so, what IS a 'Mickey Mouse' degree?

[lemonysweet]

inspired by the thread about whether youd like your child to go to uni.

go on then, what degrees do you consider 'Mickey Mouse'

[personally i would never be so throwaway about something someone had invested so much time, effort and money into, but im interested in others opinions]

Yes, but you can't blame some poor girl who gets ABB - it's her teachers and the government who should know better! I went to speak to some A-Level students recently who'd been assured by their teachers that it was much, much better to 'try for university' and do A-Levels than anything else - even though around half were on track for Cs/Ds and one poor girl had got U/E/E in her AS levels.

Not sure why everyone is asking LeQueen questions about who her DH would employ, as though he is King of Jobs or something (sure he's lovely, LQ). FWIW, we would rate OU, especially if you had good life experiences/knew how to spell/had some diplomacy skills - all of which you are more likely to get in a mature OU graduate than a RG newly-grad. I got a first in History at an RG uni a few years ago and it wasn't that difficult. I never did more than 5 hours work in a day or pulled an all-nighter.

It's the debt that's the real killer. I guess it wouldn't be so irritating that people were doing these pissant degrees if they weren't paying £££s for the privilege...

Well, I guess it's any port in a storm, quaere. But this is what bothers me - LeQ, I'm sure you'll understand me saying this - so many people will hear a very particular account, and take it as a general truth. My students do: it's quite common for them to think that because they were at the top of the class at school, a degree will be easy. They've been told degrees are dumbed down, so they aren't at all prepared to find them hard.

Mind you ... hard work isn't a measure of intelligence or worthiness of employment, and that's another mistake people make.

lol @ quaere. Some people seemed to become all lowly, coming forward with their questions. Intresting stuff.

I've got a Mickey Mouse degree Business Studies at a 'new' university. It was absolutely not necessary for my career, though the stuff I'd learned was an advantage.
I still pine to devote 3 years to the study of something "pointless" but fascinating (to me) - like philosophy, linguistics, comparative mythologies or semiotics. Maybe I'll get to do the lot in my old age

I do think intellectual rigour, which is what further education's supposed to teach, is a much misunderstood & undervalued quality. And I don't think contemporary A-levels & 'Mickey Mouse' degrees require enough of it.

Well, I was just interested in LeQueen's dh's point of view, as it well might be representative of the attitude to an OU degree of this particular section of the market. Or not. Doesn't hurt to ask.

at 'lowly'

might well be

In my industry, the things I look for in an employee are:

skills
experience
training
qualifications

In that order.

I couldn't tell you the educational quals of any of the people I've recruited - most recently 10 individuals ranging in age from 22 to 47.
I honestly don't care. Barely glanced at that section on their CV. It's all about the skills and experience they can bring to the job.

"Plenty of OU graduates go on to postgrad study at 'proper' () universities, including Oxbridge. "

My original degree back in the day was at the University of Sheffield (red brick, top 10 - so what!?!).

Subsequently -whilst working a full time management job - an AMBA accredited MBA from Loughborough University

.....and now, for fun, I am studying History with the OU and quite frankly, the quality of many of the teaching staff, course materials etc is absolutely first rate. I am also finding it far more challenging them my previous 2 degrees. It is very much a 'proper' university.

With experience now of three Universities I believe I am qualified to comment....

Does anyone who is pontificating on the easiness of modern A levels actually teach them?

No one can really be sure unless they've taken A levels (or indeeed degrees) both recently and 15+ years ago.

I think one of the biggest changes has actually been in the style of teaching. Due to league tables, schools and colleges will teach to the test. The students will have better exam skills, almost certainly. The way that material is learnt, taught and assessed is vastly different.

But ultimately, it still requires a lot of hard work to get into the best courses at the best universities. Most of which will require at least 3 As at A level. One A at A level might be relatively simple to get, but three is less so, and three in complex subjects even less so. The fact remains that the vast majority of the population, say 90%, would be unable to achieve this. Just as, in the day, 90% of the population would be unable to achieve three A levels full stop.

Few modern teenagers are unaware of the constant criticism of how easy their exams are so there is little danger of them believing their A is equivalent to an A in 1980.

The current generation of 35-50 year olds refuse to believe that the younger generation is cleverer than them, so they can but expect teenagers to reciprocate.

The cleverest are still the cleverest: their grades just go by a different 'name'.

I think I was the one who added in the original "Mickey Mouse Degree" comment.

I think it's a hard distinction to make but there comes a stage at which a degree is just a bit of paper that was three years' of not particularly hard study (and a lot of boozing) leading to debt and a qualification that doesn't mean a lot.

Personally, I think if you can't get a least 3 Cs at A-level (assuming there are no special circumstances) then you shouldn't be going onto academic study. There's nothing wrong with not going onto academic study but a degree costs the student and the tax-payer a lot of money and shouldn't just be done because there is a course available that will take someone. (Some of the more difficult courses in specialist subjects are also not necessarily at traditional universities btw)

A course doesn't have to lead to a set job (there is study for study's sake). However, if the entrance requirements are low then the standard of work has to be lower or people will drop out.

Also, to harp back to a very early post. Yes there are differences in the difficulty levels of degrees at different institutions. It's complete government fabrication to say otherwise. A 2.1 is not the same regardless of where you went to uni and employers know that. I did more work in a week at Cambridge than most of my friends at other universities did in a term. That's just a fact.

I understand the pov's on here even if I don't agree with all of them them but just wanted to point out that a degree is simply a ticket (in career terms anyway- plenty more on a personal level I know) and that even a crap degree from arsend university can be turned into a good and useful ticket with the addition of extras, eg an MA, excellent work experience, pratical qualifications etc- meaning that those who simply cannot move away to study (and it does happen, In The Real World) can still thrive, albeit via a different route.

But thinking about your degree and where you want it to take you is incredibly useful and always to be recommended: I couldn't access the RG university I had been offered for practical reasons but don't for a minute delude myself that my degree holds the same worth to an employer as if I did. So I apply a little nouse and add value onto it. Sensible if slightly circuitous.

I would also say that yes there are many jobs out there for which you do not need a degree: but if everyone else applying has one it's worth thinking about it anyway and doing the sums to see if it adds up.

Which isn't to say people should take a degree- just that in a market where everyone does have one (or at least it seems so) it may well be very wise to at least consider it, or work out how you can demonstrably acquire a similarly competitive CV).

Oh and also aresend university may well be terrible for law and economics but every now and again they offer specific industry related courses that are the best of what is out there in a field (at mine it was design, at DH's very specific areas of technology): research, research, research.

And if you are not sure, the right to apply doesn't end at 18. Go away, work, and come back. That's fine too.

Hi Kathy, we are doing an interview for SKY about people who have done unique/out of the box degrees. We would like to invite you for the interview on the 31st March, Sunday. Your contribution will be highly valuable to students who need some guidance to make university choices. If you are interested, kindly contact me ASAP.

Thank You.

To me, it's about academic rigour. The subject is irrelevant. You can have an academically rigorous degree in any subject and you can have a Mickley mouse degree in any subject.

The institution awarding the degree is often, but not always, a good indication of the academic rigour likely.

@Papia8 This thread is over 8 years old

@Papia8 If you're a researcher for a tv program, you need to do better than trawl through Mumsnet looking for people to interview, especially as this thread is 9 years old

@lemonysweet. I think Mickey Mouse skipped academic qualifications in favour of vocational learning; those familiar with Disney’s masterpiece, Fantasia, knows that he was the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

The end of that wonderful piece of animation leaves us guessing as to whether he was kicked off the scheme, though!

For those unfamiliar...