Which Degrees are pretty 'pointless'?

[DreadLock]

Just starting to look at courses with DS. So many choices. BUT I am sure there are some which are not particularly going to lead to much. Employers - what do you look for on a CV and what would you avoid?
And any other 'views' are welcome.
DS not even sure if he wants to go to UNI so we are having a good look into stuff.

Chunderella, those figures are for now, not for people who graduated 30 years ago (and even then, I have to say, I graduated 20 years ago and was still told a 2.1 or a 1st was the only class of degree worth getting, the academic 'elite' didn't graduate with a 2.2 or lower in general, even then).

I went to Southampton Solent when it was Southampton Institute of Higher Education and did an HND in Business and Finance, back in the 80's it was considered a waste of time but I learnt how to program computers and accounts. I still use knowledge & skills from that course and currently run my own successful business. There are no useless degrees part of going into higher education is learning about how to motivate yourself to study and be a self-starter but you have to be ready to learn those lessons.

It also depends what you want from your degree. Totally agree ,unfortunately that uni and class count, but I did philosophy at York - which to some is a wishy/washy subject with no value at a okay university-big 'meh'

BUT- I studied something that required morals and ethics investigation which made me a diplomatic person. It included logic and maths. As it was a 'think for yourself' subject as opposed to black and white i got good debating skills and intuition.

I now have a very good job because i might not stand up on paper but in these recession plagued times recruiters want more than spoon-fed intellectual.

Maybe i got lucky but as i now work in training and recruitment for a big, well-respected company it's not just the educational skills it's the personality and nounce that count. Unless of course you into politics and it's whether you part of the Bullingdon club

I don't think those at the best universities are "spoon -fed intellectuals". they are usually just cleverer than those at the lesser institutions on the whole which is why employers want them. Also it's not just can you get a job but what do you earn at it that can matter to many women.

Didn't mean that offensive about being 'spoon-fed' but so much emphasis is on content and university that unless you are going to do a master in the subject or it's completely relevant to your career then then it's sometimes other qualities that recruiters look for - believe me experience and interview count. and cleverer in what way 78 bunion? -academically sure, but in practical circumstances or thinking on your feet in alien environments - not so much. Great that so many employers want them. not me

no2 DS may also be applying for uni this year but at the moment he doesn't know what he wants to do, he only knows he wants to get away from this small town and live like his big bro in a uni shared house. no1 DS knew he wanted to study Eng Lit and because he loves it he is getting good grades and is aiming for a 1st, whether it will lead to a decent job who knows but he does know that it is his hard work which will get him there. The choices seem endless and the financial penalty for starting and maybe not finishing enormous. We will be going to open days and talking to lecturers which I hope will help.

I used to work in the city 15yrs ago and used to recruit graduates for then starting salary jobs of 18K with experience pay could rise to 40-65K. I worked for a small company, not a corporate and would look for summer job experience as well as subject. Some graduates I interviewed lacked common sense or basic organisational skills, if you can't turn up on time to an office 5 mins from a tube station how could I send you to a site on an industrial estate in Nottingham? I would find a person who had been to the best uni but had never found themselves a part-time job in the local supermarket a more risky bet than someone who had shown that they had good organisational and communication skills. Would I have considered a non-graduate - yes but they would have had to have had very good experience to have made it to the interview list.

I faced this question and thinking back to that time my Dad gave me good advice. He said to pick a university,not a former polytechnic and to pick a subject that you enjoy that is one word - ie English, Economics, Law, Medicine, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Geography, History... you get the idea.

From that you can do anything.

I thought thinking on your feet in an alien environment was what tutorials were all about.

You can't do anything from that list, as my DS1 found. He had no idea what he wanted to do at 18 and so played safe. He did a subject on your list, at a RG university. He then found he didn't want a career in research, teaching or anything to do with it, neither did he want the sort of career that it would have opened like banking. He worked out, by the end, what sort of engineering he would have liked and he wasn't qualified for it.
Former polytechnics have very good reputations for other things- e.g.a nephew did something with computing ( not sure of the exact title) but he walked straight into a very highly paid job in the city and has never looked back.
Back in my time, it would have been good advice- times have changed. They have changed even between my DS1 and DS3.
There seems to be a huge amount if snobbishness on here and people might be put off if their child can't make a RG university, as the rest appear to be written off, - they shouldn't be. They need to do very thorough research, visit, ask the questions- above all find the employment record for graduates. It is a huge mistake today to think they will just do a favourite subject at a top university and all doors will open.
DS3 didn't even consider a RG university- he went for the former poly that had a great reputation for the course he wanted.
People shouldn't be discouraged- some careers like law- will need to listen to advice on here- but it doesn't follow for all other highly regarded careers.
The question people should be asking is whether it is worth going to university at all. I think that in the future many will decide that it isn't- or that at least they should find out what they want to do first and not spend all that money in the hope that it might lead in the right direction.

The person that I know who took your Dad's advice ( on your list) has been washing up for a year and is about to start a Masters - hopefully not to go back to washing up. Another with that advice is working as a shop assistant.
I don't think that most people on here realise the dire situation of graduate unemployment.
You can be lucky, another friend's daughter has been recruited straight from university onto a graduate training scheme in the city and had the whole summer off first, but her qualifications and university are no better than the one washing up.

My degrees full name is International Politics and Area Studies, my dh took History. Very similar skills involved just a different area of knowledge. You could I guess argue that my degree was more relevant to the world of work as it was about the last 50 years, whilst some of dh's courses went back several hundred years. A silly sort of snobbery I think.

It does seem odd to me that 17 year olds are expected to know exactly what they want to do with the rest of their lives (and from a positon of very little knowledge) where as adults we are frequently told that moving from one career to another is to be expected. In my field very very few people have only worked in that specific field, most have one or more different areas of experience which is seen as a great strength.

I agree with everything exoticfruits has just said.

These days doing a traditional degree in a subject you enjoy at a RG university whilst deciding on the career you want is just not an option any more. RG is not a quality measure, it is a political lobbying group.

One problem is that some people think that all RG unis have parity if esteem with employers (the sort of employers who care about that thing which really isn't all of them) - and they just don't. And althought the RG has tried to solve the problem of having significantly better regarded universities than most of its members outside the group, by transfering some of them in, it hasn't got them all. And it hasn't relegated the less well regarded ones.

The thing about reading for a degree with a single word name is all very well but some of the very best regarded degrees (from RG unis) have multi word names.

I agree that it's ridiculous expecting most 17 y/os to know what they want to do and for whom they want to work. And obviously the trend towards portfolio careers (and lifelong learning) makes this even more unlikely. But I suspect that most kids heading towards uni have some sort of idea of what doors they will be closing if they study x or y at universities w or z.

As for appreciating the current situation with graduate recruitment - several people in this thread are either academics or recruiters. So actually, I think maybe we know plenty, thanks.

God, my typing. Parity of esteem.

I'm not so naive that i don't think some of this university snobbery exists but i really do think it's changing as a lot of employers simply cannot afford to be so narrow minded.

Do they really think it's a priority to be able to say 'Hey, look at US, we've got all our company made up of people with 1sts from Oxford'. Whilst I accept some of these will be the best suited to do the job, not all will be simply by virtue of their good degree/good uni - best educated does not = best workforce

Last year was the first time in 10 years that out recruitment criteria changed with a broader base of acceptable grades to denote a basic level of intelligence required and more emphasis on passing an in-house vocational based assessment. We've spread the net wider as it were and it's worked. Lower drop-out rate and people in roles that are really able to excel in them.

I love that it really evens the playing field, stops reverse snobbery too from chippy recruiters. More fool the companies who are still sticking to the old rules I say - these are brutal times.

Myself included, Russians

I didn't say that no one knew what they were talking about!! Obviouly lots of people on here are better placed than me. I was talking to people like OP who was asking for advice and probably has no idea of the dire graduate employment problem. It was in direct response to Want2bSupermum who was giving her Dad's advice- excellent advice in my day but not now - it is very different today.
I just happen to know lots of recent graduates. It takes most of them many months to get a job- some haven't yet. Many are working in restaurants, bars etc while they look, many are volunteering or doing internships, many are going back to further study, many are starting in the sort of job that you could get after O'levels in my day.
My only point is that RG isn't the 'be all and end all'- they may not be the best for a particular course.
The sensible question should be 'do I need to go' or 'do I need to go before I know what I want in a career'. Purely because it costs such a lot. We were lucky. DS1 went before fees, DS3 got in with the lower fees, DS2 is doing very well without going at all. it now costs to much to just say 'I like Geography' and I would like to live in Bristol for 3years and I'm sure something will occur to me by the end and that employers will want me.

DS3 has now got a job with a company that would impress even the most picky on here- they are very innovative in who they employ- the range is huge.

Sorry-too much.

I think you make a good point chunderella.

Law, finance ect in the City is not bound uop in internships. Even work experience is paid (relatively) well. DH's firm stopped doing unpaid stuff years ago.

You want work experience. You apply. If you get it, you get paid. And if you do well, you'll probably be offered a training contract. Job done.

Not so law firms specialising in human rights, crime etc etc.

And don't get me started on politics, fashion, publishing, media, charities etc who all demand endless free internships, assuming the applicants can keep themselves and live in London!

I think you have to take more care with choice of course if you are not choosing top universities.
We didn't do any open days with DS1 because, it wasn't the done thing then, we had two primary school aged children, there were no tuition fees but mainly because he was planning a traditional academic subject at old established universities.
We went with DS3 because it turned out to be normal to go, we were free to go, there were tuition fees and he was choosing a non traditional subject at ex polys. You need to be sure it is a worthwhile course.
I agree with Chunderella - when he couldn't get a job I would have loved him to have work experience in London. We could only afford to keep him at home- a very rural area with no opportunities.

Regardless of what degree someone has, and from which university, raw intelligence is important for graduates - a lot of the large employers are setting tests as the first part of the recruitment process and weeding out huge numbers from that.

DS had an interview in London for a very low paid starting salary. I was relieved when he didn't get it. I don't think he could have lived on it without subsidies from us.