to be irritated at parents accompanying their kids on university visits?

[AmberTheHappyLuddite]

Why do parents do this? I've seen dozens of them in the last few weeks, standing on either side of their offspring like a couple of pot dogs... Why are they there? The decision of which university to go to is not theirs, it has nothing to do with them - these are young adults not babies. It seems bizarrely intrusive to me - I visited all of my potential universities independently, including one five hundred miles away. Nor did I consult my parents about where to go, I informed them of my choice. However, this was a few years ago and my parents put a heavy emphasis on independence.

Let your kids do this alone - it has sod all to do with you now.

What I had in mind was that parents a few years ago may have thought they were doing absolutely the right thing sending a child off to study something like architecture or even some branches of engineering, maybe even finance. The prospects for graduates in those areas looked good at the time.

My point was that even with a lot of experienced and intelligent heads working together, a lot of good parental questions, and a lot of presentations by the universities, there are many graduates today whose prospects are not as bright as they might have been had the economy not folded. Parents can't see into the future and neither can universities.

I think the involvement of parents in the university-choosing process is an expression of anxiety rather than a useful way to ensure a good long term outcome for their students. I think the only things a parent can realistically point out and advise on are 'the bleeding obvious' things like campus safety, university neighbourhood safety, quality of the housing, etc.

What the student does with the opportunity to gain a higher education is entirely up to the student, and I think the parents who are very involved in the process of choosing a university or a course of studies are trying to control something that is actually slipping out of their hands.

I'm glad my parents felt that I should study something that I loved and enjoyed not something that was primarily useful. I always felt sorry for my contemporaries studying things like Business Studies because they thought they would lead to a job. Vocational courses are excellent for those that have a vocation, but they shouldn't be what university is solely about, and I think it is a pity that the result of opening up access seems to have been a loss of learning for the sake of learning because what you are studying is interesting, or inspiring or something that you would never know about otherwise. What is slightly odd is that careers have become much more portfolio in nature, so in some ways more general degrees should give a better grounding.

I agree, Nooka.

I used to scratch my head at the US university system, where you don't choose a major until perhaps your third year, but I think, on reflection, it has a lot going for it. Graduates of American universities have all done maths, several science subjects, English, another language, and a good few other subjects (e.g. psychology, economics, philosophy) at university level as well as the subject they specialise in by the end of their four year bachelor's degree.

I think it just shows how times have changed. I went by myself. So did most of my schoolfriends. So did my sister. But she accompanied my nephew, and I shall probably accompany my children (when the time comes) whilst at the same time having a slight feeling that we were more independent in my day. There again there were far fewer of us going to uni and maybe those that did were a bit more mature than the average 17/18 year old these days. On the other hand, part of me can't quite understand why parents accompany their children round to every campus, saying 500 miles is a long way (which indeed it is, not disagreeing) - and then wave them off to Ecuador for six months.

Plus whilst I agree it's fine at 17/18 my other sister used to work in uni admin in the languages department and said every year she would have to deal with parents complaining that their child's accomodation etc on their language year abroad (age 21-22) was not quite up to scratch. Or even that they weren't making any friends in Grenoble, or Barcelona. Or could she possibly talk to the head of the school they were teaching at re their hours? As she said at the time, are these people going to be ringing Price Waterhouse etcto complain about their child's graduate trainee programme....

Off topic a bit I know, but I'm starting to get a bit angsty about what exactly is a good subject to do. My DS is just about to sit his AS levels. His subjects are English Lit, Philosophy, Art and Medieval History. None of them are considered 'soft' subjects, and I can see him wanting to do History, Classical Civilisation or Philosophy at degree. These are pretty difficult subjects to do well in and require excellent essay writing skills. They are offered by the more serious universities, and so not 'Mickey Mouse' degrees at all. But will they get him a job? Probably not. Do they relate to anything useful he's likely to encounter in the working world? Probably not. On the other hand things like Leisure and Tourism, and Sports Management might raise a snigger in certain circles but at least they are geared towards a specific industry and may be considered of some use. It's a minefield and I'm already fretting about it. I've a good mind to tell him to get a part time job in Subway and loan him some money to start up a small business of his choice instead!

I think that there are some 'specialist' courses that might raise a snigger but, yes you are right, could lead to more secure employment. Another one - maybe at graduate level - is believe it or not 'water management'. Now there are all sorts of international institutions with an interest in this and whilst some of the jobs are in difficult 'Armpitstan' countries, I know someone who has led a life in 'water management' in such hardship locations as California, Southern Australia etc etc...

I know someone who managed to get (and still holds) a very good software writing job in the airline design/engineering industry, with a BA in Philosophy and Logic, and no further degree.

There's always Law as an option with a good BA.

When I used to work for a large oil company in the mid eighties there were loads of graduates taken on every year to work in the financial departments, and the company sponsored them through their chartered accountancy exams. Many of them had degrees in totally irrelevant subjects like Geography! It used to be assumed that if you arrived with a good honours degree in any academic subject then you were capable of going onto any management training programme or studying for any professional qualifications such as banking, accounting etc. Is it not like that now then? Does the milk round still even exist?

TiggyR The Milk Round does indeed exist (or did when I was graduating, in 2003) and those of us with 'useless' degrees in English Lit, French, Philosophy etc were being wooed, wooed, wooed by fancy firms in finance and PR and whatnot.

As I understood it then (and I work with undergraduates now, although in America, but I think it's still true) what matters is: Getting a good degree (2:1 or above), doing something else at Uni other than socialise and work (plays, Uni newspaper, charity fundraising, Uni student government) that shows initiative and drive and ambition, and then using career etc facilities at the uni, and working as hard as possible to get summer work experience, internships, and so on.

Frankly, most big employers said they didn't care what your degree was in, they wanted it to be from a 'good' uni, at a good grade, and not the only thing you've ever done. The message seemed to be that getting a BA was considered evidence of commitment and a worthy achievment in and of itself.

Certainly, I don't know anyone who did an Economics or Business Studies degree who thereby got a massive legup in the business world. Conversely, I think the other stuff matters a great deal more than folk realise.

As for the OP: I'm torn. I was terribly independent at 18 and would have died inside had my parents insisted/offered on joining me around open days. I now work with undergraduates who have no shame at all about apologizing for being late by saying "My mother usually wakes me up and I just can't seem to manage it myself."
(I confess, I icily said "Well I suggest you get a better alarm clock, or move home") - I think that over here in the US, where parents are forking out around $40,000 per year for the 'best' unis, the students are much more coddled. At least in the UK by the time they move out of halls, they've worked out how to tie their shoelaces. Over here they live in all the way through - and so have to learn how to get a flat, etc, when they're jobhunting!

blackcurrants - your post was great, and I'm glad to hear that to some extent at least, things are as they always were, and that a 'good' (ie difficult) degree from a good (ie choosy) university is what matters most. And the other stuff about extra-curricular involvement and a show of initiative is very useful as well.

blackcurrants, how do degrees in eg Economics/Politics/History stack up in the real world? (If good degrees, from good universities, obv)

Well I think it's just the general level of intelligence, application and commitment that's required to do them, versus other um, easier/friendlier subjects. Like learning French compared to learning Icelandic! Or reading Marian Keyes versus Proust.

Ponders, sorry if that sounded glib, just re-read your post and I may have misunderstood your question. (Dim, me. No degree in anyfink. Hard or otherwise.)

Me neither, Tiggy

It's just I have 1 child currently doing Politics (Russell Group); & another thinking of doing History, or Politics, or a combination, or PPE (which is what I would favour if it was up to me, which it plainly isn't ); & I was wondering if either thing will get them anywhere longterm.

I don't think that it matters what you think of solo visits/parental visits, you should just realise that it is very different now. Most students are accompanied by at least one parent-it is the norm. It changed between my DS1 and my DS3. There are arguments on both sides, but I would go with the norm-esspecially since the universities will be expecting you.

When my Dad took me to a couple of uni visits I had just got back from 6 months solo backpacking. I was more independent than he was and I was glad to have him with me.

I went to some on my own but my dad came with me to the far away ones... I really loved having him there. We hadn't got on particularly well for the last few years, I was WELL ready to leave home, but I felt that the fact he was prepared to take the time off work and drive me across the country to go and have a look at a university was pretty good really. It ended up being a really good chunk of "quality time" in the end. His role was supportive / encouraging. He definitely didn't expect to make the decision for me though! If there had been a WHIFF of that I would have told him to bugger off and mind his own business.

I do think that if you don't believe your kids are capable of making the journey on their own at the age of 17 then perhaps you need to work on that before they leave home though... once they have left they will need to be able to deal with unexpected setbacks & emergencies.