The Student Room Group

'Mickey Mouse' subjects/degrees and 'top-up fees'

We're now entering the time of year when many people on this forum will be going off to University, some for their first ever time. With this there comes the inevitable financial burden, which has been exacerbated by the introduction this year of tuition fees by the Government. With the advent of top-up fees (the majority of institutions in Britain charging the maximum £3000), some people feel that "mickey mouse" degrees should be abolished so as to either reduce or completely get rid of top up fees, to encourage people to take up more 'worthwhile' and 'traditional' subjects.

I browsed about and there doesn't seem to be a topic about this, what I know that many other students feel is a burning issue, and perhaps one to be avoided by some (excuse me if this has already been done, the search system doesn't seem to like me :frown: ).

There are of course different points of view on the subject, some students and even teachers at my Sixth Form feel very strongly about so-called "Mickey Mouse" subjects not being taught anymore, and I am inclined to take a similar view, but then there are people, like those in Government, who argue that the increased amount of degrees available help those who do not wish to take more 'traditional' subjects with their job prospects.

So rather than turn this into a rant by me, I was curious to see what people feel about the issue on both sides of the argument, and their reasons, and i see no forum more apt to ask such a request than this one :biggrin:

Some questions - What do you think about the increased amount of degrees available?
Do you believe they are credited by employers and are a benefit or a waste of time to the student studying them?
Does the need for resources of the new subjects result in the decline in spending in more traditonal subject areas?
Do the Government genuinly believe that this helps with job prospects or is it just a move to meet Blair's infamous promise of "education, education, education" and meet increased student targets promised by Labour?
What do you think qualifies as a "mickey mouse" degree?
Is there a better idea that would satisfy all parties involved or is it a simple black/white affair?
Would the reinstatement of the Cities & Guilds apprenticeships suit those who wish to take a more vocational career plan?

Feel free to add any questions/answers of your own, as this is the reason we have a debating forum!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I think people should be allowed to take whatever they want, but at the same time they shouldn't be fooled into thinking that the 'easier' degrees will get them just as good a job as a more traditional, respected subject.
I don't think there needs to be a change, because those with highly demanded degrees will still be able to earn more than those with degrees in "mickey mouse" subjects, and no matter how high university fees get, employers will continue to compensate for this in order to employ people with the right degrees - if university fees are high and deter some people who would take highly demanded degrees, employers will just have to raise their available salaries to attract more people with such degrees, so those with good degrees will not be too badly off. Those taking less employable degrees are doing more financial harm to themselves than to those with more traditional degrees, but I don't see any reason for such degree choices to be abolished.
'Mickey Mouse subject' comes second only to 'yummy mummy' as the most loathsome term ever created.

Some of the degrees on offer nowadays are ridiculous though. Most of the students taking them would be much better off finding a job, getting practical experience and actually doing something worthwhile, rather than wasting three years of their lives and massive amounts of money on something that is effectively worthless.

Inhale. :biggrin:
As an American student, I would jump for joy if the maximum that I had to pay a year was £3000.

I do agree with Chumbaniya that frivolous degrees are just going to lead to the individuals who obtain them to have lesser paying jobs, generally, and so there isn't much of a need to limit them.
How does the UK government justify subsidizing BSc(Hons) Surf Studies at Plymouth? Or BSc(Hons) in Adventure Tourism Management at the Swansea Institute?
Reply 6
Why should academic study be limited to 'traditional' academic disciplines imposed by elitist, outdated traditions? How does critically analysing a piece of literature or learning the complexities in science or mathematics benefit a prospective job applicant more than the study of society or the media (arguably far more important and relevant areas)?

Those who view traditional subjects as more valuable will value those who study them more and those who study 'mickey mouse' degrees are still paying the same fees as everyone else so no-one is really losing out. Opponents of a variety of degrees are just embittered that access to education is now available to everyone and not just the good old boys. Hopefully this kind of elitism will die out over future generations due to more people having a university education. No doubt the so called libertarians on here will bemoan the amount of choice and freedom people have in education anyway though.

The only logical opposition to them is economic. That is, if so many people pursue higher education then skilled professions and apprenticeships will suffer.
Reply 7
shady lane
How does the UK government justify subsidizing BSc(Hons) Surf Studies at Plymouth? Or BSc(Hons) in Adventure Tourism Management at the Swansea Institute?

Those are both important industries for their prospective local areas.
Looking at the long term picture, I think the change in the way top up fees work favours highly demanded subjects over less demanded ones, because higher fees which are paid after the degree rather than up front will favour those who earn more. For someone with a high class degree in maths, for example, who goes into a well paid job in finance, the top up fees will be much less of a problem than for someone with a degree in media who will struggle to find a well paid job in an increasingly crowded job market.
psychic_satori
I do agree with Chumbaniya that frivolous degrees are just going to lead to the individuals who obtain them to have lesser paying jobs, generally, and so there isn't much of a need to limit them.


That is true.

But what I detest is the fact that because of these pointless degrees and the media coverage they receive, a large proportion of the population is starting to think that all degrees are easy, worthless and a waste of time.
jeffers
That is true.

But what I detest is the fact that because of these pointless degrees and the media coverage they receive, a large proportion of the population is starting to think that all degrees are easy, worthless and a waste of time.


It's quite possible that the negative public view of many more modern degrees is having an effect on some potential students' views of degrees in general; because there is a lot of fuss about how degrees are easier now, some people don't realise that degrees in strong subjects are just as challenging as they have always been and are just as employable.
jeffers
That is true.

But what I detest is the fact that because of these pointless degrees and the media coverage they receive, a large proportion of the population is starting to think that all degrees are easy, worthless and a waste of time.


one could argue that the emergence of the newer degrees is leading to a devaluation of what a degree and university life means

Laika's point about the Surf Studies being an important degree for that area is not something I agree on. Arguably surfing is a niche area of leisure, let alone study, and a different qualification would perhaps be far more justified than 3 years at a university, such as industrial acredited courses and schemes.

It seems to me that the Government encourage these degrees just so at the end of the day Labour can produce a spreadsheet, point at it, and say "Look, University applications and graduations have sky rocketed". Whether this is because of tuition fees being a positive or negative thing for students obviously plays a part, and I do not know of many students who like the idea of top-up fees. In today's society where money is such a huge part of people's lives (one only has to look at the numerous loans and injury adverts on TV) people are being encouraged to spend spend spend, which is turning people off the idea of graduating but being in debt for thousands, and onto the idea of getting a job after leaving college.
People just do not like the idea of being in debt in what should be the prime of their lives.
Reply 12
captain_yesterday


Laika's point about the Surf Studies being an important degree for that area is not something I agree on. Arguably surfing is a niche area of leisure, let alone study, and a different qualification would perhaps be far more justified than 3 years at a university, such as industrial acredited courses and schemes.

It seems to me that the Government encourage these degrees just so at the end of the day Labour can produce a spreadsheet, point at it, and say "Look, University applications and graduations have sky rocketed".

I was going to make the point about the status of the qualification but then I couldn't be bothered. I do agree with you to an extent on that point and I also agree that a lot of educational policies exist for the sole purpose of making Labour look good on paper.

However, since the introduction of a wider range of courses, a proper education has been available to a much wider range of people than it would be previously and from lower social backgrounds. I also think that you cannot place status and importance to a certain academic area just because it has been studied for a long time. When the study of literature was introduced it was ridiculed for the very same reason (probably still is by many). I'm not saying that a day will come when an Oxbridge degree in Horse riding will be the most sought after qualification in the country. I just don't think we should return to the days when education was strictly the core subjects and a good source of social elitism.

Also when using the term 'mickey mouse degree', surely it's a bit misleading to group Surf Stuides with something like Sociology, Psychology and Media Studies which are all frequent targets of the same label. Maybe we should be more clear on what we mean by that term. Ugh, I really hate myself for descending into a 'define the term' debate.
I don't have a problem with people studying surfing or adventure tourism, but to call it a BSc (Hons), which is the same title someone from LSE receives for studying Economics, is absurd. It should be a lower level degree, not a bachelor's. The Surf Science degree actually includes "practicals" as part of the degree. In case you weren't sure--that means SURFING. For a bachelor's degree. Come on.
Reply 14
i cant stand the term mickey mouse subjects because it makes people feel as though something they feel passionately about is worthless. i study drama, theatre and performance studies and people often view it as an easy degree. but they dont seem to understand that it involves more than just prancing about wearing black. i take the subject because im good at it and i love the subject. in my opinion , all degrees have the same worth because they are worth something to each individual. obviously someone with a maths degree would do better applying for a job with numbers than a media student would but that doesnt mean there is no place for less conventional subjects.i think its great that people can break away from more traditional subjects.
shady lane
I don't have a problem with people studying surfing or adventure tourism, but to call it a BSc (Hons), which is the same title someone from LSE receives for studying Economics, is absurd. It should be a lower level degree, not a bachelor's. The Surf Science degree actually includes "practicals" as part of the degree. In case you weren't sure--that means SURFING. For a bachelor's degree. Come on.


Many degrees include practicals. I wouldn't want my pharmacist to have gone without some on-the-job experience under the watchful eye of a professional before I have him fill out my prescriptions.

Just because you, personally, don't respect the field of study does not mean that they should not be permitted to call their degree a BSc (Hons) based on the course content.
Reply 16
Isn't it funny how "mickey mouse" subjects are often vocational, and therefore aim to lead to a specific career? Surely that makes these people more employable than those who have studied more abstract degrees like English or History. (There are obviously exceptions, but still).

As for top-up fees, is it true that uni students previously had to pay fees upfront? In which case this system must be better; we don't have to pay them until we're earning £15,000, and if after 25 years it isn't all paid off, the debt's written off. I might be wrong about this, though.
psychic_satori
Many degrees include practicals. I wouldn't want my pharmacist to have gone without some on-the-job experience under the watchful eye of a professional before I have him fill out my prescriptions.

Just because you personally don't respect the field of study does not mean that they should not be permitted to call their degree a BSc (Hons) based on the course content.


Yes but that is because you cannot access much of the material and information needed to study pharmacy without a lecturer and a lab.

I took a surf lesson on vacation in Hawaii.

See the difference?
shady lane
Yes but that is because you cannot access much of the material and information needed to study pharmacy without a lecturer and a lab.

I took a surf lesson on vacation in Hawaii.

See the difference?


So students should be expected to do their laboratory work on their own, just because some people surf for fun? In most cases, laboratory experience is meant to provide students with a more sound understanding of concepts learned in the lecture hall. I'm sure your amateur surf lesson didn't encompass the sort of indepth information that surf science students are taught in lecture. :rolleyes:

Snobbery, plain and simple.
Well I'm sorry if I think students are being tricked into doing useless degrees because people like you say "feel free to study what you want." If you want to be a surfer, take the money you'd spend on 3 years of university and go work in a surf shop, move to a tropical climate and surf to your heart's content. I'm not being a snob, but it's not in the best interests of the government to fund these degree, or for the students to take out loans to study things that three years in a classroom will not properly teach you anyway.

Besides, I really don't think there is massive growth in the UK's surf industry, as it's a rocky, cold island. Perhaps if this was offered in Fiju or Hawaii, it would make a small amount of sense.

Latest