Going to University has become absolutely pointless.
Scroll to see replies
Eventhough I'm not working in a field related to my degree, I would still go back and do it again, because I genuinely enjoyed my subject.
You're right in that a degree in itself doesn't help you with most graduate jobs; in fact my employer has a school leavers programme alongside the graduate scheme, and the school leavers basically do the same tasks and have the same responsibilities as the graduates but for less money.
But I actually feel quite bad for the school leavers. They're stuck in the world of work from such a young age, with a lot of stress and responsibilities that I was free of at their age.
Why miss out on opportunities that you get at university that are hard to come by when you're working? I was a very shy 18 year-old with no social skills and little interests and hobbies. Going to university helped me meet people from all over the world, make new friends, try out a lot of different clubs and societies, volunteer etc. I came out a more confident person, with a better sense of who I am. I think this would have been a lot harder to achieve if I had gone straight to work. There would be fewer opportunities, more stress and less free time.
So I would still go to university for the things you listed as a negative point i.e the prolonged adolescence, because you're going to spend the rest of your life working every day, so what's the rush? Also, my passion for my subject made it worth every penny!
But each to their own I guess. If you think it's a waste of time & money, then don't go. But for people like me, it's definitely worth it!
You're right in that a degree in itself doesn't help you with most graduate jobs; in fact my employer has a school leavers programme alongside the graduate scheme, and the school leavers basically do the same tasks and have the same responsibilities as the graduates but for less money.
But I actually feel quite bad for the school leavers. They're stuck in the world of work from such a young age, with a lot of stress and responsibilities that I was free of at their age.
Why miss out on opportunities that you get at university that are hard to come by when you're working? I was a very shy 18 year-old with no social skills and little interests and hobbies. Going to university helped me meet people from all over the world, make new friends, try out a lot of different clubs and societies, volunteer etc. I came out a more confident person, with a better sense of who I am. I think this would have been a lot harder to achieve if I had gone straight to work. There would be fewer opportunities, more stress and less free time.
So I would still go to university for the things you listed as a negative point i.e the prolonged adolescence, because you're going to spend the rest of your life working every day, so what's the rush? Also, my passion for my subject made it worth every penny!
But each to their own I guess. If you think it's a waste of time & money, then don't go. But for people like me, it's definitely worth it!
Original post by Vikingninja
Yeah I see this but a lot probably want to go into a course that they will enjoy since they are learning stuff that they enjoy and will gain the skills but yeah over a longer period. I find that the sciences aren't always the best since in some science and maths subjects that some people don't go into a career that is related but they enjoy the course so atleast will be happy in doing so. Some universities with their subjects also give industrial placements for a year or during holidays, think Loughborough has this available in EVERY SINGLE course that it has which is pretty amazing.
About the debt whilst it is quite large it isn't a massive deal I find because you don't have a time to pay back, you pay back a certain amount each month which aren't massive amounts unless you are bad with money.
I understand a bit with some of these courses because not everyone knows what career they want to go into and so aren't exactly focused on a training programme. So do a degree that they will enjoy and get the skills from that and after a few years may know what they want to do. Also some training programmes are massively competitive and difficult like the KPMG programme so go into a degree that can get them into the industry if that fails.
About the debt whilst it is quite large it isn't a massive deal I find because you don't have a time to pay back, you pay back a certain amount each month which aren't massive amounts unless you are bad with money.
I understand a bit with some of these courses because not everyone knows what career they want to go into and so aren't exactly focused on a training programme. So do a degree that they will enjoy and get the skills from that and after a few years may know what they want to do. Also some training programmes are massively competitive and difficult like the KPMG programme so go into a degree that can get them into the industry if that fails.
Shouldn't this be the age when people decide such things? Shouldn't we place a greater onus on 18 year old's to actually make decisions for themselves? I feel that, in treading the path of least resistance, we're keeping a whole generation of youngsters in a state of perpetual or prolonged adolescence.
If I was an undergraduate student these days, I wouldn't be so worried about the debt (as you allude to, repayments are determined by future earnings) but far more worried about the 4 years I'm spending in an economic black hole. The soft and largely meaningless skills I am acquiring could have been developed, across a far shorter time frame, in employment, and would be far more profitable in the long run (i.e., I'm actually working in an industry and gaining experience).
The time I'm spending, however, particularly at a crucial point in my development, can never, ever be recovered. My attitudes will become ingrained, I'm less flexible or adaptable as I age (both mentally and socially) and I have next to no life skills, or marketable skills, to offer by the age of 22-23.
For me, in the context of competition, skills acquired and return on investment, it's no longer an option for a career driven individual.
Original post by p.formanko
disagree with several things you've pointed out.
1) you're hardly in the same position as everyone else once you graduate. A degree in Art History from somewhere like Brighton is nothing like a degree in Spanish from Bristol. Yes you have £27,000 debt but your employability is different, your skills are different, and so on.
2) Are you trying to say that a school leaver aged 18 has the life experience to go straight onto a graduate program? Regardless of whether they've done b-tecs, IB or A-levels, a school leaver is hardly going to be able to keep up with the demands of a graduate job at, say, JP Morgan.
3) Most professional qualifications may require a degree. Also, doing a degree can also mitigate some of the barriers that a person without a degree faces. Eg, an Architecture degree from UCL means that you can go straight into an advanced professional qualification from whichever organisation is associated with that. Those without a degree have to take the introduction year first.
4) As far as I'm aware, (Russell Group) universities only allow need-based scholarships? Besides, international students (unless from the EU) have to return to their home country after their studies are over.
5) Prolonging adolescence? You mean to say that, as a school leaver at the ripe old age of 18, you're ready to take on the world of business, commerce, finance, politics and whatnot? Real life is very much real. You're paying for accommodation (via a loan), your own food, going out, transport, etc. You're in charge of your own finances, personal care and wellbeing. How is this not having an idea what real life is like?
1) you're hardly in the same position as everyone else once you graduate. A degree in Art History from somewhere like Brighton is nothing like a degree in Spanish from Bristol. Yes you have £27,000 debt but your employability is different, your skills are different, and so on.
2) Are you trying to say that a school leaver aged 18 has the life experience to go straight onto a graduate program? Regardless of whether they've done b-tecs, IB or A-levels, a school leaver is hardly going to be able to keep up with the demands of a graduate job at, say, JP Morgan.
3) Most professional qualifications may require a degree. Also, doing a degree can also mitigate some of the barriers that a person without a degree faces. Eg, an Architecture degree from UCL means that you can go straight into an advanced professional qualification from whichever organisation is associated with that. Those without a degree have to take the introduction year first.
4) As far as I'm aware, (Russell Group) universities only allow need-based scholarships? Besides, international students (unless from the EU) have to return to their home country after their studies are over.
5) Prolonging adolescence? You mean to say that, as a school leaver at the ripe old age of 18, you're ready to take on the world of business, commerce, finance, politics and whatnot? Real life is very much real. You're paying for accommodation (via a loan), your own food, going out, transport, etc. You're in charge of your own finances, personal care and wellbeing. How is this not having an idea what real life is like?
1) In the context of applying for a job in a non-related industry, all degrees are equal. The notion that RG universities are somehow superior isn't held in great esteem by many employers. They want you to be able to do something; they care about what you can do, not what you've studied.
2) Whereas a 22 year old graduate would? You are no more, or less, experienced than an 18 year old - in fact, an 18 year old in the world of employment is infinitely more experienced than a 22 year old graduate. If anything, University has merely prolonged you adolescence - you haven't learned anything in relation to your future career. Your 18 year old colleague is already 4 years ahead of you.
3) Most? Nope. Many require practical work experience. Architecture is vocational.
4) No, they don't. They can apply for an extension - many, many do.
5) Yes, as prepared as any 22 year old graduate who has spent 4 years studying a degree which has no relevance to their chosen career. In what way wouldn't you be doing any of that in employment?
The reason you don't have an idea of what real life is like is because you've been stuck in a safe echo chamber, an economic black hole, for four years, with little in the way of real responsibility. You seem to deem the responsibilities placed upon your head are comparable to those in the workplace; if that's the case, why do you need to go to university to prepare for work?
Original post by TheCitizenAct
Shouldn't this be the age when people decide such things? Shouldn't we place a greater onus on 18 year old's to actually make decisions for themselves? I feel that, in treading the path of least resistance, we're keeping a whole generation of youngsters in a state of perpetual or prolonged adolescence.
If I was an undergraduate student these days, I wouldn't be so worried about the debt (as you allude to, repayments are determined by future earnings) but far more worried about the 4 years I'm spending in an economic black hole. The soft and largely meaningless skills I am acquiring could have been developed, across a far shorter time frame, in employment, and would be far more profitable in the long run (i.e., I'm actually working in an industry and gaining experience).
The time I'm spending, however, particularly at a crucial point in my development, can never, ever be recovered. My attitudes will become ingrained, I'm less flexible or adaptable as I age (both mentally and socially) and I have next to no life skills, or marketable skills, to offer by the age of 22-23.
For me, in the context of competition, skills acquired and return on investment, it's no longer an option for a career driven individual.
If I was an undergraduate student these days, I wouldn't be so worried about the debt (as you allude to, repayments are determined by future earnings) but far more worried about the 4 years I'm spending in an economic black hole. The soft and largely meaningless skills I am acquiring could have been developed, across a far shorter time frame, in employment, and would be far more profitable in the long run (i.e., I'm actually working in an industry and gaining experience).
The time I'm spending, however, particularly at a crucial point in my development, can never, ever be recovered. My attitudes will become ingrained, I'm less flexible or adaptable as I age (both mentally and socially) and I have next to no life skills, or marketable skills, to offer by the age of 22-23.
For me, in the context of competition, skills acquired and return on investment, it's no longer an option for a career driven individual.
About the path of least resistance I was more saying in the case that if going into a training programme fails then they have the backup of doing a degree that gets them into that career then probably a short training programme. I know that a lot do choose to go into a degree because it will be easier which I do find a bit lazy if they ignore the training programme but I can understand why some would choose a degree course that they will enjoy over a training programme which may not be right for them and also potentially very stressful, also not everyone aims to get to the top but to just live comfortably which they can with a degree programme. If someone decides that they want to do accounting and go into a training programme for that and it turns out to not be right for them then they are pretty screwed and will be a long time for them to be able to do something else.
With the age of deciding what they want to do, people are still doing A levels, BTEC's etc. so are still studying and are unsure about the future. Some may be focused on a certain path but not everyone is (and lets face it a lot of people are still pretty childish and lazy at 18 so aren't exactly focused). Deciding what you want to do at university, where you want to go, organising all the visits etc. is pretty big in making a decision.
All solid points in OP. Can be a bitter pill to swallow.
I have 2 cousins in uni who are currently doing art related degrees and are not planning on getting a job that's to do with art. Now I see that as pointless.
However with the career I'm interested in going into requires a degree.
However with the career I'm interested in going into requires a degree.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
1) In the context of applying for a job in a non-related industry, all degrees are equal. The notion that RG universities are somehow superior isn't held in great esteem by many employers. They want you to be able to do something; they care about what you can do, not what you've studied.
2) Whereas a 22 year old graduate would? You are no more, or less, experienced than an 18 year old - in fact, an 18 year old in the world of employment is infinitely more experienced than a 22 year old graduate. If anything, University has merely prolonged you adolescence - you haven't learned anything in relation to your future career. Your 18 year old colleague is already 4 years ahead of you.
3) Most? Nope. Many require practical work experience. Architecture is vocational.
4) No, they don't. They can apply for an extension - many, many do.
5) Yes, as prepared as any 22 year old graduate who has spent 4 years studying a degree which has no relevance to their chosen career. In what way wouldn't you be doing any of that in employment?
The reason you don't have an idea of what real life is like is because you've been stuck in a safe echo chamber, an economic black hole, for four years, with little in the way of real responsibility. You seem to deem the responsibilities placed upon your head are comparable to those in the workplace; if that's the case, why do you need to go to university to prepare for work?
2) Whereas a 22 year old graduate would? You are no more, or less, experienced than an 18 year old - in fact, an 18 year old in the world of employment is infinitely more experienced than a 22 year old graduate. If anything, University has merely prolonged you adolescence - you haven't learned anything in relation to your future career. Your 18 year old colleague is already 4 years ahead of you.
3) Most? Nope. Many require practical work experience. Architecture is vocational.
4) No, they don't. They can apply for an extension - many, many do.
5) Yes, as prepared as any 22 year old graduate who has spent 4 years studying a degree which has no relevance to their chosen career. In what way wouldn't you be doing any of that in employment?
The reason you don't have an idea of what real life is like is because you've been stuck in a safe echo chamber, an economic black hole, for four years, with little in the way of real responsibility. You seem to deem the responsibilities placed upon your head are comparable to those in the workplace; if that's the case, why do you need to go to university to prepare for work?
1) (also similar to 5) not true for some universities. Banks, consultancy firms, law firms etc have been known to scout from a select pool of universities (something like Oxbridge, UCL, LSE, Warwick, Durham etc) and select graduates based on the university brand name rather than what the candidate studies.
2) as an 18 year old who doesn't go to university yes you will have a 4 year advantage experience-wise, but what use is that if the only people who employ you want you to have a degree?
3) Most careers will be specialised to an extent that regardless of whether you went to university or not, you won't have the skills that they want. If you want to work for the UN or NATO, obviously a degree in History or IR will not prepare you exclusively for that job, but it'll prepare you a damn right more than leaving education at 18.
4) Yes but the extension can still expire? and on a macro scale, it makes the national economy more productive and efficient by having more capable workers. If an international student is willing to learn English and work harder than a British student, why shouldn't they be able to take their job?
So what would be your suggestion? Everyone aside from those wanting to pursue vocational degrees finish education at 18 (heck, why not even 16) and get thrown into the big wide world of work with no work experience, no idea how to care for oneself, budget, and so on?
Original post by Quantex
I know it is a terribly old fashioned view, but Isn't a university education valuable in and of itself?
It depends on the university.
Original post by -Real-G
OR MAYBE... People like to study and learn about their subject ffs.
TOO many people assume Uni is just about getting a degree to then get a job NO.
People go to Uni to pursue their interests in a subject ffs.
TOO many people assume Uni is just about getting a degree to then get a job NO.
People go to Uni to pursue their interests in a subject ffs.
Sure buddy, sure. Tax payers shouldn't have to fund such loathsome, wastes of spaces like that. Nearly £40K in loans just so you can feel "expanded". Sorry buddy but unless you're paying for the fees yourself, jog on.
Original post by amyc123
Nursing is vocational. It's also a degree. A degree is required to be a competent registered nurse in 2015.
That is the point I'm trying to make. Vocational subjects shouldn't be made into degrees and vice versa. Degrees should be purely about academic subjects
Original post by p.formanko
1) (also similar to 5) not true for some universities. Banks, consultancy firms, law firms etc have been known to scout from a select pool of universities (something like Oxbridge, UCL, LSE, Warwick, Durham etc) and select graduates based on the university brand name rather than what the candidate studies.
2) as an 18 year old who doesn't go to university yes you will have a 4 year advantage experience-wise, but what use is that if the only people who employ you want you to have a degree?
3) Most careers will be specialised to an extent that regardless of whether you went to university or not, you won't have the skills that they want. If you want to work for the UN or NATO, obviously a degree in History or IR will not prepare you exclusively for that job, but it'll prepare you a damn right more than leaving education at 18.
4) Yes but the extension can still expire? and on a macro scale, it makes the national economy more productive and efficient by having more capable workers. If an international student is willing to learn English and work harder than a British student, why shouldn't they be able to take their job?
So what would be your suggestion? Everyone aside from those wanting to pursue vocational degrees finish education at 18 (heck, why not even 16) and get thrown into the big wide world of work with no work experience, no idea how to care for oneself, budget, and so on?
2) as an 18 year old who doesn't go to university yes you will have a 4 year advantage experience-wise, but what use is that if the only people who employ you want you to have a degree?
3) Most careers will be specialised to an extent that regardless of whether you went to university or not, you won't have the skills that they want. If you want to work for the UN or NATO, obviously a degree in History or IR will not prepare you exclusively for that job, but it'll prepare you a damn right more than leaving education at 18.
4) Yes but the extension can still expire? and on a macro scale, it makes the national economy more productive and efficient by having more capable workers. If an international student is willing to learn English and work harder than a British student, why shouldn't they be able to take their job?
So what would be your suggestion? Everyone aside from those wanting to pursue vocational degrees finish education at 18 (heck, why not even 16) and get thrown into the big wide world of work with no work experience, no idea how to care for oneself, budget, and so on?
1) Which has nothing to do with how non-related degrees are viewed by potential employers (i.e., nothing to do with what I was talking about). Brand name...potentially gives you a competitive edge. But one non-related degrees is as useless as the next in the context of future employment.
2) About as much use as spending 4 years in an economic black hole when there are clearly employers willing to take you on without a degree. Tons of them.
3) Yet, we've already witnessed, twice within this thread, people stipulating they went to university because they were unsure what they wanted to do in the future. Now it's all planned out? Yes, if you have a plan, and that plan requires a degree, then fine. Invariably, in many instances, there are ten alternative, more lucrative and shorter routes to where you want to get to, though.
4) They should. Where have I argued otherwise? I'm arguing there's increased competition for jobs, you're arguing whether increased competition is morally acceptable or not. You're extending my arguments to reaches they've never grasped at, and you're doing it by observing what you think I'm saying, rather than what I'm actually saying. Some may say being able to read, analyse and comprehend what is actually being said, rather than what you think is being said, is a life skill.
My suggestion? Get a job. Everything you've outlined - paying for yourself, no idea how to care for yourself, work experience, etc. - how is any of this mitigated by spending 4 years in a black hole? Why are you any more or less qualified to live these experiences simply because you're older than 18?
Original post by -Real-G
OR MAYBE... People like to study and learn about their subject ffs.
TOO many people assume Uni is just about getting a degree to then get a job NO.
People go to Uni to pursue their interests in a subject ffs.
TOO many people assume Uni is just about getting a degree to then get a job NO.
People go to Uni to pursue their interests in a subject ffs.
Why should taxpayers pay £27k for you to 'better' yourself, when you have little to no inclination to generate a return? Perhaps they should pay for your time at a mindfulness retreat, too?
Original post by Josb
OP is mixing Oxbridge with ex-polys, and Media Studies with Engineering. He should have made some distinctions among these, but he often prefers to predict the Apocalypse in all his posts so...
That's a bit of an unfair criticism. I've noted vocational degrees are a potential exception.
What would you have liked? An itemised list of every one of the hundreds of thousands of joint honour, major minor, single honours and postgraduate degrees in the UK?
Sorry.
(edited 8 years ago)
What exactly constitutes for a degree to be a vocational subject, not sure if mine would be considered as one.
The universities are parasites that have woven themselves into the system. The professors, the chancellors, the lecturers......all foul parasites
Original post by Vikingninja
What exactly constitutes for a degree to be a vocational subject, not sure if mine would be considered as one.
I would say personally anything that isn't offered as a degree by Oxbridge in some form as they set the standards for academic rigour pretty much worldwide. For example, even though Medicinal Chemistry isn't offered by Oxbridge Chemistry is so that would still count, but something like Photography isn't so I would say its vocational
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Clearing
- I feel like ****
- Is a Psychology degree really worth it?
- Forced to drop an a level
- Should I do a trade apprenticeship instead of going to university?
- uni after apprenticeship?
- How to write an argue letter to a uni that set a test condition I have not met
- Are prelims stupidly useless for university?
- Is DoFe actually useful for university applications
- A warning on investment banking (M&A) careers
- predicted grades + medicine unis
- Should mobile phone use be banned in schools?
- Car Modifications
- did i pick bad a levels??
- I can't stop lying, and I hate it.
- I just ripped up my sixth form college certificates
- 18 in year 12
- Uni is a scam
- Applying for a course through clearing that I didn't originally get the grades for?
- Am I Muslim if I am choosing not to worship God?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 ?
