To think university snobbery must stop

[Staceystace]

I was telling a friend about my nephew who is off to University. I said to her he is off to x uni to study English, she said oh I didn’t even realise that was even a uni. She then went on to emphasise how her daughter is off to a top 20 uni, she went on to say how she wouldn’t have gone if it was not a Russell or 1994 group as she does not think it is worth the debt. I just got the vibe she was looking down on my nephews uni. Aibu to think this sort of snobbery about unis is terrible and needs to stop. My nephew is not the most academic, but surely not everyone is capable of going to a russell group.

the difference from the engineering degree apprenticeship route is that it reduces the options as to where you can study. You can’t study at places like Imperial, Bristol, Southampton etc via the apprenticeship route. These were the universities which really impressed her the most with the courses they were offering. Perhaps it’s snooty, but the ex polys she looked at, just couldn’t compete on paper and when she was looking around the departments, talking to staff etc

and also, workload. Working and studying isn’t an easy option. I know, I’ve done it! And only a soft arts subject, not Stem!

and proximity too. The only degree apprenticeship she was interested in was about 200 miles away and would have entailed moving house. Which she’s going to do for uni anyway. I can see how a very good, local apprenticeship might be the answer. If you’re lucky enough to have one nearby! She wants the full Uni experience though, moving away from home, living in a new city, making new friends and connections along the way. Lots of people stay in their uni city and I can imagine her doing this as it has lots of connections to engineering industries.
She didn’t want to wait 4 years to complete an MEng. She gets industry placement as part of her course and intends to get industry experience during any holidays she has too. The workload in terms of study/working hours put her off too. When she looked at degree apprenticeships, she thought the hours of work/study plus the logistics of getting to a decent place (involves an expensive train commute) were offputting too. And this is a girl who spent five or six hours a day every day revising for her A levels!
She also watched the Martin Lewis programme where he spoke about student “debts” and how student debt isn’t the same as other debt and it shouldn’t put people off.

she didn’t want to wait 8 years to complete it, she’s doing it in 4, (I meant to say)

Papaya - So long as you understand she will not be competing for jobs with 18yr old apprentices!

I agree, to do a degree apprenticeship requires a very hardworking, focussed and disciplined ethic which many 18yr olds don't have. Doing a full time degree is the easier option.

this is essential reading for anyone who wants to go to university but is put off by debt:

www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes/

The assumption is that you won't earn very much and that you won't ever pay the debt off.
As an aside we are multinational and have about 50 UK offices and a presence across the globe. So the UK scheme is regional and backed by major engineering and construction companies in conjunction with well known Unis. It does take considerable dedication- which is what we are looking for in applicants and employees
But.... what you do miss is the university experience, which from my days was fun fun fun 😀 Not sure that my degree was very useful though (it was business and finance in a poly) and I got into my discipline via a temp admin job (!!!) I was spotted and worked my way up through a PM route. Now a senior manger in a specific sector- earn twice what the engineers earn. DD totally unsure what she wants to do - RG, Ivy League and Oxbridge are not out of reach. However she's also considering a degree apprenticeship (but not in my industry). After doing the sums it makes far more sense to do an apprenticeship therefore the decision will be more about 3 years of fun vs career head start, and whether she wants to keep all options open (facilitating subjects at a RG) or commit to a specific job.

I guess it's 'horses for course'

What constitutes a 'Mickey Mouse' degree depends on context, imo. The context would be 'what' and 'where'.

A straight school subject at a university outside of RG or 'white tile' universities would be in this category.

A fashionable course whose popularity can be traced to some genre of TV programme is another - examples already mentioned are criminology and forensic science (I believe Errol discussed these and also why not to do a straight school subject at a lower ranked institution, apart from choosing e.g. chemistry over forensic science). I would say an established hard science is probably always a better bet than a course that is a derivative of another science, in any university.

I would also be inclined to place in this category courses that lead to jobs that are not recession proof, and depend heavily on the availability of other people's disposable income.

Also, courses that are not going to enable graduates to develop a wealth-creating area of the economy, or plan the economy or provide a vital service. Engineering courses are always good. Nursing is always good. Creative writing, not so good.

You might say that many courses in Oxbridge fall into these categories, but this is where context comes in - someone with a degree in some subject from Oxford (let's say Ancient Norse or Philosophy) that on the face of it is not a practical choice is going to have demonstrated excellent academic ability, intellectual curiosity and versatility, and might be an ideal candidate for many language or analysis related specialties including software writing or encryption. These individuals will most likely be organised, autonomous self-starters, well able to communicate in English.

(Even so, I don't think Oxbridge education matches up to Ivy League education in terms of versatility of graduates because the Ivy League requires a broader exposure to a wide range of core subjects, and ability to excel in abstract reasoning).

Someone taking a course in a similarly impractical subject in a university that is less well regarded might not have those intellectual or personal qualities (yes, there are outliers). A student interested in eventually writing software for a living and heading to a lower ranked university would be smarter to do a degree in software writing.

someone with a degree in some subject from Oxford (let's say Ancient Norse or Philosophy) that on the face of it is not a practical choice is going to have demonstrated excellent academic ability, intellectual curiosity and versatility, and might be an ideal candidate for many language or analysis related specialties including software writing or encryption

We need some people who are doing ancient Norse etc for their own sakes - I'd hate a world where ancient texts couldn't be interpreted. But, only small numbers of experts...which afaik is what happens for some of these more esoteric subjects.

Topcat1980
American undergraduate courses aren't great, even at the Ivy Leagues, so I'd stop your sniffing, and the United States has even lower social mobility than the UK, most Ivy League Colleges are the denizens [sic] of extremely privileged students

Yes, the almost free ride offered to students demonstrating financial need in 66 US major US universities goes a long way toward creating 'denizens' of extremely privileged students...

Anecdote here, but it's illustrative. A colleague of exH's dropped his DD off at Harvard about ten years ago. The parents were corralled at a parents' reception while the students were being welcomed with various separate talks and buffets, and since it was going to be quite a long day they all did a fair bit of introducing themselves and chatting. Of course the topic of the whopping price of four years at Harvard (one of those purveyors of undergrad courses that 'aren't great') came up, and exH's colleague was flabbergasted that he was the only parent who was coughing up the full whack. Most of the parents there were paying nothing at all - their students qualified for massive institutional writeoffs and some were recipients of Pell Grants and Stafford loans, enabling them to graduate with maybe $12k to $15k in debt, which would be fairly easy to pay off, given the job prospects ahead of them. My own DDs didn't go to Harvard but their universities were not too shabby all the same, and they signed up for similar debt. DD1 paid hers off before graduation.

American undergraduate courses aren't great, even at the Ivy Leagues
That's really funny, btw.

Mickey mouse universities (not the top tier or several tiers under that) that saddle students with debt of $120k and up for poorly regarded degrees, degrees that will not open doors to careers, and an underfunded and underdeveloped technical sector are contributors to lack of social mobility in the US. There are many others of course.

When it comes to social mobility problems, neither the US nor the UK have anything to be proud of.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#/media/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png

cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/events/2012/01/pdf/krueger.pdf A fairly dry paper on inequality in the US with lessons for everyone, the main one being if you/your family are not rising up then you're going down. (From 2012).

Topcat
Something like 25% of all occupations have degree level qualifications as a barrier to entry for occupation, but many more use it as an informal barrier to entry. So sending 1 in 3, it has never reached 40% of all teens, seems like it is appropriate.

Many degrees aren't about getting a specific set of skills for a job, but developing a range of transferable skills that can be used in many different types of employment.

This is a huge problem, because so many are therefore barred from entry level jobs that they would actually be well able to perform. It's also a huge problem because the time spent at university gaining 'transferable skills' is subsidised by the taxpayer and the bill must be paid some day.

Nobody needs a university degree to work as a receptionist or as an insurance claims representative, but more and more, school leavers are being edged out of areas like these.

And the universities that concentrate on essentially filling the role of transferable skills providers, offering fungible degrees that lead to employment that used to be the preserve of school leavers, are going to be classed in a different category from those graduating students with degrees that lead to careers.

The big picture regarding student loans is that student loans are a portfolio worth over £100bn, and will be sold off to finance pensions, social care, and maybe even the NHS (unless the NHS is also sold off) once post Brexit economic realities hit. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an ingrained feature of 'policy' that won't change.

Older debt is already being sold off. It will be easier to sell off the rest, and to accomplish the same of the old debt too, if unlimited T & C changes are permitted. This will be a most tempting way of gussying up the whole portfolio for sale. Thresholds can be raised or lowered even as things stand. The government will not be able to afford unlimited writeoffs or continued raising of the threshold. Something will have to give, even without a firesale.

Interest rates have risen from 4.6% to 6.3% in a very short span of time. Upward changes in interest rates mean that individuals will pay more interest on top of the average £5,800 in interest rates that have already accrued by the time they graduate. If they reach the magic £25k threshold, interest rates, and more specifically the potential for them to rise along with inflation, becomes a problem. A high earner could pay £40k in interest rates alone over the course of the years.

The shake out is not going to be decades in the future. It will happen within the next ten years, and borrowers are going to be screwed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38880809
The government has had a long-standing aim to sell the student loan book to private investors - with types of loans being sold in separate stages

Over the next four years it aims to dispose of the loans from before 2012, when tuition fees in England were trebled to £9,000 per year.

The slice of loans now being put on sale - dating from 2002 to 2006 - have a face value of £4bn.

The government is promising that there will be "no changes to the terms and conditions" for borrowers - so that rates of repayment for former students will remain the same.

It means that interest on these student loans will become an income for private investors, but repayments will continue to be collected through taxation and the Student Loans Company.

The Intergenerational Foundation think tank has calculated that a student borrowing for three years' tuition could pay back £54,000 - before debts are cancelled after 30 years.

The Universities Minister Jo Johnson says the sale of assets is part of the drive to bring "public finances under control".

But he said it would "only proceed once we are satisfied that it represents value for money for the taxpayer"...

...Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said that there was much "misinformation" about the sale of loans, and the key issue was making sure that the taxpayer received good value.

"What the government is doing may make some sense," said Mr Hillman.

"Why should it keep the loans forever on its books? Why shouldn't the demand of pension funds for long-term income streams be satisfied if there are no clear losers? Why shouldn't we look for imaginative ways to reduce the national debt?"

^Consumer finance expert Martin Lewis welcomed assurances about borrowers not facing a negative, but cautioned: "It is a question of 'watch this space' to see if their rhetoric is matched by their delivery."

Is this the same Martin Lewis Blaa was posting about upthread?

For 'value for taxpayers' read - lack of political will to raise general taxation levels and in particular to increase taxes on the wealthy.

Graduates are going to have their loans transformed into cash cows for investors, who won't touch the portfolio without reserving to themselves the right to change T & Cs.

Consumer finance expert Martin Lewis welcomed assurances about borrowers not facing a negative, but cautioned: "It is a question of 'watch this space' to see if their rhetoric is matched by their delivery."

Italic fail...

"Yes, the almost free ride offered to students demonstrating financial need in 66 US major US universities goes a long way toward creating 'denizens' of extremely privileged students..."

How many students get a "free ride"? Its not a lot. The overwhelming mass of student bodies in Ivy League universities come from extremely privileged backgrounds.

55% percent of Harvard students receive some sort of financial aid, with the average grant being 53,000.

The cost of tuition room and board is 60,000. So even families given the average grant ( and this will be skewed by the number given the full grant) will be coughing up significant amounts of cash.

So the majority of Harvard students are not given a free ride, and the majority pay some significant proportion of the fees.

Anecdote is not the plural of data.

I taught at an Ivy League. The 1st two years of any college undergrad degree are more like A levels.

Lots of entry level positions that now require a degree do so because of the career progression you get from those positions. The examples you have used are poor, creating a strawman. Poor critical thinking. BTW graduate trainee schemes, are part of the not 25% that have degrees as a barrier to entry, there is a difference between being accepted to a professional body and an informal barrier.

Income inequality is higher in the US than the UK. Social mobility in the US is lower than in the UK.

The loan system is certainly complex in the UK. On the one hand for the first time in UK history you can go to university entirely free of charge no matter what your background and the state pays and you do not have to pay a penny up front in many cases if you pick cheap accommodation or live at home. That is massive change. In my day if your parents did not make the minimum grant of £50 up to a full grant of £900 you could not go unless you got a very rare job that would fund it (or unless you were very badly off so got a full grant and were one of the 15% who got to go i.e. not most people).

On the other hand the 9% graduate tax is off putting for a lot of people and many do not like the idea they will earn 9% less (and the rules might also change).

It is also very unfair people in Scotland don't pay.

college.harvard.edu/admissions/choosing-harvard/affordability

"Around 60 percent of Harvard families pay an average of $12,000 per year."

So still a significant amount and not any way showing that the majority get a free ride.

Interestingly, when its drilled down into, students from middle class and more affluent background.

"For families earning between $65,000 and $150,000, the expected contribution is between zero and 10 percent of your annual income."

So families earning above the US median household income can contribuite very little. Hmmm.

"Families earning more than $150,000 may still qualify for financial aid."

So families with around 3 times the average American household income can still claim financial aid.

So, as said, most of the aid actually goes to families that are on avove average incomes, with another 40% or so paying full whack.

And before that you have the inequality set up by the American public school system meaning that the opportunities to apply, and the ability of schools in poorer areas to help their students meet entry requirements is massively reduced.

Harvard is also the most generous of all Ivy League schools, and its still a place of inherited unearned privilege.

"It is also very unfair people in Scotland don't pay."

Its not, thats a political decision made by the Scottish government using its develoved powers.

England could do the same if it chose to, but politicians keep playing to the Daily Mail classes by setting up the "why should the bin man pay for the Doctors eductions" strawman.

It doesn't work like that and graduates pay more tax on average than non graduates anyway.

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/graduatesintheuklabourmarket/2017

n July to September 2017, there were 14 million graduates in the UK.

There has been a steady increase in the number of graduates in the UK over the past decade.

In July to September 2017, graduates were more likely to be employed than non-graduates.

Non-graduates aged 21 to 30 have consistently higher unemployment rates than all other groups; non-graduates aged 21 to 30 have much higher inactivity rates than recent graduates.

40% of graduates worked in the public administration, education and health industries. Graduates were more likely to work in high-skilled posts than non-graduates.

Annual earnings for graduates are higher than for non-graduates and reach a peak at a later age.

In July to September 2017, those graduates that had an undergraduate degree in medicine or engineering were the most likely to be employed and had the highest average gross annual pay.

Male graduates were more likely to have a high- or upper-middle-skill job than female graduates.

How nice of you arguing about universities 😏
Ivy Vs Oxbridge? 🤔
Only few DC can go there!
Stats are very good but they are not reflect reality of things.
Not everyone need and want go Oxbridge/Ivy. But for some it is necessity, but it requires a lot of effort.
How many DC are ready to involve in competition?

That's exactly the point.

Those devaluing degrees from institutions that aren't as highly regarded do so because it suits their snob appeal values. Not because educating yourself to the best of your ability is not worth while.

This is a weird thread. Meanwhile in RL, all dds friends are off to a varied bunch of unis to do a varied bunch of subjects. Everyone seems happy.

This is main aim: DC happiness

I agree about people being happy about their choices.

Most of those people will end up with graduate level positions whatever the university they went to.

Lets not forget though that the UK's most notorious drug dealer was an Oxford Grad and post grad, as were its most famous traitors.

🙈
Let's not turn this way