2 year arts degrees

You do not understand my point.

People's attainments should be judged on their output, not the time it takes them to complete courses of work and exams.

If people have completed all the relevant coursework and done all the exams after a year, why should they have to wait another 2 years just hanging around doing nothing?

Also, if people want a break in their course, why can't they suspend their study and come back and pick up where they left off?

Theres no logic in making everyone take 3 years to do a degree, its the output that counts, not the time taken.

Brian May took 36 years to complete his PhD.

Slightly off-topic, but may I ask which subject you're doing (if indeed you're currently at university at all)? The way in which you've suddenly introduced PhDs into this makes it sound a bit as though, well, you don't really know the difference between an undergraduate degree and a research degree, and that kind of undermines your authority a little...

I did my undergraduate degree some time ago. My degree could have been done by someone in a couple of years because a lot of the stuff we did in the first year was not relevant to the next 2 years. I think some degrees get loaded with lecturers' pet interests and do not really form a consistent whole.

I don't think it takes 3 or 4 years to learn a language, unless you are not very bright. Actualy, the best way to learn a language is to live in the country where its spoken or better still, be sent to prison in that country. You get to learn "pass the soap" in whatever language they speak in the prison very quickly.

If people want to experience academia, they can do it over a life time by getting higher degrees and working in it.

I don't think it takes 3 or 4 years to learn a language, unless you are not very bright. Actualy, the best way to learn a language is to live in the country where its spoken or better still, be sent to prison in that country. You get to learn "pass the soap" in whatever language they speak in the prison very quickly.

If people want to experience academia, they can do it over a life time by getting higher degrees and working in it.

This kind of argument is always exceptionally weak as it assumes that maths/science/econ/engineering undergrads all go on to make a broadly fully use of their degree in their work, which isn't really the case.

Well, first of all, this wouldn't work for language degrees. A certain amount needs to be covered.

Secondly, there are reasons other than job prospects to go to university.

Thirdly, surely we should maintain some kind of standards? They've already cut most degrees down to three years from four. If we keep on doing this, pretty soon you'll have no time to learn anything in an arts degree. Besides, you learn more transferable skills in three years than in two.

Fourthly, what about people who want to be history or english teachers? They'll need to get another teaching qualification, sure, but they should also be pretty knowledgeable
about their chosen subject.


And I think it's hugely important that we remember and continue to study our past, and literature from all time periods. If we stopped studying history, people would eventually forget about the romans, the greeks and other ancient cultures - we'll have lost a vital piece of the history of the human race. What about when people start forgetting the World Wars? The Holocaust?

And, as a future english student , I hate the thought of us not passing on great literature from the past. From Homer to Jane Austen, there's so much good stuff out there. What if people forgot about Shakespeare? Ugh.

There are far fewer jobs for graduates in history or English in their degree subjects compared to graduates in sciences or technology.

Thats wasnt Kreuzuerk's argument at all.

I studied physics at Imperial college and I reckon 80% of the students will never use 95% of what we learnt. Most of them go into finance, consulting etc. and it should be pretty obvious that your average banker isn't going to be using quantum mechanics in his day job.

I think the most valuable skills you learn at uni for a career are independence, stress management, self-motivation and conformity.

Even 3 years is too short for a proper science degree. its 4+ years in most countries. I cant comment on arts degrees, but one this is true, the UK sells education. The faster (international) students are processed the more $$

Most arts degrees could be reduced to 2 years because they are largely not vocational and the knowledge they confer is seldom used or needed in the workplace. This is not about cramming 3 years work into 2 years but cutting the degree content.

Foe example, most people doing english or histroy degrees go onto jobs that do not specify a degree subject, i.e, the degree content is irrelevant to the job. So why spend an extra year and money learning about stuff that will have no relevance in ones future employment? If arts students do want to go on to do research in their field, they could opt for a masters or DPhil which most have to do anyway.

Science, technology and vocational degrees are different because they need the knowledge and practical skills they learn over 3 years to do their job such as in nursing or fashion design.

There are far fewer jobs for graduates in history or English in their degree subjects compared to graduates in sciences or technology.

Brian May became a musician. If so few graduates used what they learnt, they have obviously wasted their time and the time of the uni.