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.

(fraud by individuals and fake employers who siphoned off the money for training).

@KeflavikAirport

Which is why I said waited top grades. To take that into account. I live in a country with time banks for lifelong learning and it works very well. Doesn’t have to be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Well we already have a contextual admissions process.

I agree, it doesn't have to be bureaucratic to run a degree apprenticeship but it is! It's a bloody nightmare.

I’m not an education policy expert but I have taught a lot of mature students and it just seems to me that an awful lot of people would benefit a lot more from further study later in life, not straight out of school.

@KeflavikAirport

Which is why I said waited top grades. To take that into account. I live in a country with time banks for lifelong learning and it works very well. Doesn’t have to be a bureaucratic nightmare.

The schemes similar to this that were run under Labour were called Individual Learning Accounts - the government contributed an amount for lifelong learning, individuals could match it and the idea was that employers also would put time/money into the ILA “banks” so that people could take courses to improve specific skills or general employability, funded jointly across business and government.

Government put cash in (like a few thousand per person). Individuals then put in amounts. Employers wouldn’t contribute, wouldn’t recognise the scheme, and didn’t allow employees time off to update their skills.

Then the system was scammed by fraudsters who set up fake companies claiming to be employers, and commissioning “courses” from fake training providers; and huge amounts of government money was fraudulently siphoned off. The schemes were wound up.

That’s the culture in the U.K. 😂

“If we had more Computer Science graduates working in corporate IT departments, and fewer arts graduates, they would undoubtedly do a better job whether their real talent was drama or not.”

All I can do is share my own experience to give you an idea of how you are misguided in stating this. I graduated with a first class degree in an arts subject from one of the best universities in the country. I loved my subject, but was conscious of the limited funding for arts research. I interned at a Big 4 accounting firm alongside other students who were primarily engineers and mathematicians. I performed well and was offered a graduate role. I was praised for my highly analytical skills and excellent communication ability. These were skills I learnt during my degree, and indeed while being a bartender part time. I went on to do a master’s degree in my arts subject at Oxbridge and came away with very high grades. Although tempted to pursue a PhD, I decided to take up my offer within the Big 4. I completed my chartered accountancy qualification - 15 highly technical exams - without a single fail. I had already had 4 years of learning to self-direct my learning in a flexible way around other commitments. My colleagues with STEM degrees struggled to do this despite being better at maths and having bigger egos because of it. They likewise struggled to perform in the workplace despite apparently being more employable. My arts degree made me the person I am today, and I would have loathed doing engineering. Crucially, it would not have made me better at my job - it would have made me worse. I’m 25 and the only unemployed people I know from my school year have STEM degrees. One of my friends from my arts degree has just completed her graduate medicine degree and is a doctor. Did she waste her time in the arts? Absolutely not - it is part of who she is and it makes her a brilliant doctor. It’s not necessary to funnel everyone into a degree they don’t want to do in order to make people valuable or employable.

@TheKeatingFive

If we had more Computer Science graduates working in corporate IT departments, and fewer arts graduates, they would undoubtedly do a better job

What’s this based on?

Any employer I’ve come across values a diversity of backgrounds. No matter how ‘relevant’ a uni degree, a huge amount of training is done on the job.

They may value a diversity of social and cultural backgrounds, but they also usually list "desirable skills" in the job specifications and often don't get them. So, yes, they do then provide training, but they are starting behind the curve and it costs them more ... all because the grads in question used government subsidy to do a less-than-relevant degree.

They may value a diversity of social and cultural backgrounds, but they also usually list "desirable skills" in the job specifications and often don't get them.

That’s totally rubbish though based on every conversation I’ve ever had with an employer. And even skills learnt in uni often need significant readjusting when applying to a work environment.

Equally arts grads will often have numerous softer skills that serve them extremely well in the workplace. Communication, teamwork, mentoring, managing, spotting opportunities, networking. The idea that it’s purely technical skills that matter is so short sighted.

As most PP’s have said. There’s not a shortage of STEM graduates, nowhere near a shortage. What there is is a shortage of STEM graduates in pure STEM jobs because they are not lucrative enough to attract the big academic achievers that usually pursue STEM degrees. Take the PGCE for example. They’re virtually giving away £30k bursaries to physics, chemistry and maths graduates to get into teaching but nobody is biting because even a mediocre physicist from a lower-ranking uni can easily walk into an actuary or data analysis job and get paid 3x as much.

There are two points really.

Firstly, apart from particular niche roles, it’s not usually your technical ability that leads to success in your chosen field. It’s your ability to lead, spot opportunities, analyse situations, communicate your ideas, get along with people, motivate others, motivate yourself, take ownership of what you do, understand the people and culture you’re operating within.

And university degrees, in whatever field, do help with all that, though they’ll usually be complimented by personal qualities and additional experiences.

Secondly, I understand the push back that 3 years of critiquing Aristotle doesn’t sound like a particular efficient way of gaining those skills, but I’m not sure these skills are suited to ‘efficient’ learning. It’s really not as simple as doing a short course.

The vast majority of Technical Software/IT jobs specify either computer science or 1-2 years commercial experience. Very few are the actual entry jobs that give you the 1-2 years experience. I spent several years looking on jobs boards.

There are several non-technical jobs at software/IT firms which do not state CS/engineering degree as a requirement.

These jobs have different functions, but I think the recruitment problems are in subsections of the technical type.

Keatingfive - stem companies are more likely to move operations abroad where there are a bigger pool of stem grads (especially with govt’s hostile immigration policy). As it is unlikely they will be able to compete on salary with finance sector.

stem companies are more likely to move operations abroad where there are a bigger pool of stem grads (especially with govt’s hostile immigration policy). As it is unlikely they will be able to compete on salary with finance sector.

This comes down to government policy then. Perhaps they’re being very short sighted or perhaps these kinds of jobs aren’t as crucial to the economy as people think they are.

The U.K. has long hitched its wagon to the finance/consultancy sectors. And there is shitloads of money (and opportunities for all kinds of grads there).

I graduated with a first class degree in an arts subject from one of the best universities in the country.

Can you see that what got you through the door of the Big 4 firm was the fact that your degree was from a good university? I’m ex Big 4. They look for people who have graduated from Oxbridge, Durham, the Russell Group.

You can’t be seriously suggesting that somebody graduating in English from the University of Bedfordshire or the University of Wolverhampton would have the same opportunities? For those people, degree choice is more important than it is for people at top universities, who have many more options.

Although tempted to pursue a PhD, I decided to take up my offer within the Big 4. I completed my chartered accountancy qualification - 15 highly technical exams - without a single fail.

Perhaps things are different now but when I went through those exams, it was pretty rare for candidates to fail any of them, so I’m not sure that this is something to shout about.

My colleagues with STEM degrees struggled to do this despite being better at maths and having bigger egos because of it.

Are you seriously suggesting that your colleagues with STEM degrees were failing professional exams left, right and centre? I very much doubt it. I laughed at your ‘bigger egos’ dig: a bit chippy, are you?

They likewise struggled to perform in the workplace despite apparently being more employable

Now you’ve gone one step further with your anti-STEM crusade: not only do STEM grads have big egos, according to you, not only did they regularly fail their professional exams, but as a category they ‘struggle to perform in the workplace’? Hahahaha.

I was praised for my highly analytical skills and excellent communication ability Really? Did your analytical skills lead you to make childish digs at people with degrees in subjects that clearly make you feel inferior?

If we had more Computer Science graduates working in corporate IT departments, and fewer arts graduates, they would undoubtedly do a better job whether their real talent was drama or not. And, guess what, they could still do drama too - there are plenty of amateur dramatics societies, which are the most common subject-related destination of ex-drama students anyway (if they're not demonstrating toys in Hamleys, being extras in epics, pretending to be zombies at the London Dungeon, running Escape Rooms or teaching drama). #justoneexample

I think everyone who sneers at drama degrees should be forbidden from watching tv/cinema/theatre. Arts contributes a lot to our society. Someone who wants to study that shouldn't have to do computer science just because you say so

think everyone who sneers at drama degrees should be forbidden from watching tv/cinema/theatre. Arts contributes a lot to our society.

Nobody would argue with your second point , but your first point is silly. If the number of drama degrees was cut by half we would still have the same amount of high quality drama ... there would just be fewer ex-drama students moving into other fields when they finally realise they're not going to be able to make a living out of drama. If there were degrees in playing football, and their prevalence was demand-led and subsidised by government so that anyone who fancied themselves as a football player could choose to do one, then we would have a surplus of graduate football players moving into other fields too. Luckily they tend to realise they don't have what it takes earlier in their teens and plan to continue it as a hobby instead. That doesn't stop people watching and enjoying football, does it?

Interesting. Our family doctor in the Sixties was a language grad who converted to medicine and I have a university friend from the Seventies who did likewise and was a major success. I did Eng Lit at university and went to Barts to see if I could convert to medicine and was told I could if I'd got a first. I had. In the end I stopped the process because I realised with a catch up year in science and a five year degree (no savings) I couldn't afford it.

Interestingly while working in IT later I was offered a post in the new fangled Trust managements. What would I have had to offer? they really were casting around.

But I somewhat agree that primary school teachers IMHE should know more about maths and sciences, which is where the vicious circle starts.

@Flaymproof

Firstly, I don’t think there is a shortage of STEM grads.

Well there is. So you're wrong.

Absolutely there is! But they're considered harder to do, so fewer people want to do them.

@KeflavikAirport

I’m not an education policy expert but I have taught a lot of mature students and it just seems to me that an awful lot of people would benefit a lot more from further study later in life, not straight out of school.

Although the culture is changing, there is still a strongly held belief that education is for the very young. It isn't. When I did my MBA in my mid-thirties, I was considered 'old'. How crazy is that?

Nobody would argue with your second point , but your first point is silly. If the number of drama degrees was cut by half we would still have the same amount of high quality drama ... there would just be fewer ex-drama students moving into other fields when they finally realise they're not going to be able to make a living out of drama. If there were degrees in playing football, and their prevalence was demand-led and subsidised by government so that anyone who fancied themselves as a football player could choose to do one, then we would have a surplus of graduate football players moving into other fields too. Luckily they tend to realise they don't have what it takes earlier in their teens and plan to continue it as a hobby instead. That doesn't stop people watching and enjoying football, does it?

It depends if you see Drama purely as a means to an end or valuable in its own right with transferable skills. It sounds as if all that is important in your argument is the means to an end as if degrees are just workplace training schemes, when they are much more than that. Having an educated population is good.

Absolutely there is! But they're considered harder to do, so fewer people want to do them.

One of the main reasons they're "harder" is because we don't have enough good teachers. I'm a school governor in a good comprehensive secondary school and often sit on interview panels. In my experience most physics teachers have biology or (if you're lucky) chemistry degrees, and some KS3 maths teachers only have maths A level themselves, sometimes only a C. That's because there simply aren't enough high quality applicants for STEM teaching jobs - their skills are in high demand elsewhere. Teens who are taught by people who lack passion for their subject are unlikely to become passionate themselves and will certainly find subjects 'hard' if teachers find it difficult to explain concepts.

It depends if you see Drama purely as a means to an end or valuable in its own right with transferable skills.

The skills are transferable whether someone has a degree in them or not - the value of drama skills to a software developer is not diminished by them being nurtured through amateur dramatics rather than a government-subsidised degree programme! However their software development skills would be much better if they had studied computer science or another STEM discipline that included software development modules.

However their software development skills would be much better if they had studied computer science or another STEM discipline that included software development modules.

People who are themselves employers have already told you this is not necessarily the case.

As it happens, my specialism is a significant part of certain degree programmes. My company has an (unofficial) policy of never hiring someone with significant academic experience in this skill. The difference between how the discipline is conducted in an academic versus commercial environment is too great. We’d prefer to start from scratch than unlearn practices that don’t work in the commercial world. It’s not an unusual position either.

Why can't we give physics teachers more money/ better hours - is it the unions

the value of drama skills to a software developer is not diminished by them being nurtured through amateur dramatics

There’s a huge different between taking part in Am Dram and studying the history, theory, practical application, technical skills of the discipline as a degree subject.

Teaching is an undervalued profession in general

There’s a huge different between taking part in Am Dram and studying the history, theory, practical application, technical skills of the discipline as a degree subject.

Absolutely. It's unbelievable that people can't understand this.