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.

If there could be a degree in common sense that would be most welcome. Being able to demonstrate that you can work as team, have curiosity, and are a problem solver are key attributes to have in a new employee.

That's true, mirry.

I have encountered people who are anti-Oxbridge because of a chip on their shoulder (they didn't get in, being a prime reason!). Or, I suppose, it's something to talk about at interview and potentially bond if you went to the same institution, wherever it was.

A hedge fund manager I know only picks guys (and it is guys) from his old Cambridge college. Make of that what you will.

Can't imagine what kind of job you'd be looking for with this degree.

Google "what do graduates do"

changeling Run a dance company? Run a mixed performing arts group? Go into Arts administration? Just get any old HR job? There's plenty of jobs you could do with that degree.

Hey Russians!

Is your DD okay? Were the results okay?

The way it was explained to me is that the less relevant a degree is, the better the University you do it at has to be.

Those bankers who did English or history are not there due to their degree subjects, but because they were at top 10 Unis

DD went to visit a solicitor's office: the older solicitor said definitely do a straight degree and then a conversion course and the younger ones said, nah, just do law. I suspect more and more will be going down that route.

(Although the main thing she got from it was a visit to the magistrate's court which sounds as though it was basically the Jeremy Kyle show in a municipal building and convinced her, as such, that that was what she wanted to do!)

word She did really well. :)

I'm glad Russians - I sort of wanted to ask but I remembered from the GCSE anxiety thread that you were preparing for the worst and kept backing off!

(but you wouldn't want to make a big fuss like when she got her Brownie wings, right?)

Nit I think young people may want to reduce their debts as much as possible. So straight law seems like a good choice.

Plus five years of study is loooooong.

DH really really favours straight law degrees over anyhting else. He has a bee in his bonnet that it gives a much better grounding than the two years at law school can ever do.

But I don't think his colleagues necessarily think the same thing!

Whatever you study it's better to get a first or at least a 2.1, so your subject should be something you have an interest in, and something you're good at! It's quite simple really, a s you'll work hard if you're interested, and you won't bother if its boring you.

If you're any way half assed about studying anything, it's best you work for a few years, and see where your passions lie, and after that do a degree in what you're interested in.

Just going to uni for the sake of going "like everyone else" is a total waste of time imvho!

Yes, I think that was exactly their reasoning! I have a cousin who did it one way and his brother the other (if that makes sense) - I know which their parents favour!

Oh Russians I am pleased.

I know it was a very difficult run up to the exams and you were worried. What a relief for you all.

Sixth form!!!!!

I think it's hard to second guess graduate recruiters as they often have different priorities. Some will definately prefer certain degrees and institutions, maybe through snobbery, or because they have had good employees from that route in the past. A lot of graduate schemes and masters degrees seem to now have a "hard" filter of 2.1 or more (often refered to as a "good degree"). Whilst any classification of degree was "good enough" in the past, an ordinary degree or a third from the vast majority of universities won't usually get you very far. Others place a lot more value on work experience than the nature of your degree.

The most important thing is to chose something you're really interested in and comitted to. At 18, my sixth form teachers insisted I needed to apply, even though I wasn't really sure what I wanted to do. I got a place to study Psychology at a fairly decent university, but dropped out after six months. I then worked for a while, and decided to go back to university to study Animal Behaviour and Welfare. I want to work for an animal charity or possibly in conservation, and whilst it's not a traditional "well regarded degree" and I'm doing it at a mid-table university, it will lead to the career I want.

Whilst at university, I've done some part time work in the admissions office, and the admissions tutors all say they want students passionate about the courses as they are much less likely to drop out, and more likely to get good degrees and go on to good careers (which looks better for the university). This means most admissions tutors (especially those at higher ranked universities) expect to see evidence of extra reading, and where possible, relevant extra curicular activities. If your DS is going into Y13, and has none of this, he will be a weaker applicant, and he could use some of his gap year to strengthen his personal statement.

I'm not an employer, and went to a pretty low-rated ex-poly Uni because at 18 I'd never heard of RG and I just liked the course modules and efficiency of my University. But it strikes me as odd that the University itself might be more important than the degree classification or subject.

My reasoning for going to a low-ranked University, even though I could've probably got into a similar course in several RG Universities based on my A-Level results, was that a degree is surely a standardised qualification. At the 'better' universities you are probably getting better teaching, from tutors and lecturers who are more active in higher-level research and better regarded in their field - but essentially, if you get a 2:1, regardless of the teaching and facilities you have access to, it's all pretty much the same thing?

I obviously know now that this isn't perceived as the case, but I still don't really understand why. I list my A-levels and results on my CV; employers can see that I could've gone to another university if I'd wanted. They don't know my reasons for choosing that one - I might've had commitments looking after an elderly relative in that area, I might've particularly wanted to study the specific modules on that course, I might've chosen it because it was in the centre of a large city and I had more chance of getting part-time work to fund my studies. So why would I be seen as a lesser candidate than someone who had done the same degree but got a 2:2 from Bath or Warwick?

As it happens I got straight into a job in the highly-competitive field I wanted to be in (unrelated to my degree), progressed quickly and am now an award-winning professional in my field (not-so-stealth boast - I'm still poor though!) so it's largely irrelevant to me really. But I want to know why I should advise my DCs to do it differently?

The way it was explained to me is that the less relevant a degree is, the better the University you do it at has to be. Those bankers who did English or history are not there due to their degree subjects, but because they were at top 10 Unis

This. With bells on. To use the example quoted previously, I'd take a lower class degree from a RG university over a First from Southampton Solent (if we're sticking with that as our example). And I have done when recruiting at a junior level (after a while I'm more intersted in experience).

And to clarify my point on accountancy. Yes, you can do a numerate degree which will get you some exemptions from your professional exams. But you don't have to. Not one person in my team of 5 did anything business or accountancy based at uni, and yet we work in senior positions for a FTSE 100 company and don't seem to be doing too badly - it just adds a year on to the time it takes to qualify which really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things. So yes moomin, tell your son to get down to the careers office and have a chat with them - there will be plenty of graduate employers who are just looking for a good degree class from a decent uni and as long as he can articulate why he wants to do something different, it won't matter one bit.

I think both options have pros and cons.

Law is a tough degree, particularly in terms of the hours. You look at your mates studying Geography or French and sigh. Then again it's a picnic compared to the medics .

I'm glad I did it. As a discipline it really does hone your thinking skills and you become every good at assimilating lots of eveidence very quickly...but sometimes I do think three years reading literature would have been a dream come true.

x-post Mackerel. Because (and I'm not saying I'm right), my assumption is that the grade requirements to get in to the ex-poly unis are lower, yet they still award a certain % of their students first class degrees. Therefore, the level required to get a first class degree must be lower as the ability of the intake must be lower yet the outputs as the same.

Massive sweeping arrogance, I'm fully aware of this, but you did ask...

I have a hunch that dd latched onto law at 13 when it seemed a) distant and b) like a lot of fun arguing for a living, but might be going to change her mind in the next year.

I never had any career advice.
But I quite enjoyed doing to Birkman test etc.
freecareertests

Mackeral all things being equal, I would always advise students to go to the most selective universities.

Employers do regard them more highly.

And to some extent I think it's fair they do. The calibre of student will be higher. Obviously there will be notable exceptions (such as yourself), but generally the truth holds.

A higher calibre of student, means a higher quality of learning because the collegiate environment of most courses is affected. Put simply, put a lot a clever people in a room and the level of discussion will be more challenging.

I teach at two universities. One highly selective, one less so. Whilst there are able students are the later, the difference in intellect is marked. As is the work rate.

Also, the most selective universities attract a lot of good staff. Again there will be exceptions, but you get my drift.

I think the main caveat to this, is when a less selective university is very well known and regarded for a specific course. People in the industry will know this!

But slev, your assumptions are wrong for two reasons. Firstly, A level grades have never been a good predictor of degree classification. Second, 'better' universities tend to award a much higher proportion of firsts and 2(i)s. Oxbridge tend to give these good degrees to about 98% of students, whereas the proportion in mid-ranking institutions will be lower than 75%. There is a certain degree of standardization - academics externally moderate degrees from other institutions to ensure that there is some equivalence of quality.

Thanks, slev, that does make sense. I never realised that universities awarded classifications to particular %s of students. I just thought it was a grade boundary thing - I think it was an overall mark of 70% for a 1st, 60-70% for a 2nd - but maybe that was correspondingly low for the intake/institution.

Thanks for clarifying though. :)

A quick caveat to my last post.

When I say that students should apply to the most selective universities, I mean ones that they like the look of!

No one need be a slave to this.