Are degrees in the UK value for money?

CLAPTON

happyandcontented wrote: »

I think it supports both our points. If educational standards means children are not getting the help at home then we need to make sure those charged with delivering pre school education are well qualified. Being in the low pay sector shouldn't mean the FE/HE route is closed to them. They provide a vital service to society.

Lack of educational attainment in young parents is an issue which is being explored by various initiatives both grass roots and nationally. Many schools hold workshops to help parents support their kids and they are targeted. Pupil Premium is there to support those from financially disadvantaged backgrounds and there are a lot of other schemes; nuture rooms, targeted TA support, subject interventions etc.

there do seem to be a lot of expensive worthless initiatives don't they.

happyandcontented

CLAPTON wrote: »

there do seem to be a lot of expensive worthless initiatives don't they.

So how would you approach it?

CLAPTON

happyandcontented wrote: »

So how would you approach it?

I would do a series of experiments (yes use children as guinea pigs) to carry out long term studies to see what actully works plus look overseas to see what works too.

Cakeguts

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.

The chances to do these kinds of careers depends on the university. From some universities it will be easier and from some totally impossible.

happyandcontented

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would do a series of experiments (yes use children as guinea pigs) to carry out long term studies to see what actully works plus look overseas to see what works too.

What type of experiments? The initiatives detailed above could be deemed that and have not been running long enough to be evaluated for sucess or otherwise yet, but you seem to be of the opinion they are not worthwhile.

Cakeguts

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.

This may be the case but we have now got people with university degrees who are less well qualified than people without degrees who have gone down the apprenticeship route. What many people have forgotten is that a degree is an academic qualification it isn't a qualification of competence in a particular job. For job qualifications you need an apprenticeship. To be a cabinet maker you need to be apprenticed to a cabinet maker. You cannot learn how to be a cabinet maker from studying furniture from books and photographs at university.

happyandcontented

Cakeguts wrote: »

This may be the case but we have now got people with university degrees who are less well qualified than people without degrees who have gone down the apprenticeship route. What many people have forgotten is that a degree is an academic qualification it isn't a qualification of competence in a particular job. For job qualifications you need an apprenticeship. To be a cabinet maker you need to be apprenticed to a cabinet maker. You cannot learn how to be a cabinet maker from studying furniture from books and photographs at university.

True, but we weren't really discussing that kind of job. For some jobs there is no better route than an apprenticeship, but an old style one not the fakery that sometimes passes for one now.

Cakeguts

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?

You have to be extremely careful about these justifications for running certain courses. What you have got to listen for is the word "graduate." They count any job after 6 months. So you can get a situation where after a certain course 95% are working in hospitality in jobs that don't need any higher education and only minimal training.

Cakeguts

happyandcontented wrote: »

I think it supports both our points. If educational standards means children are not getting the help at home then we need to make sure those charged with delivering pre school education are well qualified. Being in the low pay sector shouldn't mean the FE/HE route is closed to them. They provide a vital service to society.

Lack of educational attainment in young parents is an issue which is being explored by various initiatives both grass roots and nationally. Many schools hold workshops to help parents support their kids and they are targeted. Pupil Premium is there to support those from financially disadvantaged backgrounds and there are a lot of other schemes; nuture rooms, targeted TA support, subject interventions etc.

Basic education has got to be done at school. You can't get a good education at any university unless you have reached a minimum standard at school. The universities that offer easy degrees cannot make up any education that hasn't been acquired at school. In any case why should tax payers pay for this twice. Tax payers pay school teachers to educate ALL children not just the ones who come from backgrounds that make it easy. Tax payers should not be expected to pay staff at university to do the job that should have been done at school.

What needs to happen is that no one should be allowed to train as a school teacher unless they have a 1st class degree from a university where the entry requirements are at least 3 As at A level.

Cakeguts

Voyager2002 wrote: »

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.

I can think of a very good ex polytechnic but the courses it runs are not university courses they are polytechnic type courses. It would actually be fairer to students to call it a polytechnic and not a university so that students can see that they are going to get polytechnic type courses. It helps the choice. For example hospitality has never been a university course it is a polytechnic course. There were some very good polytechnics that offered good education that led to good jobs changing the name to a university just reduced the choices for students who are not so well informed. I can't see why everything has to be a university. It just makes it a lot more difficult for students to see what they are getting.

I can't see why we can have music colleges and not Polytechnics?