Are degrees in the UK value for money?

economic

NineDeuce wrote: »

"you can not compare two qualifications purely on cost alone."
Yes I can. And I did. And I made the broad point on face value that some courses cost thousands for a week, where as uni degrees cost £9.5k for a year, which is good value. The costs of running professional courses in general is expensive.

here you say professional courses are expensive...

economic

NineDeuce wrote: »

I advocated the cost of a degree (or in your world, the higher spec course) - the more expensive course of the two.

and here you say degree is more expensive...

vacheron

Cakeguts wrote: »

If you can do on the job training with gas engineers you can do on the job training with nursing. It just needs the right mindset of the trainers.

Windofchange wrote: »

Based on your in depth experience of nursing degrees and the job in general? As per my post above, I'm leaving this here with you as in the nicest possible way, you don't understand what you are arguing about, and therefore it is impossible to have any sort of educated discussion.

The statement doesn't give a good impression of Cakeguts experience of Engineering either if they believe that a "Gas Engineer" is an actual Engineer.

Don't get me wrong, Gas "Engineers" provide a valuable service, but they are Gas "Installers".... or to use a motor vehicle analogy, Gas "Mechanics". They do not design new boiler technologies or combustion chambers, they diagnose faults, change parts and perform tests.

It is a failing of UK system that people can be use the term "Engineer" with impunity despite having none of the pre-requisites which are mandatory in order to be called an "Engineer" in many other countries.

If a carer in an old peoples home who has been on a 2 week course started calling themselves "Geriatric Doctors" I'm sure there would be a lot more outcry!

Windofchange

vacheron wrote: »

The statement doesn't give a good impression of Cakeguts experience of Engineering either if they believe that a "Gas Engineer" is an actual Engineer.

But it won't stop her having an opinion of course. I mean, why actually have any understanding of what you are trying to debate when you can join in with the others on here and make wide sweeping statements such as:

Cakeguts wrote: »

The trouble is that there are about 75 universities in the UK where the degrees are not worth the paper they are printed on because the entry requirements for the courses are too low.

So there are around 130 universities in the United Kingdom according to wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_England

Our resident expert of all things nursing, engineering and university now states that there are about (note the use of the word about suggesting an air of certainty with what she is saying, but allowing some wiggle room just incase) 75 universities where the degrees are not worth the paper they are printed on. So getting on 60% of all universities are useless apparently.

Why 75 cakeguts? What is this based on? Why not 80 or 60? What do you know that we don't?

westernpromise

Cakeguts wrote: »

The trouble is that there are about 75 universities in the UK where the degrees are not worth the paper they are printed on because the entry requirements for the courses are too low. Instead of degrees the students would be better educated if they went on a training course for a specific job rather than getting a piece of paper that no one is interested in. In fact a 3 year training course would probably be a higher standard of education than a degree from these universities.

If the system were set up properly those universities would go bust. Instead the worthless degrees work out free because their graduates never earn enough to start repaying the loan, which means we pay.

SingleSue

westernpromise wrote: »

If the system were set up properly those universities would go bust. Instead the worthless degrees work out free because their graduates never earn enough to start repaying the loan, which means we pay.

Eldest son went to a very low ranking uni which would most def come under Cakeguts definition of worthless....he starts his graduate level job in less than a week and will start paying his loan off straight away in his first proper job post graduation.*

To buck the trend further from what has been posted, he also did what a lot on this thread would think of as useless as a degree subject. Obviously his new employers disagreed after what was a very long lasting, very involved and competitive interview process.

*During the process for his new job and for other graduate schemes, he remained working in the job he has had since he was 16 and returned to each holiday whilst at university.

economic

SingleSue wrote: »

Eldest son went to a very low ranking uni which would most def come under Cakeguts definition of worthless....he starts his graduate level job in less than a week and will start paying his loan off straight away in his first proper job post graduation.*

To buck the trend further from what has been posted, he also did what a lot on this thread would think of as useless as a degree subject. Obviously his new employers disagreed after what was a very long lasting, very involved and competitive interview process.

*During the process for his new job and for other graduate schemes, he remained working in the job he has had since he was 16 and returned to each holiday whilst at university.

This doesn't prove anything. its just one case which doesn't even show that a degree has actually been useful (apart from maybe the company requiring a degree for the sake of it).

typically what happens is that companies hiring have a lot of candidates to even chose for interview. the easiest way to do this is to say a degree is required. and next step is to say a 2:1 degree is required. it doesn't mean the skills and knowledge taught during the degree are actually useful for the job. someone without a degree could be as capable to do the job as the graduate.

so the question is would it not be better to scrap these degrees that cost 9k a year for the taxpayer per student and instead have apprentice style training which is more direct and relevant? this way the taxpayer doesn't have to pay and the money can be used elsewhere, the company hiring gets someone to do basic jobs whilst providing training and both company and apprentice benefits.

it would be useful to get numbers on what graduates actually do for jobs vs what they studied and whether it is in the actual field of study. this would be very telling on how useless and a waste the majority of degrees are. i suspect its more then 50%.

SingleSue

Oh I know it doesn't prove anything, I was just replying to the post saying that those studying at certain universities will never pay back any of their student loans.

As it was, his degree (or at least, a specialised bit of it), was required for applying and is wholly relevant to the job.

I would agree that for some sectors, degrees are not required and an apprenticeship or just on the job training would do. It's the way I did it (I rose through the ranks to management via on the job training) but that is now coming back to bite me on the bum as despite having many years experience in doing something, I don't have a piece of paper proving or saying I can!

economic

SingleSue wrote: »

Oh I know it doesn't prove anything, I was just replying to the post saying that those studying at certain universities will never pay back any of their student loans.

As it was, his degree (or at least, a specialised bit of it), was required for applying and is wholly relevant to the job.

I would agree that for some sectors, degrees are not required and an apprenticeship or just on the job training would do. It's the way I did it (I rose through the ranks to management via on the job training) but that is now coming back to bite me on the bum as despite having many years experience in doing something, I don't have a piece of paper proving or saying I can!

thats the problem. companies are conditioned for some reason to now require a degree even for promotions. i think because its easier to filter out the competition as mentioned in my post above.

i guess companies can do what they like but its a shame as they could be missing out on potentially much better candidates.

westernpromise

It's not that they're conditioned, it's just that now that everybody and his dog has a degree you might as well ask for a degree.

Historically the value of a degree was that it showed you could stick at something for three years and that you could manage your time. The actual subject matter was relatively trifling because it is the applicable skills that matter.

It is quite surprising, as I observed upthread, what degrees lead to employment and what don't. Effete Oxbridge ponces with degrees in things like art history typically struggle to find a job - not because they can't get a job at all but because they can't get one that they consider worthy of them. People with media studies degrees from the former Luton Poly OTOH do quite well. You can get in to do Broadcast Television and Radio with Foundation Year BA (Hons) with just one A Level at grade C. The employment rate is 75%. That, I would suggest, is quite a bit better than the employment rate for people with one A Level.

Any university whose degrees don't improve employment prospects should be allowed to go bust.