Are degrees in the UK value for money?

zagubov

Sapphire wrote: »

Bliar should never have got rid of the technical colleges.

Jackieboy wrote: »

He didn't - they're still there.

You're both right, in a way. The FE colleges which are what used to be called "Tech"s were massively culled in the mid-90s. They were incorporated and behaved like businesses and all replicated all their admin up to the point where they had almost as many non-teaching as teaching staff.

The number of FE colleges in England fell from about 450 to a bit over 200. Many were forced to merge then have branches closed by rationalisation.

GreatApe

theoretica wrote: »

Of course a university education - and school education too - are useful for more than the facts acquired. When an employer asks for a degree they aren't usually just asking for someone at least 21 with a nice collection of facts at their fingertips. I developed my learning skills dramatically, so that now I can pick up new information and venture into new fields much more rapidly and efficiently than I could have without the university time and structure. I developed my learning skills to cope well when I wasn't being taught, or not being taught well. I practiced thinking logically and making connections between disparate things. The environment and like-minded people were amazing, and I am sure affected how I matured.

I would not have my current job without my university education, and I do use it. I could of course list huge quantities of facts I haven't ever needed since I learnt them, from primary school on up. How many people do need to name the wives of Henry VIII or use Pythagoras' theorem? But the skills learnt around those facts - them I do use.

marketing fluff

the human brain is built not by the university but by biology to be a great learning machine.

if any of your post was even a little bit true then kids could be sent on 1 month courses on how to learn efficiently (rather than sent to do waste management and dance in the hope that while doing waste management and dance they learn how to learn better)

silvercar

The financial value of a degree is the future earnings that having the degree offers vs not having a degree.


There are also many benefits of having studied for 3 or 4 years that are not financial.

zagubov

GreatApe wrote: »

The college should have done away with lectures years ago and just put videos of past lectures up. Given a reading list and a website list and told the students to go away and come back in a year to be tested. That would likely be better if not better certainly not worse.

But then the pretense of needing a big fancy expensive campus in kensington, big expensive fees, lots of teaching staff and support stuff, all of that as vital to learn would be shown to be false.

The truth is and has been for a long time that the best most efficient method to learn is simply reading material. In the past this would have been books and now it is books+net. Society no longer needs universities for teaching its a pretense. You can lean the highest levels of science mathematics and engineering from the comfort of your own living room faster quicker and in more depth than doing a 3 year uni course.

Some people are good autodidacts and can learn from the web and by reading books, and good luck to them.

I doubt that works for everyone.

Plus, being educated isn't just about being well-read or well-informed.

Cakeguts

You get to learn to think at primary school as well but that doesn't mean that everyone should have to pay to get a primary school education.

People who went to a real university don't really have much idea of just how easy some of the courses at universities are these days. They don't require much thinking which is why we have "graduates" working in jobs that don't need a degree.

GreatApe

zagubov wrote: »

Some people are good autodidacts and can learn from the web and by reading books, and good luck to them.

I doubt that works for everyone.

Plus, being educated isn't just about being well-read or well-informed.

It really does or can work for everyone. Teaching yourself is the most efficient method.

The internet is now fully interactive. You can sign up to a physics or mathematics or electrical engineering forum and have someone explain it to you in a way a tutor might do face to face.

There are now tons of videos on science eg google solving Schrödingers equation. You will get PHD level professors or students going through it in as clear and as good as can be humanily done. If anything better comes up then that will take over the lessor video tutorials

So you now have a choice of going to a fifth rate university with fifth rate lecturers who is trying to dictate materials on a blackboard 20 meters away while half the students play the sleeping donkey game and the less interested students a couple of seats away cause noise and problems or you can download and watch the worlds best universities put up their best lecturers best performances at watch at your own pace rewind or pause. There really is no competition.

GreatApe

Cakeguts wrote: »

People who went to a real university don't really have much idea of just how easy some of the courses at universities are these days. They don't require much thinking which is why we have "graduates" working in jobs that don't need a degree.

I do wonder sometimes how easy or not the lessor universities are. One of my pals went to a top university and only got a 2.2 largely for losing interest in the subject mid way. He is a very cleaver chap and has done well despite that result and earns a very good wage. However it still hangs on him as a regret and I wonder if the life of someone is the same circumstances would play out as well today.

At the same time I meet plenty of young ones who have firsts or upper seconds who can't tie their shoe laces and who can't seem to speak clearly properly and in an appropriate manner.

Is it really fair that there is no direct comparison between universities or subjects when lots of companies act and recruit like there is (ie blanket 2.1 necessary for application even though that means completely different things depending on the subject and institution)

Jackieboy

GreatApe wrote: »

The college should have done away with lectures years ago and just put videos of past lectures up. Given a reading list and a website list and told the students to go away and come back in a year to be tested. That would likely be better if not better certainly not worse.

But then the pretense of needing a big fancy expensive campus in kensington, big expensive fees, lots of teaching staff and support stuff, all of that as vital to learn would be shown to be false.

The truth is and has been for a long time that the best most efficient method to learn is simply reading material. In the past this would have been books and now it is books+net. Society no longer needs universities for teaching its a pretense. You can lean the highest levels of science mathematics and engineering from the comfort of your own living room faster quicker and in more depth than doing a 3 year uni course.

In most cases, universities have never been about teaching (that was the role of the polys) - they've always been about learning.

Jonbvn

GreatApe wrote: »

Higher education is largely a waste of time and resources. Ask yourselves how many people would freely pay £9k a year if the money was given to all 18 year olds into their bank accounts rather than directly to the university?

I feel my university education and time was a waste of resources. I did one of those useless courses that has little to no value at a middle of the road university. Physics at Imperial college. Seriously what a total waste of time. How will knowing how to prove Schrödinger equation help me in life? What job actually requires that knowledge? Education upto A-Levels was of use in my various jobs but nothing beyond that.

University numbers should be reduced 95%. if a person wants to do a subject for the enjoyment and love of the subject then the internet will provide. If a student needs to do a course that is vital to a given profession then Let the profession pay for it. This includes even doctors who could perhaps be 18 year olds with science A-Levels that learn on the jib and study 2 days a week getting paid crap NHS wages until they are qualified 10 years later.

A basic undergraduate degree is not about the specific content of your course. It is a test of your ability to assimilate and utilise information in an open ended manner. I did engineering at a Russel Group Uni (200 years ago ). Of the friends I am in contact with on the same course, one is a partner at a top 5 accountancy firm, one a director of a bus company and one is a director at a bank in the city.

jamesmorgan

There are a relatively small number of vocational degrees which are effectively training for a specific job. The rest are more generic in nature where the content is largely used as a vehicle to develop soft skills (analysis, research, communication etc). They are used as some evidence to an employer that the student has acquired a rudimentary level of soft skills to be considered for a job. They are effectively a foot in the door. In my previous company we recruited a large number of graduates from many types of university (from Oxbridge to modern ex-polys). Once in the door they all start equal. Within a year or two it is clear who are the high-flyers. There was very little correlation between the type of university and who these high flyers were. The skills required to be successful in business are much broader than those developed within a typical university degree.

So are degrees useful? Well, without one it is very difficult to get a foot in the door. Beyond that, it ends up being simply a line on your CV. The current ' graduate tax' approach means that you only pay back if you get a high paying job, so it is relatively low risk for most youngsters. The greatest benefits are probably outside the course studied - eg gaining independence, meeting people from different backgrounds and cultures. All my 4 children have gone to university. It remains to be seen who will most successful afterwards, but I suspect it will have little to do with what university they attended or what subject they studied.