It's partly because many people have no idea what they want to do as a career, so they do a degree to give them more time before they have to decide on where they want to spend their life working.
In my opinion, a degree (in anything really) is only as useful as you yourself make it. I studied Philosophy at uni, because I wasn't sure what I wanted to do as a career, but knew that I'd enjoy doing Philosophy. I found the course fascinating, and shortly after I graduated I landed a job in Computer Forensics. I later found out (from pub conversations with my boss) that all the other applicants had computer-related degrees, however I was hired as I was not only knowledgeable about computers (grown up with them), but I convinced him that my degree is relevant (logical progression, argument construction etc), whilst others thought that simply having a BSc would be enough.
Statistics show that having a degree is associated with a higher income: Furthermore an Arts degree reduces earnings, while a Science degree increases earnings. So what's the bottom line? When it comes to the income potential of a certain job, I like to invoke my own personal (social sciences ) equation: E = Dr x In Your earnings (E) are equal to how difficult it is to replace you with someone else who can do your job to an acceptable standard (Dr) multiplied by the perceived importance of the needs that the job is intended to meet (In). The difficulty of replacing you (Dr) is determined by the qualifications/skills required to do the job to roughly the same standard (this is where a degree may come in), how attractive (risk/hassle vs. reward) the job is to potential applicants, and how many suitable applicants are competing for the same job. The perceived importance of the needs met by the job (In) is of course determined by the importance (social status and power) of the people who have those needs, and therefore by how much they can afford, and are prepared to pay to have their needs met. You will notice that qualifications are only a small part of the equation. Earnings also have relatively little to do with how difficult your job is, or how important or meaningful, or the level of qualifications required. It has to do with how expendable/replaceable you are, and how much people can afford to, or are willing to pay for your services. This is why there is good money in being a fashion model, while being a health professional on the NHS gets you peanuts in comparison. This is why carers for the elderly or children get very little pay, while a personal shopper at Harrods, or a good escort girl can make decent money. Economics, people. The psychological study of incentives. What people want and what are they prepared to do to get it. Of course, not everybody is in it for the money. Choice of degrees is as much a matter of interest and talent, as it is about perceived income potential.
I'm pro-university...for those who can knuckle down and work. I got a mathematics degree which has basically kept me in good quality employment for my life so far. My politics and International degree was a great experience as I gained insights I never would have had if I hadn't have taken it. Will I do anything with my politics degree? Its not looking likely as I'm tied to this country due to personal circumstances but thats not to say it hasn't been useful at interview. My degree means that I can retrain in 1-2 years tops by doing a masters/conversion course. I now have a solid background in several lines of work. All in all my degree has given me confidence and quality of life that I never would have had if I'd just got a job. My partner got a 2:1 English Literature Degree, got a job with a niche publishing firm and just one year after university is a manager who travels internationally on a bi-monthly with bonuses that are sometimes twice her salary rolling in. Now with 2 years work experience under her belt and a fistful of great references, she has decided to reskill as a primary teacher, adding another string to her bow (A move which would not be possible in such short a time were she not a graduate). If she had stayed at home and worked from A-Levels onwards she would probably be working in the Co-op. She is understandably rather pleased with her qualification even if it is in an 'Arts subject' and not a 'real subject/profession'.
There is nothing wrong with lowering tuition fees. It empowers those with merit who wouldn't be able to afford university otherwise. Grand tuition prices just maintain prestige amongst those already prestigious, and makes it difficult for upward mobility of lower classes. What the UK failed to do is not lower prices, but not raise expectations and entrance standards.
You are too practical. If anything, you should go to college, not university. At university you will actually have to read books and learn unusable, theoretical concepts! God forbid! Art history is not a Mickey-mouse degree. I'm not taking it (I hate art history), but I tried taking a seminar, and it was hard. While they may come off a little pretentious, Art historians have every right to be. Liberal arts are liberating. They allow people to understand the latent and manifest meanings in the lives of them and the people around them. It's eye opening. Yes, you're not going to go very far. A graduating engineer is probably going to get more higher status job offers than a graduating arts major - but that's not to say the art major got less. As for law, clearly, you do not know how difficult it is to get into law, and how well paid lawyers are (despite the majority of them being the scum of the earth, along with banks and reinsurance companies). I respect people in any liberal art - as silly as it may be. Those are the people who truly live for their own, and not for the opinion of others. It takes a lot more confidence to take History than it does to take accounting. But if you live for nothing but money, there's nothing wrong with a pretty software engineering degree - but you'd better love programming or you just might find yourself taking Prozac over your piles of money and material wealth.
Software Engineering degrees are bloody hard, in my second year I had to learn 4 new languages and make my own compiler/interpreter. Next year (I'm on placement this year) I have to make an OS based on NachOS, make drivers, learn distributed computing, learn the formal aspects (a very very hard language called B) and make my own project.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that report. It seems to me that your model for predicting potential earnings goes against the idea that the type of degree has anything to do with income. According to the article a degree in Medicine necessarily pays more money than a degree in the Art, but you go on to explain why fashion models are paid so handsomely, yet the doctors make peanuts. I still contend that a degree in the Arts has just as much earning potential as any other. I think it has as much to do with how hard a person is willing to apply himself to his chosen field. The biggest houses over here aren't just owned by the doctors; you'll find actors, athletes, and CEOs, among other assorted people. But I do agree wholeheartedly when you said: I may never make $100,000+, but I love what I do. And that makes me richer than some people who make twice my salary. -monkey
Where as I hate what I do and it kind of (limitedly) uses my degree, but what I really want to get into is Usability consultancy, can't do that without experience, unforunately, that hasn't materialised here and it should havem infact the grad scheme has been terrible but I was a bit unlucky, it's the first time they've run it and they wanted to get too much from the year that it runs for. Plus, testing is piss boring.
That all depends. Certain degrees are inevitably tied to jobs that yield a higher income due to the difficulty in finding people who can do the job (not many doctors hanging around the local Jobcentre) and the relatively high perceived importance of the needs they serve (curing sick people is relatively important --and hence big business for private health care, and a priority for voters and politicians alike in national health). Actors do very well when (and as long as) they perform a vital need for the multi-million movie industry --i.e. making more millions for them. Athletes do well by endorsing brand names for companies. It is all big business, big money, hence big importance. Same for models and pop stars: hard to find (and hence to replace), but big income generators because they fulfill the commercial "needs" of many solvent consumers. It is not how much you apply yourself that matters; it is where you apply yourself. I do not think that I have to work as hard in cancer as I had to in brain injury rehabilitation or severe mental health, but I sure get paid and treated better. Cancer is big business --everyone is afraid of getting it (one in four, remember?) so everybody donates generously (Macmillan cleans out 90 million in donations every year), politicians make it a top priority for their NHS policies, and every pharmaceutical company is busting its chops to develop better meds. Nobody cares about the brain injured, the mentally ill or the learning disabled --they are a minority: not productive, vocal and hence influential members of society. There is simply no money in it.
I never said it was easy. I know I'd probably never pass, because I wouldn't enjoy it. I apologize for picking on software engineers, but it was just an example used to underscore the argument that only "practical degrees" are worth something.
Models and pop stars are a dime a dozen. The same could be said for actors and athletes. I wouldn't exactly call them hard to find, though I understand why they demand such high pay. It is true that actors and athletes command large salaries as long as they perform (and bring in profit for the studio/company), but the same could be said for doctors and engineers, as well. No hospital wants to employ a surgeon who can't make the cut (pun intended). Drug companies aren't exactly signing Dr. Kevorkian to endorse sleeping pills, after all. When I said that job success is also dependent upon how well a person applies himself, I wasn't necessarily talking about the difficulty of the work, but rather how much of himself he dedicates to the job at hand. You may not have to work as hard with cancer patients, but do you find that the increased appreciation encourages you to do more than you would otherwise? I'm honestly curious here, because so often we hear about the importance of job satisfaction, and how happy employees do better work. -monkey
Since the majority of your time is spent at work, I'd much rather have a job I enjoy that pays a reasonable wage than pay a job with a fantastic salary but is about is fun as slapping your testicles on a desk and hitting them with a hammer. Of course, I'd love to have a job that pays fantastic and I really enjoy, but those are very rare.
Again, that depends. Your average Matalan catalogue model is a dime a dozen. Someone of Kate Moss/Claudia Schiffer grade is a lot harder to find than you think. It is not just about a pretty face and clear complexion --there are narrow criteria on body symmetry, proportions, build, height etc. to be the perfect clothes rack. A good model is a weird balance between strikingly unique and blank canvas on which the photographer can project his own "vision". Same with popstars. Everyone with a decent voice and looks can be a one-hit-wonder. Someone of Madonna or Michael Jackson's calibre is a lot more rare. Which is exactly my point. People are paid according to how hard it is to find someone to do what is considered how important to do. Some of those jobs need exceptional knowledge/skill that can generally only be acquired in a degree (there is self-teaching of course, but a degree also serves as proof of competence) so there is an obvious association there. Some require another exceptional ability or characteristic such as athletic ability or looks. No, it just makes it easier to be more productive and do it to a better standard. A lot of energy and effort is wasted in having to negotiate obstacles or recalcitrant consultants, and lack of resources can hold you back tremendously. In the end, you just quit or burn out. I quit and changed fields. Increased appriciation does not so much encourage, as enable. Of course, I have also learned to be much more demanding of my employers. In the analogy that people will value more what they have to pay a higher price for, I find that being more demanding actually gets me more consideration. But this allows me to deliver the goods better, so my employers learn that there is a connection: the better they treat me, the more they get out of me.
I guess we'll just have to disagree here. I understand that the Haute Couture models generally fit a certain mould, but I don't think they're as rare as the agencies would have us believe. Honestly, they all look the same to me. As for the pop stars... Well, I've heard Madonna's raw vocal tracks, and just like 99% of the pop world her voice is sheer torture. I attribute their success more to clever marketing and hype than talent. Even the iconic Elton John wasn't terribly successful until he found someone else to write his songs. -monkey
And that is the whole idea. Seeing the skinny tall things prancing down the catwalk they don't look very remarkable; it is when you put them under the camera that you realise how symmetrical and sculpted their features are (Liz Hurley is a nice example of the "1:1.76 proportional ratio rule of human aesthetics"). And they have to fit a certain iconic ideal of the time. Never said she could sing. Just that she has a certain ability for projecting a certain image that is hard to emulate --a combination of looks, acting ability, singing etc. Otherwise we'd have producers throwing out mega-stars by the truck load.
Spot on Nexxo. I have seen how difficult it is for people with a range of degrees (Arts, Science) to get a job after graduating partly due to the numbers of other graduates needing a job. Granded there are more jobs avaliable overall but the requirements are higher. Taking about my own degree (as its the only one i can speak of) ive been sponcered through uni and recieved two job offers with the only requirements being that i get a degree (irrigardless of the class) and that i have healthy teeth!! My degree has been "hard" but i still maintain that anyone could have done it if they started at the beginning like i did, and the only reason for the job offers is that i can count on two hands how many people are graduating with a similar degree as me in england and then i have to use my toes for the number of people graduating with a similar degree in the UK.
I suppose that's down to personal taste. Acting ability, singing, looks; I don't think she has any of the above. She gained fame as the new "material girl" in the mid- to late 80s, and a lot of that is due to the controversy she created for herself. Sex sells, after all. However, I think the business dynamic of the media world has changed slightly. The studios aren't as interested in pop stars with staying power. In today's world of the teenager with a short attention span, there is much more money to be made in the short-lived, over-hyped pop star. And I think you'll find that those folks are being released by the truckload. That said, I think I've drifted a little off track to the original argument. If an Arts degree is a waste of time with low earning potential, then there are a lot of actual music artists (concert musicians, opera singers, conductors) that should have chosen Nuclear Physics instead. -monkey
