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.
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.
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.
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.
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
to be honest, most of the degrees on that list look completely stupid.
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.
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
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.
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.
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..