Bored at university!!??

I don’t think we do that, do we? It’s great your DGD is in a position to travel and work in lowly paid jobs (is someone helping her financially with that choice)) but as you say, at some point she’ll want to settle and work - and unless she wants to work in an unskilled job for peanuts she’ll do some form of education and achieve a qualification.

My DC and the majority of their friends have chosen courses which will enable them to travel once they graduate and earn decent money. They’ve taken part in things like the Erasmus programme and Canp America and have met people from a wide range of cultures. A university education has provided them with a wide range of experiences already and will set them on a career trajectory that will take them as far as they want to go. It’s not a case of wonderful experiences or university.

SirChenjin No one has helped my gd with any finance at all and she wouldn't take it if they did (she's from Yorkshire stock after all!)
She simply worked two jobs for three years, 6 days a week; was in a flat-share and lived simply to save up.

I'm not convinced paper qualifications are always the way to go although I accept they can open doors for some people. You probably could be a research chemist for instance unless you'd got at least a BA in the relevant studies.

Several of my son's friends obtained degrees but haven't used them.
They started off in entry-level jobs and worked their way up or sideways into well-paid positions. That's because they're smart and hard-working, not because they could wave a piece of paper.

My elder son has no qualifications at all and yet owns his owns IT Security business in Australia where he has several government and corporate contracts.

So I honestly think it's down to personality, ability and inclination.

Some young people are just not academic or cut out for university life and yet feel obliged to go as it's seen to be the goal their parents want them to aim for and would be let down if they chose a different path.

Oops, probably couldn't be

I don't think that anyone has said that university is for everyone, although I keep hearing people saying that it is said .

For a lot of young people it is a safe and useful way to bridge the gap between adolescence and adulthood, whilst broadening their horizons and learning more about a subject that interests them. Some will struggle, whether socially or academically, but others will have the best time of their lives, and build a strong foundation for adult life.

To do that, they need to be reasonably confident before going, and be prepared to make an effort to move outside of their comfort zone, which can be difficult, as moving away from home is out of the comfort zone for most 18 year olds anyway.

I found that often the students who waited a year or two before starting their courses did well, as they had grown up a bit, and had a better idea of what their priorities were before starting their studies. Having a bit of a nest-egg behind them after working for a while could also mean that they needed to work fewer hours, which also makes a difference to both social and academic success.

I also really object to degrees being called 'pieces of paper'. The certificates are pieces of paper, but they represent years of study at a relatively high standard, which has been graded by experts in the field. They take a lot of work, and it is very disrespectful to the young people who have gained them to write them off in that way.

A lot of people don't 'use' their degrees in the sense that they don't go on to work in the field that they have studied; but the transferable skills they gain at university (teamwork, leadership, research, critical thinking, meeting deadlines etc etc) make them employable and perhaps more likely to be chosen for 'sideways moves' into well-paid jobs.

Of course, some people can manage without degrees, and go on to be successful in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean that those who have them are not 'smart and hard working', though. There is a huge logical flaw in that implication.

A friend’s daughter started at a local university in the autumn, on a nursing degree. She originally planned to live in student accommodation, (to immerse in the student experience, although she only lived 20 miles away), but that went by the wayside when it transpired she would only be in lectures two days a week, and out on placements etc. the remainder. So she lives at home and travels in when required, seems like many of them do that also, probably because a lot live fairly locally.
Money wasted on accommodation if not needed much of the time.
Too much made of the student experience in view of the costs involved nowadays.

Agree wholeheartedly with everything Doodlebug says.

While of course it’s possible to be successful without a degree, nowadays they are standard requirements in many fields and certainly if you want to progress in your choice of career or profession you will need a formal qualification.

Bradford - you mention that your son works in IT security and has his own company. One of our neighbour’s works in IT security as does my friend’s brother - both are very senior in their companies and both have university qualifications. If it’s the same type of IT security then I imagine your son recruits similar people?

Personality, ability and inclination will get you so far but without that piece of paper you’re limiting the number of professions you can enter and the rung on the ladder to which you’ll progress.

I agree with Bradford Lass that university is not always the right path.
There are many young people with a lot of debt pulling pints and serving tables.

A degree is sadly not always a passport to a great career.
I think too many graduates have little experience of life and may leave university with a degree but cannot apply themselves to using their qualifications.

My youngest now 25 went to university in Prague, he had never been to the Czech Republic before, but had worked for 6 months in India then in Kyrgyzstan so he had done some growing up!

He had no contacts in Prague but within 3 weeks had made friends and loved his new home.
I don’t think the year before he would have had the maturity or confidence to have started a degree in a different country.

A challenging year out in my opinion is worth a lot.

An undergraduate degree was never traditionally about being "used" it was about building knowledge for knoeledge sake.

The subjects being lost as theyre not a direct funnel to a profession, and because they dont allow lecturers to churn our research, are of great value to society:

History, literature, philosophy: all good groundwork for understanding the human condition. Whether you use it in business, in caring profession, or to identify propganda at voting time, the study of these subjects have great value

Maybe if more people were still doing the hugely out of fashion geography degree, less people would still be buying houses on flood zones so dodgy developers would stop forcing rivers to bulge elsewhere?

Having lost the range of popular subjects, particularly the arts and "debating" subjects, dogmatic extreme left groups are controlling universities and getting lecturers fired and speakers cancelled if they dare to express "triggering" views!

dogmatic extreme left groups are controlling universities and getting lecturers fired and speakers cancelled if they dare to express "triggering" views!

Really?! It’s quite the opposite in my experience - although I imagine that it will depend on the course. My son’s degree, for example, is linked to industry as are many degrees. The days of left wing lecturers are long gone in many fields - they need to generate income through research.

A men alliwed to be NUS "womens officers". Lecturers fired or campaigns to get them fired. Speakers banned. Its all been in the mainstream news SirChenjin

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/13/banning-shouting-down-speakers-universities-risk

www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/speaker-banned-warwick-university-over-10136555

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6003331/Britains-official-transgender-student-officer-suspended.html

www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/ucu-must-stand-academic-freedom-sex-and-gender

*A degree is sadly not always a passport to a great career.
I think too many graduates have little experience of life and may leave university with a degree but cannot apply themselves to using their qualifications.*

A degree is not intended to be a passport to a great career. It is evidence that the holder has reached a certain standard of education, and has in-depth knowledge of the subject area.

Of course graduates have little experience of life - they are 21! Compared to those of the same age who do not go to university, though, many of them have mixed with a broader range of people, and have been exposed to a range of outlooks and cultures.

The days when a degree automatically gave elite status are long gone, and IMO that is a good thing. When only five or ten percent of people went to university, they were almost guaranteed a professional or managerial role, whereas now more people are given the opportunity to work in those roles, but have to compete for them, as there are more fish in the pond.

The 'losers' are those who, in the past, would have been set up for life with a well-paid job, regardless of their suitability for management, or their innate ability, simply because their parents could afford to send them to university. The other side of this is that far more people have those opportunities but a degree is not as scarce a commodity, so is only a 'passport' in the sense that it allows you to join the queue for boarding. It is not diminished in its own right, though - it is still proof of high level study, and the university experience is still valuable for many.

A lot of people lose sight of this, and want the advantages that came with the exclusivity of the past, whilst at the same time wanting their children/grandchildren to benefit from the more egalitarian access of the present.

I’m well aware of thsee examples notanan - but please don’t make hyperbolic clsims about extreme left wing groups controlling universities right across the UK. They don’t.

The NUSs recent widespread bullying behaviour suggests otherwise...

And it just stands to reason, when you dont have the same range of lecturer type or subject range, you are more likely to create an echo chamber where you once had a "meeting of minds".

Lecturers in subjects that dont naturally lend themselve to frequent quantative research have suffered and been let go. Those that can churn out publications which dont require as much critical thinking are the ones keeping their jobs!

English lit, history and philosphy, these subjects lose funding as a result. These are the more critical thinking subjects that teach you more than the subject, they teach you analysis. They do not funnel you into X job. But they're not supposed to

They are meant to make you a more rounded person. Not an X professional.

There are arguably more lifelong benefits to these degrees over your lifetime, and in your whole life (not just career) than a professional degree.

I would not discourage say an arts history degree if my girls wanted to do that. There is so much about politics, theology, propoganda etc in these arts degrees. I think its such a valuable thing to learn. In itself, not as a means to an end

I would absolutely discourage any of my children from studying subjects which don’t lend themselves to direct entry into careers. Degrees are too expensive and the workplace too competitive to spend many thousands on a arts degree that are 2 a penny and which then require further study ( and cost) to translate it into something which employers actually want.

Notanan, I agree that subjects such as the ones you mention are under pressure; but I disagree that this is because of 'dogmatic extreme left-wing groups controlling universities'.

It is more because the high student fees involved in education nowadays often means that parents encourage their children to take courses that 'can lead to a job', and lose sight of the things that have been discussed upthread. The expansion of HE has meant that a significant percentage of students are from families who have no experience in it, so the value of an education for its own sake, or because it teaches critical thinking is sometimes not fully understood. Without student numbers, with the money that they bring in, courses are threatened.

Also, there is far more money in research that leads to an end product, so it is easier to get funding for research into pharmaceuticals, or engineering than it is for literature or history. This will get worse after Brexit, of course, but now that universities are businesses in the so-called 'real world' that so many hold dear, preferential treatment of financially viable subjects has been happening for years, regardless of the impact on the education of our young people.

My degree is not the degree usually linked to my profession. But a degree is required. And they accept mine because an undergrad degree is about commiting to and competing that academic level.

I did some study as a mature student so have a student loan, which is nothing like a bank loan, I didnt have to pay it when I was a stay at home mum. I never have to pay the full amount unless I earn a good amount consistantly. Even mortgage companies do not want to know the total just the repayments.

Cross-posted, SirChenjin. So I both agree and disagree with both you and Notanan .

Notanan, I agree that subjects such as the ones you mention are under pressure; but I disagree that this is because of 'dogmatic extreme left-wing groups controlling universities'.

Nope. I didnt say that the left dominance in unis causes the arts to be crushed.

The othet way around: the crushing of the arts subjects has reduced the sort of debate, range of viewpoints and critical thinking which prevents the echo chamber effect. This is why the extreme tactics of the "woke" have taken over un checked.

Uni used to be a time when you could play devild advocate, explore alternativs views etc. The arts subjects actively encourage this