Cut the number of uni courses; increase the quality of the rest??

That was my point. For some, the academics and learning is the main point; for others, e.g. me, it's all about the job at the end.



That's just your opinion, and the government, students and universities themselves all disagree with it.

The difficulty with this thread is that it is naturally causing tension in terms of what are deemed valid and invalid subjects. My original post was based upon why have the overhead of a department, to deliver content which is indeed a subset of politics and history and can be delivered as optional modules under those subjects.

However not all students disagree with welshbluebirds position on the role of a university, this West Midland council estate kid agrees with her.

Secondly universities have no choice but to go with the flow because:

1) a government decided it wanted a much greater proportion of the population to experience Higher Education, lord knows why when they also agreed to an economic regime that moves many of the target jobs off-shore.

2) it turns out that the cost of meeting that objective is not sustainable via the normal fiscal tools. (I hate to say it but this idea was put probably put forward and inadequately modeled by a group of people who graduated from "top universities".)

3) So there is a funding gap between what institutions need and what government provides, and that is now funded (forget the loan amount it is immaterial) by a 9% graduate tax. Do you know what would happen if all income tax bands, for everyone holding a degree, were raised by 9% tomorrow? Economic oblivion.

The answer is for universities to rationalise thus reducing overheads and controlling fee levels. There also needs to be a correction in the labour market to ensure that the qualification demands for entry are commensurate with the requirements of the roles to be performed, and yes this would remove degree status from some subjects or at least remove certain degrees from the portfolio on offer. Shorter cheaper vocational qualifications will be introduced that are commensurate with the roles to be performed. The labour market will have to make this correction otherwise over time the corporations will either find themselves unable to export successfully, or more likely, just go bust because no one can afford to buy the good and services.

So forget all the politically correct sound bites, and socialist hero stuff and think it through guys and gals, its your call, when this really starts to bite your A..es, I will be retired

It amuses me that in point 2 you complain about inadequate modelling but in point 3 feel comfortable throwing around ECONOMIC OBLIVION without any justification.

That is a view but there is another view that goes like this.

At one time the economy had roles for 8 year olds. Chimneys needed cleaning. Threads in cotton mills needed tying.

We then went to a world where you needed to be about 14 to be able to do any job for which anyone would pay; to deliver bread on a bike or to fetch and carry in a factory.

Then the jobs in typing pools for 16 year old typists went.

The reason hotels want graduates is not because of the skills they learn on hotel management courses but because hotels now have much flatter management structures without 50 different roles and the job descriptions "gormless youth" and "chit of a lass" have been abolished. Hotels don't want the skills of a graduate. Hotels want the skills of a 22 year old and a university education is somewhere to park folk until they are employable.

Steven Lowe wrote a futuristic TV play 30 years ago. Given or take the leisure wear and replace the goggles with the internet and he wasn't far from the truth of what mass HE has become.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-75gLXe4AA

That is a view but there is another view that goes like this.

At one time the economy had roles for 8 year olds. Chimneys needed cleaning. Threads in cotton mills needed tying.

We then went to a world where you needed to be about 14 to be able to do any job for which anyone would pay; to deliver bread on a bike or to fetch and carry in a factory.

Then the jobs in typing pools for 16 year old typists went.

The reason hotels want graduates is not because of the skills they learn on hotel management courses but because hotels now have much flatter management structures without 50 different roles and the job descriptions "gormless youth" and "chit of a lass" have been abolished. Hotels don't want the skills of a graduate. Hotels want the skills of a 22 year old and a university education is somewhere to park folk until they are employable.

Steven Lowe wrote a futuristic TV play 30 years ago. Given or take the leisure wear and replace the goggles with the internet and he wasn't far from the truth of what mass HE has become.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-75gLXe4AA

I thought you had used War Studies as a ludicrous example. A quick google then revealed to me that several universities, including highly ranked ones have such a department.

My only comment is that I demand a proportion of my income tax back. Clear enough ?

Sounds good to me.

There are a lot of 'degree subjects' floating around that really shouldn't be degrees. I'm not being elitist or snobby but nobody needs communication management, hospitality and tourism, food sciences etc. It's a drain on resources which could be used to better the other departments.

Right, but those vocational subjects are also useful for some people and help them to gain employment. So explain again why you think that is less valuable then a degree in English.

you were doing so well until you mentioned food science ... what the heck do you think many product researchers and 'factory management' grade personnel in the food industry have as their degree ? ... ( where the back office have degrees relevant to their speciality and the technical side are engineers and the like by training even if at higher grades they spend little time on the tools - apart from when it goes big tits up )

there are good rationales that can be put forward for specialised busines and management degrees, just becasue 'travel and tourism' is used as doss subject in level 1 courses for the thickos at KS4 doesn't mean that supervisors and managers in these businesses don't need a relevant HE qualification ...

You know, like I just said, the argumentative, critical analysis, attention to detail skills you gain from either history or English are well sought after in the employment world.

But 30 years ago, the country managed with probably a third of the number of history or English graduates that universities turn out today.

And managed with none of the the media, tourism, hotel management degrees with have now.

That argument though is completely void. You just ignore the whole topic and pick a random figure/statistic to try and punch whatever I said down. It doesn't work and you just look petty and desperate.

You don't account for the growth in population, non-labouring jobs and the growth in accessibility to university.

Just leave it.

If you had read the whole thread you would have seen that this was the latest of several posts I had made in it.

Your ad hominem response does not address the issue of whether their are more jobs in the economy that require the skills of an English or history graduate.

One popular destination for history graduates is the law but 40 years ago most solicitors (and some of the best lawyers I know) did not have degrees. So you cannot, for example, say that the growth in the legal profession is part of the rise in the need for people with the skills of a history graduate.

Likewise, most civil servants entering in the 1980s didn't have degrees so you cannot say that the rise in public sector jobs of that kind explains why the economy needs more history or English graduates.

But I've not read the whole thread, I read what you posted quoting me. If you won't even make sense, don't even try.

Ad hominen? I didn't attack you saying you were an idiot or anything, why do you say that?

Again, you don't account for how different the law was 40, yes, 40 years ago.

If you also did any research the apparent need for certain qualifications in the legal field rose in conjunction with the desire for higher standards.

Times change, people are more skilled and jobs generally require more than they did back then.

With the good push in education naturally more people were becoming required so in turn requirements were raised, obviously this is fine and people are welcome to their degree. But now it is in overkill, as, you went off the point, travel and tourism is not going to help one bit with these jobs. Neither are all these Mickey Mouse degrees as something like history on a CV would tend to wipe the floor with them.


You still fail to address the point, which is that there simply is no market for these degrees, irrespective of what there is and isn't for history and law.

The courses should devolve back to college.