Should universities give clearer information on degree career routes and prospects?

[LyndallMay]

Parents of university students or applicants, would you have wanted to know this before they chose their degree?
I have started a UK Parliament petition asking universities to give prospective students clearer information before they enrol or become financially committed.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/776439
Require universities to explain degree career routes and job prospects
The petition asks for students to be told about the full career route connected with a degree, including what the degree does and does not qualify them to do, any further training, examinations, professional requirements, work experience, time and costs.
It also asks for clear and recent information about realistic graduate employment prospects, including where entry level roles may require previous experience.
This is not about guaranteeing anybody a job or discouraging people from university. It is about giving students the full picture while they still have a genuine choice about their degree and career route.
If you agree, I would be very grateful if you would sign and share it.
IMPORTANT: After signing, please check your email and click the confirmation link sent by UK Parliament. Otherwise your signature will not be recorded.

Yes, I know. So how would stats on the numbers training as lawyers or barristers after a law degree be helpful?

I agree and you've explained it better than me. Yes I meant a specific qualifying route that is available through other degrees. For example, when I did a Law degree a million years ago if your degree had 7 specific modules you would have a year less studying to do, whereas if you didn't have those modules it would be the same as not doing a Law degree at all. so you'd have to do a conversion. So the degree wouldn't say ' this is everything you can't do' but would say ' this does not exempt you from this particular element of training. I would expect every degree would have that information but other on this thread have suggested that is not the case for degrees like psychology or architecture. That's a different proposal from what the OP wants which seems to be that she did a Law Degree but thought she would automatically be q qualified Lawyer and didn't realise she would need 3 years more training, which really is basic research that should be done for anyone wanting to be a lawyer.

You'd need to ask very specific questions for the stats to be meaningful.

You'd have to ask did you go on to do the postgrad courses and try and qualify. Did you intend to qualify and didnt manage. Did you take the coursea and fail. Only that would give a true indication.

Oh yes, this information should definitely be there!
With all the caveats that means a student can’t sue us if it doesn’t go to plan 😂

@MickyMoonshine I think all law degrees say they are degrees that give part qualification. You don’t need three more years to be a barrister. With a law degree you need 2. Conversion needs that and 2 more years. I thought SQE was 2 or less as some firms fast track?

Not sure why you’ve tagged me in this?

As I said it was many years ago but I just used it as an example as some law degrees used to mean the further qualification was shorter. Solicitors needs 1 more year of training and then 2 years work based training. But that wasn't the point. I agree that I assumed all Universities would say ' this degree does/ doesn't exempt you but people on this thread said that for some they don't. I was just saying that for those specific ones where there are not exemptions it should always be stipulated. I think psychology and architecture was mentioned.

I didn’t say “degree success, no degree failure”, as you claim I did. I simply queried how you could complete a degree and learn no valuable skills.

You also seem to have some very simplistic views on the marketisation of higher education. What you outline is indeed a very big problem, but not in the way that you think it is.

Studying at University was originally a chance to learn about something/the world. It was about the pursuit of knowledge, not just money. (And yes, there are problems with that, because it was of course elitist - often only the wealthy could access it, or afford to dedicate time to thinking.)

When the government introduced fees, something that was never intended to be a product began to be sold as if it was a product.

This is why people like you feel hard done by: because you think you should have bought something specific, like a higher paid job.

And many people who study do indeed learn a lot about themselves and the world, and acquire lots of skills, and go on to do very well.

But others like yourself, who perhaps are unable to see the value because the skills you learned are transferable, or because you weren’t instantly propelled into a job with the same name as your degree, think you have been short changed.

Fortunately, when I was 18, I was able to understand all this and went into my degree with eyes open: aware that it was a travesty to ruin the pedagogical relationship by turning it into a consumer one; aware of the value of what I’d study to me personally, and its potential for future careers.

Many 18 year olds today still understand all this, too. Many young people are in my experience quite astute, and do degrees for a variety of reasons of reasons.

@Laurmolonlabe Why do you keep saying debt? A person not earning a lot, because the degree has not brought about an earnings premium won’t pay much every month, if anything! There is, in effect, no debt! Only when earnings go up above the threshold do they start paying: it’s not a bank loan. It’s true some degrees are not getting the grads a better earnings potential but these days so many employers see a degree as opening the door to a job. Far more now because so many applicants will have degrees and employers specify them. Years ago they were less likely to for entry level jobs and once the grad gains experience the degree is less relevant in future job applications.

Well this is a 2 sided argument- the original thread was about a degrees worth in your employment prospects. My point was that it did not improve mine.
Your point is that it is not debt unless you earn over £35000- well if you are not earning more than that your degree certainly didn't help you.
There may be an argument that you like the idea of education for it's own sake- but you can't have it both ways, if your degree helps your career your student debt is just that-debt.

Salary isn’t the only measure of career success.
Also, not everyone works full time so their pro rata salary might not meet the threshold. Doesn’t mean their degree was useless.

@MickyMoonshine Yes, degrees held by parents who want to work part time are certainly worth it and probably free for a few years - depending on salary.

Unfortunately starting salaries for grads are pretty low at the moment so the grads are not paying much. We’ve historically had 70% of grads not paying the loan off. For the majority it’s never been a debt! It’s not paid back!

With the 40 year loan period now, that might change but not if there’s high grad unemployment and wage stagnation.

Historically we have had a good lifelong salary uplift for grads. It’s decreasing for obvious reasons. There is a need to evaluate what degree to do and where but the loan is never the same as a bank loan.