University degrees

The Law Society calls them apprenticeships. www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/career-advice/becoming-a-solicitor/qualifying-without-a-degree/apprenticeships

Both my DS and his best mate wanted to go into aeronautical engineering from school. DS was one of the very last that was accepted onto the apprenticeships run, at that time, by BAE Systems. His friend went onto to university to do the same course over 3 years. DS did a 5 year apprenticeship, earned a reasonable wage, had no fees to pay back and has worked his way up the ladder very successfully. His mate had a whale of a time at uni, flunked his exams, retook them, flunked them as well and is still trying to "find his niche" whilst paying back his fees. The apprenticeship DS took is no longer available. Not everyone is cut out for university; some are better working practically and with their hands but the availability of apprenticeships are rare as hen's teeth these days.

theworriedwell you seem determined to win an argument. The scheme to which you refer is totally different to what I did. I worked full time with no tuition. As I have already said, tuition is compulsory nowadays and I think by finding this scheme (not operated by the likes of the City firms I worked for after qualifying) you have rather proved that point.

Calistemon

^There's plenty of choice in pathways after school, including job training and apprenticeships.^

I don't think there is, not like there was years ago Hetty58.

no there isn't, you are right
We looked at college post school for one of ours in their 20s now and it is 2.4k a year which you can get student finance for also all these magic companies offering apprenticeships are few and far between also

Not a three year course , my Grandson has just completed a four year apprenticeship in mechanical engineering , one day a week at our local Technical College, the same one I attended in the 60s. Yes it was maintained, and grown from strength to strength, now Institute of Technology and affiliated with a University, so plenty of degree courses too. Amongst subjects, Marine Biology, turbine engineering, and too many too mention on here. We also have a Maritime College for those who want a career on the sea, Merchant navy, support vessels.

I think this is one of the only threads where most of us agree that university is totally unnecessary for so many careers.

Hetty I am another who must disagree with you. Schools have always put pressure on students to go to university and also 'right' universities. Back in the 1960s, DH's headmaster pressured him to apply to Oxbridge. DH refused because it didn't offer the subject he wanted to study. As a result the HM banned him from using the school library. Pressure may not be quite so blatant now, but it is still there.

A wide range of jobs require a degree but in any subject.. Absolutely not. I know that is the theory, but in practice, it is very difficult to get a job in most fields unless you have a relevant degree.

Indeed that is the way government policy is moving and fast. Soon our universities will only be offering work relevant degrees, finance for the humanities, arts and anything faintly cultural is being cut drastically. DS is an academic in the humanities and is thankful that he is in a world-class university, where his faculty comes in the top 6 in its subject in the world.

I agree with GSM, whose own achievement desrves every respect, things may be improving, but there are still not the range of pathways into professional careers that there used to be, and many require studying without earning.

I also disagree with your statement that People aren't intrinsically academic or practical. Oh, but they are. It does not mean that they are not as able and as capable, but some people are good at academic study, others learn best through making and doing. There is no difference in their ability just in the way they prefer to learn.

Beswitched Quite a lot of the course fees are never paid back now, so the taxpayer is already covering most of the cost. Lectures are a small part of a degree, a student should be spending time on research and self study at university level.
Apart from that, do we really begrudge these young people an experience they are never likely to enjoy again, before they join the rest of us at the grindstone.

I would love to see a list of these so-called 'B list' Universities that employers supposedly boycott.

Having worked in both a post-92 institution (ie an ex-Poly) and a Russell Group redbrick university I can honestly say that the student experience and standard of the education is the same at both. There is higher-level research at the more prestigious institutions, but that doesn't necessarily translate into better teaching. Many of the higher level researchers do very little teaching and none at undergrad level.

Where I disagree with the thrust of many of these threads is that I think they miss the difference between education and training. A degree provides students with education - the ability to express themselves clearly, to carry out research, to analyse arguments and see through gaps in logic. They also provide an opportunity to mix with people from entirely different backgrounds (be that social, geographical or subject based) and to develop a more nuanced view of society than they might get if they went straight into work or went into training with other people being taught how to carry out particular tasks and to do a particular job.

Many employers want people with the skills that surround the subject knowledge, rather than the knowledge itself. A history graduate, for instance, will be able to synthesise information from a range of sources, write a complex argument in a logical manner, and has shown that she can retain information, meet deadlines, organise her time and all the other attributes that she will have gained at university. It may very well be that she never needs to demonstrate a knowledge of medieval ideas, but that's not the point.

She will also probably have experience of dealing with people 'at all levels' (an awful phrase, but the one that gets used in so many job descriptions), and have good communication skills.

Many university students gain work experience, either as part of their courses or to help pay the rent, and this is also attractive to employers.

Obviously not all graduates will have all these skills, and many non-graduates will have some of them, but asking for them at the application stage (by specifying graduate entry) is likely to give the employer a good chance of finding the skill set they are looking for, and the rest can be sorted out at interview.

It is also a great experience for those who want to do it. Living away from home really makes people grow up. I could definitely see a real difference in maturity between students who left home and those who lived with their parents and commuted into university.

theworriedwell

I think in the apprenticeship you do day release to university but you don't go off and do a 3 year degree course.

That's part of the point. A lot of full-time 3rd level qualifications actually only take up a few hours a week of a student's time (even including studying) but are being stretched out over years, or have lectures scattered across the day eg one at 10 am, one at 2pm and one at 5pm to give the impression it requires full-time attendance.

doodledog

A breath of fresh air! Thank you.

Doodledog

I would love to see a list of these so-called 'B list' Universities that employers supposedly boycott.

Having worked in both a post-92 institution (ie an ex-Poly) and a Russell Group redbrick university I can honestly say that the student experience and standard of the education is the same at both. There is higher-level research at the more prestigious institutions, but that doesn't necessarily translate into better teaching. Many of the higher level researchers do very little teaching and none at undergrad level.

Where I disagree with the thrust of many of these threads is that I think they miss the difference between education and training. A degree provides students with education - the ability to express themselves clearly, to carry out research, to analyse arguments and see through gaps in logic. They also provide an opportunity to mix with people from entirely different backgrounds (be that social, geographical or subject based) and to develop a more nuanced view of society than they might get if they went straight into work or went into training with other people being taught how to carry out particular tasks and to do a particular job.

Many employers want people with the skills that surround the subject knowledge, rather than the knowledge itself. A history graduate, for instance, will be able to synthesise information from a range of sources, write a complex argument in a logical manner, and has shown that she can retain information, meet deadlines, organise her time and all the other attributes that she will have gained at university. It may very well be that she never needs to demonstrate a knowledge of medieval ideas, but that's not the point.

She will also probably have experience of dealing with people 'at all levels' (an awful phrase, but the one that gets used in so many job descriptions), and have good communication skills.

Many university students gain work experience, either as part of their courses or to help pay the rent, and this is also attractive to employers.

Obviously not all graduates will have all these skills, and many non-graduates will have some of them, but asking for them at the application stage (by specifying graduate entry) is likely to give the employer a good chance of finding the skill set they are looking for, and the rest can be sorted out at interview.

It is also a great experience for those who want to do it. Living away from home really makes people grow up. I could definitely see a real difference in maturity between students who left home and those who lived with their parents and commuted into university.

There is no supposedly about it, and they don't 'boycott' them, they simply don't give them any credence as they are not considered as good as degrees from other institutions.

AIBU to wonder why a degree seems to be a basic requirement for every job nowadays,

Not always Beswitched. My GD, along with some of her peers, is aiming to disprove this.

She left school at 16 this year with excellent GCSEs. She made the decision to study her passion and has started a Btech at the local college.

Btecs are slightly different in that theory is combined with regular practical work so you can directly apply what you learn.

She plans to study up to Level 3 and during the final year, decide whether or not to go onto Level 4-5 - equivalent to 1st and 2nd year of a degree. Many of her peers are doing the same and combining specific A levels to the Btech. Some may decide to finish their education at a university but others may decide to take up an apprenticeship. The college works closely with local businesses (large and small) in finding apprenticeships.

By the way I'm not saying it's all newer Universities or Colleges. It's certain courses which have sprung up, in both, to meet demand. This is in Ireland where I live.

You can access university courses and degrees with Btech qualifications anyway

Ok, but which universities? All post-92 ones?

That would make no sense at all, as in some subjects a post-92 university is likely to be always in the top 10 rankings (and some are always in the top 3). Not all Russell Group universities are consistently highly placed in all subjects either.

I can see that if a company only wants to recruit graduates from one subject area they might prefer those with a degree from a particular institution, if they know the content will be in line with what they are looking for; but otherwise it would require a detailed knowledge of a lot of courses, and probably be more trouble than simply training people up in-house.

as you said muse

The red brick/Russel group stuff is just part of the class system and snobbery surrounding education in this country (England) surely?

Also, a 12-hour timetable is not designed 'to give the impression' of a full-time course ?. Students are expected to 'read for' a degree, and to think for themselves, not be spoon-fed 'facts' (another difference between education and training).

If they had 9-5 teaching every day, there would be no time for them to do the necessary independent study that is discussed in the timetabled classes.

JaneJudge

The red brick/Russel group stuff is just part of the class system and snobbery surrounding education in this country (England) surely?

Yes, probably.

Oooh Beswhitched ? don’t get me started.
The upshot is that a couple both with degrees and “good” jobs often still struggle to get on the housing ladder, which would have been considered a ridiculous state of affairs prior to the great university rush

Meanwhile the lesser qualified ordinary employee is destined to barely exist on just pence above the minimum wage rate with little or no chance of moving up through time served or experience.
It’s all been an expensive farce this last twenty or so years imo.

DD did a biochemistry degree. Her teachers were a bit worried because she was taking Chemistry, Biology and English. They thought she should have taken another science subject. In fact the English has been very useful as she has been writing papers and correcting students English. The university were quite happy taking her with just Chemistry and Biology, she didn't even have an interview. Carried on to do a PhD and has been at the university for 25 years doing research.

When we left school in 1963 my best friend couldn't afford to carry on studying (her mother was a widow) so she got a job as a laboratory assistant. Over the next few years she took evening classes and day release (whatever happened to day release?) and gained the qualifications she needed to progress in the company. No university but she was very successful.

A lot of full-time 3rd level qualifications actually only take up a few hours a week of a student's time (even including studying) but are being stretched out over years, or have lectures scattered across the day eg one at 10 am, one at 2pm and one at 5pm to give the impression it requires full-time attendance.

Which degrees are these ??? It's true when I did my degree we might only have had a few lectures on some days but the rest of the day was spent writing up lectures, doing background reading, completing papers and revising. At least for us ordinary mortals whose IQ didn't break the bank - really clever students with good memories I'm sure didn't have to work so hard. We were expected to research and understand the subject of our lectures in the context of our degree. First year students generally had it a bit easier because a lot of the lecture content would have been building on their recent A-levels, but that didn't last long.

I think the important thing is that there is no question that many intelligent and capable people don't go to university, and many who do go are there because they were tutored or went to schools that concentrated on exam results.

When it comes to employers, there will be those who want a good 'fit', and yes, in certain occupations and companies only candidates from public school and Oxbridge stand much of a chance of getting an interview. Not fair, but this is the UK, and snobbery is endemic.

On the whole, though, graduates have the edge when it comes to entry level jobs, for the reasons I described above, but after a few years a weak graduate is unlikely to have progressed very far, whereas a good school-leaver might have shown promise and climbed the ladder, so the playing field is levelled a bit. It is never easy to play catch-up, so the graduate will have an easier time, but this is because they are less of a gamble to an employer than a school-leaver, which I think is understandable. It's by no means impossible for others to end up doing equal or better jobs though, as people have shown in their examples on this thread.

It may not be 'fair', but equally, it isn't fair that some people get jobs because their dad's friend is looking for someone, but that happens too.

No one has mentioned the Open University and how that has opened up the possibility of degree education to so many. During my career I worked with quite a number of managers who had obtained degree status through that means

Recently DD has used that means to move from a degree in acting and a career in the media to a career in science and research. She did an OU degree in Science and technology and has had no difficulty in finding employment with companies, who were looking for people with her unusual mix of skills.