To think that if more people that get a degree it devalues it

[Ohbehave1]

Congrats to all those whose DC's have got the grades tongs to uni.

I was wondering having just seen that record numbers have got university places if too the number of people now attending uni and getting good grades devalue them in some way. It used to be that some people went, some didn't and if you had a degree it gave you an advantage in the work market. Now it doesn't seem to.

AIBU to think that a university education isn't worth what it used to be.

I would generally agree that there's a level of devaluation, but I would like to stress that we need to step away from all this 'Russell Group' crap. Universities in the UK are, on the whole, extremely good and you should be looking at individual courses, rather than the whole uni. I went to an excellent university which sits in the world's top 40, but is not RG/red brick at all. I know my course was superb. If I wanted to do nursing, I could do worse than some of the 'polys' some of you sniff at. Many employers are looking at course content, especially in STEM.

It is inevitable that the university system has become two tier. Employers and others are obviously going to be swayed by the type of university you attended...
The one size fits all is a travesty.

The two tier is presumably between STEM degrees and non STEM degrees.

Part of the reason there has been an increase is because professions that did not used to require a degree now do. In the sixties trainee teachers and nurses did not require a degree.

@almondpudding
To clarify, I mean RG and non-RG - in other words 1st and 2nd class.

Trainee teachers in Primary education in Scotland did not require a degree in the past but have always required a degree in order to teach in Secondary education.

England and other parts of the UK may have had different standards.

I don't see how a History degree from a RG university is equivalent to a Computer Science degree from a mid ranking university in the job market.

We just don't need very many Arts graduates.

Almond if you do a little digging you'll find lots of arts graduates working in IT, finance, risk, HR, and in general management roles.

The specific degree isn't necessary to do the job but having an educated mind. Employers are looking for the ability to think critically, consume and consolidate large amounts of information, pull together considered reports and present information effectively - arts grads have plenty to offer.

I don't see how a History degree from a RG university is equivalent to a Computer Science degree from a mid ranking university in the job market

A history degree has lots of transferrable skills. From the Cambridge website:

acquiring a broad range of historical knowledge and understanding, including a sense of development over time, and an appreciation of the culture and attitudes of societies other than our own;

evaluating critically the significance and utility of a large body of material, including evidence from contemporary sources and the opinions of more recent historians;

engaging directly with questions and presenting independent opinions about them in arguments that are well-written, clearly expressed, coherently organised and effectively supported by relevant evidence;
gaining the confidence to undertake self-directed learning, making the most effective use of time and resources, and increasingly defining one's own questions and goals

A technical degree like computer science is out of date almost before you've finished and unnecessary. At least 2 of DC's friends were earning an income from websites/apps before they had even left school - one was earning £25k while doing his A levels.

I like this for questioning why we educate and what skills are required for the future.

stemalberta.com/2015/03/29/shift-happens-education-version-did-you-know/

I feel sad however that we can't allow students to just enjoy education for education's sake - to me that is part and parcel of a civilised society.

Yes but a History degree from an ex poly is not the same as a History degree from Cambridge.

I'm aware that Arts graduates go into a variety of roles, as all graduates do.

That doesn't make them equivalent to, for example, a Computer Science degree from a mid ranking university has professional accredited status.

So someone who leaves university and is a chartered engineer as a consequence of completing an accredited Computer Science course is generally more employable. I think that's reflected in graduates of different subjects having different salaries.

Ultimately I have teens and I have to advise them on what's more likely to lead to a reasonably paid and secure job.

The OP was talking about degrees being devalued. Thousands of extra history or media studies graduates don't really have much impact on the employability of someone with a degree in medicine or engineering or similar.

Trainee teachers in Primary education in Scotland did not require a degree

My parents trained as teachers in the 1960s in Scotland, the standard route into Primary teaching was a Diploma which was 3 years full time at College, lectures and essays along with practice teaching. Broadly similar to now, although a bit shorter maybe. My uncle was a secondary PE teacher, he also did a Diploma thing as back then you couldn't do a Sports degree.

Yes, my parents also (but in England) did teacher training that was very similar to what is now an education degree.

But it wasn't called a degree!

So when we say that there has been a huge increase in graduates, that's true, but part of that is down to qualifications and courses (like teacher training and nursing) being converted to degree qualifications.

Anyone who believes the RG hype regarding undergraduate degrees must be fairly gullible.

STEM degrees are the backbone of R&D and employability, but other degrees are essential to cultural and scientific progress - geology, archaeology, PPE, etc etc.

I think it's a bit weird to 'deliberately misunderstand' these things tbh.

Archaeology, Geology and Economics frequently are STEM subjects (Geology always is).

Computer science is great, and really useful, but isn't a complicating issue that relatively few people do it, compared to History (let alone Arts as a whole)? It's not just about numbers of jobs available afterwards. Though that may have been your point, and if so, sorry!

That's what I'm trying to work out, the complicating issues!

Obviously the idea that a degree can be devalued can mean different things. People seem to be discussing both whether the standard of a degree has gone down and whether it is worth as much in the eyes of an employer.

I don't think degrees are devalued in content, but the content and skills are now different. Students tend to develop better research skills because they have better access now to more material to conduct that research.

In terms of if number of students studying matters, and how much going to a RG university counts, it depends on what degree course you are doing. Some areas have shortages and others do not.

All degree courses now have to demonstrate transferable skills.

To rewind the discussion a little - I have taught at both school and university level (humanities) for over 20 years and can categorically say that the demand of A level has changed significantly, with a knock-on effect on degree courses.
A level is now heavily focused on drilling students to produce standardised responses to a limited range of potential questions. Off-piste, creative thinking that cannot be accommodated by the mark scheme is penalised. As a result, students arrive at university with limited skills in research, essay-writing, and critical thinking; universities lack the resources to develop these skills, and, in a world where they are evaluated on the basis of their research output rather than teaching, have little incentive to do so. Assessment standards are determined by criteria of student satisfaction: ie ensuring a world in which a student who has 'done the work' will be rewarded with a 2:1.
The upshot is that, increasingly, humanities graduates lack those very transferable skills - independent thought, analysis, synthesis, ability to assimilate large amounts of Information - which are routinely trotted out as arguments for the value of their degrees.

In some areas yes. the expansion of the university sector has meant that students who would be much better served by say, a really good technical course, have been sold the lie that any degree is better.

My opinion is this: wider access to education and continuous education is vital, but the one size fits all 'all must have degrees!' Model is woefully inadequate. In countries like Germany and Finland you get really strong technical streams, almost like apprenticeships, but with better conditions. Stuff like industrial electrician. Skilled job and you can earn a lot of money.
Blairs expansion of the uni system has lead to kids getting degrees that are very little use to them. Before, degrees were either specific training for a career (medicine, engineering) or rigorous enough to show you were a candidate of a certain ability (history, English.) it's these latter degrees that have suffered most - not necessarily because standards in a good history degree have dropped, but those who have them are now competing with people who have a degree in (insert whatever your favourite degree lite subject is.)
The engineers and medics are still ok, but your history graduate is coming out to a much expanded pool of graduates - her degree may have been rigorous and tough ( I'm not bashing humanities here) but she's now drowning in other graduates. That wasn't the case twenty years ago.

Fewer degrees
More technical streams
More diverse, tailored education.

I doubt it'll happen.

Agree with all of the above (though I do believe standards have dropped...)
Much of the problem in the non-vocational or technical sector lies in the failure to address the question of what these graduates have that they didn't have before, other than massive debt and a piece of paper which, to the cynical, might recall the diploma the Wizard of Oz awards the Scarecrow. Indeed many undergraduates regard the piece of paper as the goods they receive in exchange for their £27,000, and have little interest in the university experience beyond this.

50% of school leavers at university and first-class degrees have become commonplace so yes, of course it's become devalued.
Many degree courses now would have been done at the local "Tech" or Further Education college a generation ago, taking 2 years to complete after leaving school at 16. Keeping 50% of students in education until 21 or 22 was surely done to cut the unemployment figures.

@Luna
Perhaps in the case of PE but for core subjects, a degree was required.

@orange
Agree totally.

almond those are not STEM subjects.

If you can't see why a CD degree from a mid-level university isn't equivalent to a history degree from RG you only need to look at earnings/employment stats post-degree....

Economics is strongly related to Maths.
Geology is wholly within Earth Sciences.
Archaeological Sciences is applied biology, chemistry and physics.

All are BSc, MSc, are funded as part of STEM, published as part of STEM, have STEM ambassadors etc.

I don't know what a CD degree is, sorry.