Non-vocational degrees - worthless?

It seems to me a non-vocational degree carries the prestige of the institution it was studied at.

I am currently studying a History degree, and in the future I would like to immigrate to Australia, but in the context of immigration I don't see how having a History degree would help me.

Australia wants people with vocational, technical skills, no History graduates.

It seems to me that the modern job market has changed. Non-vocational subjects are now no good to anyone. Employers want people with skills that they can make immediate use of, not people with arts degrees.

Maybe if you did your Arts degree at a Russell group it carries more prestige, but not because of the degree itself but because of the university you went to.

In short, doing an arts degree at an ex-poly is a sure road to unemployment.

I would extend that even further to pure science degrees - who needs a Physicist when you can employ an Engineer?

People need to be warned of these things before applying - the "you can do anything with this degree" advice we get from teachers, however well-intentioned, does not set you up properly for real life.

A physicist's knowledge will far exceed an engineer's [certainly on a theoretical level] yet an engineer is more employable as you point out, which is indeed very sad to see. It's sad to see what universities and academia in general has become.

Uh, not really. A physicist will know more about physics, whereas an engineer will know more about engineering. They're quite different subjects, and as such you wouldn't expect the employability between the two to have all that much cross-over.

What engineers learn is nothing compared to physicists and mathematicians in theoretical terms.

Engineering is a poor man's math/physics.

Sick of engineers thinking they are some sort of actual intellects when it's clear most of them are in it for the earning potential.

So? Industry doesn't pay you to dick around with theory. Engineering degrees already teach more than enough theory for the vast majority of their graduates anyway.

More like you're butt-hurt about the difference in jobs prospects.

Yeah I've seen question sheets that engineers get and they pale in comparison to what mathematicians get to be honest. I could do them with my eyes closed.

This is the only thing engineers can blab about; job prospects. Unlike engineers most people, you know, have a genuine passion about what they want to study as opposed to just being in it for the cash.

This is the only thing engineers can blab about; job prospects. Unlike engineers most people, you know, have a genuine passion about what they want to study as opposed to just being in it for the cash.

No, that's exactly my point. Having "a genuine passion" is all well and good but it's terrible advice.

We should be encouraged to improve our job prospects when applying because, like it or not, that is what university is now for.

And this is the sad thing. University shouldn't be about preparing you to be another 9-5 drone.

The "non 9-5 drones" are and always will be a tiny group of people who innovate using their own intrinsic passion/desire; not something you can teach in a class. You can't teach someone to be the next Richard Branson or Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, these are one-in-a-billion type people whose success (and luck) it would be impossible to replicate in 99.999% of cases. You can however train someone to be an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, a researcher, a banker - so on and so forth. All of which are careers essential to society and which offer plenty of scope and diversity within themselves, even if they are a standard 9-5 job.

When people talk about "getting out of the slave 9-5 grind" they simply refer to starting your business, being your own boss, working for yourself and setting your own hours. Anyone who has actually started a successful business would probably tell you how insanely difficult it actually is - probably a great deal more so than an average job. People who start successful business rarely actually need college education; that's for people who have a specific career path in mind. So whilst the current system may not be "ideal", referring to those with careers as "9-5 slaves" is getting old, and is just some wannabe-edgy crap that seems to have gained some popularity recently.

If only the jobs you list were 9-5 :P


Posted from TSR Mobile

More like you're butt-hurt about the difference in jobs prospects.

Are you really implying that prospects for math or physics graduates are worse than engineering?

Are you really implying that prospects for math or physics graduates are worse than engineering?