to think my degree is as good as anyone elses?

[SecretSlattern]

I started off in 2004 doing a NVQ 3 in Early Years Care and Education, 3 months after having DD. I qualified 9 months later, with 2 level 3 qualifications and worked for a bit in day nurseries, pre-schools and after school clubs before studying a Foundation Degree in Early Years Childcare and Education.

At the start of the second year of my FD, I discovered I was pg with DS but continued on anyway and had him 2 weeks before the end of the course. I graduated from Uni in 2008, six weeks after having DS.

I finally went back to finish the last year of my BA (hons) in Early Childhood Studies. I now have 2 DCs, one of which is constantly in and out of hospital, and have now discovered I am pg with DC3. The timing is pretty shit, but there you go. DC3 is due in May, the same month that I am due to finish my degree (although will still have to write my dissertation, which I have done before so am confident I can do it again).

However, when telling a friend of mine what I was up to (hadn't spoken in a while), she sniffed, pulled a face and basically said it wouldn't matter if I didn't finish my degree because it isn't a proper degree anyway. "What can you do with a degree in kids?" was the question I was asked.

I actually intend to go on in the future and do a PGCE in primary, specialising in early years. AIBU to think that just because my degree is "in kids" it doesn't make it any less of a degree? I still go to uni, still have to do a mahoosive amount of work, same as any other undergrad.

My response to that post was that the poster couldn't possibly have read English. Or at least not at an RG university. Surely only at an ex-poly would anyone actually do all the reading

Lol at Quatt. My experience of an even noddier subject than English (United States Studies, if you please) at a nonRG "proper" University was that one did as little reading as one could get away with. perhaps half a novel a week except at essay time. And I was one of the harder working students on my course!

Interestingly, I did a year abroad at a v traditional and well thought of American college (think Harvard etc) and the workload there was MUCH tougher, though the academic standard was a little lower than in the UK.

Haven't read the whole thread - read the first bit and the last bit (and a bit in the middle) - quite similar to how I got through my degree really (English and Theatre at a an RG university)

I am going to be completely honest. I worked fairly hard for my degree (got a 2.1) but only had 8 hours of lectures a week, and spent far more time in the theatre (doing student drama) than the lecture theatre.

Never read a single novel as I managed to choose options involving poetry or plays. I also did two options (one in second, one in third year) to do with music and theatre, meaning that a quarter of my degree is actually in musicals. Yet my university is consistently in the top 5...

ROFL at Eviltwins. Did you perchance read my post way down the thread about the swottier sort of English students who read the opening chapter, the last chapter and one in the middle?

I agree with LeQueen. It's been an abidingly useful skill throughout my working life, to be able to breeze into a meeting without any real knowledge and breeze out again cheerfully having knocked 'em dead (they might of course have been bowled over by the sheer depth of my ignorance on any given topic, but even so).

I still can't get over an English graduate reading the set texts. Surely you only ever read the books you want to read - in which case it's not work, is it?

The perfection of the way in which Ulysses maintains the classic unitiies ...

The epistolary narrative in Clarissa ...

The secondary dialogue in Fowles, concerning theories of deconstruction ...

That's a real English undergraduate

"Gramercy's post about teachers not being allowed to tell pupils about the relative values of courses and universities is shocking. Why on earth are we hindering children in this way? It's the ones from families who have no experience of university who will be let down, choosing drama or media studies GCSE when they dream of being a lawyer... no criticism of either subject but they wouldn't help you do law."

Yes, I'd never seen anyone actually write that that was so and I wondered shy state school children often pick appalling places and courses and GCSEs as if no one has bothered to tell them what matters in the real world outside the socialist republic of state school teaching.

As for whether nannies etc need qualification was never an issue for me. We had an NNBE. We had one without. I needed someone practical who had experience with children. However qualifications can motivate and validate people and help make them ethusiasic to moving on to higher things so they have some merit even if it's just GCSE woodwork. It's like badges in brownies or children collecting music or speech exam certificates. It encourages them.

I think teachers are probably not allowed to advise on the relative merits of universities or degrees because they are not actually qualified to do so. I mean shock, horror, your child's teacher might even have a degree from an ex-poly, or even worse, the open university ....

Also, a good university for one subject can be a shite university for another subject. It really comes down to parents/students doing their research into the courses when they decide which subject they are going to do, which criteria do you use to decide which the best department is and which department do you feel fits your personality best?

A further point is that whilst people may claim to be able to "play the system" at UG level, the game changes entirely at PhD level (and in some subject areas, such as sciences, a BSc simply isn't enough). Within my research group I have postgrad students from both RG universities and ex-polys. All are extremely good students as I don't take anything less, but once I'm convinced about a student's intellectual capacity to carry out a PhD they are taken on more on the basis of: do I actually like this person? can I stand to supervise him/her for the next 4 years? and will he/she fit in with the other postgrads in the group? Anyone that comes along with delusions of grandure are likely to be immediately rejected.

I don't believe that state schools have anything to do with socialism.

Cuba, after all, has a Grammar, boarding school system.

I hate to break this to an academic, but no-one is interested in post-graduate work unless they want to be an academic. I'm always very nervous about recruiting people with phd's. I find they tend to fret so about getting things absolutely right.

So really, being able to "work the system" (whatever that means) at undergraduate level is all that is required...

Quattrocento, in humanities that may not be the case. In sciences, a PhD is most definately a requirement (unless you are either a pharmacist), otherwise you will be quickly religated to the level of techinician. This is from someone who worked in the pharmaceutical industry for several years before returning to academia.

As it's late not read it all. Just wanted to say OP, I know so few people who actually work in the field to which their degree relates. So many of us pick out a degree only to work out what we actually want to do later. At least yours is relevant! And something you genuinely care about.

And your friend sounds like a twat

Well, clearly, I must be extremely stupid, as I did tend to do most of the reading (although I admit to not finishing Ulysses). The majority of texts set were ones which I hadn't read before so I couldn't tell in advance whether or not I would like them. Perhaps that makes me stupid as well.

Those in my seminars who did best tended to be the ones who'd done the most reading, unless they were lying about it. Although not doing the set reading appears to be a badge of honour so I don't see why they would.

I wasn't boasting about the amount of work I'd done. Other people had pointed out the discrepancy in contact hours between arts and science subjects, so I was merely balancing that with a view of how much reading is involved in some arts degrees (admittedly it's usually much more pleasurable reading).

However, it seems I must bow down to the superior, sniping minds of those who look down their noses at those who work hard and attend evil ex-polys. (By the way, mine was neither RG nor ex-poly, but I don't suppose that fits into your (collective) view of the sniffingly academic PLU and the plebs who do degrees in nail filing?)

I really enjoyed my undergraduate degree, did some work and did not play the system. I actually don't understand the point in playing the system; it seems like a waste of time. Why not just get a job?

My 17 ywar old son is currently reading Ulysses for leisure. He doesn't do English at A level - he does proper subjects.

So, Swedes, come over here and say that again, if you think you're hard enough

should I bother reading past the first few posts?

Nah I doubt it - I suppose my BA in Health and Social Care from the OU that I've just completed the first part of is just a piece of p*ss and waste of time.

Not a proper degree etc etc

and of course the 16+hrs a week I'll spend from Feb-Oct this year, while looking after 3 children will also be a waste of my time

Actually can't wait to start my next course Working with Families and Children, though I must say I'm just hoping I can get my head around all the legal stuff

Well, it depends, Awassailing, did you have to work hard to get your degree?

If you did, you're probably quite thick.

Defensive

did I work hard to pass my first exam (only done 60 points of it so far)

ermm, no - major stuff going on in my life meant I didn't pick up a book for the entire 5 weeks before the exam - apart from skimming the last Unit on the bus on the way to the centre. I got 72% did rather well in it though

See, I'm finding it quite ironic that someone with the moniker slacksally is actually not slack at all, but incredibly hardworking.

I don't think you're thick for reading all your set texts. A bit earnest maybe, but not thick