Are some degrees more equal than others?

[sheepdogdelight]

Musing upon this really.

If student A gets a 2:1 from Oxford.
Student B gets a 2:1 from Aston
Student C gets a 2:1 from Wolverhampton

Are these degrees all of equal value?

I know some people will say the one from Oxford is worth more, because, well Oxford. And the one from Wolverhampton is worth less, because, ex polytechnic.
But have the students achieved equal academic excellence in reality?

Maybe we can look at it at least partially in terms of potential for 'value creation'? Some of this is of the sort that makes money for the country one way or the other. So... does someone's education help them to 'create something'? Obviously this includes many engineers and scientists, as well as those who'll go into eg film and TV production in some capacity, designers (of many types). Financial services generate 'invisible imports' or whatever the term is. Otoh health and social workers add value to a society in terms of heath and wellbeing. These things are all needed, and more.

So... are there any degrees which don't really do anything to foster the students 'value creation' abilities? (I'd say yes ... ). Otoh there are plenty of non degree options which do give 'value creation' skills... agriculture, carpentry etc etc etc.

Yes, as a society we have limited resources and it therefore makes sense to spend money on things that generate some 'value'.

Spending money on higher education should therefore yield benefits, otherwise we'd be wasting resources. Of course how we measure these benefits can be difficult, but at the end of the day students should go to university with the aim of generating value - the cost of 3 or 4 years of University should yield benefits that are worth more to society than the cost of that education.

So 'going to University to enjoy oneself' is not a good enough reason imo.

And I agree that there are courses out there that are probably not worth the money.

I think we do need some sort of utilitarian approach to uni. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t have arts or sports. Simply that we should fund degrees in proportion to our economy’s requirements. So we need to fund more nursing places - because we need more nurses. Do we need arts and humanities degrees - yes, but in lower numbers to nursing, physio, engineer. Can some degrees be 2 years and can some jobs hire straight from school (with professional qualifications later) - I think that would be far more resource-efficient.

i don’t object to people pursuing something for the sake of it. But I wouldn’t encourage my kids to do 3 years in a subject simply for the love of it, without considering the opportunity cost and possible impact on their lifestyle in the long term. That’s not to say they should do something to earn the most money - but that they should go in knowing the options and consequences.

I was thinking about the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony, and thinking about whether all those designing it, leading and performing are those who ‘add value’ or not?

Are many of them - musicians, dancers, choreographers, actors, artists, set and costume designers - likely to pay back their student loans? No. Should we therefore say none of their training should be funded and thus forgo this element of such international events? You may say that all should be amateurs - but once the source if truly professionally trained leaders and teachers of amateur groups dries up, then the amateurs cannot reach the required standard?

Again, I feel that I led the discussion in a mistaken direction when I talked of ds loving his course. Of course he and his peers know the costs and consequences- none better - but I feel terribly sad that young men and women, with their whole lives in front of them, should be actively dissuaded from pursuing a subject that is their passion and at which they are gifted for a few short years. They have 40 years of working life to pay back through taxes, and surely everyone now has multiple jobs and careers in their lifetimes?

I feel terribly sad that young men and women, with their whole lives in front of them, should be actively dissuaded from pursuing a subject that is their passion and at which they are gifted

If that passion and giftedness is used to generate benefits to society that is greater than the cost of studying that subject, then paying for them to study that subject for 3-4 years is good use of taxpayer's money.

Benefits gained from attending University are varied and can include economic and societal benefits.

However, imagine if all 18 year olds only followed 'their passions' and just 'enjoyed themselves' while studying? Would that be good use of taxpayer's money? Probably not.

Why do you keep talking about taxpayers' money, Lilac? The government gives a relatively small amount of money to universities to fund the cost of providing laboratories etc for STEM subjects. I assume they fund health care courses to some extent. I was under the impression they stopped funding all other subjects a long time ago, which is why students have to pay such high tuition fees (usually borrowing to do so), fund their own maintenance (or get help from their parents) and why research has to be funded by grants or it doesn't happen.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g I'm assuming Lilac is referring to the people who will never earn enough to pay back much or any of their student therefore have been funded by the taxpayer

Ive just double checked how much the Government spends on Universities;

"Under the current higher education (HE) funding system in England, the government pays around £21 billion to fund the education of each cohort of around 425,000 English-domiciled full-time undergraduate students studying anywhere in the UK. This covers spending on students at higher education institutions or at alternative providers that are eligible to charge full tuition fees. It includes payments to universities (largely tuition fee payments funded by government student loans, but also teaching grants) and to students towards their living costs while at university. In the long run, the government gets back part of this initial outlay as graduates make repayments on their student loans

Under the current system, we expect nearly two-thirds of graduates not to clear their loans by the end of the repayment period."

So actually the UK tax payers do pay for the vast majority of degrees.

Simply that we should fund degrees in proportion to our economy’s requirements. So we need to fund more nursing places - because we need more nurses. Do we need arts and humanities degrees - yes, but in lower numbers to nursing, physio, engineer

This already happens in Scotland to a certain extent. There are no tuition fees for Scottish students BUT the numbers of places on courses for home students are capped by what the Gov will fund.
So they fund more places on engineering, science, IT etc than in some other subjects. But we still have shortages🤷🏼‍♀️

As a Scottish student you've got much more chance of getting into Edinburgh to study Biochemistry than say English or politics

I'm assuming Lilac is referring to the people who will never earn enough to pay back much or any of their student therefore have been funded by the taxpayer

Yes, currently only 25 percent of graduates fully repay their loans.

So we all (tax payers) are indeed funding most of the Uni courses.

I don't know the stats, but 'not clearing the loan by the end of the repayment period' doesn't mean not paying any of it back.

Your username checks out.
Many MP's/ Ministers/ Judges came from Wolverhampton University.

The responses to this post are disgusting to read.

thing I have 4 lawyer children (the last 2 qualify in 2024). I don't think they are dull and nor is law. Without law anyone damaged by the NHS would not be able to claim compensation, nurses would not be able to litigate when unfairly dismissed, contracts for hospital supplies could not be negotiated.

I agree with you about nurses and indeed teachers. My mother did a 2 year residential Cert Ed which was a bit like going to niversity and leaving home for the first time she made friends for life, met my father, married etc and was just as good a primary school teacher of 6 years as had she done a degree and PGCE. That would not be the case for those teaching much older children however.

The current student loan system hasn't been in place long enough to be sure how much will be repaid. I know Martin Lewis has suggested most students won't repay the full loan, but who knows. I suppose my mind is stuck in the days of yore when very few people were lucky enough to go to university and most of us had no idea that there were any fees involved at all, as they were nothing to do with us. The government got a good deal out of that as most of us will have paid a lot of NI and tax in the years since.

However, imagine if all 18 year olds only followed 'their passions' and just 'enjoyed themselves' while studying? Would that be good use of taxpayer's money? Probably not.

Maybe I am unusual in knowing and being related to students who have a passionate interest in and curiosity about what they study or studied - passionate dancers, musicians, scientists, historians, theologians, classicists, mathematicians, architects, computer scientists, playwrights and designers, amongst others. Enjoying one’s subject used to be the norm. Why is it now seen as risible?

Equally, ex students contribute through their general taxes. In fact, iirc, it is not the most wealthy who contribute most in taxes in terms of proportion of their earnings.

And here's me, coming to academics in my mid twenties happy with my first in my dissertation and a 2:1 degree. Now feeling it doesn't count or matter

Nothing against your question OP! Before reading all these comments I would have said a degree is a degree and has been worked blooming hard for regardless of university!!

@cantkeepawayforever Of course young people should study a subject they love and are passionate about - BUT with a view to providing some benefit to society.
I specifically said they should not ONLY go to University to 'enjoy themselves' for 3-4 years.

One of my dc is passionate about technology and computer science and is studying Engineering - they're lucky to have a passion for something that they'll will hopefully be able to enjoy working in and do well financially.

Another of my dc is passionate about music and composing. After long deliberations they decided to keep their music a hobby and study economics at University. Thankfully they're enjoying the course and will hopefully find an I try and fulfilling career.

Sorry - interesting and fulfilling career.

Your dc has made one choice, my ds another. They reflect, perhaps, the values of the families into which they have been born. That does not make one ‘virtuous’ and one ‘wrong’.

I have 4 lawyer children

Why did they decide to follow in your footsteps @Xenia?

I doubt that all lawyers are as altruistic as you are.

People study law because if you get a good job it sets you up for life. That matters to some people. Others can want to be artists and creatives but they don’t get work. These people are a huge cost. As @Lilacsunflowers says, the taxpayer pays. Mostly the higher earning taxpayer. It’s shameful that people don’t understand university finance in this day and age. The majority of students do pretty well out of taxpayers. Discounted fees and possible high earnings!

And most nurses I know would absolutely hate to be lawyers, even if they were "set up for life"

Equally, does the fact that not many who follow creative degrees get well paid jobs in those industries - and therefore many end up in good, tax paying jobs in unrelated areas, as a general graduate, over a lifetime - mean that they should never even start down that road by taking the initial course? Why should it be seen as ‘better’ that they study history or economics or maths - equally unrelated in actual content to those same graduate jobs?