Mickey mouse degrees

[drumbeats]

I was pondering as one does and it occurred to me that what was once considered a solid degree might now actually be pretty useless. Abreast we're considered MM degrees actually have some merit.

Classics. Useless. Not as useful for politics or economics or anything much short of perhaps museum work as history or even archeology

English. Creative writing might be valuable if that is a chosen route. Pretty much everything else gained from an English degree is either purely fuelling an interest or can be gained doing a subject with more technical merit like economics or a science.

Geography. Weirdly thought of as a duffers subject. With climate change and population migration incredibly important subject.

Sociology. Incredibly useful. We live in a world with such changing social dynamics, conflicts, sensitivities. Disparity in wealth and the consequences. Political positions, social work, education, Human Resources.

Media studies. The power and influence of the media, social media and online information and misinformation is shaping minds. The manipulation of people's thinking and understanding through media is profound and potentially very dangerous.

History is one of the more difficult subjects… a lot of good universities require an A* and two As

I agree. Has economics ever been considered a "mickey mouse" degree ?

Further to a previous post, a good degree from a good university opens doors.

I think it's an interesting question.

My DD will graduate this summer with a degree in English Literature. I probably steered her down quite a 'traditional' path with her choice of degree subject, but she has nonetheless really enjoyed uni and had a lot of interesting opportunities. Her housemates are all doing Business which is obviously a lot more vocational. I hope she won't be disadvantaged by going down the traditional route, but I guess only time will tell...

@CloudPop I don't think anyone has suggested economics was ever considered a MM degree

Higher entry requirements often relate to how popular a course is rather than how hard it is. Popular courses can afford to be pickier. Not many people would consider engineering easy. Globally it is considered one of the most rigorous courses with the highest entry tariffs. In the uk it is not as popular and consequently the entry requirements are often lower than maths, physics or economics

Thinking about this a little more OP it sounds as though you are thinking like current politicians who would like as the consider degrees as vocational education rather than intellectual training.
The value in many degrees is not and never has been what you learn but how you train your brain to absorb, process, evaluate and present different ideas and pieces of information.

I always thought MM degrees referred to courses of study that weren’t sufficiently intellectually challenging. A traditional classics degree where you’re required to have a solid working knowledge of two ancient languages in order to engage with perspectives that are radically different from our own is hardly MM.

Science gives you all the skills an English degree does? No. That’s simply incorrect.

Media studies is useful but classics isn’t? Do you think propaganda was invented in the last 50 years? You’ll learn a hell of a lot about how manipulation works if you study the politics and literature of the Roman Republic, for example, and the sources will be demanding and enriching on their own terms.

Your views aren’t unusual, though. The skills that properly rigorous humanities degrees (and I think a lot of the problem is that many aren’t rigorous) don’t seem to be valued or evident in society.

The 'David Beckham' degree was a single, optional module examining the place of football in modern culture. Hardly a ridiculous thing to study on sports science or sociology degrees.

I don’t think the traditional, solid courses of English and Classics are now considered MM degrees but getting a job directly in those areas is harder. The students taking those courses need to learn about the transferable skills they are learning.

Media studies was definitely considered a MM degree. I did media studies as a GCSE and everyone said it was a waste of my potential. The school tried to move me to a different GCSE option (this was 20 years ago) as they thought I would do better with an additional language. They put the worst teacher on the course too - we had to write scripts for different TV settings and she asked me why I had done something for one of them and when I told her she said “oh I don’t know, I don’t have a TV”.

I did Geography as a degree and people would call it “colouring in”. For A-Levels I did Law and everyone was trying to push me to law. I got good grades and it was a “proper” degree. I have friends from university who did “proper” degrees - law, psychology, English, biological sciences, politics and none of them work in the related fields. They have good jobs but they’re in the police, civil service, financial services. I work in the area that I did my degree in as do my friends who did marketing degrees and some of degrees that were considered a MM degree.

Thanks for telling me my degree is useless.

Yes I guess I do. Degrees are generally a precursor to getting a job. In the past when degrees like classics were popular there weee far fewer people going to university and a good number of those didn't ever have to work for a living. Gentlemen studied the classics. Law and even Medicine were seen as a bit grubby.
Life has moved on and if people are fortunate enough to study for enjoyment over employability then lucky for them. The UK is a bit of an outlier in the type of degrees that are seems as tough and desirable.
Most other countries value engineering, maths, hard sciences, medicine, architecture, political science and the other social sciences way above English, History or creative writing. These are seen as fine but things people do because they specifically want to work in the arts.

I've lived in several countries and am currently in the USA. I don't think one benefits as a society that much from having such a linear, functional view of education.
I'm not convinced that just because other countries do it one way we should.

I kind of agree with you OP! Classics is a really interesting subject and I confess that I did if at A level as a 'cruisy' option along with 2 sciences! I did enjoy it (along with a trip to Greece!!) but it was EASY

Classics degrees involve, among other things, being able to read literature in Latin and Ancient Greek. Definitely not easy.

Gender studies. Now that’s a MM degree.

It's an odd perspective that everything gained from a literature degree can be gained from something like economics! It's one of the most useful and flexible subjects for future careers.

I think that the functional narrative of education is a little sad, but say we take it as given that its primary purpose is getting a job... then I'd say that it's similar to the functional narrative for literacy: telling a child they need to learn to read so they can get a job will never encourage them, while kindling a passion for books will. Similarly, kindling a passion for learning, whatever you learn, will equip you for adult life and the job market way better than doing an allegedly vocational degree.

Remember that many degrees, no matter how vocational, will be out of date for the jobs that exist when today's children graduate... who knew social media would be such an employer for example? So learning how to learn at an advanced level will always I think be the primary usefulness of a degree. Not that many highly successful entrepreneurs base their success on a business studies degree!

I have an Oxbridge degree but never really use it and don't earn well. Coming from a working class background I had no idea how to turn it into a good job, everywhere wanted experience and I couldn't do unpaid/low paid internships in London. I also had a lot of MH issues in my 20s and holding down even a part time job was hard.

My DH did a "MM" degree at a former poly. He earns 3 times what I do, as he learnt practical skills.

Out of interest, what are the skills you feel you get from a literature degree that holds it above and apart from other degrees?

I know someone who studied 'social sciences' wihich was 6-8 hours per week!! This was in the 90's and hopefully not the case these days?!

I studied a biological sciences degree which was 35 hours per week every week! Really challenging including labs etc and a research project dissertation and industry year. They are both degrees though but poles apart!!

Sciences do have full time tables. Humanities are commonly 6-7 hours contact time. Social sciences usually fall somewhere in the middle depending on the subject. They require lots of self driven reading and esssay writing. They subsidise the sciences really.

From the IFS - institute for Fiscal Studies - noting their caveat it should be kept in mind that these results purely show the earnings benefit of HE for individuals and the tax benefits for government. Wider benefits such as increased health, happiness or job satisfaction, which may constitute an important part of the overall return to HE, are not included in our estimation.

https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/R167-The-impact-of-undergraduate-degrees-on-lifetime-earnings.pdf

Table 2 on page 11 shows percentages studying various subjects over a fifteen year period.

The concept of Mickey mouse degrees were made up by people who didn't understand the value of subjects or people who did understand them and didn't want to be held to account for the abuses of power they were carrying out in that area.

I found that the problem with degrees was that you almost have to have picked which degree you wanted to do when choosing A-levels. I encouraged mine to spend time after GCSEs researching careers and which combo of a-levels would give them the best choice. It was very difficult. What degrees were considered Mickey mouse? Which ones were vocational? Which ones required additional entry criteria e.g. medical degrees?

Then there was the conflicting information about universities.
I personally think that if you have gone to uni and completed a degree and achieved a 1st. Employers are less concerned about what subject it is in, as they will only use this as a filter. There is a reason for grad interview schemes being so onerous. Employers are looking for well rounded individuals who they can mould and grow in their business.
It is more important to have an idea of what type of career you want e.g. engineering, teaching, tech than exactly what degree to do. You can swap during Year 1 to get into the one that appeals to you more.

I had a student who had no idea what he wanted to study, but he wanted to go to uni. I spent ages going through various options with him. One day one of his friends jokingly said he'll only be happy if you find him a degree playing golf miss. Well I found him a golf management degree and now 11 years later he's managing a top golf course in Scotland. I saw him in a supermarket a couple of years ago when he was down visiting his parents and he told me lots of people thought his degree was a MM degree including his grandparents but he earns a very good living and lives in a really beautiful part of the country. His grandparents are proud of him now.

Well my son did his second choice at Leeds 4 years ago. Studied Economics and environmental science…he is living the life in Vancouver,great company,amazing pay and has just called me on his way to a skiing resort for a fun afternoon..what can I say!!

Mickey Mouse degrees cropped up in the early 00’s when sub par universities started offering courses such as Klingon studies.

It was not an accusation levelled at Classics, English Literature, History etc at the time.