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?

It is always worth looking at the linkedin profiles of graduates just recruited into companies where a teenager wants to work so you can see which universities feature heavily.

(If the teenager wants to work for that type of company, of course. Not every teen wants to aim for ‘big conventional graduate employers’, and not everyone who goes into employment that fits them and their qualifications perfectly-and which they love - has a LinkedIn profile. Your suggestion is one that comes with a whole raft if interesting assumptions and values that not everyone will share)

If the teenager wants to work for that type of company, of course. Not every teen wants to aim for ‘big conventional graduate employers’,

I agree. I get a little irritated by the assumption that every graduate aspires to work in law/corporate finance/big city firm/be a greedy banker etc made by some mumsnetters.

Not everyone wants to live in London. Not everyone wants an office job. Not everyone wants to make more money than they know what to do with at the expense of everything else.

It is definitely worth looking closely at the expected 'Return on Investment' of different degrees at different institutions.

Some degrees are probably not worth their money.

Again, I think that depends. It may be worth comparing the same degree or different routes into the same field at different universities, if a ‘highly paid’ or ‘high status’ job is your particular focus - so Law at different universities, or Accountancy vs Maths.

However, qualifications that lead into lower-paid vocations may be the only or usual way in, even if the ‘money balance’ doesn’t work - dance, drama, musical performance cone to mind, but becoming a vicar might be another that is a poorly paid graduate-entry vocation. Also you may have to look over a long time period for sone careers where immediate earnings are low but later rewards can be greater..

Ds is doing a degree that would score poorly on ‘Return on Investment’ - but the personal benefit of spending 4 years doing something for which one has an overwhelming passion (as opposed to spending time bored by a dutiful money-driven choice) is immeasurable.

However, qualifications that lead into lower-paid vocations may be the only or usual way in, even if the ‘money balance’ doesn’t work

For such jobs it's probably better to go down the apprenticeship route. Much better to earn some money while you're learning a vocation.

iIt is unusual to have eg an apprentice ballerina, an apprentice orchestral musician, or an apprentice vicar. For the first two, Conservatoire or equivalent music / dance college degrees are normal. Vicars may do degrees in theology or start as graduates in something else and then do further study at theological college.

Ds is doing a degree that would score poorly on ‘Return on Investment’ - but the personal benefit of spending 4 years doing something for which one has an overwhelming passion (as opposed to spending time bored by a dutiful money-driven choice) is immeasurable.

I couldn't agree more. DD would hate a desk based job. She has a first class STEM degree from an RG university (so that ticks the "aspiration" box), but her interest is in allied healthcare and the masters that she intends to do will be based accordingly. None of the masters she has looked at are at high ranking universities because it is a vocational masters that will lead into a job. Not a particularly well paid job, but it is what she wants to do.

Ds is doing a degree that would score poorly on ‘Return on Investment’

As long as his return in the long run is positive, then it is a good decision.

However, if his 4 year degree costs more than he'll make up in future earnings, then it isn't really a sustainable decision.

I used to work at a university. We put together a degree programme based on what teachers we had available and what they were able to teach based on their background and interests. A degree programme called “business computing” at one university is not the same as a degree programme called “business computing” at another university. The content isn’t the same, the calibre of teachers isn’t the same, and the calibre of students isn’t the same. It’s not like GCSE and A-level where there’s a standard syllabus that everyone follows. Every university teaches and marks independently as they see fit.

The only courses that are a bit more standardised are PhDs. That’s because they’re marked by teachers from other universities and the work is judged on an international level against research peers.

I apologise if my use of ‘vocation’ was linked in your mind to ‘vocational’ - I meant ‘vocation’ as in its basic meaning of ‘calling’, hence my examples.

I would agree with you for ‘vocational’ courses such as plumbing, building, electricians etc, but those are seldom if ever offered as degrees anyway - and I suspect oay back very well in general.

(my plumber used to be an investment banker….. I am not sure whether the monetary rewards are equal…..)

I'm sorry I misunderstood you

I’m not quite sure what you mean. Over a lifetime, he is likely to earn more than the total cost of his degree, yes - because if, like all his male relatives so far, he lives to over 80 and works well past retirement through choice, that is a very small cost per year.

’Will he earn the cost of his degree more than he would gave done by starting work at 18?’ is not a relevant question, because it’s an area of work where the degree course is pretty much required for entry.

’Will he pay his loan back?’. Not sure. If very successful in his field, yes. If adequately successful, may well earn enough to live frugally but not much, if at all, over the threshold.

Why does 4 years doing something you love have to have monetary reward to be ‘worthwhile’, btw?

Why does 4 years doing something you love have to have monetary reward to be ‘worthwhile’, btw?

I suspect that most posters on mumsnet who subscribe to this view are probably lawyers/bankers/work in finance or other highly paid professions.

Yes, it depends on how you measure success.

I think that doing a job that you love and that pays enough to pay the bills, so having a happy life is a good marker of success.

Do you mean the ‘monetary value is the measure of being worthwhile’ view? I agree with you that, in general, those who live lives driven by monetary reward and move in professional and friendship groups with similar value are likely to project that view onto others.

I appreciate that I’m probably leaning a bit far the other way - as one of a family of teachers, vicars, musicians, artists, those involved in the theatre / dance, academics and charity workers, I am over-exposed to those with vocations and regard that as more ‘normal’ than is probably the case.

I agree @bigTillyMint. We are comfortable, not rich, but comfortable, and I think we have a good work life balance.

I think that doing a job that you love and that pays enough to pay the bills, so having a happy life is a good marker of success

Yes, if ds achieves this, that to me is success and makes his degree worthwhile, not an actuarial balance of ‘degree costs’ vs ‘future earnings’. Tbh, even if he ends up working in a different field, 4 years of total happiness (except Covid) following his passion is something I don’t think he or we will ever regret having the opportunity to do.

Our recommendations to DT’s when they were choosing their degree was what will make you happy. You are going to be spending three - four years studying that subject and at a particular Uni - what will make you happiest? DD turned down a place at the higher ranked St Andrews and went to York as she thought that St Andrews was too isolated for her.

DD turned down a place at the higher ranked St Andrews and went to York

DD turned down Lancaster in favour of Newcastle for the same reason. Although Lancaster isn't RG it is ranked much higher than Newcastle.

Of course the main priority is to enjoy your subject and job!

What I meant is that as a society/economy, we can't afford to pay more on education than the earnings generated from those investments.

In other words if no student were to earn enough to pay back their loans, then as a society we'd be wasting money.

Tbh, even if he ends up working in a different field, 4 years of total happiness (except Covid) following his passion is something I don’t think he or we will ever regret having the opportunity to do.

See, I don't think that we can afford for every student to 'deserve' 4 years of happiness, regardless of how much this happiness costs. It has to be paid for somehow (unfortunately )

But he will work and pay taxes all the rest of his life, contributing far more over that time than the direct cost of his degree?

If he does not pay back the minimum student loan he gets under the terms of the current scheme, but does pay income and other taxes fir the next 60 years, does that reall mean that society cannot afford it?

If society genuinely insists on all graduates only studying if they pay back their student loans plus interest in full, then the creative arts - dancers, actors, writers, artists, classical musicians etc etc - as well as other areas of society that rely on vocation rather than monetary reward, will wither and die. Many may not care, but I would say that society would be hugely poorer.

Surely if that person then gets a job in what remains of the public sector, they are repaying society, even if they can’t pay off all of the finance. Not forgetting that most of the money they owe will be the ridiculously high interest charges on their loans, way above base rate.