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.

@DelBocaVista what you seem to be saying is that if we introduce a student cap (for example 50 students) then most of those places will go privileged people.

What I am saying is that people with grades below a certain level should not spend a further three years in university. This is for subjects that require academic ability. It doesn’t matter whether they’re poor etc . If your argument is that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds get lower grads the answer then is to invest in schooling, not shove them into tertiary education when they couldn’t even cope with secondary.

For people banging on about ‘critical thinking and research skills’ - people who aren’t academic aren’t likely to suddenly become good at this just because they go to university. Also a lot of courses have so much practical content they might as well be vocational courses!
If only we weren’t so snobby about these...

Also @DelBocaVista I remember you from another thread - you are a uni career adviser and very qualified if I remember correctly

Secondly, arts graduates will be involved in the legal processes behind the endeavours mentioned, the HR policies of the scientists’ work environments, the communication policy and PR support of developments in these spheres, the advertising and marketing of them, the creation of behavioural change policies to drive uptake, lobbying of government

When I read this, I thought about the Golgafrinchans from the Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy. Specifically the B ship. All convinced of the importance of their endeavours despite having been got rid of by the thinkers and the doers.

Where would we be without communication policies, PR support and lobbying? Almost impossible to imagine a world without them, isn’t it?

I’m not suggesting that these disciplines, and HR, are entirely without value, but to suggest that they are as valuable to the human race, and/or to the economy, as vaccine development, creation and use of new computing languages or investigation of renewable energy options is quite fanciful, I think.

Where would we be without communication policies, PR support and lobbying? Almost impossible to imagine a world without them, isn’t it?

Whether you personally value them or not, they are crucial functions of modern companies and no, R&D functions couldn’t operate without them. 🤷‍♀️

It’s almost like you need a wide range of skills and specialisms for the modern world to function. What a novel thought.

It's been asserted many times on this thread that there is a shortage of STEM students. That doesn't seem to be borne out by the evidence a great number of stem students don't find work in stem areas even in stem areas in which it's alleged that there is shortage.

This report is admittedly 3 years old, but I doubt a huge amount has changed in that time.

www2.le.ac.uk/departments/sociology/people/pwhite/TheemploymenttrajectoriesofSTEMgraduatesFINALREPORT20180801.pdf

It's unfortunate this conversation has degenerated into a discussion of the value of an arts degree, a tired old bunfight that existed long before the current arrangement of sending 50% of the population to university was introduced . I would like it to have stuck with the concept that some degrees are not worth doing, and some people currently going to university should possibly be doing something else. The problem isn't people studying English or philosophy or music or drama, it's the one getting degrees in cake decoration at a former polytechnic. (OK, I made that up. But traditional arts degrees are fairly demanding compared to some other things. In terms of a degree as proof of intellectual ability, while physics always comes at the top, I've seen philosophy in second or third place in one table.)

I think the solution is to make universities liable for any student debt written off, and require them to insure against that future liability at the time they take students on. That will focus their minds on what value they are adding. (I know future-earning-ability isn't the only measure of the value of an education, but for the bulk of students it probably is the best.)

DelBocaVista what you seem to be saying is that if we introduce a student cap (for example 50 students) then most of those places will go privileged people.

Yes. It's what's happened in the past. We currently have no caps on students numbers still have an unequal higher education system. Not only in regards to whether they go to university at all but also which university they go to.

What I am saying is that people with grades below a certain level should not spend a further three years in university. This is for subjects that require academic ability.
I agree. University isn't for everyone

It doesn’t matter whether they’re poor etc . If your argument is that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds get lower grads the answer then is to invest in schooling, not shove them into tertiary education when they couldn’t even cope with secondary.

I'm certainly not saying that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds aren't as clever. Not at all!!!! On paper they may achieve lower grades but that is often due to a whole range of structural barriers such as school attended, parents attitude to education, parents education level, not having a study space at home, having to work part time while studying etc....... it's why we have contextual admissions.

However, even when students from a lower socioeconomic backgrounds get the required grades for elite universities and academic subjects they are still more likely to choose to attend a low to mid ranking local university. This primarily relates to feelings of belonging and fitting in.

For people banging on about ‘critical thinking and research skills’ - people who aren’t academic aren’t likely to suddenly become good at this just because they go to university. Also a lot of courses have so much practical content they might as well be vocational courses!
Some university courses are vocational courses as it's okay to view them as such but they often have quite a bit of academic content too. I run a masters which is classed as a vocational subject - I'm training my students to do a job. You can train to do that job the NVQ route but only to a level 6. My course is a level 7 and has a high academic content alongside significant amount of professional practice. That makes them more employable than those who did the NVQ route and it's promoted as the 'gold standard' by our professional body.

If only we weren’t so snobby about these...
I do agree that we need to change the narrative around vocational courses.

If one considers the group of students destined to have a substantial amount of student debt written off, surely for a lot of them we can say that the money spent on their degrees could have been spent in other ways that would have done more good?

My kids are specialists.
One of them finds maths and science tricky and just scraped GCSE passes. He has been drawing fantastic creatures since he was a toddler, making and illustrating his own books since he was 5, and is now absolutely loving and excelling in his graphics A level. I have no doubt he will go to uni and do graphic design. Whether or not this is worthwhile, he will generate a portfolio, get links with people in the field etc. He could no more do a degree in STEM instead than I could swim the Channel. It's not in him.

Second son is the opposite. Maths comes to him naturally. He seems to see it all laid out like a language. His teachers called him "the human calculator" at primary school. He excels in science and computing, and is able across the board. He probably might be able academically to do a degree in French or English literature, but why would he, when his passion is in IT and maths? I don't see that as inherently more valuable, though, than his brother's skill in art and design.

I don't see the point in getting lots of people who don't adore it or don't excel in it to do STEM degrees. For a happy life, we should all do what we love.

@TheLastLotus

Also *@DelBocaVista* I remember you from another thread - you are a uni career adviser and very qualified if I remember correctly

Yes I am. I'm a qualified careers adviser and I've worked in schools and HE. I have a PhD which looked at fair access to higher education- specifically first generation students and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I now teach careers and employability at postgraduate level and cover a lot on graduate employability.

In fact, we have a series of academic debates throughout the course and I've just added this topic to the list for next academic year!

One thing that I can't get my head around is why in the UK so many careers are only taught at university, e.g. midwifery, speech and language therapist, nursing, etc. Where I come from, these are apprenticeships and hence more attractive for many people to take up.

The problem isn't people studying English or philosophy or music or drama, it's the one getting degrees in cake decoration at a former polytechnic. (OK, I made that up.

The thing is, these very specialist courses often have excellent graduate employability prospects.
There was a course mocked on here a few years ago - I think I it was theme park management. The employability figures and salaries were excellent and the placement opportunities were incredible. There was a similar picture for other very specific courses.

But MN does love an opportunity to mock courses like these AND former polytechnics- or Post 92 universities as we prefer to be known 😉

genuine arts are needed, because as a civilized society, we need culture.
But there are indeed plenty of pretty useless degrees which are neither arts nor sciences (think a variety of business studies), which don't require neither talent nor devotion, and have driven down the value of degrees in the employment market altogether.

I think our class system perpetuates the Arts as a good subject because people from top private school, who then get to Oxbridge ( this is changing slowly) - get the top city jobs, top government jobs, top pay and perpetuate the system, when in fact it's their privilege talking and not the subject.
Engineers are anyone from your local washing machine repairman to a top aeronautical designer.
That's ridiculous. Again snobbishness, I bet top MPs DCs aren't studying engineering.

Glencora what mess?

How would history graduates avoid the "mess" we are in now?

I agree that history and being able to distinguish between sources is vital but I'm not sure what would have saved us from covid?

"I think the solution is to make universities liable for any student debt written off"

Only if you want to kill off the UK university sector, or at the very least the vast majority of it, baby, bathwater and all. No more anthropologists, archaeologists or linguists for a start. Actually that's happening already - Sheffield is currently threatening to close down its world-renowned archaeology department. Knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing is the saying that springs to mind.

@WyldStallions congratulations you’re really lucky to have kids with such obvious talents. This discussion isn’t about people like them. If someone had a clear passion AND talent for something what they should study is a no-brainer.

The vast majority of people don’t. They have an idea of what they’re good at, and some understanding of what sort of life they’d like. They choose their degree based on what subject fits these and gives them the widest options. Some people don’t know and just choose a random subject that sounds interesting.
It is this ‘undefined’ bunch that we are talking about...

How would history graduates avoid the "mess" we are in now?

I looked into studying history at OU and they put me off. Unless looking to get into teaching or tour-guiding... there are virtually no employment prospects. All these "exciting" jobs that historians do on tv are extremely scarce.

@Puttingouthefirewithgasoline the entire vaccination program, track and trace - who do you think project manages that? Logistics of getting the vaccine - you don’t need a STEM degree for that.

I’m a software developer and there are many, MANY arts graduates who contribute to software. The business analysts who gather requirements, the project managers who deal with stakeholder. Without them I would be nothing.

FWIW graduates with various degrees who go into unrelated fields often have good parental support who have told them the importance of things like doing extracurricular activities and work experience. That is why unis should step up here and as @DelBocaVista said they are investing more into this

@ichundich

One thing that I can't get my head around is why in the UK so many careers are only taught at university, e.g. midwifery, speech and language therapist, nursing, etc. Where I come from, these are apprenticeships and hence more attractive for many people to take up.

This problem goes back decades - right back to the post-Thatcherite period. Both the Major and Blair governments tried various routes to promote technical education and apprenticeships - anyone remember Modern Apprenticeships under New Labour? - but the problem is always the same: employers won’t bear any share of the cost.

In those lovely postwar days of technical and apprenticeship training most industries were much more heavily unionised, and explorers expected to bear part or all of the cost of training their employees. Post-Thatcher, with the idea we should all expect to have “portfolio careers” and be a “flexible workforce”, the burden of tertiary education shifted increasingly to the individual and the universities and colleges. Employers now want their workforce to just show up ready trained and skilled, without investing in any of that training.

Up until 2010 there were various efforts in terms of incentives, schemes and tax to encourage employers to take on some of the responsibility and cost for vocational and technical education (as it used to be postwar). They didn’t work, because businesses in the Uk don’t want to pay for investing in their workforce and don’t see it as their problem - they want to reap the benefits without putting in some of the cost. (Look at what happened to both technical apprenticeships and graduate schemes - pretty much all gone). It’s an ingrained culture here now - employers don’t think they should have to pay to train their employees, compared to economies like Germany where this is expected as a normal part of working culture.

Post-2010 the coalition and Conservative governments essentially gave up on trying and were happy to devolve the costs of tertiary education and training to the HE sector and the individual. (Yet businesses still complain they are facing skills gaps...one might suggest they think about investing in technical and vocational training in order to fill some of these, instead of expecting all of the cost of skills and training to be borne by 21 year olds who will then arrive on their doorstep fully skilled up like magic).

I looked into studying history at OU and they put me off. Unless looking to get into teaching or tour-guiding... there are virtually no employment prospects. All these "exciting" jobs that historians do on tv are extremely scarce.

History students develop a wide range of transferable skills are are often specifically targeted by graduate employers.

There are loads of employment prospects- just maybe not as an historian!

My DH did history and is now a senior leaders at a university. His course mates are working in media, civil service, as accountants, in recruitment...... not one of his friends is a teacher, tour guide or historian!!

Some people don’t know and just choose a random subject that sounds interesting.

That's a mistake i made. Academically good at everything, but not particulary good at anything serious, to let's say pursue medicine, or actual arts. Combined with pushy parents that drummed into me "university or go scrub toilets". Wasn't even allowed to contemplate a a proper trade.

Also to add - more privileged students have time to do all of these activities while poorer ones may have to work.
Sorry this isn’t point of thread I’ll stop now 😂

History degrees open the door for loads of employment areas.

Anyway, what we’re getting into here are questions about the purpose of universities. Which is something we’ve never bottomed out.