Is an arts degree from Oxbridge useless?

[Whitlandcarm]

I mean something like Archaeology, or History or Anthropology, HPS specialising in Sociology etc

Would it be better to get into a “lesser” university to study something like Economics, Law etc?

Some Oxbridge courses seem to have average grad salaries of as low as £22k. Is there something effecting these figures such as people going into further study, part time work etc?

'mickey mouse degrees' by which you mean arts degrees? Michael Rosen says it better than me:

"The Arts are a waste of time:

all they tell us are things like:

how to understand yourself,

your place in the world,

how materials work,

how society works,

how to co-operate to get things done,

resilience, optimism, powers of reflection,

interpretation, holding your nerve...."

You can focus on money if you want to, but the truth is it's only one system of many. Attacking someone who suggests that, beyond survival, it's not the most important thing to them is just stupid.

Maybe most people thinking of taking an Archaeology degree do not have money as their primary goal. It's not a binary decision between Rolling in Money and Penniless. Archaeology students may want to work in museums or work on archaeological sites or continue their academic studies or do something completely different. They might not be as highly paid as, say, a lawyer but they will be doing what they want.

My friends with Oxbridge arts degrees are, variously, lawyers, business owners, writers, politicians, consultants, journalists, managers in various industrial, commercial and retail roles, HR directors, academics and teachers. None of them are living in poverty.

Mook - This is getting boring. Where have I have made any reference to arts degrees being mickey mouse degrees? please show me exactly where? This is you projecting your own thoughts.

No one is attacking people who want to do a degree simply for the love of it. It is actually the other way round that people seem to sneer at those who dare mention they want a degree with good earning potential as money grabbers. I have simply explained in detail why some of us would prefer this and that not everyone has the luxury of just studying for pleasure. I have also stated if you read carefully, that a degree with good earning potential and happiness are not mutually exclusive.

You didn't say it explicitly, did you, in fact? I was extrapolating from all you said about 'high paying' degrees, 'firms' &c.

Maybe I was inaccurate. What exactly DO you consider a 'mickey mouse degree' then? Because you did use those words.

And yes there are people who look down on this who have to earn a living - I am not one of them - but you have to allow that there are those who do not value money as a central aim because they have different ideas about what success is. FOR THEM.

Where have I have made any reference to arts degrees being mickey mouse degrees? please show me exactly where?

MadameButerfly, if you scroll back to page 4 (if you have the forum show you 25 posts at a time), at 13:05:13 on the 5th February, you referred to mickey mouse degrees. Now, you didn't call arts degrees mickey mouse degrees. On that score you are absolutely blameless.

But I can see why Mookatron inferred that, as your line of argument, forgive my paraphrasing, seems to be that there are courses worth doing which lead to a profession/obvious career path, eg, law, engineering, architecture and courses not worth doing as they don't. Overwhelmingly, arts courses will probably fall into the latter, rather than the former. So Mookatron erroneously extrapolated the intent behind your reference to mickey mouse degrees, for which I'm sure they're very sorry. I actually had done the same, so I apologise too.

You didn't say it explicitly, did you, in fact? I was extrapolating from all you said about 'high paying' degrees, 'firms' &c.

Yes, i mentioned 'firms' in relation to many firms who will employ ex-poly graduates and not just Oxbridge candidates. I also said dh has a firm. From this you extrapolated that i think arts degrees are mickey mouse degrees? Please do not put words on my mouth.

Arts degrees encompasses a lot of different types of courses, as does technology, science etc. All of them have some odd mickey mouse degrees i.e degrees where you struggle to see their direct application e.g BSc in video gaming, there is the degree in animal psychology (although depending on where you are, might be very useful in the countryside), or the degree i saw once in Voodoo, there are many more. I'm sure they are all enjoyable for the people studying them, but i'm not sure what job prospects would be at the end of it.

Infact it is you that has to allow that some people simply can't put happiness alone at the center of their degree choice which is what i've been talking about all along. For the hundredth time NO ONE is not allowing those who want to do a degree simply for pleasure to do it.

You need to recognise that for some of us OUR idea of success is different and it doesn't make us bad people.

Just to add, a firm is a commercial organisation is it not? another word for a private company? whats so special about using it? English is my second language.

You are putting words in MY mouth by suggesting I thought wanting money makes you a bad person. I said nothing of the kind. I don't think it either.

There's nothing at all wrong with using 'firms'. However all employers are not commercial operations in that their primary aim is to make money. Obviously in this society all organisations have to work within the economy but not all are profit driven.

If we don't have some people doing subjects they are interested in that are not necessarily money making we will stop progressing as a civilization. Maybe it is a luxury - but only in the same way that a free education for all, available healthcare, and human rights are a luxury. That is, something that should be a given in a civilized society.

I just got an incredible first job with an arts degree from a ‘lesser’ uni ... it’s not well paid but has a lot of scope for increase in salary.
My BF has graduated with a history degree and is on £30k which goes up to £50k in 2 years.

It’s what you do with it that counts and not everything is about salary anyway ( plus 22k is good for a first job).

It is sad that society truly deems science subjects as more elite or 'cleverer'. I think surely this idea is not still around as an issue 30 years since I left uni.

I agree with all the posts supporting the value of the Arts but feel one issue has not been raised as I see it. They deliver empathic learning: a study of humanity or society, how people act, feel, believe and help the students to often become emotionally intelligent which is surely a highly valued commodity in all places of work- it is just not recognised as that is what they have been taught.

Clearly some science bods understand people, but an Arts degree helps one truly consider human interaction and to evaluate such topics makes the world a better place. To label some Arts degrees as 'mickey mouse' certificates is just ignorant.

Arts degrees lead to many fulfilling professional roles - well paid enough to lead good lives. Science and Engineering etc. are great, keep the world going but only offer one side of our capacity to think and be creative.

Hingle I'm a parent and have never worried in the slightest when my DC (seven and counting) have chosen subjects which don't lend themselves to an obvious profession. Not even a teeny tiny bit. That's a massive and sweeping generalization. I doubt I'm alone. And I'm all for my eighth DC opting for Classics ab initio on the basis of a poster we saw together in the sixth form block - how much more useless than that? :)

Classics isn’t useless though, is it? We all know a classicist who wants to be PM! It’s like everything else, it’s got its place on the cv of the right person!

I will confess now: it was me who used the word “lesser” when describing some universities on the other “corker” thread. Clearly taken out of context because I was talking about league tables. Some universities are nearer the bottom than the top. It’s the nature of league tables! However I also made it clear that some courses in these universities were of value. However if you need A*AA to get into Durham to do History but CCC somewhere else, there is a perceived difference in the rigours of the degrees. I was of course roundly flamed but I see others are saying exactly the same thing about maths at Cambridge and Sheffield! How dare we even think they are not the same!?

From my limited observations, some people are bloody clever! Yes they run in families. I personally know several. They get into Oxbridge. They don’t all achieve highly afterwards though, even the Cambridge Maths grad!

It is inevitable that some grads from some universities will be up against it for the top grad jobs. There are also universities that were not polytechnics in a previous life by the way. No-one ever mentions them. Some grads, from any university, will be more than happy with a job that provides a solid career, a cheaper place to buy a house, whilst accepting they won’t have fantastic earning potential.

No Bubbles, I don't see it as useless at all.

Can everyone stop ragging on Classics? It’s awesome! Or at least, I’ve not found it completely useless.

goodbye you made me doubt myself, horribile dictu! I had to review what I wrote - I didn’t say all parents feel that way, so I’m not convinced I was making a sweeping generalisation. (I probably didn’t articulate my thoughts with the greatest felicity.) Only that it is natural for a parent to feel that way. It’s also natural for a parent not to feel that way. Naturally.

Hingle I was only teasing!

Well I read your post as meaning that since it was natural for parents to feel that way, then that would be the way most parents would or should feel, because anything else was unnatural.

I think that’s probably the most sensible interpretation, goodbye. I shall word more carefully next time.

Because can something be unnatural? There is the argument that if something can occur, it is natural, although that heads into dark territory pretty fast, so maybe we’ll steer clear!

Hingle - just seen your post. Thank you and apology accepted.

My dsis and a friend studied Classics actually, friend really enjoyed it and studied it to doctorate level and has done quite well for herself. Dsis didn't but I think that was more to do with it being the wrong course for her.

BSc in video gaming

I work close to an ex-poly that has a very well regarded degree in gaming. The video gaming industry in the UK (like many of our creative technology industries) is world beating and the course is very hard to get onto and the graduates are highly sought. DH (who is a software engineer with 2 Oxbridge degrees) went to their graduate show and he said the students work was exceptional and he would employ any of them at the drop of a hat.

Some of the comments on here show something very important: parents and teachers don't necessarily know which degrees have the most value in the outside world. Archaeology from Oxford is going to give you the chance at a wider range of jobs than law from most ex-polys. Gaming from Teesside is going to guarantee a job whereas

It's a very good debate/thread and for those not familiar with the university system I hope it provides some information.

The most important thing I want my children to know is the consequences of their choices and to make informed choices. I would prefer them to pick high paid work they enjoy as that tends to give you more choices in life but it entirely up to them and I agree that people not earning much can be just as likely to be happy as those earning a lot.

One of mine (currently at university) recently said they want to make a "six figure salary" - hey probably just picked up the terminology from someone else at university. It is not a bad thing to aim at in my view as it is much much easier to fall than to rise. We are still pretty ageist in the UK and to move to certain high paid careers later in life can be harder than starting young.

If you do not know what you want to do then pick the hardest to get into university and get the best exam results you can. Pick the subject that will enable you to get in - that might be the toughest there is if you are very bright or one with more places if you are not. That will leave you with the most choices in life. It is fairly simple economics - if your university offer is very low and people get in with Bs and Cs it will tend not to be such a good place for people with A and A*s as the university with tougher admissions criteria.

(On the use of the word firm - it tended to be used to refer to professional firms which used to be partnerships not limited companies and these days tend to be LLPs - eg Ernst & Young LLP or in law Linklaters LLP - professions being different from commercial companies - indeed professions being "above" of grubby business if we go back 100 years. You would dine with the local vicar, doctor or lawyer but not businessmen etc etc )

If you do not know what you want to do then don't go to university, saddle yourself with debt being miserable doing any old degree/ the subject that will enable you to get in... wait a second... you went in a different direction than I was expecting there, Bella!

Not going to university, but heading off to the world of work and earning straight after school, that feels a viable path, no?

At least half choose not to go to university - perfectly valid choice for many. I have children at university who have not picked a career yet but are doing well and enjoying it. I think it is the right choice for them and hopefully they will make career choices soon. (They won't / don't have student debt).

Far too much is made of the debt. It's a loan and many won't pay much of it back. Certainly not much on £22,00 pa. My DCs never give it a minute's thought.

If parents have a spare £50,000 per child and the child does not need further money (or this money) later in life which has been compromised due to paying the university fees and living expenses, then spend it as you wish. The majority of parents cannot afford to do this but for some parents it will concentrate the mind on what degree their child should to do.

Most students are not miserable doing their degrees though because they have chosen a subject that appeals to them. They are also prepared to have debt. Millions do and it is the norm these days.

Getting a job/apprenticeship after school is highly competitive with the majority of apprencticeships going to existing employees, not school leavers. The number of apprenticeships has fallen off a cliff in the last year too. So don't hold your breath about getting a good one. This is why so many young people with BCC at A level end up at university!!! They cannot get a worthwhile apprenticeship.

Few make £100,000 after a few years. Also, no job paying this is without stress and a lot of hard work. Even if it is something you like, it will be mega hard work and very long hours. Some people take the view that they are not dedicated enough to do this. It has to be your life whilst you are awake!

I thinkging to the best university you can to do an arts degree makes sense unless the degree is very specific with a very specific job market afterwards and students actually get the jobs! Evenwith engineering, I have know 2 students who have done motor engineering where the universities seemed to suggest there were jobs in the prestigious line of motor racing - but only in your (and their) dreams. So choose wisely!

" A first class arts from oxbridge still had value but a second class oxbridge arts degree isn't useful unless you are planing to be one a teacher in the subject you took there. "

I have only just seen this thread but told DS and he said if only someone had told him this before he embarked upon the enterprise.

He probably won't get a first but he still thinks a decent history degree from a decent university will get him a job ( choices including but not only teaching) And - given his talents do not lie with maths or sciences , well I for one am glad he is doing what he is doing. I would trust him implicitly to read a great deal of stuff and draw a sensible argument or conclusion & present it , whatever that job might be - building a plane or a bridge or designing a complex financial product ( love him as I do ) not so much.

Anyway - in the spirit of Lord Copper
Cousin Jasper in Brideshead

“You’re reading History? A perfectly respectable school. The very worst is English literature and the next worse is Modern Greats. You want either a first or a fourth. […] Time spent on a good second is time thrown away. "

Ha ha

I did Eng Lit BTW

Anyone with a spare half hour might have fun reading this court judgment where a lawyer sued because his 2./1 from Oxbridge was he said not good enough. He seems to have had excuses for all his exams since A levels and moved from employer to employer after being sacked and sued some of them too. I wonder if the fault might lie with him instead? Anyway the judgment is quite interesting in its discussion of the university exam system, that Harvard and other places want to see the marks not just the degree class etc.

Not surprisingly he lost his case.

<a class="break-all" href="//a]www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/siddiqui-full-judgment.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a]www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/siddiqui-full-judgment.pdf

What is sad about that man is the family pressure on him as a little boy to do well - he announced at 8 he would go to Harvard when he was visiting there and that he thought his AABB A levels were poor (and blamed relatives staying at the time for disturbing him) and that his 2/1 from Oxford which got him a training contract at law firm Clifford Chance was some kind of failure as he did not get to Harvard.

On who makes £100k well it depends what job you pick and what your aims are in life. It is not impossible. There is nothing special about our family but most of us seem to manage it.