This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Why do schools and colleges focus so much on Oxbridge?
- Can I get an offer from SOAS after one day ?
- Diversity in schools (ethnic)
- What other course should I apply for?
- Why is there so much snobbery from netflix users?
- I failed First year economics at Newcastle University what can i do
- Tenancy takeover opportunity!!
- Foundation year in a RG Uni or Year 1 in a non RG uni?
- Is it too risky applying to KCL mpharm
- What if I don’t get a 6 in gcse maths???
- Make it More Red Wine-ey !!
- Biomedical Science (IBMS course) versus Biomedical Sciences (Russell group)?
- Why don’t people on here like London Met?
- Best movies
- Is it true what they say about Durham?
- Is Oxford toxic?
- New Job
- Durham uni for undergrad in primary education
- Is University College Birmingham good for bsc physiotherapy
- A-Levels for PPE at Uni
Academic snobbery at its finest
not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but this has got my blood boiling. who says there are non-degrees.
note that most of them are from ex-poli's or HE colleges doing vocational courses. How can people be so aragont. If students want the knowledge let them, as they are the ones paying for it.
who says classics or philosophy or english literature is any more valid for the real world outside academia than say golf course management (very useful if you want to manage a golf course I would imagine).
have a read see what you think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/nmickey121.xml
take a look at the list of "non-degree" courses http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/08/21/nmickey121.pdf
note that most of them are from ex-poli's or HE colleges doing vocational courses. How can people be so aragont. If students want the knowledge let them, as they are the ones paying for it.
who says classics or philosophy or english literature is any more valid for the real world outside academia than say golf course management (very useful if you want to manage a golf course I would imagine).
have a read see what you think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/nmickey121.xml
take a look at the list of "non-degree" courses http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/08/21/nmickey121.pdf
Scroll to see replies
With all due respect, the students aren't completely paying for it. A large ammount is taxpayers money.
If they were paying completely, this report would never have come about.
Just wanted to make sure this debate doesn't get off on a wrong start with the premise that the taxpayer isn't funding students to take these courses.
If they were paying completely, this report would never have come about.
Just wanted to make sure this debate doesn't get off on a wrong start with the premise that the taxpayer isn't funding students to take these courses.
yes fair point.
Taxpayers do pay towards university education. But graduates also earn higher salaries (on average) over a life time, which means they eventually pay more tax back. I do not see how the tax payers alliance (whoever they are) should be ones commenting on the academic viability of courses.
Why not lobby against far more wasteful activities that taxpayers stump up for e.g. Wars, fact finding visits to the bahamas etc etc.
Taxpayers do pay towards university education. But graduates also earn higher salaries (on average) over a life time, which means they eventually pay more tax back. I do not see how the tax payers alliance (whoever they are) should be ones commenting on the academic viability of courses.
Why not lobby against far more wasteful activities that taxpayers stump up for e.g. Wars, fact finding visits to the bahamas etc etc.
Adthegreat
Yes, but which Graduates are paying these high levels of tax?
That sort of comment, is like saying that Cancer patiants should pay more tax because they get more out of the NHS.
Anyway, I wanted to hear views on the academic snobbery of this article.
PS before anyone critises me and thinks Im someone at Thames Valley or London met and have a chip on my shoulder, I am not. I am at Imperial studying a traditional field.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,2137866,00.html
Estelle Morris on this subject. She talks sense. I agree, it is snobbery.
Estelle Morris on this subject. She talks sense. I agree, it is snobbery.
empfrench
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,2137866,00.html
Estelle Morris on this subject. She talks sense. I agree, it is snobbery.
Estelle Morris on this subject. She talks sense. I agree, it is snobbery.
Dont like the women, but yes she does make sense. thanks for linking a journalistic balance to this argument.
Thing is with that list is that it includes colleges as well as universities. Which makes it a bit mis-leading as some of the colleges (I know this as my local college is on there) arn't handing out degrees, instead it tends to be NVQs, BTECs, HNDs etc.
I think for some subjects, a qualification of any kind is needed, but for others you cannot beat practical experience like some of the equine degrees for example.
Having worked in the equine sector for nearly 3 years, at a yard that offered hands on tutition, I knew far more about some stuff than the students who had just graduated with a degree. Have also discussed it at length with my boss regarding degrees within the equine sector and she's got some strong feelings about how it's far better to learn on the job for vocational subjects than being stuck in a 3hr lecture.
But do agree with you regarding stuff like golf management etc - I think (might have read it on here) that it's actually a needed qualification for those wanting to go into that area of employment. Same as wine studies.
Can see what Estelle Morris is saying but the only reason this country needs more graduates is because of the "50% having to be at university". The more people that have degrees, the harder it is for someone to get a job without a degree, thus more people going to uni to gain another qualification.
This however means more people are doing Post-grad courses just to appear as a better candidate for a job. The Head of Research at my uni was saying that within 10 years time, an MA will be the next degree as so many people are now staying on. A-levels are utterly worthless these days. But does a brickie or a plumber really need a degree?
I think for some subjects, a qualification of any kind is needed, but for others you cannot beat practical experience like some of the equine degrees for example.
Having worked in the equine sector for nearly 3 years, at a yard that offered hands on tutition, I knew far more about some stuff than the students who had just graduated with a degree. Have also discussed it at length with my boss regarding degrees within the equine sector and she's got some strong feelings about how it's far better to learn on the job for vocational subjects than being stuck in a 3hr lecture.
But do agree with you regarding stuff like golf management etc - I think (might have read it on here) that it's actually a needed qualification for those wanting to go into that area of employment. Same as wine studies.
Can see what Estelle Morris is saying but the only reason this country needs more graduates is because of the "50% having to be at university". The more people that have degrees, the harder it is for someone to get a job without a degree, thus more people going to uni to gain another qualification.
This however means more people are doing Post-grad courses just to appear as a better candidate for a job. The Head of Research at my uni was saying that within 10 years time, an MA will be the next degree as so many people are now staying on. A-levels are utterly worthless these days. But does a brickie or a plumber really need a degree?
I feel that this article although somewhat exaggerated does highlight a problem with the current university system. Young people have been led to believe that the only way to succeed in life is to go to university. They are constantly bombarded with statistics telling them that they'll be better off, more employable, successful - but the fact of the matter is that the people going off to study these pseudo-degrees wont in fact contribute to this trend. It will not lead to them obtaining work that is subtantially better paid than those that do not have degrees in these professions. It's not academic snobbery - it's simply that it's just not economically sensible for them or for the nation. Far better would be to get these people into professional training schemes and apprenticeships which don't try pretending to be degree programs - some people just aren't suited to university. Apprenticeships would get these people out into the labour market more quickly and effectively, equipping them with the necessary skills to practice their trade, whilst eliminating the running up of crippling debts that a university education entails. It's simply an obsession these days to get anyone and everyone into university that is absolutely ridiculous...
flexiblefish
That sort of comment, is like saying that Cancer patiants should pay more tax because they get more out of the NHS.
Edit: Misread your post.
Your analogy is incorrect however it's more like making smokers pay higher tax's because they get more out of the NHS, not cancer, because one does not chose to have cancer. And I agree with my analogy.
lucho22
I feel that this article although somewhat exaggerated does highlight a problem with the current university system. Young people have been led to believe that the only way to succeed in life is to go to university. They are constantly bombarded with statistics telling them that they'll be better off, more employable, successful - but the fact of the matter is that the people going off to study these pseudo-degrees wont in fact contribute to this trend. It will not lead to them obtaining work that is subtantially better paid than those that do not have degrees in these professions. It's not academic snobbery - it's simply that it's just not economically sensible for them or for the nation. Far better would be to get these people into professional training schemes and apprenticeships which don't try pretending to be degree programs - some people just aren't suited to university. Apprenticeships would get these people out into the labour market more quickly and effectively, equipping them with the necessary skills to practice their trade, whilst eliminating the running up of crippling debts that a university education entails. It's simply an obsession these days to get anyone and everyone into university that is absolutely ridiculous...
Agree wholeheartedy with this. I think what the report stated was not that these courses were pointless, just that the skills learnt are not the type that should be catagorized as a degree. It would be far more economically efficent if they were taught on the job. Also to the person who said that the students want it so let them have it as they are paying for it. Well:
1. They are not funding the whole course, only part of it, and;
2. Sorry but not everyone gets what they want. There seems to be a running theme that everyone is entitled to something just because they want it. I wanted to study at Oxford, I got rejected after interview as there were obviously better candidates than me. I cant now demand Oxford create more places just because I want to go there.
flexiblefish
who says classics or philosophy or english literature is any more valid for the real world outside academia than say golf course management (very useful if you want to manage a golf course I would imagine).
who says classics or philosophy or english literature is any more valid for the real world outside academia than say golf course management (very useful if you want to manage a golf course I would imagine).
Classics, Philosophy and English Lit are all a waste of time as well.
Lets not go down the arts vs science route. All degrees in traditional subjects both arts and sciences + vocational one i.e med/dent/vet are all respected degrees.
It is these spin off type degrees ie golf management which seem to be irrelevent to most since they don't fit the traditional mould hence this is the same reason why newish subjects ie pyschology and sociology et al are frowned upon. But then it fits with academic snobbery.
It is these spin off type degrees ie golf management which seem to be irrelevent to most since they don't fit the traditional mould hence this is the same reason why newish subjects ie pyschology and sociology et al are frowned upon. But then it fits with academic snobbery.
Oh, I agree that people can study what they want if they're the ones paying for it. But - many people use the 'mickey mouse' to refer to subjects lesss respected by employers. And if I was an employer - I wouldn't respect the degree so much either.
I do think it's a waste of money when people go to study one of these subjects at Thames valley expecting to become a lawyer. It's not their fault though, it's the government's, for trying to get 60% of students into universities. Silly government.
I do think it's a waste of money when people go to study one of these subjects at Thames valley expecting to become a lawyer. It's not their fault though, it's the government's, for trying to get 60% of students into universities. Silly government.
I agree with what some have already said, and in part with the telegraph article: courses like learning to bake and design bread don't have a place at university. Young people are being pressured into going to 'university' when their time would be far better spent in the workplace or undertaking apprenticeships. As lucho22 has already stated, this would be more economically viable for both the student and the taxpayer.
Some courses at lower-end institutions amount to nothing less than robbery. I have a friend studying some sort of engineering at Coventry, an institution that let him in with two E's at A level, and he openly admits the course is rubbish. I have a friend studying media at Southampton Solent. Why did he go there? Because he wanted to doss for three years and didn't know what to do when he left school. He says the course is uninspiring and not at all challenging. Another of my friends, funnily enough, is at Sunderland - the institution Estelle Morris is pro-vice chancellor of. He is studying media and went there because it would accept him with a D and an E and so that 'he could put off working for 3 years; afterall, the student loan is basically free money!'
On the other hand, I have friends studying law at Oxbridge, biology at Durham etc. These people are passionate about their subjects and will succeed. It's no coincidence that those with lower drive and academic ability ended up at half-rate institutions. With the way the system is going many young people today see university as simply something to fill a gap for three years; they don't want to work yet and can study something 'easy and fun'.
Now, please don't think I'm saying any university outside the 'top 10' or 'top 20' is a waste of time. Nor am i saying that people that attend lower end institutions just want to doss for three years. I am fully aware that many lower rated institutions offer excellent courses - I have a friend doing events management at Bournemouth, for example, and she tells me that it's brilliant for that. It's just that there are too many low end establishments admitting students onto courses that won't benefit them as much as if they'd taken 3 years in the workplace or an alternative route.
I am well aware that removing these sorts of courses will create an academically and socially elitist university system, but with suitable alternatives in place for those that really would not benefit from a university education I believe it would be preferable to the current situation. I am all for more working class people going to university - i am myself - but only for the right reasons.
Some courses at lower-end institutions amount to nothing less than robbery. I have a friend studying some sort of engineering at Coventry, an institution that let him in with two E's at A level, and he openly admits the course is rubbish. I have a friend studying media at Southampton Solent. Why did he go there? Because he wanted to doss for three years and didn't know what to do when he left school. He says the course is uninspiring and not at all challenging. Another of my friends, funnily enough, is at Sunderland - the institution Estelle Morris is pro-vice chancellor of. He is studying media and went there because it would accept him with a D and an E and so that 'he could put off working for 3 years; afterall, the student loan is basically free money!'
On the other hand, I have friends studying law at Oxbridge, biology at Durham etc. These people are passionate about their subjects and will succeed. It's no coincidence that those with lower drive and academic ability ended up at half-rate institutions. With the way the system is going many young people today see university as simply something to fill a gap for three years; they don't want to work yet and can study something 'easy and fun'.
Now, please don't think I'm saying any university outside the 'top 10' or 'top 20' is a waste of time. Nor am i saying that people that attend lower end institutions just want to doss for three years. I am fully aware that many lower rated institutions offer excellent courses - I have a friend doing events management at Bournemouth, for example, and she tells me that it's brilliant for that. It's just that there are too many low end establishments admitting students onto courses that won't benefit them as much as if they'd taken 3 years in the workplace or an alternative route.
I am well aware that removing these sorts of courses will create an academically and socially elitist university system, but with suitable alternatives in place for those that really would not benefit from a university education I believe it would be preferable to the current situation. I am all for more working class people going to university - i am myself - but only for the right reasons.
It isn't to do with how useful the subject is, it's to do with how academically rigorous it is. Of course Classics etc are completely useless in terms of practical application but they demonstrate intellectual skills which are attractive to serious employers. There are plenty of people taking degrees who will invariably end up in non-graduate jobs anyway. If these courses are going to be available, the students should be paying the full fee, not leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill for their degree in the aptly named 'Recreation Studies'. It isn't about academic snobbery, it's about making sure people are doing what is most sensible for them. There now seem to be tens of thousands of not particularly bright students who honestly believe their degree is on the same level as Law or Medicine. They're wasting their own time and money in the mistaken belief that these degrees are going to lead them to graduate jobs. I don't generally like the idea of 'elitism', but University is one place where there can be no other system - the fact is that most people are simply not clever enough to do a proper degree, and we should stop defrauding them into believing their degree is going to lead to high-level employment.
I echo some of the comments above in that this does not necessarily mean all 'non-traditional' degrees are useless; some of them are useful for niche areas, but most of them are a con. A degree in 'Media' for instance does not mean you will get a job in the media! You might get one, but it is not the best route into that sector. It is far more likely to go to somebody with a degree in English or even something completely unrelated like Classics or Geography. It's about proving transferable ability.
I echo some of the comments above in that this does not necessarily mean all 'non-traditional' degrees are useless; some of them are useful for niche areas, but most of them are a con. A degree in 'Media' for instance does not mean you will get a job in the media! You might get one, but it is not the best route into that sector. It is far more likely to go to somebody with a degree in English or even something completely unrelated like Classics or Geography. It's about proving transferable ability.
Related discussions
- Why do schools and colleges focus so much on Oxbridge?
- Can I get an offer from SOAS after one day ?
- Diversity in schools (ethnic)
- What other course should I apply for?
- Why is there so much snobbery from netflix users?
- I failed First year economics at Newcastle University what can i do
- Tenancy takeover opportunity!!
- Foundation year in a RG Uni or Year 1 in a non RG uni?
- Is it too risky applying to KCL mpharm
- What if I don’t get a 6 in gcse maths???
- Make it More Red Wine-ey !!
- Biomedical Science (IBMS course) versus Biomedical Sciences (Russell group)?
- Why don’t people on here like London Met?
- Best movies
- Is it true what they say about Durham?
- Is Oxford toxic?
- New Job
- Durham uni for undergrad in primary education
- Is University College Birmingham good for bsc physiotherapy
- A-Levels for PPE at Uni
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
How mutch does a course/university affect employability? InLast reply 1 month ago
University Tuition Fees to rise in England for the first time in 8 yearsLast reply 1 month ago
Achieved top grades (3 A*) at school, but not sure uni is right for meLast reply 1 month ago
Do you think holistic assessments should return to the GCSE Curriculum? Why/why not?Last reply 1 month ago
Why is the tuition fee for international students at University of Hull so cheap?Last reply 3 months ago
Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.
