How to stop people doing pointless degrees Watch

This discussion is closed.
sliceofcake
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
I think one way of stopping people doing pointless degrees is to stop viewing them as pointless. Get your nose out of their business and their degree will mean exactly what the student wants the degree to mean for them.
Let me guess, you don't want your taxes to pay for my arts degree? I don't want my taxes paying for your ego.
20
username1230881
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
(Original post by BioStudentx)
English is pointless. Take the Shakespeare bull**** out of the curriculum and just teach students how to argue, persuade and write. We don't need to analyse how red curtains foreshadow the death of his mum or some BS like that. And yes we would have lawyers, because students are graduating from Oxbridge every year. And yes, doing a STEM subject at Oxbridge does make you superior to doing a English degree at Manchester.
Perhaps in your opinion English is useless, but many people disagree. Just because you don't find literature worthwhile doesn't mean it's 'pointless' - the analytical skills that an English course are useful.
0
Sheepmaster317
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
Lol at the idea of Economics being a pointless degree.
18
username1399980
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by BioStudentx)
English is pointless. Take the Shakespeare bull**** out of the curriculum and just teach students how to argue, persuade and write. We don't need to analyse how red curtains foreshadow the death of his mum or some BS like that. And yes we would have lawyers, because students are graduating from Oxbridge every year. And yes, doing a STEM subject at Oxbridge does make you superior to doing a English degree at Manchester.
So because you are a cultural philistine you want to make the rest of the world that way?

The world would be a very sad place if there was no appreciation of anything beyond STEM-

"There's more to life than books you know- but not much" !
0
Paralove
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by BioStudentx)
I'll quickly rephrase.
Well aren't you just hilarious.

I'm at Cambridge.
3
German123
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
Every degree is useful to an extent.
0
The_Blade
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
They are not pointless. Yes some of then don't contribute to advancing the world we live in, research or aid people in anyway but I suppose you really have excel in a subject like art or dance to make something out of it

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Pointless - having little or no sense, use, or purpose.

All degrees have a point.
Yeah, making money for the university. And that is what those 'pointless' degrees do. Unis would do the same with medicine (because it's popular) if it was not regulated by the government and was not such an important job.
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
(Original post by Tronick)
The government could limit the places on these courses like they do for medicine?


Posted from TSR Mobile
It won't. These low-cost courses are popular thus make more money for unis thus unis benefit and so does the government by being able to claim that lots of their students are "in uni". There is not a case to make for limiting places.
0
hellodave5
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by Juichiro)
OP, you really make no sense. If you truly believe that a STEM degree will get you a well paid job and you love your STEM subject, it is irrational to want to encourage more people to do STEM because it will make it harder for you to get your well paid job in STEM.

I can only think that you are either jealous of sociology/art/psychology folks or you don't enjoy your STEM as much as you imply you do.
Wat. Psychology isn't stem? o.O :P
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
"Biostudent". I take it you're studying biology? Are you taking out your frustration that the other STEM students don't take your subject seriously on the arts students?
1
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by hellodave5)
Wat. Psychology isn't stem? o.O :P
The definition of STEM is a bit vague. But it is Sciences Technology Engineering and Maths. By Science, it is not meant all the sciences. It is only meant the 3 hard sciences: Chemistry, Physics and Biology. So when the goverment/industry says they are gonna invest on STEM, they don't meant to invest on sciences other than the 3 above.

So nope, stuff like Psychology, Sociology, Linguistics, Anthropology and the like are not part of the "Sciences" component of STEM.
0
hellodave5
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
(Original post by Juichiro)
The definition of STEM is a bit vague. But it is Sciences Technology Engineering and Maths. By Science, it is not meant all the sciences. It is only meant the 3 hard sciences: Chemistry, Physics and Biology. So when the goverment/industry says they are gonna invest on STEM, they don't meant to invest on sciences other than the 3 above.

So nope, stuff like Psychology, Sociology, Linguistics, Anthropology and the like are not part of the "Sciences" component of STEM.
Ah gotcha. I have always found the STEM definition as really arbitrary... as it leaves out many sciences.
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
(Original post by hellodave5)
Ah gotcha. I have always found the STEM definition as really arbitrary... as it leaves out many sciences.
Yeah, the only point of STEM was to make a group of subjects that industry needs a large pool of candidates of. Because when not enough people study these subjects, not enough people are qualified thus having a small pool of candidates which means they have to offer them high wages in order to fight off other competitors for the same pool. The way I see it, the STEM movement is just an attempt to grow this pool of candidates so that companies can pay lower wages to the candidates and increase their power of candidate selection.
2
BioStudentx
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#35
(Original post by Juichiro)
Nope, it is just another version of your own high fees for everyone argument. Your point was that people doing "pointless" subjects raises the fees for everyone. My point was that if these people don't go to uni to do these "pointless" subjects, universities won't get as much money meaning that they won't be able to afford some of the equipment needed for the hard sciences. Plus, all these people not going to uni would be doing low paid jobs which as I said would not cover the costs of starting a family which is something many of these peeps would do. Thus, they would claim benefits and make the government divert uni funding towards covering these benefit claimants. This is not something you would want. On top of this, low paid jobs are related to experiencing mental illness which would mean that the government would spend more money on also treating their mental illnesses. And if a poor socioeconomic background is breeding ground for anti-social behaviour that is even more money that the government needs to divert from things like universities' funding to tackle these anti-social lowly educated lowly paid young peeps.
Well if they pay for their uni using loans that they don't pay back then the uni isn't really profiting? Of course, they will spend some of their own money but not as much as people who pay loans back. And people going to uni doing art get low paid jobs anyway so why waste years on uni. Again, I also believe that if someone starts a family without the financial ability to pay for their children then it's their problem - not ours.
0
Josb
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
I still think he has a point. There are too many universities and graduates in the Arts. I never understood why John Major granted uni status to the Polytechnics. Successful countries like Germany or Switzerland have less students and stronger vocational degrees, and therefore enjoys lower youth unemployment.
0
BioStudentx
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#37
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by Freudian Slip)
You started a childish bait thread, I was merely responding in kind. 'English' covers a stupidly broad spectrum, which your narrow-minded view negates, if you're going to argue that something's pointless, I'd narrow it down a bit more than 'just all of English, lol'.

Also, your earlier 'autistic English teacher' comment was enough to make me think you're probably a bit of a ****, so I couldn't care less if my response is 'childish'.
No you put words into my mouth by implying that I think all of English is pointless.
0
Freudian Slip
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
(Original post by BioStudentx)
No you put words into my mouth by implying that I think all of English is pointless.
:lolwut:

You stated as much in your OP.

Whatever, go forth and become a success, prove me wrong - I'm rooting for you. :thumbsup:
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
(Original post by BioStudentx)
1. Well if they pay for their uni using loans that they don't pay back then the uni isn't really profiting? Of course, they will spend some of their own money but not as much as people who pay loans back. 2.And people going to uni doing art get low paid jobs anyway so why waste years on uni. Again, I also believe that 3. if someone starts a family without the financial ability to pay for their children then it's their problem - not ours.
1. Yes, it is. That is why they do it. The government and not the uni is the one who lends the money.

2. Yes, they do but the university that purchases the STEM equipment you love and use benefits in the process. And you (and othe STEM folks) also benefit in the process. Their years in uni are valuable to you for a purely economic reason. What they do after uni is of no interest to you from an economic standpoint. They did what they wanted, you got what you wanted, unis got what they wanted. All happy.

3. The government has a social welfare plan to care for them. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. The government pays them and it uses some of your taxes to do it. Not saying that this is your problem but just saying how their actions might eventually affect whether or not you get that shiny hot STEM equipment you need to do high-quality STEM research.
1
BioStudentx
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#40
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#40
(Original post by Freudian Slip)
:lolwut:

You stated as much in your OP.

Whatever, go forth and become a success, prove me wrong - I'm rooting for you. :thumbsup:
I'll do you proud.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (67)
23.18%
No (222)
76.82%

Watched Threads

View All