I didn't see that plot twist coming! I'm also a You. Oxford graduate, but not until I was 40, so with already a lot of work experience behind me. And I also agree that I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have got my first job in publishing without that bit of paper. I learned a lot, but not everything necessary for a career that's for sure. Thanks for another great read!
Thanks, Jayne. I do think we are at a very confusing stage for the next generation to decide what they should do. Higher education is a massive industry - too big to fail. So somehow, someone has to ensure a degree diploma retains some worth. But as what?
My son is probably going to opt for Fine Art, so it’s an easier decision, as that course has been unburdened since time immemorial by any prospects of gainful employment! I joke, but the real value will be those 4 years of discovery and socialisation, free of workplace pressures, I feel.
Up until a couple of years ago, we were thinking - Art, great, a creative field that technology will never take over. Yeah, ‘bout that…
My radical plan would be for a modular system of transferable credits, so you can do short courses - still delivered by those same institutions, paid for by students, their employers or through government funding, with an allowance of vouchers per person in their lifetime adding up to the equivalent of a 4-year degree course - eventually adding up to a piece of paper that says ‘BA’, kind of like the Open University’s Open Degree, but global in scope, so you can do 35 credits online from Leeds, 40 in-person at Valencia, a 50 credit vocational course at a ceramics factory, etc., and piece together your own training pathway in different contexts to get the 200 (or whatever) required.
I recognise the thought process. I have the Oxford degree but I knew that I never wanted to teach or become an interpreter/translator. The Oxford degree covered things I was interested in. The more vocational aspects were sufficiently light to enable me to pass. I retain my interest in French and Spanish culture but have never had to spend hours reading and translating contracts, public relations' releases etc. And accountancy paid the bills and allowed me to retire early. The drive to try to link academia to the "real" world of jobs seems horrific to me. I am glad that there was less pressure on "relevance" when I was a student
Yes, I agree that in an ideal world people would be free to spend three or four years, exploring their interests - and more importantly, talking to other people as they explore theirs - with no thought of what job that might lead to.
Offer that for free - as we had - and youngsters would still be keen. Stick a €40,000 millstone pricetag on it, and they will rightly want to know how the course of study allows them to repay that debt.
There were two other points that I didn’t explore in the article, as I wrote it initially for Medium, where anything over 1,500 words is a hard sell to the curators.
First, the fact that so few of my contemporaries ended up working in anything remotely connected to their degree course. Some became academics (which kind of counts, though in truth it means they never left, as they are teaching people to become teachers of teachers of people…). The rest of them went into finance in the City of London, or became lawyers.
The question for me is: did they really need that ‘mental discipline, analytical skills, argumentation and essay writing, research and information filtering’ that we are told is the bedrock of university study? If they learned all their vocational skills afterwards, what did their degree actually do? Simply tick a gatekeeping box, and give them the chance to party for a few years? I suspect so.
And then there is the issue of the extent to which an Oxbridge or Ivy League degree opens more doors, more quickly, at higher levels, than one from A.N.Other Uni. Based on the outcome of an interview you did and an entrance exam you say when you were 17. With expensive, expert preparation, or none at all. I met people at interview who were every bit as sharp as myself. Some got in, some didn’t. Others that did were below the intellectual standard of people I know who applied and failed. But the effects of that carry over for life (unless you want to buy another ticket in the lottery by applying to spend several more years on an MA of PhD to snag your Oxon. or Cantab.).
The insistence on ‘a degree’ itself opens the door for preferences and prejudices as to who issued that degree, despite the fact that theoretically, all such qualifications are approved to a set standard by a central authority.
My daughter did a first degree in English and then a one year masters and then became essentially an admin assistant, gradually evolving into office manager when her employers realised what her capabilities were. We need a better way of identifying and developing skills. I realised I was analytical so essentially evolved into analytical roles. Others are managerial, others are developmental etc. We need to look at people in a more holistic way
I didn't see that plot twist coming! I'm also a You. Oxford graduate, but not until I was 40, so with already a lot of work experience behind me. And I also agree that I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have got my first job in publishing without that bit of paper. I learned a lot, but not everything necessary for a career that's for sure. Thanks for another great read!
Thanks, Jayne. I do think we are at a very confusing stage for the next generation to decide what they should do. Higher education is a massive industry - too big to fail. So somehow, someone has to ensure a degree diploma retains some worth. But as what?
My son is probably going to opt for Fine Art, so it’s an easier decision, as that course has been unburdened since time immemorial by any prospects of gainful employment! I joke, but the real value will be those 4 years of discovery and socialisation, free of workplace pressures, I feel.
Up until a couple of years ago, we were thinking - Art, great, a creative field that technology will never take over. Yeah, ‘bout that…
My radical plan would be for a modular system of transferable credits, so you can do short courses - still delivered by those same institutions, paid for by students, their employers or through government funding, with an allowance of vouchers per person in their lifetime adding up to the equivalent of a 4-year degree course - eventually adding up to a piece of paper that says ‘BA’, kind of like the Open University’s Open Degree, but global in scope, so you can do 35 credits online from Leeds, 40 in-person at Valencia, a 50 credit vocational course at a ceramics factory, etc., and piece together your own training pathway in different contexts to get the 200 (or whatever) required.
You get my vote! It is a complicated and confusing moment, for individuals as well as for the industry - some radical thinking is required!
I recognise the thought process. I have the Oxford degree but I knew that I never wanted to teach or become an interpreter/translator. The Oxford degree covered things I was interested in. The more vocational aspects were sufficiently light to enable me to pass. I retain my interest in French and Spanish culture but have never had to spend hours reading and translating contracts, public relations' releases etc. And accountancy paid the bills and allowed me to retire early. The drive to try to link academia to the "real" world of jobs seems horrific to me. I am glad that there was less pressure on "relevance" when I was a student
Yes, I agree that in an ideal world people would be free to spend three or four years, exploring their interests - and more importantly, talking to other people as they explore theirs - with no thought of what job that might lead to.
Offer that for free - as we had - and youngsters would still be keen. Stick a €40,000 millstone pricetag on it, and they will rightly want to know how the course of study allows them to repay that debt.
There were two other points that I didn’t explore in the article, as I wrote it initially for Medium, where anything over 1,500 words is a hard sell to the curators.
First, the fact that so few of my contemporaries ended up working in anything remotely connected to their degree course. Some became academics (which kind of counts, though in truth it means they never left, as they are teaching people to become teachers of teachers of people…). The rest of them went into finance in the City of London, or became lawyers.
The question for me is: did they really need that ‘mental discipline, analytical skills, argumentation and essay writing, research and information filtering’ that we are told is the bedrock of university study? If they learned all their vocational skills afterwards, what did their degree actually do? Simply tick a gatekeeping box, and give them the chance to party for a few years? I suspect so.
And then there is the issue of the extent to which an Oxbridge or Ivy League degree opens more doors, more quickly, at higher levels, than one from A.N.Other Uni. Based on the outcome of an interview you did and an entrance exam you say when you were 17. With expensive, expert preparation, or none at all. I met people at interview who were every bit as sharp as myself. Some got in, some didn’t. Others that did were below the intellectual standard of people I know who applied and failed. But the effects of that carry over for life (unless you want to buy another ticket in the lottery by applying to spend several more years on an MA of PhD to snag your Oxon. or Cantab.).
The insistence on ‘a degree’ itself opens the door for preferences and prejudices as to who issued that degree, despite the fact that theoretically, all such qualifications are approved to a set standard by a central authority.
My daughter did a first degree in English and then a one year masters and then became essentially an admin assistant, gradually evolving into office manager when her employers realised what her capabilities were. We need a better way of identifying and developing skills. I realised I was analytical so essentially evolved into analytical roles. Others are managerial, others are developmental etc. We need to look at people in a more holistic way