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?

@Lilacsunflowers
There is also the big issue of housing. Doing exactly what you went in arts can be very difficult economically.

I am also not at all sure about a model that only sees higher education as ‘worthwhile’ if that is demonstrated through an increase in the individual’s ‘earning power’.

What about the researchers / academics who teach in universities, doing ground-breaking original work, often on an insecure pittance. Are you going to say that the first degree done by a research scientist is ONLY worthwhile if they take that degree into industry, rather than into world-leading academic research? Are you SURE??

No because people are prejudiced. Thankfully more and more employers are not putting institution name on applications

True, those are all valid points.

I guess as long as education spending as a whole generates a positive return for society (not necessarily every individual), then that's money well spent. Positive returns include monetary and non monetary benefits.

There is also a huge disconnect on this thread regarding who, exactly, is paying for HE. In getting on for 50% of cases, it’s not the student. It’s the taxpayer. If we don’t have those high earning people, guess what? Tax income falls. We don’t need everyone pleasing themselves about earning well and paying tax. In the uk we already gain more tax from the 40% tax payers than all the 20% put together. It’s something that needs to happen or we really will have to cut back. Getting a well paid job was always what grads aspired to when I was young. Now it’s have a good time and live it. Apparently someone else pays for the future. Being poor wasn’t aspirational when I was at school. We need to have a rethink!

Getting a well paid job was always what grads aspired to when I was young. Now it’s have a good time and live it. Apparently someone else pays for the future.

Yes, that's what I meant when I questioned whether 'having a good time for 4 years' is really the main criteria for going to Uni?

I think you have misunderstood. Ds us ‘having a good time’ because he is studying his passion. He works on his degree subject 51 weeks if the year, up to 11 hours a day. He is not ‘just enjoying himself’.

When I was at university - high ranking institution- there was a significant proportion of students who studied for the love of their subject. They loved English, or Maths, or History, or Physics. They chose those degrees for the love of the subject - as ds hads. Yes, in the final year of degree or masters or PhDs, my peers looked towards employment, and found it. Sometimes high paid and high status, sometimes in research, sometimes in academia or teaching or as vicars or musicians.

What came first for so many was the live of subject, then employment and salaries followed. Few that I knew chose high pay as a goal before starting their degree.

I suppose what I am asking is - are ballerinas at the Royal Ballet ‘or those studying music at the Royal College of Music or Art at the Slade or acting at drama college ‘just enjoying themselves’? They are doing what they love for pitiful monetary reward, and are enjoying themselves - and creating art that is enjoyed and appreciated by society. Should we prevent that because it ‘does not pay back the student loan’?

The Gradgrind approach. If you can't make money out of it it's not worth doing. I disagree very strongly. Our society has got right out of kilter and the earnings gap between people who work in some jobs like commercial law, investment banking and so on vs most ordinary people is enormous. As we saw in the pandemic, when the chips are down lives are not saved by lawyers and bankers, and the economy grinds to a halt when the cleaners and bus drivers can't work, not the stockbrokers. Most of us really value the output of actors, dancers, writers, musicians, artists and other creative people, many of whom earn an absolute pittance for what they do, but are the bedrock of one of the biggest industries in the UK economy. We need people like that to be able to train in the UK. I for one would be happy to pay a bit more tax to help them along.

I agree about that last part. Teachers and academics are badly paid in the UK, but we need them. If they all decided to turn away from education because they can earn more elsewhere, we will be up the creek. They shouldn't be badly paid, but neither should they be looked down or defunded because they choose less well paid careers.

Good luck to your son, @cantkeepawayforever, he sounds like a fine young man. I hope he can make a career in his chosen field, but if he can't, his work ethic will be of enormous help to him in finding another path.

I suppose what I am asking is - are ballerinas at the Royal Ballet ‘or those studying music at the Royal College of Music or Art at the Slade or acting at drama college ‘just enjoying themselves’? They are doing what they love for pitiful monetary reward, and are enjoying themselves - and creating art that is enjoyed and appreciated by society.

Good question.

I guess the main issue is, why is society not valuing musicians and ballerinas more? Why are not prepared to pay more to watch them perform?

I agree about that last part. Teachers and academics are badly paid in the UK, but we need them. If they all decided to turn away from education because they can earn more elsewhere, we will be up the creek.

Agree 100%

However, if they did all leave, wages would have to rise to attract them back.

guess the main issue is, why is society not valuing musicians and ballerinas more? Why are not prepared to pay more to watch them perform?

The question much more relevant to this thread is ‘do we, as a society, agree that the post-18 training of those in the arts, through degree-level courses in specialist institutions , is highly worthwhile, even when the (inflated by interest) cost of their student loans may not be repaid in full?

Ir even, more generally, can the genuine value of a degree course to society and individuals be truly represented and compared purely by ‘return on investment’?

@Lilacsunflowers
Im a Friend at the Royal Opera House. I can assure you I pay! A lot. However I pay to see the best and they haven’t been to a second rate performing arts school! They have trained with the Royal Ballet or similar institution. Thousands of arts/ dance youngsters on degree programmes don’t get anywhere near being a ballet dancer. It’s extraordinarily hard. Yes, I love it. However we train far too many in other forms of the arts who never get work. They are simply not good enough.

It needs to be a better return on investment or others cannot go! We won’t have unlimited funds in the future if we don’t have high tax payers.

Actually, it seems to ne that the greater drain on universities is those young people who are only using their degree as an ‘entry ticket’ to a ‘high status graduate degree’ and have no particular interest in the subject.

Just miss out the ‘university’ step. In the same way as accountancy firms and some others are moving towards apprenticeships, do that. Main point of entry to all such legal, banking, finance etc employers at 18. Decent salary, training etc, then at 21 give a degree-level qualification and put them into the current ‘graduate’ jobs. Have a minor recruitment round for extra graduates, swapping out any who want to leave having gained their qualification.

Leave university places for those who are interested in the subject they are studying and genuinely want to learn about it for its own sake. Numbers of places overall can drop, and taxes paid by the now-working 18 year olds will also help with funding.

it feels much more of a waste to lavish precious academic teaching time on those who have little or no interest in the subject or institution except for the future earning power it provides than it does to teach those who love the subject and who will go into low paid but highly qualified, societally useful jobs.

Or even, more generally, can the genuine value of a degree course to society and individuals be truly represented and compared purely by ‘return on investment’?

Yes, given that we have scarce resources, our spending on education has to be worthwhile. In other words the return on that investment has to be positive, on average, in an economy.

Imagine a society where all students studied only what they enjoyed, regardless of whether the skills learned are actually valued by society. We'd quickly run out of money!

My own dc loves music and composing (having won several competitions). They would have loved to study music at University. However they decided to pursue music as a hobby, studying another subject, one that has much better career options.

What do you mean by ‘valued by society’?

Do I value investment bankers more than nurses? Corporate lawyers more than bin men?

Are you really saying that people’s value to society is accurately represented by their pay????

I agree that any society needs to raise enough tax to fund what it cares about - whether that is through a society of some high wage earners and some very low wage earners (UK/US) or a less stratified society where everyone pays more tax for public services to be better (Scandinavia).

I don’t think that ‘we have to be prepared to fund what we value’ translates into ‘we must prevent all those doing things that a cultured society should value ever qualifying, because those individuals might be a net cost that society might have to pay for through taxation’.

Especially because the vast majority will pay income tax, vat etc etc - they just may not fully pay back student loans due to the extortionate interest rates.

*What do you mean by ‘valued by society’?

Do I value investment bankers more than nurses? Corporate lawyers more than bin men?

Are you really saying that people’s value to society is accurately represented by their pay????*

Wages are a reflection of the demand for a particular type of workers the supply of such workers. So yes, In theory society rewards individuals with payments by the value it attaches to what they contribute.

But, that assumes that markets are efficient and most importantly that there are no or minimal transaction costs as well as the huge assumption that society knows how it values contributions.

Bit snobby. Presumably some of those who don't make it as performers end up teaching, which is good. Also, it isn't just the young people who get into the elite institutions who make it in the end. Three of the four members of the League of Gentlemen (Steve Pemberton, Mark Gatiss and Reece Shearsmith) met at Bretton Hall Theatre School. Any number of pop/rock performers/songwriters have gone to provincial art schools or music colleges, where they've made use of the protected time to try out new ideas/personae to very good effect.

I grant it's different in classical music and ballet. Very niche fields, though.

Do I value investment bankers more than nurses? Corporate lawyers more than bin men?

I certainly don't.

Are you really saying that people’s value to society is accurately represented by their pay????

Sadly, no it isn't. How much value to society does an overpaid banker who gets a 6 figure bonus at Christmas have?

Do I value investment bankers more than? Corporate lawyers more than bin men?

I certainly don't.

It's not relevant what individuals think. Wages are a reflection of supply and demand in an economy.

Why do YOU think investment bankers get paid more than bin men?

You know the answer to this. Stop being goady. Especially at this time of the year.

Actually, it seems to ne that the greater drain on universities is those young people who are only using their degree as an ‘entry ticket’ to a ‘high status graduate degree’ and have no particular interest in the subject. Just miss out the ‘university’ step

One of the main pros of university experience rather than an apprenticeship is facilitating a wider appreciation of other subjects through friendships made (partying has its role here). . Your scheme of excluding career orientated future financiers, lawyers, engineers and doctors from university increases the risk of disengaging an increasing portion of society from valuing the arts and humanities (and therefore paying taxes to support them).