more care worker or more nurses/doctors, housing etc.

Tabbytabbitha

Arleen wrote: »

Of course, but also that is why context is important, as this was a direct reply to absurd claim that lack of higher education apparently leads to "trump voters".

When you do it with public money then you better have a solid plan how you will repay that debt to society. When you do a degree with your own money th who cares what do you do with your own money at your own time?

Of course even if you will make the smart choice in terms of school stuff may not go as planned, that is nature of life and why we have strong benefits system where paying for that education will then be delayed. But I wager that those cases are rare given how popular arts history courses are, although I would love some comprehensive statistics on that subject.

By your thinking, disabled people with possible difficulties in gaining well paid employment or older people with fewer years of working life ahead of them should be restricted from HE, as should those planning to make a career in something like social work where most front line social workers won't make much of a dent in their debt.

Your thinking on the subject is divisive and discriminatory.

happyandcontented

CLAPTON wrote: »

what evidence do you have that people who have 3 extra years at college are better at looking after children or doing care work.

what evidence do you have that this is the best use of the money available and e.g. it wouldn't be better spend having more care worker or more nurses/doctors, housing etc.

Education can be done on the job with day release, but if you are over a certain age that still has to be paid for. I certainly don't think HE is needed for all roles but even FE has to be paid for in many cases.

I would have thought it was self evident that education was desirable for those looking after and stimulating the next generation. Would you want your child looked after by a semi literate, TOWIE obsessed sixteen year old?

Arleen

Tabbytabbitha wrote: »

By your thinking, disabled people with possible difficulties in gaining well paid employment or older people with fewer years of working life ahead of them should be restricted from HE, as should those planning to make a career in something like social work where most front line social workers won't make much of a dent in their debt.

Your thinking on the subject is divisive and discriminatory.

Your overinterpreation of it sure shows a lot of discrimination and lack of any connection to actual job market. Or even to what I am saying, as you still don't grasp the difference between higher education on publics dime, and on your own. And it's quite important difference, as this is where the distinction is put. In the end the point of tuition free student loans is to give people a chance to turn into qualified workforce.

To rebuff your "interpretation" (more like hallucination), in hope that you will actually read it this time. No, it's not disciminatory against cripples, especially in modern days where remote jobs are at all time high and rising. Without limbs you can be succesful software dev, or a graphic designer (kinda), project manager, HR manager, accountant and a lot more in IT field alone. World is not short of jobs like that, quite the oppposite. But for that you have to study the boring-but-marketable subjects like accounting, software development or graphic design, and then be willing to work your way from the bottom to the top in the field, as degree alone doesn't cut it, and didn't cut it for last 50+ years. And when you study "arts history", what exactly are you going to do after spending 20-50k and 3 years of your life on that diploma? Most likely start some other career from scratch, where that diploma is worthless.

But you sure like to throw ad hominen around, I guess that is the only thing you can make that qualifies in your head as "argument".

kabayiri

Andy_L wrote: »

but what proportion of graduates do get onto a graduate scheme these days rather than just a job compared to the "old days" when their were far less graduates

It's an interesting point.

At a couple of recent presentations at Unis, the presenter quoted stats indicating how many graduates of the course had gained employment after 6 months.

This is slightly different from gaining employment directly after your course.

Maybe if there is a greater number of potential employees with what we might term generalist degrees, then employers can do their recruiting at a point which suits them?

JohnnieW

Tabbytabbitha wrote: »

You're a capitalist!

And you are
1. Oldernotwiser
2. Dunroamin
3. MissBiggles1
4. Jackieboy

Have I missed any?

Gosh you are desperate to stay here!