Have degrees become too common?

Scroll to see replies

In the current century we live in, it is becoming increasingly evident the value academia plays in being successful as far entrepreneurship is concerned. In other words, degrees in itself is useless.

Reply 61

darkvibes

Original post by Josb

You're right, Mr. Genius.

I know

Reply 62

macromicro

Original post by Josb

Someone won't be more intelligent by studying a degree, especially if it's media studies at an ex-poly.

Yes they will. Education increases intelligence.

Original post by Josb

you seem to think that a degree automatically gives a good job.

I've been saying the exact opposite:

Unfortunately today degrees have become synonymous with jobs which is where this confusion in value has come from. Degrees are not a ticket for a job.

Original post by Josb

I never said that universities aren't useful for technological progress, etc. But I fail to see the usefulness of universities that give Mickey Mouse degrees and make very little research. Fifty universities and a hundred of technical schools would be better imo..

People are born with differing levels of congenital intelligence and are nurtured with different levels of increased intelligence. A difficult degree to one person is easy to another and vice-versa. What is important is that the individual's intelligence is improved through study of a subject they are interested in.

Reply 63

macromicro

Original post by ULTRALIGHT BEAM

In the current century we live in, it is becoming increasingly evident the value academia plays in being successful as far entrepreneurship is concerned. In other words, degrees in itself is useless.

You think increased intelligence and skillsets are useless for an entrepreneur? You should have a look at the most influential human being alive today:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

Reply 64

username2281157

Original post by Stk1010

Degrees used to be for the rich and well-educated class of society. Anybody who had a degree was highly sought after. If you had a degree you were pretty much set for life. Fast forward to the present and degrees are dished out to pretty much anyone and everyone.
The majority of my year at school went on to university and I think this is the case for most schools nowadays.
There's pretty much a course for anything you can think of and entry requirements are much lower than they used to be, not to mention student finance and government grants; universities are pretty much open to anyone. Don't get me wrong, I believe that everyone has the right to be educated to whatever level they desire. However, I've noticed that degrees just don't offer the security that they used to anymore because they've become so common, meaning it's difficult to stand out. I know from my own experience and from my friends that employers don't just want someone with a degree nowadays, they want someone with real work experience and because graduate jobs are so competitive now most graduates end up in entry level roles with no relevance to their degree anyway, which they could've got without a degree.

It seems to me like the whole system has become a bit of a shambles. I'm interested to see what other people think about this and whether anyone agrees.

Posted from TSR Mobile

True. A degree from any random uni isn't very helpful and not worth the cost. That's why getting into a top university is so important

Reply 65

ULTRALIGHT BEAM

Original post by macromicro

You think increased intelligence and skillsets are useless for an entrepreneur? You should have a look at the most influential human being alive today:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

You really think his physics degree from whatever university (Stanford is it?) turned him into a $15,000,000 business magnate and one of the most influential figures of today? Come one, you must be simply stupid or trolling.

Reply 66

ULTRALIGHT BEAM

In a world increasingly influenced by technological advancement and progression, if you are not creating or idealising, then your contribution to society is absent. STEM degrees (especially Engineering obviously) will be the ones most valued. Don't believe me? Name any magnates that isn't are pure virtuosos

Reply 67

macromicro

Original post by ULTRALIGHT BEAM

He did two degrees: physics then economics, and has talked more than once about their influence on his life as an entrepreneur in the aerospace and motor industries.

You've also missed out some zeros!

Reply 68

macromicro

Original post by ULTRALIGHT BEAM

Reid Hoffman. Philosopher turned LinkedIn founder.

Are the creative industries not creating?

I agree that STEM directly leads to progression. However, art and culture is essential for the journey. The aim is not just to progress humanity and understand the universe but to also enjoy the ride. All subjects are contributions to the tapestry of the human race, but yes we must focus on STEM for progression.

Reply 69

Nameless Ghoul

Original post by Stk1010

This is the other thing - I've noticed that more people are studying Masters also.
Surely this isn't good for our economy? I mean, obviously it has personal financial benefits (or does it!?) but, the sooner people get into full time work, the better?

When people get into FT work, they will start to pay all those debts off. Which is good.

Reply 70

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Stk1010

Degrees used to be for the rich and well-educated class of society.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That isn't a good thing. Now we have a much more fair footing.

Reply 71

Stk1010

Original post by Nameless Ghoul

When people get into FT work, they will start to pay all those debts off. Which is good.

Yes, they'll start to pay all those debts off... but will they ever actually pay them all off? I think the average student comes out of university with about 40k debt. What are the chances that they're going to pay all of this off? Highly unlikely I think.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 72

Nameless Ghoul

Original post by Stk1010

Do they need to pay them all off in order for the economy to be benefited? Don't confuse the two points here a) whether people will pay all of the loans back and b) whether the economy will benefit. They are distinct issues.

Reply 73

username738914

I think there are two perspectives to this question.

1. More people graduating every year from institutions that are not normally producers of top talent in the graduate market place find it hard to get even as much as a foot hold onto a 'grad level' job.

Most employers recruiting for graduate jobs already find that they have enough 'quality' applications from higher tier universities, there is no reason for them to then extend their resources to find the diamonds in the rough. So what happens here is, people going to university with the aim of breaking into their field (or any grad level field) find it impossible and have to settle for low(er) quality jobs.

Even the graduates from supposedly higher tier institutions with more stringent entry requirements, more difficult content etc, find it difficult to land on their feet immediately because of how employers weed out an already narrow pool of applicants with interviews, tests and other recruiting tactics.

In this case, I'd say there should be fewer 'academic' universities offering generalis degrees. The non-academic institutions should be solely focused on training their graduates for lower tier white collar work - like admin, being a receptionist etc.

2. Arguably, more universities benefits the country. A large and prosperous higher ed sector draws international students to the country - providing an influx of tax revenue (from fees, tourism, shopping etc), even more potential research talent, and a cultural contribution. Our higher ed sector is also a major employer of local talent, and not to mention graduates of the universities themselves. So one can argue that having as many higher ed institutions as we do, is a net positive to the economy rather than a detractor.

Young British people are also put to work, learning and developing themselves rather than bumming around being on the dole. It's a sort of right of passage that Britons go through before entering the real world, and in that passage they grow and develop at a phenomenal pace.

More of such developed graduates, regardless of where the work, will be more effective at thinking about things from a broader view rather than being lazer focused. I.e. society, as a whole, would greatly benefit from more educated and learned individuals.

In this case, the trend of educating more young people is a positive.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 74

username738914

Original post by JohnGreek

Then get a good degree from a good uni

/thread

Til they get wiped out by some BS numerical test or phone interview, sure.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 75

Stk1010

Original post by Nameless Ghoul

Whether the economy will benefit is simply impossible to answer, however, I think the economy would benefit more so if people went straight into full time work/apprenticeships rather than spending three years studying (unless their desired career insisted on having a degree).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 76

Nameless Ghoul

Original post by Stk1010

Unexplained supposition.

Reply 77

Stk1010

Original post by Nameless Ghoul

Unexplained supposition.

But most likely true nonetheless.

Reply 78

Josb

Original post by macromicro

People are born with differing levels of congenital intelligence and are nurtured with different levels of increased intelligence. A difficult degree to one person is easy to another and vice-versa. What is important is that the individual's intelligence is improved through study of a subject they are interested in.

What I'm saying is that many students are inadequate for traditional university degrees, but they still enroll because the offer of vocational courses is very limited. Not everybody can succeed at university.
Going to university should only be one option among others, not the only way.

Reply 79

TimmonaPortella

I suppose from an external perspective it would look like we have a lot of totally non-academically inclined people spending three years and a pile of sort-of borrowed money engaged in often less than half hearted academia, which might seem a bit silly. So I think in that sense at least they are too common.