Are degrees in the UK value for money?

SingleSue

I think she was highlighting not the issues with degrees but the issue of being a working parent and access to the employment market. This is something which can impact us all and is indicative of a inflexible market, however she has tried to do something which would improve her chances and it has still not worked out.

I'm well qualified and experienced but due to having to take time out to be a carer to family members and the need to have flexible working, I found closed doors at every turn. I even went the OU route and started a law degree to try to improve things, all to no avail.

I'm now in a minimum wage job (which incidently I love), a huge comedown from the high rate tax payer career I had pre children and pre being a carer due to the inflexibility in the market.

economic

SingleSue wrote: »

I think she was highlighting not the issues with degrees but the issue of being a working parent and access to the employment market. This is something which can impact us all and is indicative of a inflexible market, however she has tried to do something which would improve her chances and it has still not worked out.

I'm well qualified and experienced but due to having to take time out to be a carer to family members and the need to have flexible working, I found closed doors at every turn. I even went the OU route and started a law degree to try to improve things, all to no avail.

I'm now in a minimum wage job (which incidently I love), a huge comedown from the high rate tax payer career I had pre children and pre being a carer due to the inflexibility in the market.

the job market is the job market. maybe people should instead study the job market before pursing degrees that would lead no where but debt and time wasted. that was the point i was making.

she maybe trying but you can try the right approach or the wrong approach. it is no good not admitting to her mistakes and asking for others for support. life does not work like that nor should it.

SingleSue

So you think she would have been better off just giving up and accepting benefits as a single parent? At least she got off her bum and tried to better her prospects within the restrictions she had as a parent.

economic

SingleSue wrote: »

So you think she would have been better off just giving up and accepting benefits as a single parent? At least she got off her bum and tried to better her prospects within the restrictions she had as a parent.

actually i would not be surprised if she would have been better of on benefits. how much did her degrees cost her? did she not realise she has a kid and so either has to pay a nanny or can only work part time? did she look into career prospects of her degrees, what sort of pay and how likely she would get that (PART-TIME) job with that pay?

trying to better her prospects is not good enough. its all about making smart choices. i guess she deserves what she gets if she is not smart enough to realise her mistakes.

SingleSue

She may have been better off on benefits financially but mentally, most people do like to work and have prospects and later on down the line, choice. Living off benefits is demoralising, it is soul destroying, we all need some hope that life will get better. It is why I went down the route of further training and qualifications, it was something to keep my brain active and in the hope it would lead to something more once the care responsibilities had lessened.

Children have this annoying habit of not staying children forever, they do grow up and what then for the person who has not tried to better themselves, to improve their lot in life?

economic

SingleSue wrote: »

She may have been better off on benefits financially but mentally, most people do like to work and have prospects and later on down the line, choice. Living off benefits is demoralising, it is soul destroying, we all need some hope that life will get better. It is why I went down the route of further training and qualifications, it was something to keep my brain active and in the hope it would lead to something more once the care responsibilities had lessened.

Children have this annoying habit of not staying children forever, they do grow up and what then for the person who has not tried to better themselves, to improve their lot in life?

you dont get the point im making. whats the point of trying and trying when its likely it will lead to nowhere. maybe she needs another approach.

also im assuming she is taking student debt by doing these degrees. if there is a likelihood she wont ever pay this debt back, why should the taxpayer fund her mistakes?

i care more about the money wasted and distorting the education system then her mental wellbeing.

SingleSue

And you are not getting my point either, by doing what she has, she has a better chance of making a success of her life than if she had done nothing. It is better to have tried and then failed than to not try at all.

It's still early days post degree for her, in 10 years time things could be a whole lot different.

My boys are a prime example of trying to do the impossible, we were told there was no point in trying educationally with them, the task was just too great but I wouldn't listen and it was a good thing I didn't just give up. Middle son is at university and not in prison (where he was likely headed) and youngest son, despite us being told he would never be able to go to a mainstream high school let alone do GCSEs, not only went to one but has also completely obliterated all predictions, got his A levels (top of his year, not one single mark dropped) and is also at university and working at a first level.

We didn't know if it would pay off, if we were wasting our time and it certainly wasn't cost effective for me (as I said, I gave up a very well paying career to do it) but we had to take the risk, we had to at least try even if everything appeared stacked against it being a success.

Malthusian

What I wonder is why she isn't working as a translator. Her marketable skill is that she speaks fluent Spanish. Surely translation work can be done part-time or on a piecemeal basis? Or she could become a Spanish tutor and fit lessons around her childcare.

Why on earth she was applying for graduate schemes I have no idea. Everyone knows that graduate schemes are aimed at people in their early 20s who are childless and probably single and can therefore work long hours and/or be moved from one department to another (which may involve moving office frequently). Not all graduates have to join graduate schemes and if you have a child to look after they are definitely not for you. There is no point complaining that the system is broken if you aren't using the system for the purpose it is designed for.

How do you spend three years studying "languages and international business" and not know how to make money out of being fluent in a second language at the end of it? I don't blame her, I blame the university. Raze it to the ground and build luxury flats on it.

Voyager2002

economic wrote: »

i knew one guy who said he would just go to uni milk the system and move to another country to get a job (i think to nigeria to work in oil).

he joked with me that i would be the one to pay his student debt off as i am the taxpayer. this is partly why i dont work, as the marginal benefit of working for me doesnt make sense as i know the taxes i would otherwise pay wont come back to me in the future. i would be effectively funding other people's lifestyles.

Just for the record: people living and working abroad continue to be liable to repay their student debts. If your friend decides to default then yes, it is unlikely that he would be pursued to Nigeria (although British companies are active in the oil sector there so he might still find his pay being garnished), but he would be unable to return to the UK. Does he fancy spending the rest of his life in Nigeria?

Income tax in the UK is low, with a very generous personal allowance, so it is difficult to understand how anyone could actually be better off not working. The exception would be people with many dependants claiming large amounts in benefits: such people would suffer from the loss of benefits if they started earning, but are unlikely to pay much or anything in tax.

So who is the real fool?

westernpromise

Gymbob wrote: »

Scrap plan 2.. to put this into perspective .. as I said I have an interest added of £3,660 per year. For the people who do media, photography, environmental etc (no offence) you aren't going to be earning 50-60k+ as a grad...

If you were to earn £50,000.. I'd be charged 9% of everything over £21,000 (think this may have just gone up to £25,000)

The obvious solution is to charge the 9% to all graduates regardless of what they earn. This would put the question of whether it's worthwhile into serious focus.

At present, if university doesn't improve your earning capacity, so that you get only a decently-paid job that you'd have got anyway, you're worse off because you pay extra tax on earnings you'd have made anyway. If your degree is useless and you're poorly paid, you'll pay nothing.

So for those suited only to badly-paid jobs, university is a riskless proposition. Either they earn more as a result of having a degree or, if not, the degree is free. So of course they go for useless easy courses.

What should happen is that people should question whether the degree is actually worth what it will cost them. If it will probably add no value but add to their tax bill they should logically not do it. Instead they are incentivised to do it anyway, because if worthless, they are not charged for it, the rest of us are. So they may as well do it.

The ideal result would be that degrees in useless subjects at crummy institutions would fail to fill their places, and the university would have to replace those courses, or fold, or merge. What we now have is a subsidy to dɐɹɔ universities in that the worse their degrees are, the cheaper they become to their graduates. We're encouraging via subsidy the provision of abject mediocrity.