Are degrees in the UK value for money?

happyandcontented

Arleen wrote: »

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".

If the whole point of such loans was high earning careers then the loans would only be applicable to those subjects which would produce that end result. However, that is not the case is it?

I did encourage my kids to do undergrad and post grad degrees in subjects that would lead to careers, which they did. If they had had a passion for the arts I would have encouraged them to seek out a career path before embarking on that kind of degree.

We have family members with those kinds of degree who have become museum curators for example, and one coupled teaching with leading group tours to European musuems and made a very lucrative living out of it. Art and History is part of culture and culture is what underpins society.

Even if you do not use your degree directly, the experience of university is still valuable. The research skills, the independent learning and the discipline/time management skills required to obtain a decent degree classification are all transferable to whatever sphere you work in.

And....cripples:o really? Quite a derogatory, demeaning term imo.

Arleen

happyandcontented wrote: »

If the whole point of such loans was high earning careers then the loans would only be applicable to those subjects which would produce that end result. However, that is not the case is it?

I did encourage my kids to do undergrad and post grad degrees in subjects that would lead to careers, which they did. If they had had a passion for the arts I would have encouraged them to seek out a career path before embarking on that kind of degree.

We have family members with those kinds of degree who have become museum curators for example, and one coupled teaching with leading group tours to European musuems and made a very lucrative living out of it. Art and History is part of culture and culture is what underpins society.

Even if you do not use your degree directly, the experience of university is still valuable. The research skills, the independent learning and the discipline/time management skills required to obtain a decent degree classification are all transferable to whatever sphere you work in.

And....cripples:o really? Quite a derogatory, demeaning term imo.

I'm not sure since when medical terms are derogatory.

And they cannot control where the loans go because there is no scientific way to decide that on the grand scale. Even a reasonable attempt at that, based on historical data, would not be looking towards the future, not to mention take into account personal capabilities. That is where some faith must be put into humanity to make the sensible, educated, guesses in their life when it comes to betting on the future.

Of course that some people after arts history wind up working in a job related to their degree, but that number was under 7% in 2014, primarily because there are only that many job openings in said field.

As for the experience, would you still encourage them to go to the univerity for the experience if you had to pay for it, in full, out of your pocket, knowing that there will be under 7% chance that it will lead to a career? Becuase when that happens, we all wind up paying for that education, so if you are not comfortable paying that bill yourself, why would you be okay with burdening the others with it?

SingleSue

Arleen wrote: »

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".

There are more disabilities than just those who have lost limbs or the use of them.

The word cripple evokes the mental image of someone bent over double, hobbling along when in the actual real world, disabilities can be hidden but still cause just as much (sometimes more) problems with employment.

SingleSue

Arleen wrote: »

I'm not sure since when medical terms are derogatory.

Medical term?

Not once has that word been said to me or about me by my specialists. Mobility impaired or physically disabled maybe but never ever a cripple, think that word went out of fashion when I was still a child!

happyandcontented

Arleen wrote: »

I'm not sure since when medical terms are derogatory.

And they cannot control where the loans go because there is no scientific way to decide that on the grand scale. Even a reasonable attempt at that, based on historical data, would not be looking towards the future, not to mention take into account personal capabilities. That is where some faith must be put into humanity to make the sensible, educated, guesses in their life when it comes to betting on the future.

Of course that some people after arts history wind up working in a job related to their degree, but that number was under 7% in 2014, primarily because there are only that many job openings in said field.

As for the experience, would you still encourage them to go to the univerity for the experience if you had to pay for it, in full, out of your pocket, knowing that there will be under 7% chance that it will lead to a career? Becuase when that happens, we all wind up paying for that education, so if you are not comfortable paying that bill yourself, why would you be okay with burdening the others with it?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/crippled


Usage note When referring to someone for whom it is difficult or impossible to walk or move without some kind of external aid like crutches or a wheelchair, sensitivity is called for. The words cripple and crippled are no longer considered appropriate. Although these terms have been in use since before the year 950, since the mid-1900s they have become increasingly uncommon and are now regarded as insulting. Since the late 20th century, the terms handicapped and the handicapped, once thought to be acceptable alternatives, have also become somewhat offensive. ( Handicapped remains acceptable, however, in certain set phrases like handicapped parking.) Attempts to replace crippled with the milder euphemistic term physically challenged were sidetracked by a virtual explosion of satirical imitations like economically challenged (poor), ethically challenged (immoral), and vertically challenged (short). The currently acceptable terms are disabled and, when referring to groups, the phrase people with disabilities, or somewhat less commonly, the disabled. These terms are not only less likely to offend, they are more useful. While cripple and crippled traditionally denoted permanent impairments of one or more limbs, disabled is a broader, more comprehensive word that can refer to many different kinds of physical or mental impairments, whether temporary or permanent.
cripple and crippled are not deemed offensive when referring to an inanimate object or an animal. And cripple can be used freely as a verb, especially metaphorically, as in Failing to upgrade the computer system will cripple our business.See also !!!!!!.

Times change......

Re your point about taxpayers. Undoubtedly there are some degrees that I would not be happy to fund as a taxpayer but that applies to many other things too. In a democracy you delegate those decisions to elected leaders and have to put up with things you may personally not be in favour of.

Art History done correctly, produces widely read/thoughtful/ hard working graduates who can work in many areas. Art History has always existed as a degree subject even when no fees were involved, why would I deny my child the chance to study something they had a passion for and which imbued transferable skills just because others saw no value in the subject?

We have tuition fees now which are repayable, historically this was not the case. Many of those who went through the system when it was free have pulled the ladder up after them. I feel from your posts that you see only value in "professional " subjects (which fyi all of my kids actually studied) perhaps because you didn't have the same opportunities or you worked your way up without a degree?

University education is about so much more than subject specific classroom learning.

You could also argue than knowing how much they are paying to be there makes current students value and appreciate that they need to work harder than those who went through free or with grants did. Knowing that you will come out owing 36k for tutition fees alone as my youngest son will, concentrates the mind wonderfully!

westernpromise

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.

I did an arts subject at a Russell Group university in the 80s and I had 2.5 hours of tuition a week plus one seminar with 10 to 12 participants. That was the totality of the scheduled teaching.

You could arguably include lectures to make the taught hours look greater. Attending lectures was optional, however, and was also largely fruitless. The lecture schedule was determined by the faculty for the whole year ahead, and consisted usually of 4, 6 or 8 lectures on a subject delivered weekly over a term every other year. What you were actually studying from term to term was determined by what your tutor had decided, however. So the lectures relevant to subject X might occur in the Michaelmas term, whereas you weren't going to be looking at X until the Easter Term. You'd get nothing out of a lecture because you probably hadn't done the reading yet.

Even if you were looking at X during the Michaelmas term, you might be looking at it in week 3 which meant you'd have got through only 3 of 8 lectures at that point, and would have to find time to sit through the rest after you'd moved on. You could of course attend lectures on stuff you were not yet looking at it, but this required you to be fearsomely organised and to have done the next two years' reading before you arrived. Most people took a view on whether this was an efficient use of their time. I went to two lectures in three years, and one of those was about how lectures worked. I wasn't unusual. As far as I recall, lectures were ill-attended.

Tabbytabbitha

kabayiri wrote: »

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?

None of those is the same as getting on a graduate scheme.

CLAPTON

happyandcontented wrote: »

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?

One would hope a uni education would have taught one to question what is 'self evident' and find evidenced based experience to test it.
The results could be used to see if using the available money in a different ways would produce better outcomes.

Tabbytabbitha

JohnnieW wrote: »

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

Have I missed any?

Gosh you are desperate to stay here!

Fancy coming back to MSE after a gap of eight years just to post that.

Tabbytabbitha

Arleen wrote: »

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".

#
Cripples>:eek:

You don't seem to understand that not all disabled people are limbless or in wheelchairs, neither do they all want to go into the field of IT or business, anymore than anybody else might want to do. You're totally ignoring those with mental health issues who might well beunsuited for those sort of careers. Neither do you understand the fact that only a minority of graduates use their degrees vocationally, it isn't what HE is about, or it certainly shouldn't be.

I also think you ought to look at the meaning of "ad hominem" because I have nowhere attacked you personally,, unlike you and your mate.:D