Stop doing terrible degrees!

It will lead to nowhere unless you want to be a history teacher, a history lecturer, work in museums, in archaeology, in archives, in journalism, in publishing, if you want to write about history, if you want to be an author etc etc etc. Saying "it won't lead anywhere" is entirely dependent on what your career goals are!

It will lead to nowhere unless you want to be a history teacher, a history lecturer, work in museums, in archaeology, in archives, in journalism, in publishing, if you want to write about history, if you want to be an author etc etc etc. Saying "it won't lead anywhere" is entirely dependent on what your career goals are!

It seems that I am constantly reading threads which bundle together 'Art' and 'STEM' degrees and proceed to label one as unquestionably useless and the other as a path to riches. I imagine that most of the users on this website are still in education and thus have a limited knowledge about the world of work, myself included. As someone who is undecided in what degree to pursue, I have long debated studying history or law at university to no avail. I will (hopefully) be aiming to "top" unis, e.g. Oxbridge, St. Andrews, Durham. It seems that I am constantly confused by the conflicting arguments on this website and other forums.
On one hand, I have someone telling me that history is a useless 'liberal arts' degree, for 'lazy' people who can't handle STEM degrees, and will therefore end up unemployed, a virgin at 40 and on anti-depressants. Some also take the position that law is not on the level of these useless liberal arts, but a slight step above, nearer the pinnacle of academia which is the almighty STEM (though not quite reaching it). They emphasise how all the top positions in professions are occupied almost entirely by STEM graduates and how any liberal arts graduate is merely a benefactor of Daddy's nepotism. Furthermore, if your arts degree is not form Oxbridge, you may as well dig yourself a grave and swallow cement.
Yet, on the other hand I have people telling me that history is a very well respected degree, easily 'on the level' of subjects such as economics and maths. They tell me how many of Britain's top executives have degrees such as English and History, and how the subjects teach the student how to think laterally and critically. Often it is stated how history graduates occupy the top positions in law, banking, journalism and politics. They say how most jobs do not require a specific degree, the classification and CV are far more important. In relation to law, which I am also considering studying, they state how a graduate can simply do the GDL and therefore make themselves a competitive applicant for a legal position.
It is honestly impossible for someone like me to distinguish between who is right and who is wrong. The two groups of people contradict each other almost constantly, and when I read threads like this I just don't know who to believe. I am interested in a career in law or finance, but to be frank I am constantly changing my mind and so I am not certain on anything - this is why history appeals to me, it is flexible. In my opinion (which doesn't count for much, as I admit I know very little) I think people should do what they are 'passionate' about - but within reason. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to separate 'art' and 'STEM', for me the two are intertwined and more similar than people think - I believe Steve Jobs spoke a lot about this. My Dad is a doctor, and despite what people think about the profession, he absolutely hates it. It's stressful, most patients are an absolute nightmare and the regulations medical practitioners face now are just ridiculous. He flat out told me not to consider a medical degree. And yet, he was a very talented musician when he was younger, but he chose to study medicine instead as he knew it would lead to stable employment. He does not regret this. Unfortunately, I do think some degrees have little real world use and that is why you have to follow your passion within reason.

What about those who do your so-called bad degrees so they can then teach that subject?
I think you'll find that English teachers are pretty necessary.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I guess it's be they don't lead to a job straight away. For example with medicine you know that the student wants to end up as a doctor. His list is stupid and incredibly closed minded. Just be a language or biology doesn't lead to a specific job doesn't mean they're useless.

Yes, but if someone has identified the way in which Women's Studies can benefit their career then it is a fair choice to make. Stop making this about specific courses, it is no more silly to do a degree in Women's Studies than in Astrophysics or Quantum Mechanics if you want to be an interior designer!

Good
- Engineering
- Medicine
- Dentistry
- Veterinary Science
- Mathematics
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Economics
- Accounting
- Nursing
- Computer Science
- Law

Bad
- English
- History
- Gender Studies
- Media Studies
- Cultural Studies
- Biology
- Sociology
- Psychology
- Languages
- Theology
- Sport Science
- Business
- Design

The difference is that if by chance they decide that they dont want to be an interior designer a degree in astrophysics would probably look a lot more impressive to an employer.You can also do a lot more with that degree than womens studies due to all the highly valued numerical skills.If they decide they dont want to do interior design they could do pretty much anything from genetics to engineering and planetary science due to the transferable skills.With womens studies an employer wont be impressed and they'll probably end up working in mcdonalds or someplace similar.Furthermore they're paying 9 grand a year, astrophysics has a lot more contact hours than womens studies so the comparison is flawed.

So only astrophysics degrees have 'transferable skills'?

The interior designer could leverage their creative skills for roles within various creative sectors like advertising, marketing, creative management... They could use their conceptualising skill to work in merchandising, graphic design, their commercial skills to be a buyer..

Having a 'numerate' degree isn't the only way in life mate.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I would argue that if you want to be an interior designer then having a degree is probably not the way to go about it.You'd be much better off getting experience within that sector.You cant deny that a lot of these degrees are useless.If you want to work in television getting a degree in film studies is not going to help.Maybe back when degrees were only 3 grand a year you could argue that it doesnt matter what degree people choose as long as they enjoy it but its a lot more expensive now.And its much more of an investment.You have to balance doing something you enjoy with the practical financial side of things.

Regardless of the degree itself being a 'waste of money' or whatever you want to call it, wouldn't you agree that the actual experience of university life is extremely beneficial to people? E.g. it helps with the transition from childhood to adulthood, gaining independence, its one of the very few opportunities to make friends for life, international exchange programmes, etc the list is endless. So in general, I think that the benefits of the experience alone, will always overshadow the costs. And yes, before someone brings up that there are options other than uni to gain these things, I think most people would agree that nothing can ever compare to the actual university experience.

I think you should have done English instead.