Academic snobbery at its finest Watch

Eubacterium
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#21
Report 11 years ago
#21
There's nothing wrong with people doing courses in those subjects but there is a standard to what a degree is (it varies between unis but there are limits). Those subjects can not reach those standards. Some of those courses (like for beauty) people get as lower qualifications which make more sense.

Edit: I didn't see them all, what I said does not include fashion buying. That is just ridiculous.
0
reply
devils_nose
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#22
Report 11 years ago
#22
There seems to be a huge long list of complementary therapies courses that the Telegraph has a problem with - what is wrong with this? Seems to me to be a growing industry and the subject emcompasses biology and history aswell as technical teaching! Likewise, I don't see the problem with Equine studies :confused:

There are some subjects on that list that I agree should be tackled vocationally rather than academically and some that seem very odd (Fashion buying stuck out for me too!) I don't think those courses should be halted as long as there are enough students that want to take them though.
0
reply
*River
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 11 years ago
#23
I think that the place for a fair number of the vocational courses in that list isn't university; they should be teaching skills that are best acquired in the workplace. The true fault in the system is that people now believe (thanks, largely to the government) that they need to go to university. If vocational training (which is, after all, vital to the economy as much as university graduates are) were held in higher esteem, then I expect that the system would be in much better shape.
0
reply
dancingqueen
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#24
Report 11 years ago
#24
If I wanted to go into one of these voactional areas such as the ones listed on this thread, I would find a job in the relevant industry after A-levels and work myself up, rather than getting into all that debt for something which is unlikely to put you at a significant advantage, especially compared to the loss of at least 3 years wages.
0
reply
JaxT
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#25
Report 11 years ago
#25
I agree with much of the above posting. Why should people be made to feel that uni is the expected and only route? My sister does not want to go to uni, and gets fed up with people saying "when are you going to uni then?". People just assume she will go or that because she hasn't she's just not bright enough, which is absolutely not the case!! One of my cousins has just finished a degree to become a sound engineer (a degree with loads of physics ) whereas his brother wants to go into computer gaming and graphic design so has got a job working at a studio so he can learn on the job. Who is to say that one route is better than the other? Plus, Charlie has built up a huge student debt, whereas Will has been earning for almost three years while he trains!!
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 11 years ago
#26
Fair enough these courses are needed but with all to respect they arent compareable to a 'real' degree. For goodness sake one of them is dedicated to stop motion and puppet making... do we really need 200 people specialised in stop motion!? Something we see maybe once a year and say 'thats cool' the end. At the end of the day they are non-academic courses and they shouldnt be given the same level of importance as a degree. Theres also accupuncture on the list which is completely unproven, even though theres been o say 4000 years to do it in? Why is the tax payer paying for people to do something that isnt proven to work and is non-transferable.
0
reply
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#27
Report 11 years ago
#27
(Original post by XIII)
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.
Actually the government funds less than a quarter of the total actual cost of the educational provision for classroom-based courses. As tuition fees look set to rise again, the government support per student will dwindle even further (Even disappearing completely). Given the fact that, in all cases, students on most of the criticised courses are paying for the vast majority of their own university education I think it is fair that they should be given the freedom to choose what they study. Government actually subsidises science students more than other students - perhaps people should be made aware of that.


(Original post by PQ)
For 2007/08 students on classroom based courses recieve funding of £3,833 (INCLUDING tuition fees) - so that's a subsidisation of £833pa.

Students on part lab courses (including art, languages and maths) recieve funding of £4,983 (again INCLUDING tuition fees) so subsidised by a little under £2k pa.

Students on lab based courses (ie science, engineering and pre-clin med) recieve funding of £6,516 (once again including the assumed £3k tuition fees) so subsidised by around £3.5k pa.

The fees charged to international students don't represent the unsubsidised COST of providing a course - they represent the market price that a university can charge (ie how much international students are willing to pay).

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2007/07_20/07_20.pdf page 12
0
reply
stoney
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 11 years ago
#28
I would also like to agree with much of the posting here. Just look at some of those courses, it's clearly obvious that most of them would be much better learnt on the job. This gives the advantage of dual learning and work experience and also of a living wage.

I'm sorry but it really isn't academic snobbery. Surely these people have the right to learn the knowledge on the job and earn at the same time rather than going to uni and getting into debt? Government should NEVER force someone to believe that they have to do something for what ever reason end of.

I agree that there is a problem of this route not being held in as high esteem as the traditional route and perhaps that needs to be looked at however how has cramming people into uni who don't need to be there turned out any better since most of these unis/courses are seen as jokes quite frankly.

I'm all for more people in uni. No one would love to see a more educated society in which each of its members is fueled by a love of discovery and knowledge more than me. However this is not the case here. The majority of these courses (while some arguably have intrinsic academic value) are fundamentally based upon the philosophy of "uni = jobs and thus should be open to all". It is a sick society that a) cannot see the value of education for its own sake and b) is so obsessed by money and comparing constantly the wealth of its members amongst themselves that it thinks that. Surely these unis are a symptom of such a sickness?

To conclude if it were a case of "uni = knowledge and thus should be open to all" then I would agree wholeheartedly
0
reply
x_muso_x
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#29
Report 11 years ago
#29
to be honest, most of the degrees on that list look completely stupid.
0
reply
shady lane
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report 11 years ago
#30
The subjects mentioned are practical, not academic. One is free to study them, but they do not deserve the title of bachelor's degree in my opinon. If there is not an academic discipline and cadre of people of professors and doctoral students doing research to support it, then frankly I don't think it qualifies. Show me the baking technologists around the world crying out for university support and maybe I'll consider it. Otherwise, make it an apprenticeship and don't take £3k a year from people who are being misled.
0
reply
moogle301
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 11 years ago
#31
it is better just to get work experience if u wana do a vocation
altho.. i guess if it was me and i wanted to go to uni really lots.. then i'd take a 'mickey mouse' course
0
reply
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#32
Report 11 years ago
#32
But this isn't a new thing! BAs in vocational subjects go back a long way in fields such as fine art and other creative disciplines and they've never been a problem to people before, why now? Because people don't like change and there has been massive change in HE since the early 90's a people need a scapegoat to blame for that fact. If a BA in fine art or classical music performance is acceptable then so is a BA working with any other media or other vocational area. Given that these types of degrees have been around for a long time now, I think you would have to come across a pretty naive employer who didn't realise the difference between a BA in graphic design and a BA in politics and philosophy.
0
reply
ObaMartins9
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 11 years ago
#33
The point is that you don't need a degree to do these jobs. You can learn golf management and adventure travel on the job - saving the tax payer money, saving the students money, and no body being worse off. Yes, there's experience to be had from doing a degree, but not something like that, where there is no practical application without it being learnt on the job.

It's not snobbery - saying something like business studies is a pointless degree is snobbery, in this case, it's just pointing out which degrees that we don't need.

I know someone who wanted to do leisure and tourism management at uni, but they realised there was no point. The degree wouldn't add much, and they could train on the job, without the debt, and with an income.
0
reply
devils_nose
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#34
Report 11 years ago
#34
You can train for most things on the job (I know not all science stuff - although in time you probably could those too) you don't NEED a degree to work in finance, you could learn to be an accountant very effectively without one.. any financial job really, in fact most jobs in management, sales, PR, publishing, journalism, IT etc etc etc. We could make almost everything except sciences, engineering and law (probs a few others but those are off the top of my head) vocational if we put our minds to it and save the taxpayers a fortune
0
reply
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#35
Report 11 years ago
#35
(Original post by devils_nose)
You can train for most things on the job (I know not all science stuff - although in time you probably could those too) you don't NEED a degree to work in finance, you could learn to be an accountant very effectively without one.. any financial job really, in fact most jobs in management, sales, PR, publishing, journalism, IT etc etc etc. We could make almost everything except sciences, engineering and law (probs a few others but those are off the top of my head) vocational if we put our minds to it and save the taxpayers a fortune
Absolutely - most jobs that we now deem it highly desirable to have a degree for were in days of yore learnt on the job. It is simply reactionism to the change in the nature and size of the HE sector.
0
reply
apotoftea
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#36
Report 11 years ago
#36
Like to reiterate the fact that they're not all degrees!

And Boris Johnson's thoughts on the subject: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../23/do2301.xml
0
reply
generalebriety
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#37
Report 11 years ago
#37
(Original post by moogle301)
it is better just to get work experience if u wana do a vocation
altho.. i guess if it was me and i wanted to go to uni really lots.. then i'd take a 'mickey mouse' course
That doesn't mean it should be treated as a degree.

It's absolutely ridiculous to call this academic snobbery. Not one of those courses in the PDF is a real subject. We're not talking media studies and sociology here, we're talking adventure recreation, golf management and watersports.
0
reply
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 11 years ago
#38
(Original post by generalebriety)
, we're talking adventure recreation, golf management and watersports.
And doing these is somehow much less academic then learning to paint, sculpt or play a musical instrument?
0
reply
Serenity
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 11 years ago
#39
I agree with this statement: 'But the TaxPayers' Alliance insisted that the training offered in the courses would be better learnt on the job.'

That is definitely the case with some of the degrees mentioned..
0
reply
generalebriety
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#40
Report 11 years ago
#40
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
And doing these is somehow much less academic then learning to paint, sculpt or play a musical instrument?
Pardon?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (554)
80.41%
Leave (135)
19.59%

Watched Threads

View All