Getting Rid of Humanities
Scroll to see replies
I'm not a humanities student but it would be a shame for those subjects to wither and die, and that's what would happen if that knowledge wasn't being passed down. There are countless people who have devoted their whole lives to developing those subjects, and if people stop studying them now then it's all been for nothing. It's a shame that a subject's worth is now based on how much money its students can make for the ****ing government.
Original post by Dukeofwembley
biomedical science is a worthless degree, or worth very little, same goes with biology and to a lesser extent chemistry
How are these worthless (to varying extents?)
With all subjects it depends on what university you attend. My friend and I both study psychology, my course has an emphasis on neuroscience whereas her course is very much focuses on the social aspect. Right now I am investigating the role of selective attention and visual working in schizophrenia - in relation to this we are measuring the varying degree of brain activity using fMRI. The psychology department at my university although varied places a strong emphasis on visual research and more recently molecular genetics. It's hard work and I know my capabilities, I wouldn't be able to study medicine etc. I understand why people think psychology isn't a real science but every university differs in course content... This goes for all the courses mentioned, the better the university, the more respected the course....
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't think there's any more value in a science degree than any of the degrees you mentioned. University education has always been as much about developing the individual as vocational qualification, if not moreso. By the suggestion that degrees should chiefly be vocation-specific, perhaps we might convert trade apprenticeships into degrees?
It's also the case that an overwhelming majority of jobs are not specific to a single subject. Were the numbers of nonspecific degrees limited, we'd just have a less-rounded workforce, less capable of dealing with real world demands unless they were in their narrow fields of focus for which they had qualified. Lots of degree options = lots of different skills in the talent pool.
"What methods might we use to reduce drug crime on this estate and stop young people becoming alienated?"
"I don't know, but here's a paper explaining why heroin is so addictive."
Essay-based degrees may not prepare you for an exact job, but they do prepare you far better for any other jobs because they involve real-world skills of research, analysis, data extraction, etc. I've always had a bit of an issue with exams in certain subjects for this reason; unless you're required to know your information instantly (I support exams in most science-based subjects for this reason), exam methods offer no value in the workplace because most jobs (especially higher level management, strategy and analysis-based roles, etc) require the kind of thinking that develops via essay-based assessment.
We probably don't need x thousand psychologists, sociologists, historians, etc. But we don't need 20,000 new chemists every year either, and there aren't the jobs for them to go into. Every degree (save perhaps medicine) serves more to educate than to direct someone into a career.
Finally, arts-based degrees already heavily subsidise university spending on science degrees, because a science degree costs several times what an arts degree costs to teach, yet they all cost the same. You'd probably end up with less money for sciences, not more, depending on how government funding was defined.
It's also the case that an overwhelming majority of jobs are not specific to a single subject. Were the numbers of nonspecific degrees limited, we'd just have a less-rounded workforce, less capable of dealing with real world demands unless they were in their narrow fields of focus for which they had qualified. Lots of degree options = lots of different skills in the talent pool.
"What methods might we use to reduce drug crime on this estate and stop young people becoming alienated?"
"I don't know, but here's a paper explaining why heroin is so addictive."
Essay-based degrees may not prepare you for an exact job, but they do prepare you far better for any other jobs because they involve real-world skills of research, analysis, data extraction, etc. I've always had a bit of an issue with exams in certain subjects for this reason; unless you're required to know your information instantly (I support exams in most science-based subjects for this reason), exam methods offer no value in the workplace because most jobs (especially higher level management, strategy and analysis-based roles, etc) require the kind of thinking that develops via essay-based assessment.
We probably don't need x thousand psychologists, sociologists, historians, etc. But we don't need 20,000 new chemists every year either, and there aren't the jobs for them to go into. Every degree (save perhaps medicine) serves more to educate than to direct someone into a career.
Finally, arts-based degrees already heavily subsidise university spending on science degrees, because a science degree costs several times what an arts degree costs to teach, yet they all cost the same. You'd probably end up with less money for sciences, not more, depending on how government funding was defined.
(edited 11 years ago)
If STEM is so fantastic why are the prospects for STEM graduates little better than the rest?
Original post by River85
How are these worthless (to varying extents?)
im using hyperbole, there is no mention of business degrees in op's OP , but business degrees are vastly more useful than biomedical science and biology degrees, just look at the employment rate and the specific sector they work in
Yes of course, if we want doers and not thinkers. Pretty crap society that though. Bit like China where they destroyed their history and their culture is slowly dying.
What we need to do is cut the number of universities: only intelligent people need to do degrees. I'm sorry, it's controversial but true. Thickies with CCC and BBC at A level are getting 'degrees' from ex-polys in whatever and claiming its equal to Russell group or whatever. It's not, it's a waste of taxpayers' money. We should fund strongly our intellectual elite, whatever they choose to study.
What we need to do is cut the number of universities: only intelligent people need to do degrees. I'm sorry, it's controversial but true. Thickies with CCC and BBC at A level are getting 'degrees' from ex-polys in whatever and claiming its equal to Russell group or whatever. It's not, it's a waste of taxpayers' money. We should fund strongly our intellectual elite, whatever they choose to study.
Original post by Tweedy
This is also true of many science graduates - a lack of direct correlation between one's degree course and one's career is not limited to the arts...
True, but (and although I have no statistical evidence to hand) I would guess that it is more true of the arts and humanities.
Original post by Azarimanka
Yes of course, if we want doers and not thinkers. Pretty crap society that though. Bit like China where they destroyed their history and their culture is slowly dying.
What we need to do is cut the number of universities: only intelligent people need to do degrees. I'm sorry, it's controversial but true. Thickies with CCC and BBC at A level are getting 'degrees' from ex-polys in whatever and claiming its equal to Russell group or whatever. It's not, it's a waste of taxpayers' money. We should fund strongly our intellectual elite, whatever they choose to study.
What we need to do is cut the number of universities: only intelligent people need to do degrees. I'm sorry, it's controversial but true. Thickies with CCC and BBC at A level are getting 'degrees' from ex-polys in whatever and claiming its equal to Russell group or whatever. It's not, it's a waste of taxpayers' money. We should fund strongly our intellectual elite, whatever they choose to study.
I got AAB at A-level and go to an ex-poly, does that mean I'm wasting my time in your view? Nothing is black and white, you can't just say that people who get CCC and go to an ex-poly are stupid and won't get good jobs at the end of it.
Arts and humanities degrees often do not require the extensive facilities that science courses require, so if you're suggesting cutting the numbers of the former courses (which cost less to run but still charge the same as more expensive courses) you'll reduce the funding available for the science courses left over, so the quality will decline. Who needs 40000 biologists/chemists anyway? There aren't enough jobs in directly related fields as it is, nevermind if every graduate was restricted to the STEM subjects.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Azarimanka
Yes of course, if we want doers and not thinkers. Pretty crap society that though. Bit like China where they destroyed their history and their culture is slowly dying.
What we need to do is cut the number of universities: only intelligent people need to do degrees. I'm sorry, it's controversial but true. Thickies with CCC and BBC at A level are getting 'degrees' from ex-polys in whatever and claiming its equal to Russell group or whatever. It's not, it's a waste of taxpayers' money. We should fund strongly our intellectual elite, whatever they choose to study.
What we need to do is cut the number of universities: only intelligent people need to do degrees. I'm sorry, it's controversial but true. Thickies with CCC and BBC at A level are getting 'degrees' from ex-polys in whatever and claiming its equal to Russell group or whatever. It's not, it's a waste of taxpayers' money. We should fund strongly our intellectual elite, whatever they choose to study.
I think the more 'thickies' who go to university, the better.
Why are they thickies? POOR EDUCATION
FYI a B, or even a C, does not make someone thick.
Original post by Rgman27
Geography is not a humanity. I am guessing at University level, it becomes more like a science.
I don't think BP or Shell would be too happy with getting rid of it either.
I don't think BP or Shell would be too happy with getting rid of it either.
It's sort of half science half humanity
Original post by Azarimanka
Yes of course, if we want doers and not thinkers. Pretty crap society that though. Bit like China where they destroyed their history and their culture is slowly dying.
What we need to do is cut the number of universities: only intelligent people need to do degrees. I'm sorry, it's controversial but true. Thickies with CCC and BBC at A level are getting 'degrees' from ex-polys in whatever and claiming its equal to Russell group or whatever. It's not, it's a waste of taxpayers' money. We should fund strongly our intellectual elite, whatever they choose to study.
What we need to do is cut the number of universities: only intelligent people need to do degrees. I'm sorry, it's controversial but true. Thickies with CCC and BBC at A level are getting 'degrees' from ex-polys in whatever and claiming its equal to Russell group or whatever. It's not, it's a waste of taxpayers' money. We should fund strongly our intellectual elite, whatever they choose to study.
Maybe. But first you'd need a far better system than we have now to decide who is intelligent and who isn't. An early education system based chiefly on cramming information and regurgitating what you've been told shouldn't (and doesn't) define someone's usefulness in the world of work. If anything, university is the first time people really think for themselves in education, and should be open to as many people as possible.
Lots of people who don't get a string of A*s at A Level are incredibly capable individuals. And many non-Russell Group universities provide excellent education. I don't think the opportunity to develop yourself intellectually should be limited to a small handful of people, that would only serve to dumb down the entire workforce.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Dukeofwembley
im using hyperbole, there is no mention of business degrees in op's OP , but business degrees are vastly more useful than biomedical science and biology degrees, just look at the employment rate and the specific sector they work in
I wasn't just referring to the sciences, but also the humanities.
I am rather uncomfortable with your narrow definition of "useful" which just refers to the number of students in graduate employment. This ignores that universities are not established simply to get people into jobs, but also for the pursuit and spread of knowledge.
As far as numbers in graduate employment goes, what is graduate employment?
As for usefulness more broadly, you need to accept that a degree can have a specific, personal usefulness or meaning to a person. As a result of my degree I was able to develop, and demonstrate, several key characteristics and qualities that are necessary in life. As a result of my degree my confidence has improved. This has undeniably had an effect on my social and economic well being, but it is difficult to measure.
Finally, just because a subject is a humanity does not mean it can't allow a student to discover, and enter, a career. Through my degree I have been able to find what I hope is my calling, Occupational Therapy and, more broadly, disability support. My experiences and activities I was involved in helped, but so to did academic study such as history of medicine and sociology of health and illness (my final year dissertation being a qualitive investigation into epilepsy, its medical understanding and stigma.
As a result I can now do a Masters on OT. Admittedly I cannot become an OT immediately, but this same would be true had I done, say, an engineering or physics degree. In fact, I'm arguably in a better position now that I would have been had I studied engineering. Had I studied engineering, which has little relevance to OT, I might not be eligible for postgrad entry. This would mean doing a second undergrad degree.
Original post by Rgman27
Geography is not a humanity. I am guessing at University level, it becomes more like a science.
I don't think BP or Shell would be too happy with getting rid of it either.
I don't think BP or Shell would be too happy with getting rid of it either.
I dont think they need anything coloured in.
but in all seriousness they look for geologists
Original post by Guybrush Sheepgood
Because this has never been asked before...
But since you asked what would happen - it probably wouldn't increase the amount of people doing sciences substantially for one thing. People don't study science because they don't enjoy it or find it difficult. If it did increase sciences there would probably be a very large dropout rate. Getting rid of humanities means people will just end up being underqualified for the huge service industries that dominates our country's economy. Only a small proportion of our jobs require science degrees. There are not enough science jobs for scientists in this country! A university education qualifies people to do jobs that require a general education. Getting rid of it is a bloody stupid idea.
As for individual subjects:
English Literature: Even fewer people would read. Definitely can't be a good thing. Destroys culture. Fewer students would grow up with an interest in literature and THEIR children wouldn't read.
English Language: Who is going to teach English? English language is a very good degree for the thousands of editors, writers, copywriters, publishers etc.
History: Well, the fewer people there are who learn history, the greater number of people there are who are doomed to repeat it. So that can't be good.
Psychology: Not a humanity. It's half science, half social science. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Nothing much would happen if less people took it besides what it says in the top paragraph, simply because there are just not enough psychology related jobs to go around. However, psychology is important for jobs like marketing etc.
Sociology: Not a humanity. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Sociologists go on to be vital contributors to social policy.
Politics: Not a humanity. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Often politics students go into social policy.
Philosophy: Makes people more intelligent, critical thinkers. Philosophy is what founded society so it's probably not a good idea to lose it.
Geography: Not a humanity. It's a complex science / social science. Arguably the most important of all the degrees listed to retain students. Geographers become vital members of society working on vital parts of infrastructure. Geographers go into environmental science, urban planning, social policy, computer mapping, immigration planning, academia (e.g. economic geography, health geography) to name a tiny number of things (aside from teaching). It also teaches people a lot about the world, about economies and is generally an extremely useful asset to society. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. To lose it would be bad.
RE: Nothing much would happen. Probably does more harm than good.
But since you asked what would happen - it probably wouldn't increase the amount of people doing sciences substantially for one thing. People don't study science because they don't enjoy it or find it difficult. If it did increase sciences there would probably be a very large dropout rate. Getting rid of humanities means people will just end up being underqualified for the huge service industries that dominates our country's economy. Only a small proportion of our jobs require science degrees. There are not enough science jobs for scientists in this country! A university education qualifies people to do jobs that require a general education. Getting rid of it is a bloody stupid idea.
As for individual subjects:
English Literature: Even fewer people would read. Definitely can't be a good thing. Destroys culture. Fewer students would grow up with an interest in literature and THEIR children wouldn't read.
English Language: Who is going to teach English? English language is a very good degree for the thousands of editors, writers, copywriters, publishers etc.
History: Well, the fewer people there are who learn history, the greater number of people there are who are doomed to repeat it. So that can't be good.
Psychology: Not a humanity. It's half science, half social science. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Nothing much would happen if less people took it besides what it says in the top paragraph, simply because there are just not enough psychology related jobs to go around. However, psychology is important for jobs like marketing etc.
Sociology: Not a humanity. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Sociologists go on to be vital contributors to social policy.
Politics: Not a humanity. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Often politics students go into social policy.
Philosophy: Makes people more intelligent, critical thinkers. Philosophy is what founded society so it's probably not a good idea to lose it.
Geography: Not a humanity. It's a complex science / social science. Arguably the most important of all the degrees listed to retain students. Geographers become vital members of society working on vital parts of infrastructure. Geographers go into environmental science, urban planning, social policy, computer mapping, immigration planning, academia (e.g. economic geography, health geography) to name a tiny number of things (aside from teaching). It also teaches people a lot about the world, about economies and is generally an extremely useful asset to society. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. To lose it would be bad.
RE: Nothing much would happen. Probably does more harm than good.
I sincerely doubt that because someone's parent read Literature they would read and vice versa.
Original post by Tweedy
Edit: Putting to one side the issue of who would ever have the authority to decide which degrees were 'useful', and which ones weren't...
1) The sciences are already heavily funded, particularly at postgrad level, while those seeking to become experts in their field are limited by crippling fees.
2) Such a system would immediately move the arts out of the realms of accessibility for less wealthy students, and leave it the privilege of those who could fund their education themselves.
Establishing a hierarchy like that would force the less affluent into fields in which they may not excel, limit their future prospects and their chances of fulfilment, and create an even greater class divide in the education system.
1) The sciences are already heavily funded, particularly at postgrad level, while those seeking to become experts in their field are limited by crippling fees.
2) Such a system would immediately move the arts out of the realms of accessibility for less wealthy students, and leave it the privilege of those who could fund their education themselves.
Establishing a hierarchy like that would force the less affluent into fields in which they may not excel, limit their future prospects and their chances of fulfilment, and create an even greater class divide in the education system.
I didn't say that arts subjects wouldn't be funded. Subjects such as history, english etc. are beneficial to the student and to society and can lead to employment in a number of fields. So I have no problem funding them. What I would be doing is limiting subjects that are taken just for an easy ride or as a leisure activity to the upper classes, which I take no issue with.
Original post by ilickbatteries
Now, I'm not personally saying we should do this (turkeys don't vote for Christmas and all that) but what would happen if we, say, massively reduced the amount of university places for degrees like
[...]
Degrees that are generally essay based and don't prepare you for an exact job.
Seems to me as if we're just sending too many people to university to do these kind of degrees, to go into jobs that are non-subject specific generic graduate jobs.
Now, I know we need English teachers, and RE teachers, and history teachers and geography teachers etc so yeah the subjects have some use, but do we really need as many English Literature graduates as we have? Do we need so many historians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, etc?
What do you think? What would be the ramifications of this if we took 60% of the places on these degrees away and put the extra funding into subjects like maths, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, biomedical science, other STEM subjects and so on
[...]
Degrees that are generally essay based and don't prepare you for an exact job.
Seems to me as if we're just sending too many people to university to do these kind of degrees, to go into jobs that are non-subject specific generic graduate jobs.
Now, I know we need English teachers, and RE teachers, and history teachers and geography teachers etc so yeah the subjects have some use, but do we really need as many English Literature graduates as we have? Do we need so many historians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, etc?
What do you think? What would be the ramifications of this if we took 60% of the places on these degrees away and put the extra funding into subjects like maths, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, biomedical science, other STEM subjects and so on
I don't think the number of places on humanities courses is something to change by government decree, but the changes in student loans may well bring about the situation that you are looking for. My friends are certainly thinking about what sort of career they'll have when they graduate, and are steering towards 'practical' subjects.
Original post by tory88
I didn't say that arts subjects wouldn't be funded. Subjects such as history, english etc. are beneficial to the student and to society and can lead to employment in a number of fields. So I have no problem funding them. What I would be doing is limiting subjects that are taken just for an easy ride or as a leisure activity to the upper classes, which I take no issue with.
Well this thread is about the humanities and the OP mentions the likes of History, English Literature, Philosophy and Geography so it's not unreasonable if people think these are the subjects you're referring to.
As for funding you did clearly say you would make useful degrees such as science free and those that aren't useful won't be subsidised at all. This useless degrees may not be subjects such as History and English, but you surely had some subjects in mind. As a result, you're putting these degrees out of reach of some students.
What subjects are taken for an "easy ride", then? And who is to decide how "useful" a degree is?
Original post by .Scout.
Just because degrees such as English Literature, History, Philosophy don't lead to an exact career, it doesn't mean that that aren't useful.
In fact, this is what makes them so good as graduates can then go in to pretty much any field they like such as the media, publishing or even go on to take law conversion courses. Would you say that these fields aren't useful? No.
In fact, this is what makes them so good as graduates can then go in to pretty much any field they like such as the media, publishing or even go on to take law conversion courses. Would you say that these fields aren't useful? No.
Yes, but at the moment, we're funding university places, along with loans, grants etc to students who are doing degrees that they don't need and that we, as a country, don't need.
Too many people go to university, and, in my opinion they go for the wrong reasons.
People go to university because it's the done thing, or because they don't want to feel left out when all their friends go, or they're spoon-fed school and college propaganda that the only way to a good career is to go to university, because people with a degree earn X amount more per year.
What they don't tell you at school is that yeah, some people with a degree do earn more. Specifically the people with a degree that is needed in industry and actually commands some respect.
A manager at a place I worked (where the management was done with a graduate recruitment scheme) had a media degree. Why did she need a media degree? What did she do with it? She applied for the grad scheme. Three years learning something that wasn't applied when running a local Boots store.
Granted - having educated people in every academic field is a good thing. There is a need for a small amount of, say, sociologists. I know that the civil service have some in their employ. I know that academic research that has some bearing on government policy is conducted by sociologists and psychologists, etc.
We'll always need some English graduates to teach English, etc and so on, but we don't need the massive amount of humanities graduates that universities spew out each year. They're a drain on the taxpayer to maintain and to teach for three years, then they're a drain on the taxpayer when they can't get jobs after graduating. Those who do probably get jobs at places where you don't even need a degree.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- In your opinion, is it cruel to vacuum a spider & why?
- Worried my boss will be angry
- A level politics help
- Is Elon Musk right? AI will replace all jobs?
- What does ‘probably best’ mean here?
- Why are uni dropouts looked down on?
- will university find out in future if someone uses CHATGPT
- Getting rid of fruitflies
- unmarked school work
- how to fix my boyfriend’s smelly house?
- TOF Mass Spec
- True or false - non-STEM degrees are a waste of time?
- scared my friends are going to leave me now a levels are ending
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- What degree do you have no respect for?
- can i remove a gcse?
- Postgraduate Grade Worries
- Can some one mark my English literature essay
- maths gcse question
- Free ocr biology and chemistry book
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 ?
