Are degrees in the UK value for money?

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

No. £120k

If FTBs were given £32k each either gifted or a repayment on the same terms as student loans then they would need less than a £60k mortgage

Sorry didn’t see the couple bit. 120k sounds more reasonable.

justme111

I guess house prices would be not 120 k but 600 then ...

Cakeguts

I am surprised that someone with a fine arts degree from a rubbish university like the West of England can handle working in a supermarket. If you want to do a Fine Arts degree you need to go somewhere where you get the top education in Fine Art. An ex Polytechnic, arts college or technical college isn't going to be one of those places. The university of the West of England is one of those that people go to if they can't get into anywhere better. There are a lot of those. You can see from the choice of university those people who would have traditionally gone to university as opposed to those who would have gone to technical college. A job in a supermarket is the level of someone who had gone to a technical college so this person is working at the level of the university that they went to. They are not intelligent enough to work out that they would have been better to get an apprenticeship than to go to this university to study this subject. What they don't need is a graduate level job because they wouldn't be able to cope. The exstudent in question hasn't even realise that they aren't overqualified. They have a degree that isn't worth the piece of paper it is printed on.

The Russel group universities have students who would traditionally have gone to university so they get degrees that are the standard of education that is traditional degree level so of course they have more chance of getting a graduate level job.

I blame the school teachers some of whom also don't have degrees that are the traditional education level of a degree. These teachers can't tell the difference between a "real" degree and one like they have so they tell all their A level students to apply to university even if it is not in the best interest of the student. If teachers are not allowed to give careers advice they should not be telling all A level students to apply to university. In fact university entrance shouldn't be mentioned especially if the alternatives are not mentioned.

School leavers should be given all the options. These options should be deliverd with all equal importance with no bias toward university entrance based on which qualifications students are studying for. Telling all A level students to apply for university is extremely bad advice.

Arklight

Cakeguts wrote: »

What you probably don't realise is that apart from the top 20 or so universities all the other degrees are only worth in educational standards what 3 old A levels used to be. So big companies are hiring people with educational standards of 3 old A levels. What is needed is a higher standard exam at 18 so that people who can only get the new standard of A levels can choose if they want to go to university. The highly intelligent students can take VA very advanced levels which would be like old style A levels and go to the top universities. If someone chooses to go to an A level university rather than doing an apprenticeship or training course they can expect to pay off some of the student loan regardless of how much they earn.

This is complete nonsense.

Arklight

Cakeguts wrote: »

What you probably don't realise is that apart from the top 20 or so universities all the other degrees are only worth in educational standards what 3 old A levels used to be. So big companies are hiring people with educational standards of 3 old A levels. What is needed is a higher standard exam at 18 so that people who can only get the new standard of A levels can choose if they want to go to university. The highly intelligent students can take VA very advanced levels which would be like old style A levels and go to the top universities. If someone chooses to go to an A level university rather than doing an apprenticeship or training course they can expect to pay off some of the student loan regardless of how much they earn.

Cakeguts wrote: »

I am surprised that someone with a fine arts degree from a rubbish university like the West of England can handle working in a supermarket. If you want to do a Fine Arts degree you need to go somewhere where you get the top education in Fine Art. An ex Polytechnic, arts college or technical college isn't going to be one of those places. The university of the West of England is one of those that people go to if they can't get into anywhere better. There are a lot of those. You can see from the choice of university those people who would have traditionally gone to university as opposed to those who would have gone to technical college. A job in a supermarket is the level of someone who had gone to a technical college so this person is working at the level of the university that they went to. They are not intelligent enough to work out that they would have been better to get an apprenticeship than to go to this university to study this subject. What they don't need is a graduate level job because they wouldn't be able to cope. The exstudent in question hasn't even realise that they aren't overqualified. They have a degree that isn't worth the piece of paper it is printed on.

The Russel group universities have students who would traditionally have gone to university so they get degrees that are the standard of education that is traditional degree level so of course they have more chance of getting a graduate level job.

I blame the school teachers some of whom also don't have degrees that are the traditional education level of a degree. These teachers can't tell the difference between a "real" degree and one like they have so they tell all their A level students to apply to university even if it is not in the best interest of the student. If teachers are not allowed to give careers advice they should not be telling all A level students to apply to university. In fact university entrance shouldn't be mentioned especially if the alternatives are not mentioned.

School leavers should be given all the options. These options should be deliverd with all equal importance with no bias toward university entrance based on which qualifications students are studying for. Telling all A level students to apply for university is extremely bad advice.

Your inability to understand how a normalised O level was articulated onto standardised GCSEs is not doing you any favours.

As you don't understand what an A Level is (no it is not an A grade O level) you are not in an any way qualified (ironically) to have written the reams of absolute fiction you have made up about higher education.

Full marks for ill informed prejudice and sneering dislike of young and poorer people trying to better themselves though.

SingleSue

Cakeguts wrote: »

I am surprised that someone with a fine arts degree from a rubbish university like the West of England can handle working in a supermarket. If you want to do a Fine Arts degree you need to go somewhere where you get the top education in Fine Art. An ex Polytechnic, arts college or technical college isn't going to be one of those places. The university of the West of England is one of those that people go to if they can't get into anywhere better. There are a lot of those. You can see from the choice of university those people who would have traditionally gone to university as opposed to those who would have gone to technical college. A job in a supermarket is the level of someone who had gone to a technical college so this person is working at the level of the university that they went to. They are not intelligent enough to work out that they would have been better to get an apprenticeship than to go to this university to study this subject. What they don't need is a graduate level job because they wouldn't be able to cope. The exstudent in question hasn't even realise that they aren't overqualified. They have a degree that isn't worth the piece of paper it is printed on.

The Russel group universities have students who would traditionally have gone to university so they get degrees that are the standard of education that is traditional degree level so of course they have more chance of getting a graduate level job.

I blame the school teachers some of whom also don't have degrees that are the traditional education level of a degree. These teachers can't tell the difference between a "real" degree and one like they have so they tell all their A level students to apply to university even if it is not in the best interest of the student. If teachers are not allowed to give careers advice they should not be telling all A level students to apply to university. In fact university entrance shouldn't be mentioned especially if the alternatives are not mentioned.

School leavers should be given all the options. These options should be deliverd with all equal importance with no bias toward university entrance based on which qualifications students are studying for. Telling all A level students to apply for university is extremely bad advice.

Not sure how all that works when you have someone who was offered a place at a Russell group uni (an unconditional offer no less) but who then turned it down for what was formerly an amalgamation of a technical and art college. For him it wasn't a silly decision, the Russell group university course was inferior in that it was not accredited (needed for his career choice and the companies he would like to work for) and the content too mild, the campus set up didn't work for him and the city facilities too far away to be workable for him.

His experience so far has been a rigourous academic level with supervisions etc which are usually seen at places such as Cambridge.

On the flip side, a graduate of a former polytechnic which is languishing at the bottom of the league tables beating a whole host of other graduates from much better (league table wise, there were a fair few applicants from Russell group universities), to be taken on in a graduate level job. Which university they attended didn't come into it, it was the classification of the degree and how they performed in the very long and involved interview process.

Arklight

There are some great courses being offered at poor universities, and some great universities offering poor courses. This is partly why each coure has different tariff requirements, something which seems to have escaped the notice of the armchair experts on this thread.


The ranking of universities is heavily dictated by their research output, which is great, but if you're taught frequently by PhD students because all the glam big name researchers are off doing research, you won't benefit that much.


Even if you study what people on here think is a useless degree, you still end up with an in depth understanding of an academic area, a working understanding of scientific method, and the ability to think for yourself which will benefit you for your entire life.

Jimmy9012

I went at £3k per year and stayed at home, totalling £9k for the degree. That isn't too difficult to pay back, and the degree helps pass the HR screening on applications; so its worth it just for that. Most applications seem to be binned if no degree, sadly. I feel sorry for the folks paying £9k per year now, £28k for the three year course - as £28k is not a trivial number anymore.


So, for me it depends. If its a job like IT then certifications and experience IMO can get you to the same place without the degree... so its not needed. If a GP, yeah... you probably have no choice.

economic

Arklight wrote: »

There are some great courses being offered at poor universities, and some great universities offering poor courses. This is partly why each coure has different tariff requirements, something which seems to have escaped the notice of the armchair experts on this thread.


The ranking of universities is heavily dictated by their research output, which is great, but if you're taught frequently by PhD students because all the glam big name researchers are off doing research, you won't benefit that much.


Even if you study what people on here think is a useless degree, you still end up with an in depth understanding of an academic area, a working understanding of scientific method, and the ability to think for yourself which will benefit you for your entire life.

but is it worth 60k in debt? i dont think most degrees are. you can do all that being an apprentice.

kinger101

Arklight wrote: »

The ranking of universities is heavily dictated by their research output, which is great, but if you're taught frequently by PhD students because all the glam big name researchers are off doing research, you won't benefit that much.

There are already a number of league tables based on quality of teaching, and TEF is now being brought in too. At the university I recently worked, you were not allowed to contribute to assessed teaching unless you were a permanent member of the academic staff. The most a PhD student could do would be a laboratory demonstrator. A postdoc could give a non-assessed tutorial course. New lecturers now undertake training in teaching too.

Personally, I felt that postdocs were largely excluded from teaching for the benefit of lecturers rather than students. It's important that their terms of employment differ sufficiently from soft-funded posts, so that they're protected from redundancy. Many of them are crap at getting research funding, crap at teaching, but there's practically no way to remove them from their post.

It actually puts UK postdocs and PhDs at a disadvantage, as it's difficult to land a tenure-track position in the US without teaching experience.