Are degrees in the UK value for money?

happyandcontented

Arklight wrote: »

I don't have to read "the whole thread" to correct the nonsense in your one post.


"You say I don't know anything about A levels but you haven't explained why A level papers with O level questions on them are more difficult than O levels."

I'm not sure to what you are referring. O levels were last sat in 1987. What A level exams now are using O level questions from 30 years ago?


Assuming there are some questions that are the same. Do you think the marking scheme for a Level 3 qualification is the same as that of a Level 2 qualification?


"I have no idea why you want to try to make out that the education system in the UK hasn't been "dumbed down,"but you aren't actually helping young people not to get conned by the university system"

Universities might be "conning young people" by charging them £9500 a year and then giving them a poor experience, but there is no evidence that they are matriculating them with degree classifications that haven't been assessed properly.


If this were the case all those students who go to universities that take the useless C, D and E grade A levels that you seem to think barely qualifies them to hold out a tin on the street and grunt at passersby, would be being matriculated with 1sts and 2:1s.


But there is no evidence this is the case:


https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Good+Honours


If you actually look at data, rather than axiomatic everyone-knows assumption, you will see that the top grades are achieved by students at the top universities.


Unsurprisingly the privileged kids who go to the privileged schools get into privileged institutions where they get high attainment in degrees that continue their privilege.


If you are choosing somewhere to go and get a 1st you better not go to London Met, languishing at the bottom of the table for grades. However St Andrews, Oxford, and Cambridge seem to have developed a pretty foolproof method of ensuring that inner city kids never get into their hallowed halls of learning.

Personally I am much more impressed by someone who goes to London Met and gets a 1st than someone who has every imaginable advantage thrown at them and gets the same from the Russell Group.


If you want to wee all over low table unis for offering bad teaching then go right ahead, but don't say that kids who do well in them have had an easy ride or somehow get their externally marked and moderated exam papers be marked more leniently.

They actually sit different exams....and they may work on the same core units but to a different depth/breadth. I know this because my son and his friend are doing the same course MChem Eng at different places and my son's friend cannot believe what depth/breadth my son is studying at compared to what he is required to do for the same qualification.

This is why employers place a ranking on the degrees depending on which institution the course is studied at.

Alvinism

UK degrees don't seem to be value for money for those students who struggle to find a job after university and end up taking up a position they could have acquired without a degree. Only upside is that in lower-paid positions they won't reach the threshold for repaying their student loan. I think students need to reassess the likelihood of their degrees leading them into a profession. I wish I had studied something more vocational instead of a humanities subject.

gfplux

This looks very bad news, what happened to joined up Government?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42092171

"There has been a big fall in the number of workers starting apprenticeships since the introduction of the government's apprenticeship levy earlier this year.
The levy was supposed to increase the number of people training at work.
But according to Department for Education figures, in the last three months of the 2017 academic year, 48,000 people began an apprenticeship.
That compared with 117,000 for the same period last year."

Sapphire

Alvinism wrote: »

UK degrees don't seem to be value for money for those students who struggle to find a job after university and end up taking up a position they could have acquired without a degree. Only upside is that in lower-paid positions they won't reach the threshold for repaying their student loan. I think students need to reassess the likelihood of their degrees leading them into a profession. I wish I had studied something more vocational instead of a humanities subject.

Agree with this. I did study archaeology and history (and paid for the degree myself), but only after I was well established in a career. I did it for my own interest. However, when it came to work, I first 'tested' various really junior positions in different types of establishment (thoroughly enjoyed this – better than any degree as far as I was concerned). Not working was not an option at the time – I lived with elders of my family, but they were not financially well off, so there was no question of doing 'gap years' or lounging around, etc. Anyway, I enjoyed working and learning about how the working world operated. As a school leaver, I didn't have a clue as to what I wanted to do when it came to a 'career'. I ended up dropping into something I loved and progressed from there (training myself with some help from others as I moved along). Best way, though obviously you can't do this if you want to be a scientist or similar.

There was a caller on LBC radio the other day who was complaining about not having got a job after three months of searching – he had a media studies degree. He sounded surprised…

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

This looks very bad news, what happened to joined up Government?

Or the entrepreneurial nature of business.

Many employers say they cannot afford to release staff for one day a week and do not want to make the 10% contribution to the training costs.

Investing in the development of staff is key. Not just for the employees concerned but for the business.

Perhaps it's cheaper to enploy someone who already has the skills. FOM has it's downsides.

GreatApe

gfplux wrote: »

This looks very bad news, what happened to joined up Government?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42092171

"There has been a big fall in the number of workers starting apprenticeships since the introduction of the government's apprenticeship levy earlier this year.
The levy was supposed to increase the number of people training at work.
But according to Department for Education figures, in the last three months of the 2017 academic year, 48,000 people began an apprenticeship.
That compared with 117,000 for the same period last year."

We now have full employment there isnt a need to do an apprenticeship at little to no pay if you can get into a company and earn a full wage and work your way up the pay and responsibility ladder

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

We now have full employment there isnt a need to do an apprenticeship at little to no pay if you can get into a company and earn a full wage and work your way up the pay and responsibility ladder

sometimes i think i am the only one unemployed

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

We now have full employment there isnt a need to do an apprenticeship at little to no pay if you can get into a company and earn a full wage and work your way up the pay and responsibility ladder

Service industries results in low skilled poor satisfation jobs. With few ladders to climb.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

sometimes i think i am the only one unemployed

One of the good bits of news was that over the last year all the jobs created were full time.
Net not Gross. In fact so many full time jobs were created that on net part time jobs fell. Had brexit not happened I think 2017-2020 would have been boom years with maybe 3% growth each year.

UK unemployment is 4.3% but most of that is churn for instance the unemployment rate is only 1.8% for those unemployed for 6+ months. So 60% of job seekers find work in less than 6 months

Headline figure of 4.3% unemployed is misleading I wish the media would stop using it. For instance the headline figure also include a couple hundred thousand full time students looking for part time work. It is one of the reasons youth unemployment always looks worse the full time students want work but can only work certain days and certain hours which of course greatly limits what they can do work wise so their unemployment figures are worse than the average.

GreatApe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Service industries results in low skilled poor satisfation jobs. With few ladders to climb.

Lefty nonsense

I take it you never worked in non service jobs. One of the reasons I left my manufacturing job was the dirty air. Not quite as bad as smoking but probably half way there just to go do your job and I was mostly in the offices and labs the working men were always on the plant. I recall two of the men died during my time there. But at least they had ladders to climb....actual ladders....they were all in the same jobs for life almost none went any further.

Your lot are funny, you sit at work browsing the internet complaining how hard life is now and how unsatisfied you are. You wouldn't last a week in 1950 before you were crying to come back