Higher education: Guardian article makes me want to vote Conservative

[Flaymproof]

This opinion piece today is idiotic: amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/20/boris-johnson-arts-degrees-conservative-funds
Nobody is trying to ban arts degrees, and everyone can agree they have high value, but there are just too bloody many of them. While they have been up on their pedestal there has been a chronic shortage of STEM graduates and skilled tradespeople which is damaging to the economy. There has also been a shortage of teachers in these fields, which leads to a vicious circle. It's not about encouraging young people into higher paid jobs - that's just a carrot - it's about addressing a real need for certain skills and facing down the twentieth century myth, passed on by parents with their heads in the sand, that it doesn't matter what degree you have, so long as you have one.

Also agree that the Creative Arts have become the 'preserve' of the Wealthier - how can anyone else possibly pay their bills whilst creating their Art unless money comes from elsewhere? Or really supportive poor parents who sacrifice everything just in case Baby 'makes it'.

The only other possibility is that an Artist resides in such a deprived area that they live in a 'garret' and there are no jobs so get the minimal benefits to live without too much hassle or they are quite unemployable for a myriad of reasons and so also may get benefits without too much Job Centre 'hassle'.

I'm sure lots of Artists that haven't found employment success fit into the latter categories.

Gaugin probably would. Great Painter but a bit shit at Women's Rights.

I think arts degrees are very important - and I think the arts are important in society. I also think humanities degrees are useful for many quite corporate careers (the city, law, management consultancy) - however - if you didn’t go somewhere perceived as ‘good’ it is often very hard to translate them into jobs.

I do think there are too many liberal arts and too few science degrees (and language degrees actually) being taken right now. If this changes it means arts and humanities will flourish fine in the elite institutions and dwindle in the more average ones. This is sad in some ways but there are other ways to include the arts in education than doing a full degree - and it is less sad than spending a lot of money doing degree and not getting a job.

I work in the media and I have been pretty disturbed for years by the number of media studies and drama graduates around - there simply aren’t jobs for these students. While on the other hand funding for actual drama schools (whose students have been rigorously assessed and should all be talented enough to make a go of a career) is so limited many of their students struggle to take up the offer of a place (hence the posh actor problem).

So I think a change is due, but at the same time it would be good to fund the arts in community life as much as possible, along with music in schools which has been so underfunded.

party purely out of curiosity, with no judgement, interest etc how did you get your job? "Media" is wide-ranging - honestly I'm really just curious.

And me also alarmed at the amount of Media Studies (useless) Degrees that many students have taken and may consider taking without a chance of a job at the end of it.

As a secretary in a big media corporation. Would be much harder to do these days as so many of those roles have disappeared.

When I started (20 years ago) there were people from a variety of backgrounds (almost all white but socially varied). Now it’s much much more middle class - more ethnic diversity - but socially much less.

I think it’s really important to fix this (because it has such influence on how the world is seen) but the way to do it is to get more people from varied backgrounds into good universities to do whatever interests them (for a lot of media it remains true that a good degree from a good university is all that matters), and then give people from underrepresented a good chance at graduate training places to rocket their careers.

I should say that a good tech focused media degree can be very useful if you want a tech focused career, because many of the training an apprenticeships have disappeared. It’s the creative/communication media studies degrees that are the issue.

for a lot of media it remains true that a good degree from a good university is all that matters

Hopefully that also includes STEM degrees. Recruiters from media companies should not assume STEM grads conform to the lazy stereotypes often depicted in the media. If they don't mind what degree people do then having more STEM grads in the pool shouldn't concern them. It's perfectly possible to have a maths degree and also be a skilled communicator!

Oh for sure, I work with many Stem grads.

Me and the previous PP derailed the thread slightly talking about media careers and unhelpful degrees in that space.

I don’t think more or less stem degrees will make any difference to the media as a sector.

Private schools can afford to employ specialist maths and physics teachers who did the subjects at uni, but state schools find it harder. Is this going to lead to a 2 tier system too?

Did you see my post about my BIL? He chose private over state because there they only wanted him to teach his speciality.

The state school asked him to teach biology and chemistry up to GCSE — he hasn't done practical work since his first year at university (and that was more computer-based rather than 'wet') because he doesn't like it and isn't very good at it. It's a bit like doing Fine Arts and being asked to teach cookery as well!

I don't think a two tier system is a good thing either, but I honestly think they'd be better recruiting one specialist in each for science, rather than expect people to teach things they haven't done for years — it's hardly going to foster enthusiasm is it?!

I should say I know there are definitely some science teachers, who can teach all three and be enthusiastic about them all, but not everybody is one of those. Especially the physics/maths/computer science specialists in my experience.

@SallySycamore

Private schools can afford to employ specialist maths and physics teachers who did the subjects at uni, but state schools find it harder. Is this going to lead to a 2 tier system too?

Did you see my post about my BIL? He chose private over state because there they only wanted him to teach his speciality.

The state school asked him to teach biology and chemistry up to GCSE — he hasn't done practical work since his first year at university (and that was more computer-based rather than 'wet') because he doesn't like it and isn't very good at it. It's a bit like doing Fine Arts and being asked to teach cookery as well!

I don't think a two tier system is a good thing either, but I honestly think they'd be better recruiting one specialist in each for science, rather than expect people to teach things they haven't done for years — it's hardly going to foster enthusiasm is it?!

I agree with this. I am a science teacher with a biology degree. Whilst I can teach KS3 and KS4 chemistry and physics reasonably well, I will never be as good as a chemistry or physics specialist in the subject. Vice versa for them with Biology. It’s that extra cultural capital knowledge and anecdotes and passion and specific off-the-cuff/ad-hoc practicals that come to you more naturally when you teach within your specialism. Because you’ve spent your life learning about your specialism, you can answer almost any out there questions from students and have a bigger bank of practicals in your head that you know would work with the content.

The physics and chemistry teachers at our school have all moved to private schools for that exact reason - so they could teach their specialism. People with biology backgrounds tend to make up about 60-70% of the science departments in most state schools.

@Flaymproof I’m a software developer with an ‘arts’ degree and sort of agree with you.
We don’t have unlimited amounts of money. And the vast majority of people don’t have a ‘burning passion’ for anything. They just want a decent job with decent pay and to go home to their families.
The more funding there is for undergraduate degrees the less there is for research at the postgrad level , which is what really matters.
Government should fund based on what the country needs. So for top institutions across all fields full funding to enable everyone to go.
Those which don’t have to offer more flexible forms of education. A bit like the U.S community college model. We don’t need close to 50% of the population with 3+ year degrees.

There will always be people who are switchers. I for example did well academically across the board, was an international student on scholarship so didn’t have a lot of degree choice. I’m better at my job than quite a few of my STEM peers. But I’ve had to do a lot of catching up, and learn stuff they take for granted.

they'd be better recruiting one specialist in each for science, rather than expect people to teach things they haven't done for years

I a school governor so often sit on interview panels for teachers. The reason schools do this is to spread the risk of teachers leaving - there's a shortage of science teachers so if everyone specialises, and your physicist leaves, there is no guarantee you'll be able to replace them. We need more STEM grads going into teaching. Our school hasn't been able to recruit a single specialist physicist in the 7 years I've been a governor. And that is one big reason why so few students do physics - there is often no teacher to inspire them.

@partyatthepalace exactly!
Full funding for those who are good enough to make it. More funding for arts at school level so that’s it’s not limited to those whose parents can pay for extracurriculars.

Meaning that the pool of people who can actually compete for the fewer places is larger, but those who do get in have guaranteed funding and will be able to work in their chosen field.

Flaymproof, I suppose it's a bit chicken and egg. I just can't see how you'd ever get (or hold onto) a specialist if you tell them they have to teach GSCE biology and they don't want to, and somewhere else says they don't have to.

I do understand why schools have to make that decision, but it just doesn't seem very good for the teachers or students.

[quote TheLastLotus]@partyatthepalace exactly!
Full funding for those who are good enough to make it. More funding for arts at school level so that’s it’s not limited to those whose parents can pay for extracurriculars.

Meaning that the pool of people who can actually compete for the fewer places is larger, but those who do get in have guaranteed funding and will be able to work in their chosen field.[/quote]
Yep - this is what we need to do,