The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why does the government fund pointless degrees

Scroll to see replies

Student loans are such a ball ache, i literally have no idea what I will be paying back. It's never made clear and 3/4's of us will reach our 50s without paying it back.

http://www.bondpayrollservices.co.uk/student-debt-facts-infographic/
Original post by SterlingArcher
Except that they can and do make bank


prove it.

Original post by SterlingArcher
I didn't say anyone goes to uni with the intent of getting an admin job. I said people don't go necessarily to GET A JOB. I said they go there because they have an interest in the subject.


My comment wasnt in response to that. I was just making the point that nobody wants to go into admin.
Original post by SterlingArcher
You can also work for Ernst & Young without a degree so what exactly is your point? People don't necessarily go to university just to get a job. They have genuine interests in whatever they decide to study.


Well why on earth does the tax payer have to pay for some kids "interest" in some pointless degree is the question here. Why should the government have to pay around £40-50k (including maintenance) for one person who is "interested" in photography when in the future their career will not even require a degree?
Waaahh waaah. Other people have interests and careers that I don't understand and I'm too lazy to research properly....BAN THEM!

Stop being so petty and judgemental and focus on your own life instead of trying to boost your self esteem by belittling other people's choices.
Original post by Danny McCoyne
Someone needs to brush up on their maths skills.



I believe the number is accurate if you add maintenance loan to it, it adds up roughly.
Original post by Danny McCoyne
Someone needs to brush up on their maths skills.



Maintenance loan lol?
We live in fast changing times. How can you predict what technologies are going to be around in 20 years' time? How can you predict that in 20 years' time there isn't going to be a single job paying more than £21k that requires a photography degree? You can't.
Original post by intelligent con
...These literally have no value and seem to just be an excuse for people to spend 45k to get pissed for 3 years...


In all cases, not just photography or art, some will 'get pissed' while others work their a*ses off to get somewhere. It happens with loads of courses not just creative ones.

And you shouldn't really just judge qualifications as pointless when they are known as qualifications for a reason.
Original post by flippantri
Because, whilst these degrees may seem irrelevant to you, they may be relevant to others.


The point OP is trying to make is that degrees are funded by tax payers so they should get economic value in return.
Original post by Indeterminate
:lolwut:

Everyone has the right to study what they're interested in at degree level. The fact that so many people are being accommodated in this respect is a good thing! :yep:


A 'right' that exists thanks to taxpayers.


Original post by Nununu
Exactly, plus those humanities students partly subsidise us STEM students, as STEM tends to be more expensive to administer. So great going all round.


Not so great. Most unis are underfunded and the student finance system is not fit for purpose. Meanwhile, the value of degrees keep falling, uni assessments keep getting easier and the majority of students are as unemployable as they were before their degree. Oh, and the student funding money vanishes. Education is a right. A degree isn't.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Juichiro
The point OP is trying to make is that degrees are funded by tax payers so they should get economic value in return.


Those tax payers include said pointless degree people.
Original post by flippantri
Humanities are good for teaching jobs, as well as researching jobs. Is that not relevant?


No, they aren't. Some humanities degrees are good for some teaching jobs just like some STEM (if not all) are good for teaching jobs. Anyway, the vast majority of humanities grads aren't going into teaching. Else, there wouldn't be a recruitment crisis.

Original post by cranbrook_aspie
We live in fast changing times. How can you predict what technologies are going to be around in 20 years' time? How can you predict that in 20 years' time there isn't going to be a single job paying more than £21k that requires a photography degree? You can't.


By that logic, you should fund literally anything (degrees, courses, industries, development in other countries, wars, etc) because you can't prove that it won't be relevant in 20 years time. Obviously, it is a reductio ad abursudum. You only fund things that are needed now (like STEM and vocational training for plumbers and the like) or things that (according to empirical data) are likely to be needed in the near future.
Original post by Juichiro
A 'right' that exists thanks to taxpayers.




Not so great. Most unis are underfunded and the student finance system is not it for purpose. Meanwhile, the value of degrees keep falling, uni assessments keep getting easier and the majority of students are as unemployable as they were before their degree. Oh, and the student funding money vanishes. Education is a right. A degree isn't.


What are you on about?https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/432873/BIS-15-304_graduate_labour_market_statistics-January_to_March_2015.pdf
Original post by flippantri
Those tax payers include said pointless degree people.


Only some of those tax payers include these people as some of these people are unemployed. And anyway, what I said stands: The point OP is trying to make is that degrees are funded by tax payers so they should get economic value in return.
Original post by Juichiro
No, they aren't. Some humanities degrees are good for some teaching jobs just like some STEM (if not all) are good for teaching jobs. Anyway, the vast majority of humanities grads aren't going into teaching. Else, there wouldn't be a recruitment crisis.

According to whatuni, most of them go into teaching, then research. Every degree can be good for teaching, STEM is better for practical jobs. I understand you have the STEM master race mentality, but try have a bit of compassion.
Original post by PQ


Yes, you are right. More grads than non-grads are getting jobs. Surely that has nothing to do with the poor state of vocational training funding and employers asking for degrees (often any subject) in jobs that don't require them, isn't it?
Plus, you didn't address most of my answer:

Not so great. Most unis are underfunded and the student finance system is not it for purpose. Meanwhile, the value of degrees keep falling, uni assessments keep getting easier

The current system is not fit for purpose regardless of where you stand in the "pointless degree funding" debate.
What exactly counts as "a pointless degree"? Physics is pointless if you later decide you want to be a chef. Alternatively, I imagine a history degree would be incredibly useful if you plan to teach it.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Juichiro
Yes, you are right. More grads than non-grads are getting jobs. Surely that has nothing to do with the poor state of vocational training funding and employers asking for degrees (often any subject) in jobs that don't require them, isn't it?
Plus, you didn't address most of my answer:

Not so great. Most unis are underfunded and the student finance system is not it for purpose. Meanwhile, the value of degrees keep falling, uni assessments keep getting easier

The current system is not fit for purpose regardless of where you stand in the "pointless degree funding" debate.


This thread isn't about fitness for purpose of HE or grade inflation. It's about the OP wanting to remove funding from an arbitrary list of subjects at a group of universities that they have decided are "pointless ".

I'm surprised to see anyone with any understanding of HE or employability defending such a short sighted and ill informed rant.
Original post by PQ
This thread isn't about fitness for purpose of HE or grade inflation. It's about the 1. OP wanting to remove funding from an arbitrary list of subjects at a group of universities that they have decided are "pointless ".

2. I'm surprised to see anyone with any understanding of HE or employability defending such a short sighted and ill informed rant.



1. Fair enough. But the comments that I addressed were about those topics. I never made an statement for or against what the OP said.
2. If you are implying that I was defending OP's "rant", read point 1 before jumping to conclusions that don't follow.
(edited 8 years ago)
[QUOTE="flippantri;62289329"]
Original post by Juichiro
No, they aren't. Some humanities degrees are good for some teaching jobs just like some STEM (if not all) are good for teaching jobs. Anyway, the vast majority of humanities grads aren't going into teaching. Else, there wouldn't be a recruitment crisis.

According to whatuni, most of them go into teaching, then research. Every degree can be good for teaching, STEM is better for practical jobs. I understand you have the STEM master race mentality, but try have a bit of compassion.


lol I don't have the STEM race mentality. Not every degree can be good for teaching. Teaching, like any other profession, requires a very specific skill set. To imply that any degree gives you this skill set is to denigrate the teaching profession (more than it currently is). I am not trying to be mean nor am I siding with OP.

Original post by Rascacielos
What exactly counts as "a pointless degree"? Physics is pointless if you later decide you want to be a chef. Alternatively, I imagine a history degree would be incredibly useful if you plan to teach it.

Agree. That being said, physics gives you skills that are in shortage in our economy so it still makes sense to give funding for physics. On the other hand, history does not give you skills that are in shortage in our economy so it is not necessarily relevant for the funding policymakers if your career requires a history degree (unless history teachers or those with history skills - whatever that might mean - are in shortage). This being said, I think that what OP means by "pointless" is "subject that does not provide skills that are in shortage".

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you