why not abolish 'weak' degrees?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Astronomical
Two: it spreads the money the government is willing to spend on subsidising over more people. This in turn reduces the amount each individual receives. This directly impacts the brightest students (by raising the cost of university) who in my opinion deserve to go to university
I'll be completely sellfish by making this statement, but i am actually glad that univercity fees are higher than they could be, last year when they were raised i was like "**** Yeah! Less competition for me". I bet every student who can afford the fees, thinks exactly that.
People will neg me into oblivioun, i reckon.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by soempty
I'll be completely sellfish by making this statement, but i am actually glad that univercity fees are higher than they could be, last year when they were raised i was like "F*** Yeah! Less competition for me". I bet every student who can afford the fees, thinks exactly that.
People will neg me into oblivioun, i reckon.
People will neg me into oblivioun, i reckon.
Not quite sure why you quoted my post, that is nothing like what I was suggesting.
On the contrary, I was saying anyone who gets onto certain courses which require high grades should not have to pay to do so, irrespective of whether they have parents who earn £10 a year or £10000000000 a year; parental income is not something I think should make any difference to whether or not somebody can go to university, provided they are intelligent enough to deserve to go to university. Nobody choses how much their parents earn, and it seems silly to me to penalise/reward people based on it. People should be given opportunities based on their own achievements (in this case, academic achievements) not their parents'.
Original post by Astronomical
Not quite sure why you quoted my post, that is nothing like what I was suggesting.
On the contrary, I was saying anyone who gets onto certain courses which require high grades should not have to pay to do so, irrespective of whether they have parents who earn £10 a year or £10000000000 a year; parental income is not something I think should make any difference to whether or not somebody can go to university, provided they are intelligent enough to deserve to go to university. Nobody choses how much their parents earn, and it seems silly to me to penalise/reward people based on it. People should be given opportunities based on their own achievements (in this case, academic achievements) not their parents'.
On the contrary, I was saying anyone who gets onto certain courses which require high grades should not have to pay to do so, irrespective of whether they have parents who earn £10 a year or £10000000000 a year; parental income is not something I think should make any difference to whether or not somebody can go to university, provided they are intelligent enough to deserve to go to university. Nobody choses how much their parents earn, and it seems silly to me to penalise/reward people based on it. People should be given opportunities based on their own achievements (in this case, academic achievements) not their parents'.
I know that you didn't suggest it, its what i thought when i read your post.
Original post by soempty
I'll be completely sellfish by making this statement, but i am actually glad that univercity fees are higher than they could be, last year when they were raised i was like "F*** Yeah! Less competition for me". I bet every student who can afford the fees, thinks exactly that.
People will neg me into oblivioun, i reckon.
People will neg me into oblivioun, i reckon.
How does this even make sense?
While the government continues to fund university study there is no one who can't afford the fees, there are only those who are put off by the prospect of the debt.
And if it were true that some people could afford the fees and others could not, your praise of such a system does not reflect well on you at all. Who the hell would praise an education system that rewards the wealthy rather than the deserving?
There is no agreed definition of a 'weak' subject or an agreement on why only 'strong' subjects should be taught.
A lot if people seem to assume that subjects such as media, creative writing, theatre studies and the like are just churning out stupid, unemployable graduates. How many of you know the employment opportunities for these people, and the employment statistics?
And since when has university only been about training people up for a career relevant to their degree? University is about learning and understanding. If someone wants to have a detailed, expert understanding of something arcane, why shouldn't they pay for that opportunity?
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
A lot if people seem to assume that subjects such as media, creative writing, theatre studies and the like are just churning out stupid, unemployable graduates. How many of you know the employment opportunities for these people, and the employment statistics?
And since when has university only been about training people up for a career relevant to their degree? University is about learning and understanding. If someone wants to have a detailed, expert understanding of something arcane, why shouldn't they pay for that opportunity?
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by Kenocide
How does this even make sense?
While the government continues to fund university study there is no one who can't afford the fees, there are only those who are put off by the prospect of the debt.
And if it were true that some people could afford the fees and others could not, your praise of such a system does not reflect well on you at all. Who the hell would praise an education system that rewards the wealthy rather than the deserving?
While the government continues to fund university study there is no one who can't afford the fees, there are only those who are put off by the prospect of the debt.
And if it were true that some people could afford the fees and others could not, your praise of such a system does not reflect well on you at all. Who the hell would praise an education system that rewards the wealthy rather than the deserving?
There are people who will choose not to go to univercity because they won't be able or less willing to repay the fees, also less international people will be able to come into the country. Isn't it obvious?
And i am not full on serious about it as well...
Original post by puddledancer
People don't just chose degrees for job prospects.
I chose my English degree to study because I like literature, and although it could help me get into the field I would like to work in I'm doing English because I like it.
(yes it may not class as a weak degree but my point stands with others that you class as "weak")
I chose my English degree to study because I like literature, and although it could help me get into the field I would like to work in I'm doing English because I like it.
(yes it may not class as a weak degree but my point stands with others that you class as "weak")
I agree completely with this. I did my degree because I loved the subject, not just to get a job at the end of three years.
I think people should be given more realistic information about their job prospects right from the start though, as it was never said to us as any point that we might struggle to find employment- that should have been made clear. Our sixth form never gave us another option but to apply for uni, so that's just what I thought was the next step!
Original post by memomemootoo
weak degrees are created for people who supposedly arent capable of doing anything more productive.. so in a way they fill a niche
...people waste their money on them because they think they'll enjoy the degree.. and tbh they probably aare more enjoyable than strong degrees.. in the sense that they're easier
EDIT: i'm not saying that all people who do weak degrees are stupid, it's more the fact that the degrees are given importance and encouraged. Ads like this just make me want to vomit:
..if they can't find a better argument for people to study their degree than an outdated statement of some kid being passionate, why the hell are they allowed to shove it down the throats of young people who potentially have the brains to study something more productive.
...people waste their money on them because they think they'll enjoy the degree.. and tbh they probably aare more enjoyable than strong degrees.. in the sense that they're easier
Spoiler
EDIT: i'm not saying that all people who do weak degrees are stupid, it's more the fact that the degrees are given importance and encouraged. Ads like this just make me want to vomit:
..if they can't find a better argument for people to study their degree than an outdated statement of some kid being passionate, why the hell are they allowed to shove it down the throats of young people who potentially have the brains to study something more productive.
Product design is needed...
who do you think designs pretty much every product in your house? Furniture, kitchen appliances etc...
Original post by Schmokie Dragon
There is no agreed definition of a 'weak' subject or an agreement on why only 'strong' subjects should be taught.
A lot if people seem to assume that subjects such as media, creative writing, theatre studies and the like are just churning out stupid, unemployable graduates. How many of you know the employment opportunities for these people, and the employment statistics?
And since when has university only been about training people up for a career relevant to their degree? University is about learning and understanding. If someone wants to have a detailed, expert understanding of something arcane, why shouldn't they pay for that opportunity?
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
A lot if people seem to assume that subjects such as media, creative writing, theatre studies and the like are just churning out stupid, unemployable graduates. How many of you know the employment opportunities for these people, and the employment statistics?
And since when has university only been about training people up for a career relevant to their degree? University is about learning and understanding. If someone wants to have a detailed, expert understanding of something arcane, why shouldn't they pay for that opportunity?
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox
I agree completely with this. I did my degree because I loved the subject, not just to get a job at the end of three years.
I think people should be given more realistic information about their job prospects right from the start though, as it was never said to us as any point that we might struggle to find employment- that should have been made clear. Our sixth form never gave us another option but to apply for uni, so that's just what I thought was the next step!
I think people should be given more realistic information about their job prospects right from the start though, as it was never said to us as any point that we might struggle to find employment- that should have been made clear. Our sixth form never gave us another option but to apply for uni, so that's just what I thought was the next step!
Personally I think you are being incredibly naive if you believe that somebody who achieved below CCC at A-level has any academic interests whatsoever. Anyone that did would have done better than that simply to get onto a better course to "study the subject they love". By this logic anything requiring under a certain grade threshold (I would say CCC is realistic) is a weak degree.
Original post by balletlover
Product design is needed...
who do you think designs pretty much every product in your house? Furniture, kitchen appliances etc...
who do you think designs pretty much every product in your house? Furniture, kitchen appliances etc...
Neither Sir James Dyson nor Sir Jonathan Ive, the two best product designers Britain has produced in recent times, studied "product design".
Original post by balletlover
Product design is needed...
who do you think designs pretty much every product in your house? Furniture, kitchen appliances etc...
who do you think designs pretty much every product in your house? Furniture, kitchen appliances etc...
yes i know that it's needed, but would you argue with the fact that a large number of product design graduates contribute very little, if anything, to actually creating good, useful products?
Original post by soempty
There are people who will choose not to go to univercity because they won't be able or less willing to repay the fees, also less international people will be able to come into the country. Isn't it obvious?
And i am not full on serious about it as well...
And i am not full on serious about it as well...
What are you talking about ? Do you understand how student loans work?
You only pay back a set amount each month according to how much you are earning at the time. If you only earn £10,000 pa after you graduate you pay NOTHING back so your suggestion that some people "won't be able" to repay the fees is just flat out wrong.
Similarly your point about international students is also wrong. When the fees increased it was the fees for home students. International fees were already much much higher, which has always meant that only the wealthiest foreign students (or those funded by scholarships etc) could ever study here - that has not changed.
And do you stand by your support for the system that you thought allowed only the wealthy to get a degree rather than the deserving?
Original post by Astronomical
Personally I think you are being incredibly naive if you believe that somebody who achieved below CCC at A-level has any academic interests whatsoever. Anyone that did would have done better than that simply to get onto a better course to "study the subject they love". By this logic anything requiring under a certain grade threshold (I would say CCC is realistic) is a weak degree.
Not sure why you quoted me really, the only thing I said was that I liked my subject. Although having said that I did get good grades and I got a job out of my degree so I guess I'm a little biased.
Original post by balletlover
Product design is needed...
who do you think designs pretty much every product in your house? Furniture, kitchen appliances etc...
who do you think designs pretty much every product in your house? Furniture, kitchen appliances etc...
that wasn't the point. they have designed a poor advert that has a quote from a student said in 2010.
they could have got a student to design it therefore showing off their design skills learnt on the course or quoted a student from 2011-2012.
or they could have showed off a product designed by a student that is used everyday..
* i think he is implying the advert may reflect the course.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Astronomical
Personally I think you are being incredibly naive if you believe that somebody who achieved below CCC at A-level has any academic interests whatsoever. Anyone that did would have done better than that simply to get onto a better course to "study the subject they love". By this logic anything requiring under a certain grade threshold (I would say CCC is realistic) is a weak degree.
This.
Rather than picking on certain subjects and trying to 'abolish' them, which is a disproportionate measure in my opinion, focus on the standards instead.
That said though, someone could have CCC but be studying something which is more of a talent based degree (e.g. graphic design perhaps?) rather than an academic degree, in which case CCC is most likely no indication whatsoever of that person's aptitude for the subject nor their future contribution to their industry when they begin to work.
People are willing to pay to study whatever they are interested in studying, why deny them the opportunity to learn if they are willing to spend money it?
It seems like some people have forgotten that university education isn't just a means to an end (getting a job) a university education used to be considered exactly that - an education. The greeks weren't doing philosophy in order to get jobs - it was for the sake of learning. I actually find that admirable.
Why have we lost sight of that? Why is every degree judged by whether or not it makes someone employable? Why is employ ability held in higher regard than flourishing intellectually or creatively? I say that with the realization in mind that most people who want to abolish certain degrees want to abolish mainly Arts/Humanities degrees - as if there is no rigor or intellectual pursuit worth having in them. Well that just shows ignorance on their part because the arts and humanities are hugely valuable and valuable to society as a whole. If you do not recognizable that then of course you would want to abolish them, hence why I believe that people who slander 'weak' (subtext for 'creative'/'humanities') degrees have no clue and ought to broaden their outlooks - which incidentally you can do through the humanities.
A degree is about education. Sure, if you want to be a doctor/lawyer your reason for embarking upon a degree is primarily employment driven and that's perfectly fine too - but not everyone does a degree in order to guarantee themselves a job. Some people actually enjoy learning for the sake of learning and if they are willing to pay money to do that - why is it a problem?
The day that creative/humanities degrees are abolished is the day that our society will crumble - we need humanities in order reflect on history, society, ethics, the worlds problems etc and we need people who are able to do this in an educated way in order to advise those that can make practical changes through science and technology. We can put science and technology into action in order to address problems only after educated consideration - whether that's doctors being advised by medical ethicists or politicians considering the ecological crisis or architects working designing buildings for poor urban areas etc, so many issues which sci/tech practically approach are always first considered by the arts/humanities/social sciences.
It seems like some people have forgotten that university education isn't just a means to an end (getting a job) a university education used to be considered exactly that - an education. The greeks weren't doing philosophy in order to get jobs - it was for the sake of learning. I actually find that admirable.
Why have we lost sight of that? Why is every degree judged by whether or not it makes someone employable? Why is employ ability held in higher regard than flourishing intellectually or creatively? I say that with the realization in mind that most people who want to abolish certain degrees want to abolish mainly Arts/Humanities degrees - as if there is no rigor or intellectual pursuit worth having in them. Well that just shows ignorance on their part because the arts and humanities are hugely valuable and valuable to society as a whole. If you do not recognizable that then of course you would want to abolish them, hence why I believe that people who slander 'weak' (subtext for 'creative'/'humanities') degrees have no clue and ought to broaden their outlooks - which incidentally you can do through the humanities.
A degree is about education. Sure, if you want to be a doctor/lawyer your reason for embarking upon a degree is primarily employment driven and that's perfectly fine too - but not everyone does a degree in order to guarantee themselves a job. Some people actually enjoy learning for the sake of learning and if they are willing to pay money to do that - why is it a problem?
The day that creative/humanities degrees are abolished is the day that our society will crumble - we need humanities in order reflect on history, society, ethics, the worlds problems etc and we need people who are able to do this in an educated way in order to advise those that can make practical changes through science and technology. We can put science and technology into action in order to address problems only after educated consideration - whether that's doctors being advised by medical ethicists or politicians considering the ecological crisis or architects working designing buildings for poor urban areas etc, so many issues which sci/tech practically approach are always first considered by the arts/humanities/social sciences.
(edited 11 years ago)
I think the issue lies with a lack of support for students who don't actually want to go to university where colleges basically force people into applying (my college made everyone sign up to UCAS despite several people saying they didn't want to go and were looking for work/apprenticeships etc.)
A degree is a degree, it can get you into graduate positions, and the government get some of the money back from the loans taken out to fund these degrees, what difference does it make to you whether someone studies a so-called "weak" degree? There's no need to concern yourself.
A degree is a degree, it can get you into graduate positions, and the government get some of the money back from the loans taken out to fund these degrees, what difference does it make to you whether someone studies a so-called "weak" degree? There's no need to concern yourself.
Original post by Astronomical
Personally I think you are being incredibly naive if you believe that somebody who achieved below CCC at A-level has any academic interests whatsoever. Anyone that did would have done better than that simply to get onto a better course to "study the subject they love". By this logic anything requiring under a certain grade threshold (I would say CCC is realistic) is a weak degree.
I was on track to get two A-levels at A grade (equivalent to CCC) and I'm getting firsts at university so I can hardly support the view that people who do badly/average in A-levels aren't going to do well academically in the future. I decided to do an A-level in a year instead so got AAB in the end, but I was tempted just to do an extra AS-level rather than the full A-level.
Original post by Kenocide
This.
Rather than picking on certain subjects and trying to 'abolish' them, which is a disproportionate measure in my opinion, focus on the standards instead.
That said though, someone could have CCC but be studying something which is more of a talent based degree (e.g. graphic design perhaps?) rather than an academic degree, in which case CCC is most likely no indication whatsoever of that person's aptitude for the subject nor their future contribution to their industry when they begin to work.
Rather than picking on certain subjects and trying to 'abolish' them, which is a disproportionate measure in my opinion, focus on the standards instead.
That said though, someone could have CCC but be studying something which is more of a talent based degree (e.g. graphic design perhaps?) rather than an academic degree, in which case CCC is most likely no indication whatsoever of that person's aptitude for the subject nor their future contribution to their industry when they begin to work.
Should such things be the realm of apprenticeships and vocational qualifications though?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Job/Degree???
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- A-Level choices
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- Will the bond angle in H2O(104.5) increase if water is bind to other molecules?
- Should international students carry on subsidising UK students?
- Should the royal family exist?
- Durham vs LSE
- Engineering apprenticeships
- How to be a software tester???
- Uni?...
- A level choices
- what would I need for a masters degree
- Does changing course look bad to employers?
- What can I do once I am 16?
- Common University Interview Questions
- Need Masters but hate education
- Not good at maths and lack confidence but I applied for a maths degree, Help?
- will uni's accept me with my a levels?
- Idk wtf to do with my life...
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
