Turn on thread page Beta

Would scrappng 'mickey mouse degrees' solve the funding crisis? watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    You're still not listening are you?

    Im saying this as i know its the rule. Oxbridge dont mind you having one of your 3 subjects being mickey-mouse (atleast they didnt a few years ago) so long as you still have 2 traditional subjects.

    So, yet again, if 2/3 of your A Level subjects were mickey mouse, you WOULDNT have got your offer, no matter if they did give you a sodding offer with one of the mickey mouse subjects in there!!!!!

    Which is why you do not see 3 subjects in the 'essential' column:
    http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/under...nts/table.html
    *yawn*

    I don't really understand why you're having such a difficult time with this concept.

    Yes, I'm well aware of Oxford's rules regarding admission, having successfully gone through the process. :rolleyes: In case you've not noticed, I've never actually claimed that I would have received an offer if my other two subjects hadn't been academically stronger. I repeat, Subject A > Subject B =/= 'Subject B is worthless'.

    The point (for the third time) is that you cannot claim a subject is 'worthless' if it is counted as one of the A-grades.

    I would not have got in simply based on my other A-grades. They wanted three. They were perfectly happy to accept Film as the third. Ergo, it was not a 'pointless' subject.

    I don't see how that can be so hard for you to grasp.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Since when was 50/120 a quarter?
    It doesnt really matter. The point was about a certain number.


    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    I never made a distincion between arts and sciences?
    I never said anything about you.


    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    The majority of people who study Film and Media at A Level as well as degree ARE less academic? Also, thats not the reason the subjects are useless. They aren't useless as a subject, they are useless as a degree.

    And so because they are less academic their subject deserves very little credibility?

    Also, why are they useless as a degree? Some of the topic need three years to learn about. I guarantee a film studies graduate could outsmart you with very little problem in a conversation centered around film.

    Film is an art. And deserves just as much importance as one.


    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    You say this and how many employers do you know exactly? My friend runs his own business, he didnt go to university but he needs to recruit graduates and he told me he didnt have a clue which were the proper universities and which werent. Also, how do smaller companies with a small budget and just one person doing the HR know the reputation of universities?
    Well then no offense, then your friend isnt very knowledgeable, and really should know this stuff. The vast majority of the people I know have rough idea of what universities are good and what arnt. Anyone you ask will tell you oxford and cambridge are good universities, and the vast majority know that Imperial and UCL are good as well. An employer who doesnt have a rough idea of what Universities are the top universities, or particularly what universities are the best in the field they are looking for, they are not very good employers.



    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Firstly, i'd look in the Times and not the Guardian. Secondly, if its an arts subject its likely to be more similar. The sciences are the ones which greatly differ between top and bottom unis.
    I'd imagine the sciences don't differ as greatly as you would think. My course is a science course.



    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Average starting salaries:

    Imperial College, Computing: 35,000
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6832285.ece

    what's the corresponding average starting salary at Hull, Wolv and Bradford?
    So starting salaries are higher from better universities, correct.

    People from lower end universities still get jobs, and can still go on to do well in their careers. Their degrees are still valued and employers will still be looking for people with their degree subjects. Obviously the best companies with the highest salaries will hire from the best universities because they want the highest standards.

    Anyway, that shows that employers do know what degrees are worth what. And that High end university degrees are worth more.

    Either way my point still stands.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *pitseleh*)
    The point (for the third time) is that you cannot claim a subject is 'worthless' if it is counted as one of the A-grades.

    I would not have got in simply based on my other A-grades. They wanted three. They were perfectly happy to accept Film as the third. Ergo, it was not a 'pointless' subject.
    You're trying to act clever and its really not working......

    You applied to Oxford with 3 A Levels, they liked you at interview and wanted to give you an offer.

    What were they going to do? Tell you to swap one of your A Levels with 5 months left before exams? No, just tell you to get AAA in your 3 subjects.

    How many A2s did you apply with?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W-Three)
    I guarantee a film studies graduate could outsmart you with very little problem in a conversation centered around film.
    and i bet i could give sensible guesses to half of their degree content. Could they give sensible guesses to half of a top uni 'proper degree' course?

    My point is common sense isnt to be rewarded with a degree.


    (Original post by W-Three)
    Well then no offense, then your friend isnt very knowledgeable, and really should know this stuff. The vast majority of the people I know have rough idea of what universities are good and what arnt. Anyone you ask will tell you oxford and cambridge are good universities, and the vast majority know that Imperial and UCL are good as well. An employer who doesnt have a rough idea of what Universities are the top universities, or particularly what universities are the best in the field they are looking for, they are not very good employers.
    'Employer' is not a special word which can only refer to a company with a minimum of 10,000 employees. You do realise 'Employer' refers to any person who needs to hire someone. If your neighbour needed to hire a graduate, would they know just how intellient someone who studied MORSE at Warwick was (as opposed to say another Warwick course)? Did you even know how tough the MORSE course is? No? You arent very knowledgeable then......... see my point?

    Everyone has heard of Oxbridge, it may (not) surprise you every person hasn't heard of UCL and you need to remember that its not just investment banks who employ people. Some HR people are just girls in their twenties desperate for a job during the recession.... and you assume they're clued-up experts on British universities.....

    How can someone (who didnt go to university) compare universities..... by looking at a league table and assuming Lancaster is better than LSE (as per the Guardian 2011 league table)?


    (Original post by W-Three)
    So starting salaries are higher from better universities, correct.
    Roughly true, but not always- Oxbridge is lower than Imperial/LSE because of the London factor.

    (Original post by W-Three)
    People from lower end universities still get jobs, and can still go on to do well in their careers.
    Firstly not all of them do. Secondly how many get jobs in something they could have done straight after GCSEs or A Levels?

    When we've a national debt approaching a trillion pounds i cant quite see the silver lining in the Government subsidising 10,000 on a student's degree over 3-4 years, for them to work in a call centre or McDonalds behind a till...... better yet, on the dole.

    I'd say out of the 60 friends from my sixth form (that i know the job destinations of) half of them arent even in a graduate job... the point of the Government subsiding their degree was what exactly?

    We dont have much money, therefore we need to stop paying for people to do a degree and end up in phones4u or McDonalds.

    Economics is about infinite wants with finite resources, we need to spend the finite resources on those who will make the most of university and find the correct education/training for those who wouldnt fully utilise it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    and i bet i could give sensible guesses to half of their degree content. Could they give sensible guesses to half of a top uni 'proper degree' course?

    My point is common sense isnt to be rewarded with a degree.
    Could you?

    Can you guess whats in a fine art course? Probaly.

    You know its to do with art, and you could probaly have a guess at interpretations and techniques. But you don't learn terminology, advanced techniques on how to direct, script write and handle a camera just from guesswork.


    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    'Employer' is not a special word which can only refer to a company with a minimum of 10,000 employees. You do realise 'Employer' refers to any person who needs to hire someone. If your neighbour needed to hire a graduate, would they know just how intellient someone who studied MORSE at Warwick was (as opposed to say another Warwick course)? Did you even know how tough the MORSE course is? No? You arent very knowledgeable then......... see my point?

    Everyone has heard of Oxbridge, it may (not) surprise you every person hasn't heard of UCL and you need to remember that its not just investment banks who employ people. Some HR people are just girls in their twenties desperate for a job during the recession.... and you assume they're clued-up experts on British universities.....

    How can someone (who didnt go to university) compare universities..... by looking at a league table and assuming Lancaster is better than LSE (as per the Guardian 2011 league table)?
    No I see your point. But I still say that any employer who doesnt have a rough idea of what universities are best, or cannot be bothered to check the best university in the fields they require are not doing their job properly. An employer should know what caliber of employee they want, if they need someone who has a degree in mathematics, then thats all they need to know. If they need someone who is very good at mathematics, they look up the best universities for the subject. Simple.

    If you not putting much effort into knowing what value your employees qualifications have, then you it either doesnt matter, or your not going to be employing graduates.

    My point is, if the employer doesnt know the difference between university courses and universities, then it obviously doesnt matter to them who got what degree from where.

    Also, I should also add that just because you went to university doesnt mean you know anything about other universities outside the one you went too.



    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Roughly true, but not always- Oxbridge is lower than Imperial/LSE because of the London factor.
    So in other words location is important as well, not just quality of education. Good.


    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Firstly not all of them do. Secondly how many get jobs in something they could have done straight after GCSEs or A Levels?
    No they dont, but not everyone from higher end universities get great jobs either.

    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    When we've a national debt approaching a trillion pounds i cant quite see the silver lining in the Government subsidising 10,000 on a student's degree over 3-4 years, for them to work in a call centre or McDonalds behind a till...... better yet, on the dole.
    Thats a problem with the students themselves, and the attitude of people today then the universities themselves. Because some graduates go on to work in a call center, Mcdonalds or sit on the dole, is not a good reason to scrap low end universities or Film and Media courses. I do however, agree, that some courses *are* useless.

    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    I'd say out of the 60 friends from my sixth form (that i know the job destinations of) half of them arent even in a graduate job... the point of the Government subsiding their degree was what exactly?
    What universities did they go to? What courses did they study? What did they get from it?

    The Government subsidizing their degree was give them a chance to make something of themselves, this doesnt always happen however. Especially if you dont work hard at uni, like a lot of people don't. But consider all the people that went to college and got jobs that didnt require the A-Levels they got, should they scrap that too?


    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Economics is about infinite wants with finite resources, we need to spend the finite resources on those who will make the most of university and find the correct education/training for those who wouldnt fully utilise it.
    I inclined to agree. However, removing lower end universities and removing certain courses you dont deem 'real' while still keeping high end university requirements very high is not the way to go.

    Like I said, lower end universities give people who didn't do well on their A-Levels another chance to make something of themselves. In other words without them so many more people would be on the dole, working badly paid jobs and leading lives they wish they could change.

    If you were to reduce the number of universities there were I would recommend having a simple summer course which anyone could attend if its been more than a year since the left college. If they show they work hard and get good grades, they can be allowed into university. Just not the best of the best.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    You're trying to act clever and its really not working......

    You applied to Oxford with 3 A Levels, they liked you at interview and wanted to give you an offer.

    What were they going to do? Tell you to swap one of your A Levels with 5 months left before exams? No, just tell you to get AAA in your 3 subjects.

    How many A2s did you apply with?
    No - I'm merely explaining something very straightforward to one who is apparently quite simple. I'm afraid this just a case of you being obtuse.

    I applied post A-level, so your scenario is irrelevant. I have four A-levels, one of which was a B-grade. But for what it's worth - yes, of course they could have told me I needed to change one of my subjects. A university like Oxford isn't exactly going to rue letting one under-qualified student slip through the net.

    You're still missing the point; if Film had been a 'worthless' subject, they would have told me I didn't meet the entry requirements - end of.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *pitseleh*)
    You're still missing the point; if Film had been a 'worthless' subject, they would have told me I didn't meet the entry requirements - end of.
    Are you suggesting no 'mickey mouse' A Level is pointless from Oxford perception, because it was part of your offer?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W-Three)
    ...
    Will reply later, just off to the gym
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 3, 2010
The home of Results and Clearing

2,684

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.