"Far from being worthless, the more unusual degrees are proving a hit with employers"

Want to come and study engineering at Imperial and then tell me its not fully academic?

And that adversely affects you, how?

Civil engineering and mechanical engineering. Sure. I appreciate the mathematical sides to the subject but there are vocational elements to them that cannot be discounted, though the amount of vocational elements appear to vary between each institution, which can be reflected by those who make offers for further maths 'A' level or not.

Don't know why you're sticking up for LSE's accounting degree, not that I have any issues with the degree personally. But as it is a degree that is specific to a career I would think it would be in the same bracket as computer game programming or golf management.

Why not? 3-4 out of 20? How much choice did you get in your GCSEs, 0? University, 5-6 out of 15-20?

Also how can you compare people (which are what qualifications are for) if we create a new qualification every time someone doesnt want to study from the original list?!

Because more people have degrees, for graduate schemes they are (initially) viewed the same, therefore having a degree is no longer valued. Its now about WHERE you got your degree from.

Yes, of course it is....

You're wrong there. LSE's accounting and finance degree is on a virtual parallel to the economics degree in the first year (having known numerous people who've been able to transfer from accounting & finance to economics after their first year). Put it this way. a computer game programming degree is specific to computer game programming. A golf management degree is specific towards golf management. An accounting & finance degree from the LSE is both relevant and academic enough to land you in a job in accounting, finance, consultancy, advising, banking, investment banking, administration and management.

I've quite clearly shown you what a real degree is. That Abertway course is not of degree level and does not deserve the title 'degree'.

If people think computer games programming is "mickey mouse" they don't know whats involved.
Modern games programmers need to know software engineering, c++ a difficult language, A.I techniques, maths and tons more.

Anybody that can develop games will be able to work in the entire software development industry.

No they arent

Computer Games Programming is basically for people who couldnt hack a real Computer Science degree because of the maths. Its like someone who wants to design cars, they dont want to do the engineering, they just want to draw the pretty pictures....

But if you're going to delve into semantics, some funding will be diverted towards 'gold management' research as opposed to biological research, which would adversely affect the whole of the public.

I doubt they were referring to Beckham studies

That's very kind of you.

You're still missing the point completely, I'm afraid. This isn't about trying to establish which degree is objectively "better", it's about the question whether highly specialised vocational courses are inherently inferior to more general courses in which the subject is treated in a more abstract manner. And the answer to that has to be "no, they're not", because it's comparing apples and oranges.
All you've done there is list module names, and all that tells us is that one of the courses is specifically geared towards the development of games - which doesn't really come as much of a surprise...

Its tells us that they hardly do anything and what they study over 4 years, isnt even anywhere near the quality of a real 3 year degree!

BTEC game design, maybe - degree, nope

Perhaps because I wouldn't WANT to do one of a small choice of 20 qualifications?

Not everyone likes the same thing

and not everyone is willing to waste over £20k just 'settling' for one of twenty qualifications.

Since when did a degree have to be about comparing people? I couldn't care less how I'm 'compared' to others with mine - the course gave me the education, which was what I paid for.

Does that not tell you how wrong you are, then? If the degrees are viewed as equal in value from those requiring them, then surely you should pay attention to that?

And, if a degree is now about WHERE you got it from, why is that a problem? Go get your widely-taught degree from a top university, and surely there's no problem?

Well, I'm sure everyone's very sorry that your degree has been dumbed down.

Is there a particular reason why you're replying to a post of mine which you already replied to yesterday?

Idiotic. Do you notice the way that games can look like real life, the world created can have the same physics as we have on earth? Do you think that happens by accident, or do you think that possibly there is alot of mathematical equations going on in the background....?

Ok i was actually being sarcastic, i went to the 6th best university in the world (2008)....

No, you haven't shown any of that. What you've got isn't even a proper argument. All you're doing is reiterating your statement that it's a worthless course because it's different from your own, as though constant repetition could turn a personal prejudice into an objective truth

Why 'therefore'? It doesn't follow at all.

That doesn't necessarily make it a bad course.

Oh come on now, don't be silly.

Abertay grads chose their course because they wanted to work in a very specific sector, and since the respective industries have a say in the structure of this type of professional course, it's probably fair to say that they can do what their course prepared them to do.

That's a ridiculous statement. Just what makes you so sure that all Abertay graduates will lack any transferable skills whatsoever and that all Imperial graduates will have them in abundance, purely by virtue of having been to Imperial?

If you genuinely believe all of that, though, it's pointless arguing with you, in which case I'm sorry I even bothered.

Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley?

I didn't say richest....

THES 2008