Are degrees in the UK value for money?

economic

the only people who benefit from this student education bubble are the universities and those who work for them.

SingleSue

economic wrote: »

the problem is that most employers by far require degrees - only as a filter for applications. probably only 5-10% require the skillset learnt from a degree. the rest require a degree because it is easy to filter out candidates. worst still some employers require a 2:1 or higher in any degree so a grad from warwick uni with a 2:2 would not make it through any grad scheme application whereas a grad from luton uni with a 2:1 would.

so do you really blame the kid deciding that any degree i can get into is worth it then no degree as chances are i wont be able to apply to any graduate programs if i dont do a degree.

the source of the problem is the funding of these courses by the public which has led to a massive rise in the number of degrees being offered. and so companies use degrees as a way of filtering.

as i said before the way to fix this problem imo is to encourage apprentice programs (maybe force companies to hire x% of intake every year from people with no degrees on an apprenticeship program) and turn off the student loan tap slowly but decisively.

And therein lies the real problem.....our youngsters are being forced down the degree route just to access jobs that years ago they could have started as juniors or trainees.

Unusual for us to agree Economic but on this one we do!

phillw

economic wrote: »

if i was PM i wouldnt care. I would just get the job done the right way - at the source of the problem. i wouldnt care about getting re-elected. of course other people dont think like me so maybe thats the real problem - political corruption.

You couldn't do it in 4 years and then you're out and your successor has a different point of view.

economic wrote: »

the source of the problem is the funding of these courses by the public which has led to a massive rise in the number of degrees being offered. and so companies use degrees as a way of filtering.

Some companies always did, which meant that people thought it wasn't fair that they couldn't get those jobs, so everyone was given a chance to go and then more companies used that as a filter because they have to use something.

It's an unsolvable problem. You could argue that we're better off with not funding the universities, but then then people go back to being angry how unfair it is they can't go to university and are forced into a manual job and resent those that went to university

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

if i was PM i wouldnt care. I would just get the job done the right way - at the source of the problem. i wouldnt care about getting re-elected. of course other people dont think like me so maybe thats the real problem - political corruption.

maybe we should get even deeper into the heart of the problem. set term limits for politicians. they can not work in the public sector after say 4 or 8 years in the public sector.

How would you get elected on a manifesto of capping students to 10% and closing 80% of the universities?

You not only have the opposition to worry about but your own side who could unseat you if ~40 of them call for a leadership contest.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

How would you get elected on a manifesto of capping students to 10% and closing 80% of the universities?

You not only have the opposition to worry about but your own side who could unseat you if ~40 of them call for a leadership contest.

that depends on how good the politician is in persuasion and presenting the idea. if they are good enough they would convince the party and if they are really good they would convince the public.

and as i said you would do it gradually so it would be easier to accept. as long as the agreement is there that most degrees are useless and a waste of taxpayer money, then it should be easier from there. possibly also ask a sample of companies about what they think about the usefulness of degrees. most will just say its just a filter if they are telling the truth.

economic

phillw wrote: »

You couldn't do it in 4 years and then you're out and your successor has a different point of view.



Some companies always did, which meant that people thought it wasn't fair that they couldn't get those jobs, so everyone was given a chance to go and then more companies used that as a filter because they have to use something.

It's an unsolvable problem. You could argue that we're better off with not funding the universities, but then then people go back to being angry how unfair it is they can't go to university and are forced into a manual job and resent those that went to university

but if we get rid of the useless degrees then employers would have no choice but to hire people with no degree. they will find that the caliber of the new employee is no different to one that did the degree.

economic

SingleSue wrote: »

And therein lies the real problem.....our youngsters are being forced down the degree route just to access jobs that years ago they could have started as juniors or trainees.

Unusual for us to agree Economic but on this one we do!

its economic not Economic.

phillw

economic wrote: »

but if we get rid of the useless degrees then employers would have no choice but to hire people with no degree. they will find that the caliber of the new employee is no different to one that did the degree.

And the employees would be forced to take those jobs.

The current system at least means the people are a bit more mature by the time they realise that they're not going to get the job they wanted.

The degree isn't the only thing you get out of University. A lot of comedians went to Cambridge for example, their degree is also useless. But without funding then you find it's only the rich people who get that kind of opportunity and is that what we want?

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

that depends on how good the politician is in persuasion and presenting the idea. if they are good enough they would convince the party and if they are really good they would convince the public.

It isn't an mse forum board.

You have half the media against you simply for the party you belong to
You also have at least 200,000 staff against you even I'd they know it's for the good
You have 300,000 kids in the year you implement being told no uni for you
You have all those kids parents and family against you

The biggest problem you will face is that while you might just about get a majority to Accept the idea you will find that almost everyone thinks its other students and other peoples kids who should not be going. I recall having a conversation with a group of students at Luton university and almost all agreed too many go and the sector should shrink but I doubt any of them thought they were the ones that were surplus to requirements which of course they definitely were the Ines that shouldn't go.

You will face an almost impossible task.
However give the students more options to use their £60-£80k loans and of the kids decode to spend the money elsewhere then nobody is going to blame the 17 year olds for picking to use their loans to start a business or buy abhiise instead of buying a business studies degree from Luton

Arklight

SingleSue wrote: »

And therein lies the real problem.....our youngsters are being forced down the degree route just to access jobs that years ago they could have started as juniors or trainees.

Unusual for us to agree Economic but on this one we do!

That's rather putting your career at the mercy of your employer though, isn't it?


This might have been fine for baby boomers who could expect to walk into a company at 16, and out again 50 years later with a pension, but it's not really the same for young people now.


What will hopefully happen is that a government enters power that actually values the transformative effect of education and is willing to fund it again. I don't really care how they do this. Graduates earn more, make better decisions and have happier more stable lives.


Investing in Education is a no brainer.