I can't be arsed sifting through 7 pages so sorry if someone's said this already, but uni is about so much more than just a qualification to get a job.
It's about the experience. It's about learning to be independent, meeting new people, new types of people, seeing new things, etc. Someone who spends three years at uni will come back a more well-rounded, confident, open-minded individual. The more people who have the experience of university, the more well-rounded, confident and open-minded we'll be as a society.
Indeed and I agree up to a point. I did manage to do some studying when I was sober enough during my Mathematics & Computing sandwich course (4 years duration). During my industrial year, the army bar was selling pints for IIRC about 30p, so the temptation was too great. There again, you could shell out a whole 15p for a measure of spirits. This was back in the late 80's. That was between pigging out on a la carte food (top quality), as much as you could eat for £1-75, if you were honest enough to actually pay, which I did, but all you had to do is sign in with a name and signature.
We've had graduates join us who have been about as much use as a chocolate teapot. They can talk the talk, but seem unable to walk the walk. So we've introduced our own tests for new entrants, including graduates, and have classes on the importance of good attendance, teamwork, consideration for others, management skills, dealing with difficult situations, multi tasking in time critical situations etc.
Greatest respect to them, but some do seem wholly mired in academia, and have difficulty making the leap between the academic world, and the cut throat world of real commerce.
I've got matriculation exam papers from the 1930's when my father took the tests and the English paper is in one word, hard. I showed it to a nephew who's and English Language honours graduate and he could not believe how high the standard was. These test were taken at fifteen I believe, my nephew said he'd struggle to get a top mark.
It would be interesting to see a few of the questions.
I remember seeing a biology matriculation paper from the 1920's or 1930's, and a typical question was "Write everything you know about the ostrich". It struck me that it was not necessarily easier or harder, just different. It was testing rote learned knowledge rather than thought. I think the course work element of science/ maths GCSE's introduced very major problems (ie that standard course work could be downloaded word for word by anyone with access to a computer) but that is another issue: there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the "what variables must you exclude from this experiment" type of question.
It would be interesting to see a few of the questions.
I remember seeing a biology matriculation paper from the 1920's or 1930's, and a typical question was "Write everything you know about the ostrich". It struck me that it was not necessarily easier or harder, just different. It was testing rote learned knowledge rather than thought. I think the course work element of science/ maths GCSE's introduced very major problems (ie that standard course work could be downloaded word for word by anyone with access to a computer) but that is another issue: there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the "what variables must you exclude from this experiment" type of question.
Remind me in a couple of weeks when I'm back home and I'll dig the paper out for you.
Course work is a failure really, learning in groups is tosh. I had a friend who moved from Toronto to Hong Kong on a teaching contract and was 'shocked' that the teaching there was all 'front of class', no group work. He was more shocked when he realised that it worked, the children took in what he was teaching.
The point is that they still open doors that are otherwise closed to you, that is and probably always will be their "value"...
Just as gold, no matter how devalued will always be worth more than no gold.
I appreciate that.
However, if a told a young person nowadays I had a degree, they wouldn't be overly impressed I suspect, as degrees are ten a penny these days. This wasn't the case 20+ years ago.
Now that students have to pay fees and they don't appear on the unemployment statistics, it's a win win situation for the government.
Remind me in a couple of weeks when I'm back home and I'll dig the paper out for you.
Course work is a failure really, learning in groups is tosh. I had a friend who moved from Toronto to Hong Kong on a teaching contract and was 'shocked' that the teaching there was all 'front of class', no group work. He was more shocked when he realised that it worked, the children took in what he was teaching.
I have a sandwich year student working for me and he is expected to complete his dissertation as part of a group.
We've had graduates join us who have been about as much use as a chocolate teapot. They can talk the talk, but seem unable to walk the walk. So we've introduced our own tests for new entrants, including graduates, and have classes on the importance of good attendance, teamwork, consideration for others, management skills, dealing with difficult situations, multi tasking in time critical situations etc.
Greatest respect to them, but some do seem wholly mired in academia, and have difficulty making the leap between the academic world, and the cut throat world of real commerce.
These sort of people have NOT be educated at university - they seem to have taken it as an extension of school where most/every thing is taught rather than the student learning by their own efforts and their interaction with those around them .
I can well imagine these people saying that they have not got a job despite having a degree.
I would not have got through my degree (all be it many years ago) if i had not been able to do some of the skills you mention .....
All universities should have an element of 'monitoring', often done through external markers/examiners to ensure quality.
Any university offering an 'easy first' would soon be discovered when their graduates moved into with work or PG study.
I did think as much, but people were so confident that degree standards varied between institutions that I thought perhaps the only reason we had it was because of the accreditation.
I recall my year was considered the best for many years, with a much higher propotion than usual doing well all through the degree, but the external examiners obviously thought it was a bit of slight of hand, so were all over us, dragging loads in for a viva, when normally it would be just one or two.
However, the point stands that if you want to use your degree for something, and your chosen career has a professional body, it is worth checking the reputation of the individual department, and not relying on whether or not it's one of the more famous or older institutions.
On the flip side, when I went for one job interview, with a smaller firm, I was asked why I chose the university I chose and not the older one, which was closer to home. I explained that I was advised against it due to it having a weaker reputation etc, at which point they looked offended, and said that's where they went, and it was the course their son was currently undertaking!
I didn't get the job, but then I didn't particularly want it as the job wasn't all that and the company came across as very old fashioned. However, I have a feeling that particular employer would have been more impressed with the bit of paper from a very old university, assuming that's where the better candidates would go.
I would not have got through my degree (all be it many years ago) if i had not been able to do some of the skills you mention .....
I would not have got through my degree last year if I'd relied on being spoon-fed! It's possible to get through some degrees at some universities doing very little independent study, but that's not the case at all for every degree.
1980's - Worth something.
2000's+ - Only good enough for using as bog roll.
That's what happens when 1 in 2 people go the university now, as opposed to 1 in 20 in the 80's.
I remember going to see someone in a job agency after I got my degree in '80 or '81. Graduates were 'ten a penny' the lady recruiter told me (and she had a Law degree herself).
Taking your comments (and inflation) into account, it sounds like that's still about right...
Say you had a person with a 2.1 or 2.2 BA degree from a Russel Group university, and a person with a First from a mid-ranking red brick. Which one would have a "better" degree?
I don't know what each type of degree or university you mentioned means. To me it's as simple as they both have a degree.
Generally (but not absolutely) I don't think people should be advantaged by their qualifications. Qualifications only tell you how successful people are at passing courses. They don't tell you whether the people were nice or nasty, friendly or bullies, etc.
Also the value of qualifications depends on how many people have them. If everybody had a PHD, PHDs would be totally worthless.
I don't know what each type of degree or university you mentioned means. To me it's as simple as they both have a degree.
Generally (but not absolutely) I don't think people should be advantaged by their qualifications. Qualifications only tell you how successful people are at passing courses. They don't tell you whether the people were nice or nasty, friendly or bullies, etc.
Also the value of qualifications depends on how many people have them. If everybody had a PHD, PHDs would be totally worthless.
Personally I'd rather my doctor was an arsehole with a degree in medicine that the nicest guy in the world with no qualifications to speak of.
Comments
A bit but with lots of transferable skills.
Indeed and I agree up to a point. I did manage to do some studying when I was sober enough during my Mathematics & Computing sandwich course (4 years duration). During my industrial year, the army bar was selling pints for IIRC about 30p, so the temptation was too great. There again, you could shell out a whole 15p for a measure of spirits. This was back in the late 80's. That was between pigging out on a la carte food (top quality), as much as you could eat for £1-75, if you were honest enough to actually pay, which I did, but all you had to do is sign in with a name and signature.
Greatest respect to them, but some do seem wholly mired in academia, and have difficulty making the leap between the academic world, and the cut throat world of real commerce.
Just as gold, no matter how devalued will always be worth more than no gold.
It would be interesting to see a few of the questions.
I remember seeing a biology matriculation paper from the 1920's or 1930's, and a typical question was "Write everything you know about the ostrich". It struck me that it was not necessarily easier or harder, just different. It was testing rote learned knowledge rather than thought. I think the course work element of science/ maths GCSE's introduced very major problems (ie that standard course work could be downloaded word for word by anyone with access to a computer) but that is another issue: there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the "what variables must you exclude from this experiment" type of question.
Remind me in a couple of weeks when I'm back home and I'll dig the paper out for you.
Course work is a failure really, learning in groups is tosh. I had a friend who moved from Toronto to Hong Kong on a teaching contract and was 'shocked' that the teaching there was all 'front of class', no group work. He was more shocked when he realised that it worked, the children took in what he was teaching.
I appreciate that.
However, if a told a young person nowadays I had a degree, they wouldn't be overly impressed I suspect, as degrees are ten a penny these days. This wasn't the case 20+ years ago.
Now that students have to pay fees and they don't appear on the unemployment statistics, it's a win win situation for the government.
I have a sandwich year student working for me and he is expected to complete his dissertation as part of a group.
These sort of people have NOT be educated at university - they seem to have taken it as an extension of school where most/every thing is taught rather than the student learning by their own efforts and their interaction with those around them .
I can well imagine these people saying that they have not got a job despite having a degree.
I would not have got through my degree (all be it many years ago) if i had not been able to do some of the skills you mention .....
I recall my year was considered the best for many years, with a much higher propotion than usual doing well all through the degree, but the external examiners obviously thought it was a bit of slight of hand, so were all over us, dragging loads in for a viva, when normally it would be just one or two.
However, the point stands that if you want to use your degree for something, and your chosen career has a professional body, it is worth checking the reputation of the individual department, and not relying on whether or not it's one of the more famous or older institutions.
On the flip side, when I went for one job interview, with a smaller firm, I was asked why I chose the university I chose and not the older one, which was closer to home. I explained that I was advised against it due to it having a weaker reputation etc, at which point they looked offended, and said that's where they went, and it was the course their son was currently undertaking!
I didn't get the job, but then I didn't particularly want it as the job wasn't all that and the company came across as very old fashioned. However, I have a feeling that particular employer would have been more impressed with the bit of paper from a very old university, assuming that's where the better candidates would go.
I would not have got through my degree last year if I'd relied on being spoon-fed! It's possible to get through some degrees at some universities doing very little independent study, but that's not the case at all for every degree.
Then its not really his dissertation, bloody ludicrous.
I remember going to see someone in a job agency after I got my degree in '80 or '81. Graduates were 'ten a penny' the lady recruiter told me (and she had a Law degree herself).
Taking your comments (and inflation) into account, it sounds like that's still about right...
I don't know what each type of degree or university you mentioned means. To me it's as simple as they both have a degree.
Generally (but not absolutely) I don't think people should be advantaged by their qualifications. Qualifications only tell you how successful people are at passing courses. They don't tell you whether the people were nice or nasty, friendly or bullies, etc.
Also the value of qualifications depends on how many people have them. If everybody had a PHD, PHDs would be totally worthless.
Personally I'd rather my doctor was an arsehole with a degree in medicine that the nicest guy in the world with no qualifications to speak of.