Blimey, I agree with Boris...

Most people move on and develop throughout their lives.
Not all people. Just prolonging my youth and enjoying it!

PS. I don't think there are many dentistry graduates in the House of Commons.

But I expect they all need one. And a plumber.
Plus a doctor, film maker, hospitality workers, farmers, vegetable pickers and packers, grocery pickers and delivery drivers, nurse, pharmacist, refuse collector. Even bankers. Etc.

We are all inter-dependent.

We

Dentists must do 1 year vocational training after they get their degree bda.org/careers/Aftergraduation/Pages/DentalVocationalTraining.aspx

Ellianne

growstuff

That's a shame that one's passion for a subject cannot continue in one's future employment. I would want it to be all consuming

Good grief! I'd hate to think that graduates of any subject became so narrow minded! Having a degree from UCL opened doors in finance and journalism, etc, which were far more lucrative and intellectually fulfilling than anything only involving languages could ever be.

You misunderstand me:
Not narrow minded
Not interested large financial gains.

Just in love with my subject, have a passion for everything to do with it and want to impart that to others.

Most people move on and develop throughout their lives.

trisher It's strange that the thread has turned into one calling for a cut in university education, when Johnson was actually calling for the exact opposite - ie for less "respected" courses to be levelled up.

growstuff

*That's a shame that one's passion for a subject cannot continue in one's future employment. I would want it to be all consuming*

Good grief! I'd hate to think that graduates of any subject became so narrow minded! Having a degree from UCL opened doors in finance and journalism, etc, which were far more lucrative and intellectually fulfilling than anything only involving languages could ever be.

You misunderstand me:
Not narrow minded
Not interested large financial gains.

Just in love with my subject, have a passion for everything to do with it and want to impart that to others.

A degree in firefighting (which does exist) also requires a high level of skills and knowledge, but it doesn't have the snobbery value - that's the barrier which needs to be broken down. It's taken centuries to build up and won't come down overnight.

I think this argument about the level of education needed for a particular job or the validity of any subject has been waged since universities first started. Teaching for example once used pupil-teachers and it was a way for working class people to enter the profession, training colleges then took on the role now it's a graduate profession. As for science it was once regarded as an inferior subject to study- classics being more suitable for the cleverest. But we move on.
I can't see any reason why someone with the ability and desire to dance shouldn't have a degree in it. Of course it is possible to advance and achieve in a field or area without a degree, but that isn't a reason to stop anyone doing one. Of course students may emerge with a degree and still need to learn things, but that doesn't detract from the learning they have. All these points don't really present a case for cutting University education.

Doodledog

I think that it's a false dichotomy really, but yes, I would say that dentistry is vocational, although clearly it is highly skilled and requires a high level of knowledge.

It is highly rewarded and valued because the courses leading to dentistry limit the numbers, so there are are far fewer dentists than, say, plumbers, so they can command high salaries.

I agree! It's not the false division between vocational and academic which is important.

PS. I don't think there are many dentistry graduates in the House of Commons.

That's a shame that one's passion for a subject cannot continue in one's future employment. I would want it to be all consuming

Good grief! I'd hate to think that graduates of any subject became so narrow minded! Having a degree from UCL opened doors in finance and journalism, etc, which were far more lucrative and intellectually fulfilling than anything only involving languages could ever be.

I think that it's a false dichotomy really, but yes, I would say that dentistry is vocational, although clearly it is highly skilled and requires a high level of knowledge.

It is highly rewarded and valued because the courses leading to dentistry limit the numbers, so there are are far fewer dentists than, say, plumbers, so they can command high salaries.

growstuff

Ellianne

growstuff

In terms of employability, a degree from Oxford or Cambridge opens more doors than a degree from almost anywhere else. So much for vocational utility! That's the real problem - barristers are more respected than aircraft designers and chemists and are more likely to go into politics and other powerful positions in the civil service, etc. Graduates from all the "new" universities, who provide the bulk of vocational degrees, are less likely to be employed in graduate level jobs six months after graduating, regardless of the subject studied.

Does that then also mean that those graduates who can't find employment in the field they want to work in actually end up in a job which has very little to do with the degree they originally studied? ie a waste of time?

Most of the graduates after my modern languages degree ended up not using their languages directly Was the course a waste of time?

Graduates of most humanity degrees have transferable skills, which are highly valued in today's fast changing workplace.

Science and technology are different, but even in science, many graduates end up in management, not using their degree directly. All scientist have to update their knowledge on a regular. What they learnt on an undergraduate course becomes irrelevant very quickly.

That's a shame that one's passion for a subject cannot continue in one's future employment. I would want it to be all consuming

What they learnt on an undergraduate course becomes irrelevant very quickly.

No, sorry growstuff, its not irrelevant, there's just more to learn all the time. The Newtonian laws of motion didn't stop being useful because Einstein discovered relativity.

Ellianne

^I've recently met several young people with degrees in Photography who know all the theory but none of the practice,cant set up studio lights or use fill in flash.^
Too right paddyanne. Did you know you can do a 3 year degree course in surfing at Plymouth university, but I quote "no practical surfing is included in the course". You couldn't make it up!!

The "three year degree in Plymouth" is actually a two year foundation degree.

Have you ever found a study of Corneille and Racine useful Ellianne? I haven't.

BTW Doodledog Would you agree that dentistry is a "vocational" degree, in that it trains people for one specific occupation? Nevertheless, it's highly valued and well-rewarded.

Ellianne

growstuff

In terms of employability, a degree from Oxford or Cambridge opens more doors than a degree from almost anywhere else. So much for vocational utility! That's the real problem - barristers are more respected than aircraft designers and chemists and are more likely to go into politics and other powerful positions in the civil service, etc. Graduates from all the "new" universities, who provide the bulk of vocational degrees, are less likely to be employed in graduate level jobs six months after graduating, regardless of the subject studied.

Does that then also mean that those graduates who can't find employment in the field they want to work in actually end up in a job which has very little to do with the degree they originally studied? ie a waste of time?

Most of the graduates after my modern languages degree ended up not using their languages directly Was the course a waste of time?

Graduates of most humanity degrees have transferable skills, which are highly valued in today's fast changing workplace.

Science and technology are different, but even in science, many graduates end up in management, not using their degree directly. All scientist have to update their knowledge on a regular. What they learnt on an undergraduate course becomes irrelevant very quickly.

Ellianne

Well I would be pretty disappointed if my surfing degree didn't allow me to at least have some practice on the waves! A bit like doing a degree in Biology and never dissecting a rat?

If you wanted a tourist manager for a resort in Cornwall, would you trust somebody with a degree in surfing or one with a degree in classics?

The much derided "surfing degree" at Falmouth is actually a foundation degree, not a full degree, so students would still need to study a further year doing another course.

Current modules include:

Scientific Techniques (20 credits)
Culture of Surf & Sport (20 credits)
Media & Events (10 credits)
Physical & Geographical Influences on Surfing (20 credits) Production Methods & Materials (20 credits)
Surf Practice (10 credits)
Key Professional Skills (20 credits).
Indicative Sociological & Psychological Perspectives of Surfing (20 credits)
Scientific Aspects of Health, Fitness & Nutrition in Sport (20 credits)
Surf Business (20 credits)
Individual Research Project (20 credits)
Application of Computer Aided Design in the Surf Industry (20 credits)
Ecology & Management of the Coastal Environment (20 credits)

That all sounds highly vocational and useful in context. What's wrong with it? It's pure snobbery to mock any of it.

growstuff

In terms of employability, a degree from Oxford or Cambridge opens more doors than a degree from almost anywhere else. So much for vocational utility! That's the real problem - barristers are more respected than aircraft designers and chemists and are more likely to go into politics and other powerful positions in the civil service, etc. Graduates from all the "new" universities, who provide the bulk of vocational degrees, are less likely to be employed in graduate level jobs six months after graduating, regardless of the subject studied.

Does that then also mean that those graduates who can't find employment in the field they want to work in actually end up in a job which has very little to do with the degree they originally studied? ie a waste of time?

Doodledog

Alegrias

Hear hear paddyanne

Doodledog Why do we keep separating things into academic and non-academic

Maybe I'm getting paranoid but I wonder if its my posts that led you to say this? If we abandon academic subjects that are studied for advancing knowledge in those areas, and for that purpose alone, we're not doing society any good. We keep splitting them this way because they are different.

As far culture being as important as science, I recommend "The Two Cultures" By C P Snow, where he argued a that the split of knowledge into "sciences" and "the humanities" was a major barrier to solving the worlds problems, mainly because those who were educated in the humanities had little knowledge of the sciences. Conversely, those who studied science generally appreciated the arts. Something that remains true today, 60 years after he wrote it.

No, I wasn't getting at anyone in particular .

I don't think that splitting things into academic and not 'because they are different' ages a lot of sense, though. Things are different in so many ways, that saying this is meaningless.

I haven't read the text you mention, but it sounds, on the face of it, to be a dubious argument. Solving the world's problems is a tall order, but I would argue that doing so requires the sort of understanding of the 'human condition' that is the aim of many humanities courses. Without that, there will always be wars and suffering of various kinds.

Also, it is arguable that science is responsible for a lot of the world's problems, as well as the ones it solves. Without science we would have few weapons, for a start.

None of which is particularly relevant to whether we should be looking at all skills or knowledge in terms of whether or not they are 'academic'.

There is more than enough money to teach our young people to learn whatever they want to, incidentally. As with so much about public spending, it is a matter of prioritising, and the payback, in terms of a less barbaric society would make every penny well spent, in my opinion.

Oooh, Doodledog, we could have a whole thread just about this

One thing I think we do agree on is that as one of the biggest economies in the world - for now at least - we should be able to educate or train our young people properly in any subject that makes the world a better place.

Alegrias

^There are quality control committees at every stage of proposing a new degree course. These are attended not only by people at all levels within the proposing university, but by External Examiners and (where relevant) representatives of the accrediting professional bodies.^

I've been on some of these committees. You can imagine how annoying I was...

Me too - we may have annoyed one another

In terms of employability, a degree from Oxford or Cambridge opens more doors than a degree from almost anywhere else. So much for vocational utility! That's the real problem - barristers are more respected than aircraft designers and chemists and are more likely to go into politics and other powerful positions in the civil service, etc. Graduates from all the "new" universities, who provide the bulk of vocational degrees, are less likely to be employed in graduate level jobs six months after graduating, regardless of the subject studied.

Oops that was meant for trisher's post. Sorry!

Callistemon

Or Veterinary Science?

That's no fun!

Schools don't get any money when pupils go to university.

Lots of parents who did not go to university want their youngster to go because they didn’t.
Now that could be very true 25Avalon.
I often think that just because I was one of those privileged ones (in the top 15%) who went to university back in the day, it is probably far too easy for me to be critical of how it is now. Time to change how I view things maybe.