What is considered a useless degree?

Transferable skills, if they don't use absolutely anything from their time at university (not necessarily course knowledge) then yes it is useless.

At long last the government is tackling the myth of transferable skills.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11221081/Nicky-Morgan-pupils-held-back-by-overemphasis-on-arts.html

What are frequently transferable are the opportunities and privileges of well-connected parents.

An awful lot of people without those are being sold a pup about the prospects resulting from traditional arts degrees at decent universities.

Addressing the campaign launch in central London, Mrs Morgan said that just a decade ago, pupils were being told to take the maths and sciences only if they wanted a specific skilled career such as a doctor, pharmacist or engineer.

Holy PHUCK this is the most bitchy TSR thread I've EVER seen...

Think we've got a David Beckham studies student here.

The problem is that this -



was/is entirely correct advice. A general science degree does not improve employability more than an arts/humanities degree. The profession for which it trains - academic science - has few available positions, that pay about as well as retail, and generally take the form of 2-3 year internships at least into one's mid 30s.

The real conclusion to draw from this is that 'broadening access' was a mistake because university educations, with a handful of known and unscaleable exceptions, aren't actually very useful to employers.

The whole thing was cargo cult policy making based on a crude correlation between career success and higher education at a time when the only people who had university degrees were the most connected (and, I would argue more importantly, intelligent) in society.

I don't think this analysis is right because I think there has been a change in the economy. I think there has been a significant decline in the number of jobs for which 16-18 year olds have the skills. That is an historic trend. We don't have 5 year old bird scarers on farms. The 8 year old climbing boy has gone from the chimney sweeping industry. Deliveries are no longer undertaken by the 14 year old shop boy on a bike and every skilled worker no longer has a 17 year "mate" in tow.

Many full time jobs in the economy are really only suited to people who have acquired skills that are only gained by the early 20s.

Therefore a lot of people do need "parking" until they reach that age. However in the competition for those careers amongst graduates, arts graduates are then significantly off the pace in getting those positions. At that point some intending arts student comes forward and that he knows 10 upper middle class private school educated classicists who have landed plumb jobs.

However the statistics tell a different story. When you look at the employability of Leeds Beckett's business studies course

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10003861FT-BUSST/ReturnTo/Search

something that most folk on TSR wouldn't get out of bed for

and

classical civilisation at Leeds

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/Subjects/Overview/10007795FT-8G42/ReturnTo/Search

the Leeds Beckett degree more than holds its own even without controlling for social position of the Leeds students.

The same is true for those with biomedical sciences at Leeds Beckett

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/Subjects/Overview/10003861FT-BIOR3/ReturnTo/Search

Employers used to take graduates with generic arts degrees because that was all that was on offer from the universities. What has now changed is that those arts graduates don't beat the science and business graduates of third tier universities in real employment competitions.

The much vaunted arts transferable skills simply do not match up against the ability to read a balance sheet or a spreadsheet.

Yet when we compare the most meaningful statistic, earnings at the longest time from completion of the degree (3.x years), we see the following:

Classics (Leeds) - £25k (£20-30k)
Business (Leeds Beckett) - £23k (£19-28k)
Biomed (Leeds Beckett) - £21k (£17-24k)

I suggest that in the long run the earnings average is predicted almost entirely by initial student aptitude. The business course does better at first, probably because of better and more financially motivated students, but the advantage disappears almost immediately. At least business is somewhat vocational, though, even if not a license raj like law and medicine. The general science degree does terribly, no better than the Leeds Beckett English and History degree at the same time.

I think if the government stopped subsidised education entirely we probably would see 14 year olds at the lower end of the aptitude distribution working as tradesmens' mates. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. At 21 they would be skilled and experienced tradesmen with a combined income large enough for a deposit on a house, rather than debtors with no marketable experience.

Turning back the clock on education funding wouldn't automatically turn back the clock on house price inflation and immigration.

Tbh you probably don't want to hire guys too far below the median to fix your car or rewire your house, there'll likely be more minimum wage work wiping old peoples bottoms but the repetitive production line jobs have gone - there isn't going to be enough work for everyone and you can't buy a house on a double minimum wage income.

Yet when we compare the most meaningful statistic,

I am afraid it isn't the most meaningful statistic.

The earnings at the 40 month point are the national average salaries for these subjects not the salaries at Leeds and Leeds Beckett respectively.

The figures for classics are distorted by the high proportion nationally of classics grads who attended Oxbridge.

You ave referred to English and history which does somewhat worse than straight English nationally.

What the Minister is really saying, albeit without releasing data to back up the assertions is:

A degree, in most cases, no longer buys access to a protected space where a privileged few can command rewards unrelated to their economic value.

Think we've got a David Beckham studies student here.

A university education that is unable to teach you to be a thinking individual and a citizen in the truest sense of the word is a waste of 3/4 years. But that may often depend upon the effort one makes for his/her own intellectual development (reading and thinking independently) as opposed to one's degree choice.

The problem is that this -



was/is entirely correct advice. A general science degree does not improve employability more than an arts/humanities degree. The profession for which it trains - academic science - has few available positions, that pay about as well as retail, and generally take the form of 2-3 year internships at least into one's mid 30s.

The real conclusion to draw from this is that 'broadening access' was a mistake because university educations, with a handful of known and unscaleable exceptions, aren't actually very useful to employers.

The whole thing was cargo cult policy making based on a crude correlation between career success and higher education at a time when the only people who had university degrees were the most connected (and, I would argue more importantly, intelligent) in society.

I agree, I feel that the way things are going now is quite depressing to be honest.

I feel that people recommend others to study STEM subjects more for "career prospects" rather than for interest.
It's almost as if people and individuals are commodified, unless they study engineering or science, they're "useless" economically, and so they are "worthless" and a drain to the taxpayer?

I absolutely hate this mentality, I used to have it myself too.
I studied maths and science subjects at A level, not because Iwas genuinely interested in them, but because I gave into my fear of securing "job prospects" for the future.
I ended up messing my A levels so badly, even after retaking a year.
And i almost decided to study engineering, which luckily, I avoided doing by taking a gap year.

Now I'm looking to do a psychology or neuroscience degree, because it's they are the only subjects I am genuinely interested int, rather than pretend to be interested in, like a lot of other students do.

Even if I managed to get into an engineering with foundation year for example. Now I know that I would exactly repeat the same things that happened to me at A level, and I would end up dropping out or getting a 2.2. Which would just make me so demoralised.

Even if I did make it through an engineering degree with a 2.1. I would then have to work in engineering, which would just further trap me in a career I would loathe, even if I make good money, or if I can find employment at a drop of a hat.

And then when I find myself hating my engineering job after graduating, then I would be at "square one", and then I would need to find something I am genuinely interested all over again.

I find it very sad, that people, like me, are being pressured and pushed by either their parents or society into studying things which people preach to them as being "for their own good". Even if these things would totally not suit them and even be dangerous to do out of "blindness".

At the end of the day, it's up to the person and how much they are willing to sacrifice out of their life to put up with the stress of "demanding careers". I know that I had enough from my experiences at A level, and I would have no one else to blame but myself if I repeat it again.

I hate how everything is revolved around the economy, job prospects, "prestige and respectability" and overall snobbishness when it comes to studying at university. Maybe it's just TSR though, I'm not sure.

If I approached the government and said i wanted a very large low interest unsecured loan with easy payment terms for a yacht or a round the world luxury cruise or a jacuzzi, the government would tell me to take a running jump even though I would benefit from any of them.

I have "bought" degrees with my own money. I have undertaken economically useless studies at my own expense.

If you are studying at the taxpayer's expense, then the taxpayer in the form of the economy has to have a pay back. You can argue whether there is sufficient payback to the taxpayer from the number of students, but you cannot really ask the taxpayer to fund higher education for any other reason than a perceived economic benefit.