[kka25]

(Original post by crocker710)

He who controls the past controls the future.

History isn't about knowledge of the past; it's about how you apply it to the future. Look at the current cabinet; how many of them studied History or subjects linked (politics/philosophy)?

Exactly. The ignorance in this thread is just unimaginable.

[Ex Death]

(Original post by dean01234)
care to elaborate?

I will elaborate on my point.

men's incomes are boosted 43% by an economics degree, but women's are boosted 63%.

And the rate of return on buying a degree in history is 8.8%, reasonable (like I mentioned in my original post) however under the average rate of return for any degree which is 12.1%.

Not to mention the fact that mnay CEO's, investors, Economists, market research analysts will have a degree in Economics.

While someone who works as a historian, archivist, secondary school teacher is more likely to have a degree in history.

Are you implying that being a CEO, investor, economist or market research analyst is a better job than a historian, archivist or secondary school teacher because they earn more money?

If so, well done for being so well indoctrinated by the capitalist bastard-child of a system.

[victoryshinesonus]

(Original post by Ex Death)
Are you implying that being a CEO, investor, economist or market research analyst is a better job than a historian, archivist or secondary school teacher because they earn more money?

If so, well done for being so well indoctrinated by the capitalist bastard-child of a system.

Exactly, I feel as long as a job, which of the above do, give you a decent income then monetary effects should take second place. The most useful job to society out of the above is secondary school teacher.

To be honest, I think there will be a collapse of the wage structure in the west, as the east starts to take all the job to their developing countries. This will lead to more parity between the more lucrative occupations atm and the not so well paid public sector posts.

[dean01234]

(Original post by non)
where are your stats from?

forbes.

[dean01234]

(Original post by Ex Death)
Are you implying that being a CEO, investor, economist or market research analyst is a better job than a historian, archivist or secondary school teacher because they earn more money?

yes.

And because of the calibre of the jobs I mentioned it shows how an economics degree is more highly regarded.

While the other jobs are important to society, especially the teachers. They are lower paid jobs, and while this isn't important to everyone it is an important factor to mention when discussing how valuable a history degree is compared to an economics degree.

[ThatPerson]

(Original post by dean01234)
care to elaborate?

I will elaborate on my point.

men's incomes are boosted 43% by an economics degree, but women's are boosted 63%.

And the rate of return on buying a degree in history is 8.8%, reasonable (like I mentioned in my original post) however under the average rate of return for any degree which is 12.1%.

Not to mention the fact that mnay CEO's, investors, Economists, market research analysts will have a degree in Economics.

While someone who works as a historian, archivist, secondary school teacher is more likely to have a degree in history.

Famous/Successful people with a degree in History: Jonathan Ross, Gordon Brown, John Prescott, David Blunket, QC Michael Mansfield, Salman Rushdie, Anthony Powell, Sir Howard Stringer, Sir Roland Smith, Gerlad Corbett, Michael Palin, etc.

Presidents: FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore roosevelt, Richard Nixon and George Bush.


Who says History is a bad degree? Its not all about the money, but I'd argue that the above people are highly successful in life and enjoy/ed large wealth amongst other things.

[Ex Death]

(Original post by dean01234)
yes.

And because of the calibre of the jobs I mentioned it shows how an economics degree is more highly regarded.

While the other jobs are important to society, especially the teachers. They are lower paid jobs, and while this isn't important to everyone it is an important factor to mention when discussing how valuable a history degree is compared to an economics degree.

I see they've really gotten to you haven't they? Well done for becoming brainwashed by all the pro-capitalist propaganda that proliferates the mainstream media.

Allow me to blow your mind: Money =/= success. There are other value-systems than just money. Examples include happiness, pride, altruism, skill, sociability, goodwill, talent, knowledge, fun, confidence, penis-size etc. (I don't condone the last one btw). Many of these are far more valuable than the size of one's wallet.

As for judging the merit of a job, WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO in the job is far more important than how much it pays. Take computer games journalists. They get paid to sit on their arses playing computer games all day. They get paid to have fun. They may not get paid much but they are not stuck in a boring, depressing finance job staring at numbers on a computer screen for 12 hours a day. I would attest that a computer games journalist is far more 'successful' than a derivatives trader or whatever. Other factors that determine how good a job is include hours, types of people you work with, how fun it is etc.

It simply baffles me how you and the rest of society is so ignorant of this simple concept.

[dean01234]

(Original post by ThatPerson)
Famous/Successful people with a degree in History: Jonathan Ross, Gordon Brown, John Prescott, David Blunket, QC Michael Mansfield, Salman Rushdie, Anthony Powell, Sir Howard Stringer, Sir Roland Smith, Gerlad Corbett, Michael Palin, etc.

Presidents: FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore roosevelt, Richard Nixon and George Bush.


Who says History is a bad degree? Its not all about the money, but I'd argue that the above people are highly successful in life and enjoy/ed large wealth amongst other things.

You really are confusing what I am saying... I never said history was a bad degree, you just won't be as employable as someone with a degree in economics.

And If I were you I would seriously consider taking George bush off that list... he's not helping your cause.

I would also consider all the names you provided irrelevant, none of them will have got their job through the degree they had, so it wasn't that that made them successful.

They will have become successful through natural ambition, drive and charisma. (among other things of course) so what I am getting at is that the list does not represent how successful people with history degrees are because most of them would have become famous and successful without a degree in history.

[Alia223]

The former librarian in my school studied History at university and so did the careers advisor in my school... (Not really an occupation to do with the degree AT ALL!)
I think History is one of those subject areas that one may particularly love to study in depth but not necessarily think about the job opportunities after the degree course
The key for you is to distinguish between what you enjoy and what will get you a job - preferably something that can tick both boxes!

Good luck!

[dean01234]

(Original post by Ex Death)
I see they've really gotten to you haven't they? Well done for becoming brainwashed by all the pro-capitalist propaganda that proliferates the mainstream media.

Allow me to blow your mind: Money =/= success. There are other value-systems than just money. Examples include happiness, pride, altruism, skill, sociability, goodwill, talent, knowledge, fun, confidence, penis-size etc. (I don't condone the last one btw). Many of these are far more valuable than the size of one's wallet.

As for judging the merit of a job, WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO in the job is far more important than how much it pays. Take computer games journalists. They get paid to sit on their arses playing computer games all day. They get paid to have fun. They may not get paid much but they are not stuck in a boring, depressing finance job staring at numbers on a computer screen for 12 hours a day. I would attest that a computer games journalist is far more 'successful' than a derivatives trader or whatever. Other factors that determine how good a job is include hours, types of people you work with, how fun it is etc.

It simply baffles me how you and the rest of society is so ignorant of this simple concept.

Yes there are other parameters for success.

But would you say that a homeless person or someone on benefits was successful because they don't have any working hours or a stressful job?

You can't say that money isn't part of what makes someone a success.
Would you not say that an entrepreneur who runs his (or her) business part time and earns millions a year is more successful than your video game reviewer?

Money isn't the only factor that means success some of the things you mentioned like happiness are probably equally important.

however can you ever really be happy without being financially stable (not rich, stable) when you are constantly concerned about making the next rent, etc

[catoswyn]

(Original post by victoryshinesonus)
This might help:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1868870

OP, it's as worthless as you make it, but I'd argue it's more respected than Politics, Philosophy, Geography, Sociology. You can enter plenty of fields. The most common ones are arguably the Civil Service, Law, Politics, Teaching, Information Management, IT.

In all honesty, no degree guarantees you a job, bar Medicine. So it's better to get the government to pay for you to study something you enjoy, rather than something you 'think' will have better job prospects.

What areas/salaries you will be earning will also depend on your A-level results, university and most importantly degree classification, you NEED a 2:i. Everyone thinks financial services are 100% Maths, Econ, BSc grads, but they aren't. They recruit from a variety of universities and from a variety of degree disciplines. Similar to Law, you will find 50% are law grads, and 50% will be doing conversion degrees. Options are open with a History degree to be honest, look at financial services right now, they're doing pretty crap, and you don't really want to do teaching with an Economics degree, because that would, well, be a waste of potential earnings, whereas with History, it can act as a safe fall back option

I agree pretty much though there are quite a few degrees that have clear pathways through from study to employment apart from medicine... vocational degrees primarily such as vets, nursing, social work, dentistry, opthalmics, paramedic studies, pharmaceutics, education/teaching and even though people have a downer on some very specialist vocational courses there are so few graduates in something like Equestarian: racehorse studies that I believe the chances of getting work in that industry are probably okay for those who know they are targeting it and know the industry.

[ThatPerson]

(Original post by dean01234)
You really are confusing what I am saying... I never said history was a bad degree, you just won't be as employable as someone with a degree in economics.

And If I were you I would seriously consider taking George bush off that list... he's not helping your cause.

I would also consider all the names you provided irrelevant, none of them will have got their job through the degree they had, so it wasn't that that made them successful.

They will have become successful through natural ambition, drive and charisma. (among other things of course) so what I am getting at is that the list does not represent how successful people with history degrees are because most of them would have become famous and successful without a degree in history.

-.- you sort of missed my entire argument. History graduates do make a bucket load of money, and the skills they acquired in their degree helped them there.
George Bush I have to admit is a basket case, no idea how a History graduate would think to start 2 wars.

You don't have to get a job directly through that degree, for that degree to make your career.

[Ex Death]

(Original post by dean01234)
But would you say that a homeless person or someone on benefits was successful because they don't have any working hours or a stressful job?

No I would not claim a benefits claimer as successful. Nor would necessarily I claim them as unsuccessful. If they have decided to live off benefits and not bothered trying to get a job, it is a lifestyle choice that has its merits. You cannot expect people to WANT to work when 99.9% of jobs are utterly miserable.

You can't say that money isn't part of what makes someone a success.
Would you not say that an entrepreneur who runs his (or her) business part time and earns millions a year is more successful than your video game reviewer?

I never said that money isn't part of what makes someone potentially successful. What I did say was that it was absolutely not the ONLY factor as seems to be the general misconception embraced by the media and society. Of course, the part time millionaire is far more successful than the video game reviewer. That's a bit of a silly question if you think about it. The part time millionaire can play computer games to his heart's content in his free time or, for that matter, do whatever the f*ck he wants.

however can you ever really be happy without being financially stable (not rich, stable) when you are constantly concerned about making the next rent, etc

No you cannot really be happy without being financially stable. However, this is a moot point because the vast majority of jobs allow you to become financially stable as long as you do not spend money recklessly. The decision that literally everyone has (and many do not realise) is that, upon choosing a job, you can sacrifice a bit of pay for a more fulfilling job rather than succumbing to all the bullsh*t propaganda that runs rampant everywhere you look ie. that money is god.

[bryonymedic]

Depends where you do the degree; if you do it at Oxford no future employer will mind what it's in, but with academic subjects like Economics or History where you did it really counts, so you need to be aiming for top universities with whichever subject

[dean01234]

(Original post by ThatPerson)
-.- you sort of missed my entire argument. History graduates do make a bucket load of money, and the skills they acquired in their degree helped them there.
George Bush I have to admit is a basket case, no idea how a History graduate would think to start 2 wars.

You don't have to get a job directly through that degree, for that degree to make your career.

I'm sorry I think I missed your point again...

It doesn't matter what degree you do because you acquire helpful skills doing it?

Because if so you are saying that you gain so subject related skills through doing history and should do economics because not only do you gain those helpful skills but also skills that are desirable to future employers...

[non]

(Original post by dean01234)
forbes.

Can you actually give me a web page link Please.

[dean01234]

(Original post by Ex Death)
I never said that money isn't part of what makes someone potentially successful.

You really made no point during that post and also:

(Original post by Ex Death)
Allow me to blow your mind: Money =/= success.

[dean01234]

(Original post by non)
Can you actually give me a web page link Please.

Why would I keep URLs of every source I use unless it was going into coursework.

If you want it, then go and look for it.

I managed to find it so I'm sure that you can...

[palicearker]

I know everyone's probably going to tell you this, but you're gonna be spending 3-4 years on your degree and it's a really significant part of your life. You really ought to choose what you love, otherwise you'll probably regret it. Although, you've just got to decide really what's more important to you, enjoying the subject you take or getting a decent job at the end. there's nothing to say you can't do both. if you get a history degree from a good uni, you can still get a good job.

[Ex Death]

(Original post by dean01234)
You really made no point during that post and also:

Now you're really starting to make yourself out to be a bit of an idiot. Lets look at the two statements you've just quoted again.

(Original post by Ex Death)
I never said that money isn't part of what makes someone potentially successful.

(Original post by Ex Death)
Allow me to blow your mind: Money =/= success.

Keyword is 'part', in case you missed it. When I said that money =/= success I meant money by itself. Good job on lacking the basic reading comprehension skills of a toddler.