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

In most cases though, do those jobs requiring a generic degree actually need one or could they be done just as well by someone who spent 18-21 in the workplace?

Graduate recruiters are looking for graduates for a reason. They like the skills they have developed while studying at degree level.
For example, the top accountancy firms will target history students specifically because of the skills developed.

Lots of young people don't have a specific career idea in mind at 18. If you are academic enough then going to university and studying something you are good at and enjoy can give you the breathing space to investigate what your career path might be - not only do you develop skills that are degree specific but there are lots of opportunities to develop employability skills which are valued by employers.

The work/vocational route is great if you have a clear career idea but can be limiting if you don't.

We put a lot of pressure on young people to make career decisions at quite a young age when there is nothing wrong with taking time to explore your options, build on your skills and gain qualifications.

About bloody time . Someone who doesn't see 18 years olds as units of production.

I agree with this 100%. Apprenticeships are great but really do commit you to a career path very early which does not suit everyone

Also what will prove 'useful to our economy' may well change as automation becomes more prevalent. I think we do send too many young people to university and we should have alternatives to them for training and education at 18-25 rather than cutting off choice as to what you can study when you are at university.

Why can't we give physics teachers more money/ better hours - is it the unions
Schools can pay what they like. It's not the unions.
Many schools pay a few points on the scale higher for a decent physics teacher, but that's not enough to close the gap between teaching pay and pay of other professions that a decent physics graduate could do.

That leaves decent physics graduates who genuinely want to teach, who would teach anyway, and any old physics graduate who isn't that good. A classroom teacher is a classroom teacher with the same job description and can be allocated any subject. I wouldn't support substantially higher wages for someone doing the same job as me, with substantially less marking.

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

"People" as in a few mumsnetters? Clearly not the same employers who are telling the government the opposite. And my own experience as a recruiter says the opposite too.

"People" as in a few mumsnetters?

A quick look at the hiring policies of major employers will tell you exactly the same story.

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.

Yes, but the *transferable skills" people talk about in this context tend to be the ones associated with the acting. The other skills either have very generic value (analysis of text, which is a skill that can be honed in many subjects) or else very niche value (useful in theatre, or creative arts). If they go on to use the niche skills in employment, then fine, but if they don't (and too many don't) then it is wasteful.

Many schools pay a few points on the scale higher for a decent physics teacher, but that's not enough to close the gap between teaching pay and pay of other professions that a decent physics graduate could do.

And the ones who do teach can pick what they want, which can widen the gap further. My (comprehensive-school-educated) BIL did Natural Sciences (physics-based) at Cambridge, then a Masters in an area of Maths. He's now a secondary school teacher.

When he was moving areas, he interviewed at two schools. One
(state) wanted him to teach biology and chemistry up to GCSE, physics and Maths to A-level. Their Physics A-level and Maths A-levels typically have under 5 students, and anybody who wants to do Further Maths goes to a different school to be combined with their class.

At the second (private), they asked him to teach Physics (all ages), Further Maths A-level, and do preparation for STEP and MAT. And they'd pay more.

Which would you go for if you had the choice?!

I work abroad and we often discuss what the economy of the future will look like in 10-20 years and the thing that everyone is in agreement about is that the arts and the creative industries are going to become a much more vital part of how our economy works, especially given that certain sectors will become more and more automated.
Something to think about, anytime anyone goes on about how important STEM is and how unimportant the arts are.

A quick look at the hiring policies of major employers will tell you exactly the same story.

It may tell you who they hire, but not who they would like to hire, or the impact of not being able to hire them. Behind the scenes they are telling the government that they want to hire people with better skills. That is well documented.

The other skills either have very generic value (analysis of text, which is a skill that can be honed in many subjects)

Well you seem to be anti those subjects also, so why shouldn’t they do drama if that’s what they enjoy?

I company I used to work hired quite a few drama grads. They added huge value because they understood the value of presentation and performance. Our pitches and particularly delivery of results to clients got better because of them.

the thing that everyone is in agreement about is that the arts and the creative industries are going to become a much more vital part of how our economy works

Perhaps they're biased. If they're not also talking about the importance of cyber security, artificial intelligence, robotics and data science then they have their heads in the sand. Or maybe they expect to outsource those things to China!

It may tell you who they hire, but not who they would like to hire, or the impact of not being able to hire them

Obviously their track record speaks for themselves. Do you not know anyone who works in law, finance, marketing, IT? Why would they hire a range of degree subjects if they didn’t want to?

They could restrict themselves to strictly relevant disciples if that suited them. There is no shortage of people with degrees in some sort of finance subject, yet the Big Four continue to hire philosophers, historians, politics grads, English majors, I could go on and on

Behind the scenes they are telling the government that they want to hire people with better skills.

In some niche areas, I’m sure. Not in any of the many examples we’ve already covered.

@TheKeatingFive

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.

It must be rubbish if it doesn’t fit something you said or heard. Righto. Honestly how do some people get through the day without being able to have a reasoned debate and not dismiss other people.

Well you seem to be anti those subjects also

Nope, not anti any subject. Just anti funding higher education on the basis of demand from teenagers who have had very poor careers advice from teachers and parents and the media. Instead it needs to be funded on the basis of what the economy needs and the skills employers want.

If they're not also talking about the importance of cyber security, artificial intelligence, robotics and data science then they have their heads in the sand.

I and my arts grad heavy team have just done a project on how artificial intelligence is likely to impact a range of sectors and what kind of support business leaders will be looking for from the consultancy sector (also heavily populated by arts grads).

Instead it needs to be funded on the basis of what the economy needs and the skills employers want.

You seem not particularly on top of what the economy needs.

Do you not know anyone who works in law, finance, marketing, IT? Why would they hire a range of degree subjects if they didn’t want to?

I work in IT. We hire who we can and they frequently don't have the skills we need. We pay to upskill them, but often they don't have the educational background to catch on. Or if they do, then they upskill and move onto an employer who can pay more.

@tttigress

I have a Stem degree and M.Sc., but I don't really think there are a shortage of Stem Grads.

What I think is that we should get back to sending about 10% of the population to university.

Then improve Stem subjects being taught to school children.

Then have a quality apprenticeship program for those that don't go to university.

This! Absolutely this!

Stop making every kid feel they have to go to Uni, for jobs that they could do (paid) from school. Stop charging kids high fees for poor quality 'degrees' in poor quality unis.

Tony Blair ruined HE yup.

and The Guardian has been getting steadily more ridiculous over the years and is now not worth reading. double yup.

I and my arts grad heavy team have just done a project on how artificial intelligence is likely to impact a range of sectors and what kind of support business leaders will be looking for from the consultancy sector (also heavily populated by arts grads).

How lovely. You'll be needing some maths graduates with MSc's in AI then. Otherwise you'll still be talking about it while your competitors in other countries are actually doing it.

dfemedia.blog.gov.uk/2021/02/09/more-young-people-are-taking-stem-subjects-than-ever-before/

Well there is. So you're wrong

Nah you are

How lovely. You'll be needing some maths graduates with MSc's in AI then. Otherwise you'll still be talking about it while your competitors in other countries are actually doing it.

It was about impact on company cultures, so no, the maths grads wouldn’t have helped. They’ll he consulting on different projects within the area.

Again, lots of different people with lots of different skills, making the world go round. It really is staggering that you don’t get that.

What I think is that we should get back to sending about 10% of the population to university.

Absolutely. 10% may be a bit conservative but certainly we should get back to less than 20%.

Many university students just shouldn't be there full stop. They aren't bright enough. The extent to which goalposts have been moved to allow not very bright students to access university is just insane. It's devalued to whole benefit of having a degree.

Many others doing subjects that have a practical element to them are capable kids with huge potential but they should be in decent quality, higher level apprenticeships where they can learn to the same standard as their degree but earn at the same time and get some practical workplace experience.

@SunflowersAndLavender

What I think is that we should get back to sending about 10% of the population to university.

Absolutely. 10% may be a bit conservative but certainly we should get back to less than 20%.

Many university students just shouldn't be there full stop. They aren't bright enough. The extent to which goalposts have been moved to allow not very bright students to access university is just insane. It's devalued to whole benefit of having a degree.

Many others doing subjects that have a practical element to them are capable kids with huge potential but they should be in decent quality, higher level apprenticeships where they can learn to the same standard as their degree but earn at the same time and get some practical workplace experience.

This would result HE reverting back to being the privilege of the elite.

Behind the scenes they are telling the government that they want to hire people with better skills.

In some niche areas, I’m sure. Not in any of the many examples we’ve already covered.

Particularly in cyber security, data science, artificial intelligence and robotics. Hardly niche areas.

There's also a bit of a disconnect at some point with science jobs that doesn't help.

If you've done a PhD, you'll be in your mid-late twenties, with no pension and nothing paid off your original student loan. You can either try to hold on in academia on a series of short-term postdocs until you finally get a permanent position (great fun if you want to buy a house), or you can look at moving into industry or somewhere else.

People who were good all-rounders will often go for the civil service fast stream, or patent law, or consultancy firms at that point, because it pays more highly than a lot of actual science jobs.