Percentage of Population with Degree / Post Degree Quals?
Discussion
2001 census - nearly 20% of the adult population hold a degree:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/c...
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/c...
Lucas CAV said:
Puggit said:
I think the 'degree' option should be broken down to proper degrees, and proper unis...
and Science / Engineering vs. PPE etc....
IIRC in the 50s/60s (when all degrees were 'proper') the %age was 2%, and was up to about 10% by the 80s. Then NuLabour came along and decided that 50% had to be graduates (to stop degrees being 'elitist' of course) so that the tide of Mickey Mouse degrees, primary schools becoming 'universities' and standards plunging - Mandelson's latest wheeze being to rush them through in two years - struck, to the point where the system is largely pointless and now unaffordable.
Going back to the 1980s, when the balance was still under control, students got proportional or full grants for their degree - because the country could afford it. One up for Mrs T!
You can't increase the intelligence of a population by setting targets or passing laws, all you can do is lower the standards so more people pass. It really is blindingly simple.
Going back to the 1980s, when the balance was still under control, students got proportional or full grants for their degree - because the country could afford it. One up for Mrs T!
You can't increase the intelligence of a population by setting targets or passing laws, all you can do is lower the standards so more people pass. It really is blindingly simple.
Lucas CAV said:
Puggit said:
I think the 'degree' option should be broken down to proper degrees, and proper unis...
and Science / Engineering vs. PPE etc....I read Electronics Engineering at Cardiff, and am now reading (for fun) PPE.
Can I put both hands up?
(There was a bit of Graffiti in the Engineering department - Trevithick building - at Cardiff, written just above a toilet roll holder in the gents;
'Sociology degrees - Please take one').
isn't Mandelscum's idea of 2 year degrees a way to bring the cost down, god knows how any real degrees will be taught in 2 years unless the long summer holidays go as well, for a Science or Technical degree, the 1st year brings the maths and science knowledge up to the point that it can be taken as read for the remainder of the course. A levels are getting simpler if not easier, by that i mean it is still as big a step from GCSE but the questions are simpler.
ked anyway and doesn't make anything any more, I don't suppose it makes much difference.I should add that none of my academic qualifications made any difference at all to my 'career' or earning potential.
Neither (as far as I know) did almost any of my education.
Most of what I know is gleaned through reading, and general interest, and has bugger all to do with formal education.
Saying that, I am a little odd.
Neither (as far as I know) did almost any of my education.
Most of what I know is gleaned through reading, and general interest, and has bugger all to do with formal education.
Saying that, I am a little odd.
Simpo Two said:
IIRC in the 50s/60s (when all degrees were 'proper') the %age was 2%, and was up to about 10% by the 80s. Then NuLabour came along and decided that 50% had to be graduates (to stop degrees being 'elitist' of course) so that the tide of Mickey Mouse degrees, primary schools becoming 'universities' and standards plunging - Mandelson's latest wheeze being to rush them through in two years - struck, to the point where the system is largely pointless and now unaffordable.
Going back to the 1980s, when the balance was still under control, students got proportional or full grants for their degree - because the country could afford it. One up for Mrs T!
You can't increase the intelligence of a population by setting targets or passing laws, all you can do is lower the standards so more people pass. It really is blindingly simple.
^^^ This. Going back to the 1980s, when the balance was still under control, students got proportional or full grants for their degree - because the country could afford it. One up for Mrs T!
You can't increase the intelligence of a population by setting targets or passing laws, all you can do is lower the standards so more people pass. It really is blindingly simple.
Also universities were primarily funded by research grants from industry and the arts, rather than student tuition fees.
Less pressure to allow all-comers in.
maser_spyder said:
I should add that none of my academic qualifications made any difference at all to my 'career' or earning potential.
Neither (as far as I know) did almost any of my education.
Most of what I know is gleaned through reading, and general interest, and has bugger all to do with formal education.
Saying that, I am a little odd.
Not at all.Neither (as far as I know) did almost any of my education.
Most of what I know is gleaned through reading, and general interest, and has bugger all to do with formal education.
Saying that, I am a little odd.
I'd go so far as to say that most, if not all, I learned at school turned out to be useful only for pub quizzes and the like. It was "general knowledge" at best and "a complete waste of time" at worst.
Likewise, my meagre qualifications didn't go any way to getting along as much as my attitude did.
Puggit said:
I think the 'degree' option should be broken down to proper degrees, and proper unis...
I'm really not trying to pick a fight, or put words into your mouth, but surely even the 'mickey mouse' universities must produce a certain amount of employable graduates?Due to a combination of personal/financial reasons, I chose to stay at home for my University education, despite having the A level grades to get in pretty much everywhere (bar Oxbridge). As a result, I now attend a less than prestigious institution around about 2/3 of the way down the rankings table.
I'll admit, I wasn't initially impressed with the apparent academic standards (or lack of) displayed by some of my fellow students. However, not everyone is a complete knuckledragger (and a fair number of those left anyway). A case in point are two of my best mates I've met at Uni. One had offers from Durham, Bristol and somewhere else to do Economics, but unexpected personal reasons have meant he has had to stay at home. The other guy was at Cardiff Business School and got in with 3 A grades, before coming home in mid-November. He's never said exactly why, and to be honest I don't care, but he's another who could have had their pick of Unis.
Whilst I can't pretend my university is something it isn't, and I can't deny I have spent a lot of time worrying about how it will be viewed by prospective employers when applying for graduate jobs, I don't think it's particularly fair to assume that all students studying there are complete muppets. I also find it slightly odd that even the big employers in the industry I hope to go into (accountancy) are happy to accept degrees from any discipline. I know this to be true as I know of someone who got into a large firm (Baker Tilly) with a 2:1 in History from Birmingham University. Now surely a degree from a lesser institution, but more relevant to the job would provide a better basis from which to train their graduates? Of course a 1st in Economics from LSE would be ideal, but not everyone's got those.
Like I said, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone (and to make it clear this isn't directed at Puggit in any way), I just thought I'd offer my thoughts on attending a 'mickey mouse' University, and hopefully haven't left myself open to flaming/insults/ridicule.
Edited by Stupidlikeafox on Sunday 3rd January 12:12
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff