Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Malthusian

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Soft skills.. presentation, networking, reading people - those are so damn important in rising through the ranks. Hell, within 2 years of graduating I was presenting at an international conference infront of 200 people. I wouldn't fancy doing that without a bit of prep at uni. I'm still hopeless at networking and reading people though!

My economics degree had a whole unit about giving presentations. It was one of the most valuable units in the course for me - I learnt a lot about public speaking and rhetorical tricks like trirhesis and chiasmus.

One small problem: In my group of five I did most of the prepared speech, and almost all of the Q&A afterwards - because none of my colleagues wanted to get up and speak in public and they gladly gave that to me and in exchange I did less of the boring research. This was pretty typical. So the only students who improved their public speaking ability were those who were good at it already.

I tend to agree with economic, the soft skills will be acquired in the workplace if you're that way inclined.

economic wrote:

i would say its best to ban all forms of social science degrees (including economics) and only have hard sciences taught. you can still have some humanaties degrees like history and art and geography but only at the universities who are the best at it.

reaosn being is social science courses are very subjective. how can you grade people based on how the examiner is feeling on the day he marks the papers?

How would you decide which universities were the best at the humanities degrees? It's very subjective. How can you close down university departments based purely on how the Arch-Controller of Universities was feeling on the day he was evaluating which ones were best at teaching Art and History?

economic

Malthusian wrote: »

How would you decide which universities were the best at the humanities degrees? It's very subjective. How can you close down university departments based purely on how the Arch-Controller of Universities was feeling on the day he was evaluating which ones were best at teaching Art and History?

by looking at the hard evidence. look at graduates and where they ended up. in terms of type of jobs, pay and potential future earnings as well as more tangible added value to the economy and current and future economic needs of skills.

another way is academic rigour. this means looking at the content, how students are examined and also normalization of marks (if you are studying with other bright people you have more competition for the top grades).

westernpromise

economic wrote: »

by looking at the hard evidence. look at graduates and where they ended up. in terms of type of jobs, pay and potential future earnings as well as more tangible added value to the economy and current and future economic needs of skills.

another way is academic rigour. this means looking at the content, how students are examined and also normalization of marks (if you are studying with other bright people you have more competition for the top grades).

Science graduates tend not to understand humanities degrees and to imagine that because they include no calculation, they must be easy.

An opportunity to test this hypothesis regarding English degrees can be found here:
http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduates/virtual-classroom/english/criticism-into-practice-some-examples-from-history/

History degrees here:
http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduates/virtual-classroom/history/

and Law here:
http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduates/virtual-classroom/law/

If anyone genuinely thinks there is nothing challenging in these exercises and that all answers are of equal value, that in itself would make me question whether their own degree was very useful, in that it has clearly left them with a deficient narrow idea of how to think and reason. It would actually be a good argument for scrapping science degrees.

I am not sure you can evaluate a degree by where its graduates end up. The degree may attract wasters or high achievers who'd end up in much the same place regardless of subject choice.

economic

westernpromise wrote: »

Science graduates tend not to understand humanities degrees and to imagine that because they include no calculation, they must be easy.

An opportunity to test this hypothesis regarding English degrees can be found here:
http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduates/virtual-classroom/english/criticism-into-practice-some-examples-from-history/

History degrees here:
http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduates/virtual-classroom/history/

and Law here:
http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduates/virtual-classroom/law/

If anyone genuinely thinks there is nothing challenging in these exercises and that all answers are of equal value, that in itself would make me question whether their own degree was very useful, in that it has clearly left them with a deficient narrow idea of how to think and reason. It would actually be a good argument for scrapping science degrees.

I am not sure you can evaluate a degree by where its graduates end up. The degree may attract wasters or high achievers who'd end up in much the same place regardless of subject choice.

my argument was not that all humanties degrees should be banned. only the weaker ones. obviously at cambridge it will be vigourous and thus should remain in place. this is in order to develop new generations of experts in things like history which we will always need.

with a maths degree i think its still valuable to have these studied at the weaker unis as it still would equip people with relevant skills to do certain jobs, especially in a global economy more reliant on technology and science.

so really it is about what do we want our students to study to be productive in the economy keeping in mind it is the taxpayer largely funding these studies and so expect a return for this funding.

Ed-P

I would say that they are, but I think that more should be done to provide higher education without having to pay!

Cakeguts

GreatApe wrote: »

I think in normal conversion saying you are depressed means you feel sad or unhappy
Clinical Depression is of course something much more powerful than feeling down for a few days

Obviously I am a novice on this but my guess is that your surroundings and activities and habits and routines would make it more or less likely to become clinically depressed. One of the good things about routine and full time work is it occupies your mind and gives you less time to fester and make things worse. Its perhaps why in the past people seemed to be less depressed or less-unhappy they had to work much more hours and often manual jobs which deactivates mostly the thinking part of the brain (you cant think much while shoveling coal for 12 hours a day).

If someone close to me was depressed that is probably what I would try, give them responsibilities that fill up all their time. A 60 hour active job and actives outside of work and proper home choirs inside the house (spending an hour cooking rather than an hour on Facebook eating cornflakes). Of course I could be talking out my !!!! having never experienced it myself or known anyone to go through it.

The reason why you didn't see people with severe clinical depression in the past is because they were sent to huge mental hospitals where they stayed often for years. We now have something that is called "care in the community." What this usually means is lack of any form of support for people with a severe mental illness.

Severe depression has physical symptoms as well as mental ones. So you get the usual lack of concentration, and things seem to slow down so an hour in the morning tends to feel as if it has lasted a day. But you can also get blurred vision, and digestive problems as well as a complete lack of energy. Feeling as tired all the time as if you are suffering from flu. So if you can imagine going to work with that tiredness that you get with really bad flu where all you want to do is to go and lie down that is the kind of tiredness that you can get with depression. A complete lack of energy.

There is a genetic element with depression so if someone in your family had it you are at a higher risk of also getting it.

People who suffered abuse as children are at high risk of mental illness.

People affected by traumatic events in their lives can get it.

So what you are suggesting is not possible for someone with severe depression even the eating corn flakes and being on facebook are out of the question. If you have blurred vision and can't concentrate. Even facebook or watching the television is too difficult to do. You may have difficulty eating because you may have digestive problems that is if you even have the energy to go and get something.

There is also a problem with low mood which is not raised by being with people who have a normal mood level. At the same time as all this is going on the brain is generating negative thoughts which you can't think away because you have no control over what your brain is generating on its own which is why I compare it to a headache. If you are getting a headache spending a lot of time with people who don't have a headache will not stop your from getting one. So spending a lot of time with people who don't have negative thoughts will not stop your brain from generating them.

So imagine trying to get out of bed in the morning to go to work when you have no energy at all feel really really tired and lacking in energy, can't eat because you have a digestive problem, can't concentrate, have got blurred vision and your brain is generating negative thoughts about absolutely everything in your life.

Some people sleep all the time and still feel very very tired with no energy just like flu. And some people don't sleep at all or very little so imagine doing your 60 hour a week job with all the other things you get with depression and also only 1 1/2 hours sleep a night for weeks and weeks.

As you can see from this people with severe depression can be really really ill.

People with mild depression can be helped with lessons in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Mindfullness which teaches positive thinking but this doesn't work with severe depression because you can't think positive through all the negative thoughts that your brain is generating some of which a normal person would have in finding they can't work anymore or until it goes whenever that might be.

Depression is dangerous because if you can't think normally your brain might be telling you that there is no point in carrying on living.

Recent research suggest that there are changes in the brain with depression. So some parts are reduced in size.

I am not in favour of people describing someone who is a bit sad or angry or being negative as being depressed because even mild depression can be unpleasant. How it comes over is like saying someone is a bit cancered. You wouldn't use this term to describe someone who had just been diagnosed with a treatable cancer.

"He was saying that he couldn't afford a house because he is a bit cancered." This is how the wrong use of the word depression can come over to someone suffering from depression. It causes people to think of people with depression as being lazy or bad tempered and just down right negative. Anyone who is ill might be like this not just people who have depression.

chucknorris

Ed-P wrote: »

I would say that they are, but I think that more should be done to provide higher education without having to pay!

Someone has to pay, either the tax payer (us) or the student, or a combination of both. Personally I think it is right for the tax payer to pay if the numbers of students are reasonable, i.e. something in the order of 50-60%% of what they currently are.

Cakeguts

Ed-P wrote: »

I would say that they are, but I think that more should be done to provide higher education without having to pay!

Higher education means university but for most people further education would be enough. This is what was covered by technical colleges. Technical college education was free. A lot of the lower level degrees on offer now are the same level as technical college courses were. So a technical college could cover courses in fashion, ceramics, (pots) media studies, office work, receptionist duties, photography, horticulture, film studies with making films as well as studying film, day release courses, performing arts, game design, animation, health care etc. There is no need for anyone to study for a degree in any of these courses they could all be covered by extending studies at what are now 6th form colleges which already cover many vocational courses. There is no reason why they could not be free. People could do them starting at age 16 like they used to and be awarded NVQs or whatever they are called now. The would lead to the same jobs as they do as degrees but the students would benefit from starting work earlier and not having any debt.

The downside would be that about 75 universities would have to be closed and the staff from these universities would have to find other jobs or be employed as technical college teachers. The level of education wouldn't change all that would change would be of a huge benefit to the students.

Sapphire

chucknorris wrote: »

Someone has to pay, either the tax payer (us) or the student, or a combination of both. Personally I think it is right for the tax payer to pay if the numbers of students are reasonable, i.e. something in the order of 50-60%% of what they currently are.

… and if the subjects taught are likely to result in the student actually getting a job. Personally, I wouldn't feel at all happy about funding people taking 'degrees' in 'trendy' subjects, such as media studies, 'creative' arts, etc., as opposed to those studying medicine and science, say, which require high skills and some brains.

Incidentally, I've been wondering whether, considering the types of degree that many teenagers go for, they receive any good advice on what their degrees would likely achieve for them in life, in terms of earning good money and having a career. Or are they just left to pluck any old 'trendy' subject out of the air? Are they also instructed in the discipline needed to work for decades, often alongside people they wouldn't necessarily associate with, or to be high achievers, etc? It seems that this is something Chinese people, for example, are aware of, and perhaps it comes from upbringing at home, rather than instructions at school?

economic

Sapphire wrote: »

… and if the subjects taught are likely to result in the student actually getting a job. Personally, I wouldn't feel at all happy about funding people taking 'degrees' in 'trendy' subjects, such as media studies, 'creative' arts, etc., as opposed to those studying medicine and science, say, which require high skills and some brains.

Incidentally, I've been wondering whether, considering the types of degree that many teenagers go for, they receive any good advice on what their degrees would likely achieve for them in life, in terms of earning good money and having a career. Or are they just left to pluck any old 'trendy' subject out of the air? Are they also instructed in the discipline needed to work for decades, often alongside people they wouldn't necessarily associate with, or to be high achievers, etc? It seems that this is something Chinese people, for example, are aware of, and perhaps it comes from upbringing at home, rather than instructions at school?

i would say the taxpayer shouldn't fund any of it except for the loans which must be paid back in full.

as would be done in the private sector, the public need to decide who best to give loans to so we get our capital plus interest back.