Wasted Degree?

[cybernoid]

Although...

A good reputation attracts the better students in competition for places so it becomes self-fulfilling that good reputation = good graduates.

Or it simply levels the field as once the better students get to the 'better' university they find their lecturers and course content simply isn't trying hard enough because they don't feel they need to, so better students get a lower quality of education and worse students get to study at an institution trying harder to get a better reputation so therefore leave with a better quality of education, but since they started out from a lower point in terms of potential it all evens out.

Therefore, prejudice is unjustified. or to put it another way, if a kid is a knob he is a knob no matter what uni he went to.

[Errol]

Does it matter? Since the students are funding the degrees themselves, they can study what they like.

They are the ones who ultimately have to pay back the money!

Yes, except they are neither informed enough nor old enough really to be able to understand the implications of taking on £50 grand of debt for a degree that will turn out to be useless (i.e. not get them a job paying £30K a year plus).

[bearwithasorehead]

snip... teachers should be honest to their students, the ones they see floundering, telling them a technical academic degree is not for them.

That would take a sense of personal moral responsibility and insight on the part of the teacher.....

[winkie]

That would take a sense of personal moral responsibility and insight on the part of the teacher.....

.....Sure, but teachers should not be afraid to ask their students if they feel they are taking the right course, then providing them other viable options that may suit them better, they could if they wanted choose......instead of staying tight lipped and loading more assignments and deadlines they have a high chance of not completing.....good advise and direction can be more productive and beneficial than saying nothing at all.......

[bearwithasorehead]

.....Sure, but teachers should not be afraid to ask their students if they feel they are taking the right course, then providing them other viable options that may suit them better, they could if they wanted choose......instead of staying tight lipped and loading more assignments and deadlines they have a high chance of not completing.....good advise and direction can be more productive and beneficial than saying nothing at all.......

I was kinda playing devil's advocate. I've met few teachers willing to be anything other than 'afraid' of telling the truth... hence my comment about having moral courage....

I could be even less kind and say a decision to become a school teacher and having moral courage (at least in the UK) are often mutually exclusive.

Edited March 24, 2013 by bearwithasorehead

[alexw]

So therefore why are we encouraging them to waste their time and future income doing something that will never benefit them?.....better to put them into a apprentice style training practical vocational work....these students need training, structure and a mentor type guidance....not a huge competitive costly corporation they will feel out of their depth within........teachers should be honest to their students, the ones they see floundering, telling them a technical academic degree is not for them.

Because the past 30 years worth of UK gov's have not wanted large numbers of angry youth (beyond what we already have) roaming the streets and demanding change. It's ok if the youth of the poorest 20% of families are angry and wandering the streets, its not ok for large numbers of the middle 60% to be doing the same too.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

.....Sure, but teachers should not be afraid to ask their students if they feel they are taking the right course, then providing them other viable options that may suit them better, they could if they wanted choose......instead of staying tight lipped and loading more assignments and deadlines they have a high chance of not completing....

As a university lecturer (on a history degree, some of whose students take elective modules in subjects that sail perilously close to the dreaded media studies), I can assure you that two things put the willies up my boses more than anything: (1) poor recruitment, and (2) dropouts.

The problem is that preventing these is mutually contradictory. The best way to ensure that you don't get dropouts is raising the barrier to entry, but of course doing that hits recruitment. The way we've tried to address this thus far is to concentrate our recruitment efforts outside the EU. As I write, about 25% of our undergraduates, 90% of our taught postgrads and 80% of our research postgrads are recruited from China, South Korea and India.

So, paradoxically, the anti-academia sentiment expressed on this board elsewhere is in the process of invoking the law of unintended consequences, namely of creating a situation whereby, before long, about the only places available to UK/EU undergrads will be to read subjects like media studies at places like London Met. They're just too much trouble. HEFCE whacks us with massive fines if we over-recruit, and if we recruit a UK/EU undergrad, we can only charge them £9k, about £6k of which the university top-slices. If we recruit a non-EU one, we can charge them £20k and the topslice is the same.

[MrBushy]

If 60% of people get degrees, 20% of people with degrees will have a below average IQ.

Given that many very smart people like myself (top 0.2%) choose not to get degrees and get jobs from experience and talent, with 50% of people going to uni at the peak, there were a lot of people graduating UK universities with below average IQs.

And that's why degrees from UK universities are worthless.

So, you claim to have an IQ in excess of 140, state you haven't been to University, then fail to do a piece of maths my 10 year old daughter could do.

A point well made, I'm sure.

[Frank Hovis]

So, you claim to have an IQ in excess of 140, state you haven't been to University, then fail to do a piece of maths my 10 year old daughter could do.

A point well made, I'm sure.

Assuming all top IQ have degrees then it's about 20%: 60%*20%=12% so the 40% without degrees and the (20% * 60%) bottom of those with degrees are below average, ok it's 52% but near enough.

[MarkG]

So therefore why are we encouraging them to waste their time and future income doing something that will never benefit them?

It keeps the kids off the unemployment stats and keeps a lot of middle-class lefties in well-paid university jobs.

[MrBushy]

Assuming all top IQ have degrees then it's about 20%: 60%*20%=12% so the 40% without degrees and the (20% * 60%) bottom of those with degrees are below average, ok it's 52% but near enough.

It's not close enough for a GCSE in maths. Let alone MENSA. But if you think it's close enough then I concede that a University education is worthless.

[bearwithasorehead]

As a university lecturer (on a history degree, some of whose students take elective modules in subjects that sail perilously close to the dreaded media studies), I can assure you that two things put the willies up my boses more than anything: (1) poor recruitment, and (2) dropouts.

The problem is that preventing these is mutually contradictory. The best way to ensure that you don't get dropouts is raising the barrier to entry, but of course doing that hits recruitment. The way we've tried to address this thus far is to concentrate our recruitment efforts outside the EU. As I write, about 25% of our undergraduates, 90% of our taught postgrads and 80% of our research postgrads are recruited from China, South Korea and India.

So, paradoxically, the anti-academia sentiment expressed on this board elsewhere is in the process of invoking the law of unintended consequences, namely of creating a situation whereby, before long, about the only places available to UK/EU undergrads will be to read subjects like media studies at places like London Met. They're just too much trouble. HEFCE whacks us with massive fines if we over-recruit, and if we recruit a UK/EU undergrad, we can only charge them £9k, about £6k of which the university top-slices. If we recruit a non-EU one, we can charge them £20k and the topslice is the same.

I don't think it is quite as bad as that where I am. You're in a Russel Group type set up? Can't remember. I run a few programmes and non EU is only 5% - mix of humanities and social science. At least where I am there are mainly UK students with a smattering of EU.

Poor recruitment is the major problem which ultimately results in job losses unless you are star researcher.

Drop outs can be highly intelligent people - in my degrees, which are semi-elite (rather not go into more detail) the main drop outs are highly instrumentalist people shopping around once they get here, people who can't cope with uni regardless of ability, and the highly intelligent who realise uni is pitched intellectually below them and consists of lots of hoop jumping

[poddy]

Biggest miss-selling scandal ever.

These kids have been sold a dream. The reality is most of them would have been better off leaving school at 16 and finding a job. My daughter is about to go to Uni to study law-hope that's not a waste of time and money, I have a terrible feeling it will be. You should hear what her friends are studying, for example 'Adventure courses' degree-what on earth, a degree to run kids adventure courses, come on!

But of course don't dare try and suggest that they shouldn't go, you'll get told things like-'it is a life experience', 'everyone should go to uni' etc etc.

Reality of course hits when they look for a job and spend the rest of their lives with a chip on their shoulder because of course they should all be the bosses because they have degrees, why should they do the real work?

Rant over.

[ScrewsNutsandBolts]

So, you claim to have an IQ in excess of 140, state you haven't been to University, then fail to do a piece of maths my 10 year old daughter could do.

A point well made, I'm sure.

Where is the fail ?

I can see that something like an "at least" should have been added, but it is quite reasonable to expect that the smarter kids will be the ones who go to university and get a degree.

If 60% of people get degrees, then at least 20% of people with degrees will have a below average IQ.

[Saving For a Space Ship]

This doesn't surprise me. My other half works in a call centre, mostly populated with young adults between early and mid twenties. About 2/3 of them have degrees. A workmates girlfriend works at this same call centre and she's just finished a degree in forensics. Plans on a round the world trip next year and then expects to come back and walking into the job she thinks her qualifications warrant. Completely clueless.

But it has to be asked, who fault is it really?

The career advisor ?

Perhaps have been better studying hpc forum forensics

[MrBushy]

Where is the fail ?

I can see that something like an "at least" should have been added, but it is quite reasonable to expect that the smarter kids will be the ones who go to university and get a degree.

If 60% of people get degrees, then at least 20% of people with degrees will have a below average IQ.

The fail is in the maths - see Frank Hovis' previous post.

It would be correct if 52% of people were below average intelligence (which they are not).

The "at least" part is true, but the OP already implied that.

[Jeremy424]

Biggest miss-selling scandal ever.

These kids have been sold a dream. The reality is most of them would have been better off leaving school at 16 and finding a job. My daughter is about to go to Uni to study law-hope that's not a waste of time and money, I have a terrible feeling it will be. You should hear what her friends are studying, for example 'Adventure courses' degree-what on earth, a degree to run kids adventure courses, come on!

But of course don't dare try and suggest that they shouldn't go, you'll get told things like-'it is a life experience', 'everyone should go to uni' etc etc.

Reality of course hits when they look for a job and spend the rest of their lives with a chip on their shoulder because of course they should all be the bosses because they have degrees, why should they do the real work?

Rant over.

You're probably right, although had those kids gone to find work in entry level jobs they would have found it extremely difficult to compete against immigrant labour. The unemployment stats would have sky-rocketed and exposed the cracks in the neo-liberal (I think it's called?) ideology. That's all politicians seem to do these days; try to keep the ideology afloat rather than do what's right.

I hope your daughter does well. However, law is an extremely difficult area to make progress in and if she is thinking of becoming a solicitor or barrister then she is in for an extremely stressful time. Is there any 'safe' subject these days? I hear about engineering in another thread on here, but not many people have the aptitude for doing that and teaching of mathematics is atrocious in schools. The lower end of law is extremely vulnerable to outsourcing now, and anything involving legal aid (crime & family) is more or less stuffed. Law is in the process of becoming de-skilled and dumbed down to 'provide value' (more neo-liberalism in action?)

What has happened to many capable students (from respected uni's too) wanting to become lawyers is a complete scandal, at least as bad as the '50% must go to uni' mantra. They are encouraged to pay for private courses (which are a mandatory prerequisite) in the hope that they will be one of the lucky few who are selected by solicitors or barristers to train. Most don't get the offer of training and spend their time in low-paid essentially admin positions... if they are lucky.

[EUBanana]

Easy to judge people on the surface, but if anything knowledge gained on this site should tell you that there are greater forces at work than individual effort.

Certainly true.

Success is largely about luck in my experience, or at least bluster. I know numpties who have done well for themselves, and smart people who have got nowhere. Social skills are probably more important for success, so many blaggers out there who manage to pull it off. People who are shy or insecure, no chance, no matter how good they actually are.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

The fail is in the maths - see Frank Hovis' previous post.

It would be correct if 52% of people were below average intelligence (which they are not).

The "at least" part is true, but the OP already implied that.

49.99r have below average intelligence.

A certain portion of the ones in the top 50% wont go to university for various reasons... physical disability, joining the army, getting pregnant, broken homes etc.

If 60% of people went to uni, I'd expect probably a quarter of them would probably be below average intelligence.

The maths in my example was in-exact, as I forgot there were so many cretins on here.

I was intending to give a general indication to highlight a fundamental flaw with the system.

[LiveinHope]

Certainly true.

Success is largely about luck in my experience, or at least bluster. I know numpties who have done well for themselves, and smart people who have got nowhere. Social skills are probably more important for success, so many blaggers out there who manage to pull it off. People who are shy or insecure, no chance, no matter how good they actually are.

Success is both about wanting to be successful, which involves focus and determination, and about understanding what success means to you. Certainly, success can involve fortuitous meetings, but you can also make those happen as you learn how to practice your craft.

You will easily pass the blaggers if you know what you want, although they can be a frustration along the way.

And have the numpties really done well for themselves ? Perhaps they have in money terms, but they are nevertheless regarded a numpties within their profession.

if your shyness or insecurity is holding you back you have to realise that and overcome it. A part of being successful.

[MrBushy]

49.99r have below average intelligence.

A certain portion of the ones in the top 50% wont go to university for various reasons... physical disability, joining the army, getting pregnant, broken homes etc.

If 60% of people went to uni, I'd expect probably a quarter of them would probably be below average intelligence.

The maths in my example was in-exact, as I forgot there were so many cretins on here.

I was intending to give a general indication to highlight a fundamental flaw with the system.

You think it is cretinous to be mathematically accurate?

Ok.

A couple of other points-

1. Where do you get 4.99r from?

2. It is not true that 60% of people go to university anyway, so there is no basis to suggest that a significant proportion of people with degrees are actually below average intelligence.

2. It is offensive to suggest that educating people with below average intelligence is "worthless".

[TheNoSnowMan]

The career advisor ?

Perhaps have been better studying hpc forum forensics

I only remember my career advisor for one reason. She had incredibly wonky eyes. So I never actually heard a word she said. I just kept thinking 'you could watch a tennis match without moving your head'.

[snowflux]

If 60% of people got degrees, 20% of people with degrees will have a below average IQ.

Given that many very smart people like myself (top 0.2%) choose not to get degrees and get jobs from experience and talent, with 50% of people going to uni at the peak, there were a lot of people graduating UK universities with below average IQs.

And that's why degrees from UK universities are worthless.

If 60% of people get degrees, the minimum proportion of degrees that are awarded to people of below average intelligence would be 1/6, i.e. about 16.7%. This, of course, assumes a symmetrical distribution of intelligence about the mean. If, say, you had a population composed mostly of people of slightly better than average intelligence mixed with a few really stupid people, than all of those attending university could have above average intelligence.

[PopGun]

It's not our young people who are wasting their education, it is us as a country who are wasting our young people. The average child in Hong Kong does five hours of private tutoring a day. Earlier this week I had a conversation with two colleagues in the US and their plans for their children's higher education were ruthlessly focused and had been years in the nurturing.

I agree that parent's must take their share of responsibity, but these kids sound like they'll end up being shrink fodder to me.

Why can't we just allow children to be.... children? One extreme is no answer to combat the other.

Besides, 5 hours tutoring on top of a normal school day?! Sounds healthy, mind you it would keep them quiet I suppose until Mum and Dad get back from their 12 hour shilfts...

Edited March 25, 2013 by PopGun

[PopGun]

There's plenty of entrepreneurs on TV - Dragon's Den, The Apprentice etc. The only problem is they come across as complete w*nkers. It's only natural that kids are influenced by what they see on TV as we've let it become our primary source of information.

The larger problem, I think, is more that we have let TV have such influence and that we celebrate only a certain type of success that's purely monetary. It's no different in America.

I think too much emphasis can be put on 'entrepreneurs' - to me they are just one part of the equation - people with the ability and drive to make an idea happen. But again they are more the monetary side of things. There are no shortage of people wanting to make money. See rentierism.

We need people to come up with the ideas in the first place - the inventors and nerds - that's what the Uk was always good at and that's what we're really lacking, I think.

I think more generally we are losing the joy of immersing ourselves in a discipline, craft or skill and concentrating instead on the end result.

Another problem is the corporatisation of everything, where smart but empathetic kids get crowded out by the sociopaths/deluded narcissists.

People are generally very poor judges of talent, hence why the pretenders thrive. Its all well and good stating we need more talent, but what's the point if no one can actually genuinely recognise it?!