Going to University - is it really necessary?

[Minilad]

[Mod note: I have split out the debate on religion to its own thread, and copied posts relevant to both - Mike395]

I study at the only university you need to

The University of Life

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I study at the only university you need to

Unless you want to be a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher etc...

 

[Minilad]

Unless you want to be a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher etc...

Not everybody does though.
Too many people go to Uni these days IMHO and ordinary jobs that could be done by anyone with a decent amount of intelligence are now been advertised for graduates.
People are not being promoted within companies either at the expense of a graduate trainee that doesn't know his arse from his / her elbow
Oh well. Thats the way of the world nowadays

 

[Eng274]

Not everybody does though.
Too many people go to Uni these days IMHO and ordinary jobs that could be done by anyone with a decent amount of intelligence are now been advertised for graduates.
People are not being promoted within companies either at the expense of a graduate trainee that doesn't know his arse from his / her elbow
Oh well. Thats the way of the world nowadays

Not all non-graduates have the hunger to arse their way through the crowds to stand out to an employer though..







I'm sorry... credit to the writers of Blackadder goes forth for that gag

 

[YorkshireBear]

Not everybody does though.
Too many people go to Uni these days IMHO and ordinary jobs that could be done by anyone with a decent amount of intelligence are now been advertised for graduates.
People are not being promoted within companies either at the expense of a graduate trainee that doesn't know his arse from his / her elbow
Oh well. Thats the way of the world nowadays

Agree with you completely but some jobs do need it.

 

[Furrball]

Currently recruiting for an IT Support person - over 200 CVs - 50% of them are people who have no UK based work experience (but have UK degrees). But in the main part the CVs are very poor with spelling and grammar mistakes throughout. From the 200+ applications received, I have only shortlisted 5. The graduate CVs were generally rejected as the technology they were taught was obsolete or bore no resemblance to real world application.

 

[LE Greys]

Currently recruiting for an IT Support person - over 200 CVs - 50% of them are people who have no UK based work experience (but have UK degrees). But the in the main part the CVs are very poor with spelling and grammar mistakes throughout. From the 200+ applications received, I have only shortlisted 5. The graduate CVs were generally rejected as the technology they were taught was obsolete or bore no resemblance to real world application.

That sounds like the majority of university courses. I don't think there are all that many uses for animal population dynamics in the 'real world'. In reality, there are a very limited number of specialist positions that might find this useful. To the best of my knowledge, only 30% of the people on my zoology course have found work in the last three years. 50% have continued into postgraduate study and 20% are simply unemployed.

 

[Nick W]

The graduate CVs were generally rejected as the technology they were taught was obsolete or bore no resemblance to real world application.

I'm very surprised. My work involves developing something that's been around for decades (though not in usable form in computing power) on a language designed in 1983, compiled to an instruction set that's changed little in the 70s, using a text editor that's been around since 1976. The application runs on an OS that's been out since 1991. Communication occurs using a framework been around since 1992, using protocols devised in the 80s.

What does your company have which is too up-to-date even for academic research?

 

[Crossover]

I wasn't intending going to uni but it became apparent during 6th form that for the career I was looking at, a degree would give me a better chance.

Inclidentally I am looking for something in IT (support/networking type thing) now since I have graduated since my degree was quite hands on networking. What annoys me is the number of graduate jobs which just want to train you to go into management...at this stage in life that is not what I am after (maybe this is what you people all moan about graduate management for!)
I have been lucky to have a few years practical experience with jobs I have had in the past so we will have to see what happens

I do believe though that uni is not the be all and end all of life (as we were led to believe in 6th form :roll and there are many ways to continue from education, depending on what you are looking to do

 

[bb21]

That sounds like the majority of university courses. I don't think there are all that many uses for animal population dynamics in the 'real world'.

I hope you know the famous differential equation that came out of animal population dynamics. Every Mathematics undergraduate gets taught that somewhere down the line.

 

[duffman82]

I agree with the fact, in some cases university isn't needed, But as stated even if you work hard and are better in a specific area when applying for a job the degree holding person will probably get a better chance in most cases. However as a student i say university is a brilliant experience and I do not regret going!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I must confess that some of the available degree courses these days bear little comparison to a career progression. I took Mathematics from 1962 to 1966 and my degree course taught me a deeper understanding of the subject than I had prior to that. Needless to say, Mathematics has been a subject that does bear a relationship to many positions in varying industries today as it teaches conciseness of thought, which is most useful.

 

[Oswyntail]

You should go to university for one reason only - to study a subject you have a passion for to a greater depth than you could at school. Employers should not look at the subjects of degrees (except in very rare circumstances) but should take them as evidence of ability to think in certain ways - if that ability is irrelevant to the post, having a degree is irrelevant.
I studied Greek and Latin, and went on to a career in IT. When recruiting, we would find that those with IT degrees were the first to be rejected - they thought they knew it all, wanted to develop operating systems (or, in later years, games), and had no appreciation of commercial requirements. In fact, my first employer said he always kept an eye out for Classics graduates, because (apart from usually being brilliant) they had no illusions that the subject of their degree was at all relevant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I might add that I gave up all science at school at the earliest opportunity through sheer boredom - where I have needed to know anything science-based in later life I have been able to pick it up easily. It is such a fallacy to say all children need to be taught science because they will need it later!

 

[All Line Rover]

I might add that I gave up all science at school at the earliest opportunity through sheer boredom - where I have needed to know anything science-based in later life I have been able to pick it up easily. It is such a fallacy to say all children need to be taught science because they will need it later!

What?

The majority of Science is extremely interesting - at least up until GCSE level! I would never do Science A-Levels as that's getting a bit "technical" and I don't want to take it that far.

Science gives you a broader understanding of almost anything to do with life, except a certain part which I completely disagree with and that really annoyed me when I was being taught it!

 

[ainsworth74]

The majority of Science is extremely interesting - at least up until GCSE level!

Now I can't speak for Oswyntail's experience at school but if you have a poor teacher than science is boring (unless you have an innate interest). During year 9 my biology teacher was truly terrible and consequently I found the subject to be about as interesting as watching paint dry. The next year a different teacher and suddenly biology became one of my favorite subjects.

If you have a poor teacher pupils are going to find a subject boring no matter how much potential it has to be interesting.

 

[All Line Rover]

Now I can't speak for Oswyntail's experience at school but if you have a poor teacher than science is boring (unless you have an innate interest). During year 9 my biology teacher was truly terrible and consequently I found the subject to be about as interesting as watching paint dry. The next year a different teacher and suddenly biology became one of my favorite subjects.

If you have a poor teacher pupils are going to find a subject boring no matter how much potential it has to be interesting.

I had an excellent teacher, which helped.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I think the simple answer is yes if you want to progress in almost any carrer path. More and more jobs are now advertising for graduates, and many people without degrees find they hit a glass ceiling due to their lack of a degree. As more and more people get degrees it's natural that those who do not have a degree are looked on as under qualified for many positions, afterall they say almost anyone can get a degree these days, so that doesn't look good on someone who can't. Especially for young people, who lack experiance and need to get jobs to be able to get experiance, qualifications are one of the best ways to distinguish themselves from the tight competition for jobs, and qualifications are also an easy way for employers to weed out candidates from the hundereds they get applying for each position. That said it's not just degrees that are useful, there are plenty of other qualifications too, and it would be better if more emphasis was put on vocational qualifications for many types of work. I would argue that the likes of Nurses and Teachers should not need degrees, and perhaps by expecting them to have degrees, good candidates are blocked from that sort of work.

 

[passmore]

I study at the only university you need to

The University of Life

It depends on what job you want.

The trouble is these days, many uni students do not have sufficient practical experience for some of the jobs out there. It's just not good enough hoping to wing an interview for a job with a glittering CV. You have to back up those qualifications with experience. In the last days of my haulage job, we interviewed one or two graduates and whilst they were incredibly bright, they had no experience of loading palettes or how to work out or plan logistics to save time/money etc.

In my days, you worked until you bled. I didn't go to university, they existed but times were a lot different. You had to be from a much more privileged background then from what I was. I did my National Service instead, and got an apprenticeship with a local blacksmith. That lasted a couple of years, and when my National Service ended, I got a permanent job as a delivery boy for a local bakery. Alright they weren't working as a rocket scientist in some Cambridge lab and they were menial until I landed my haulage job, but they all amounted to practical experience when I applied for the big one.

I'm not saying the university of today is redundant, but I'm still quite alarmed at the number of graduates leaving uni with hardly any practical experience.

 

[SS4]

I've been to University - en route to Cadbury World

 

[Grantham]

University is for those who wish to study a particular field, which they intend to develope into a career, or for people who want extra party time!

I have close experience with two views of university education:

1. I haven't been to uni, but the missus has. She is a Registered Nurse (in Australia) and while studying at uni worked in hospitals part time as a nurse's aid and in kitchens. The working experience was of as great value as the university education, which makes her a better nurse than one who studied the bare minimum. Uni is compulsory (and aught to be), but other experience is more important than is understood by those who set the parameters of educational requirements.

2. I'm sure that if I'd gone to uni and studied advanced subjects in my chosen field I'd understand more about my work (I drive freight trains in Australia), but I'm working it all out for myself...slowly! Uni graduates are sent away from interviews at my work for being "over qualified"! Yet an engineering, physics or mathematics graduate could bring some very interesting concepts to my industry, especially with the size of trains we pull...things start going exponential very quickly with trains a mile long and over 6000 tons, fans of Albert Einstein will recognise the theory I'm referring to here!

Amazing how education threads always degenerate into arguments over evolution! Even Darwin, who's theory it is, only ever claimed it was a theory...let's face it, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

M

 

[Hydro]

Humanity as seen today with its differing secular and religious beliefs have ethical and evolutionary barriers.....discuss.

If this is a virtual University debating forum, then I'm afraid I spent too long in the virtual Student Union last night and am choosing to sleep in rather than attend this debate.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If this is a virtual University debating forum, then I'm afraid I spent too long in the virtual Student Union last night and am choosing to sleep in rather than attend this debate.

Apparently that is the first skill taught at Uni - how to concentrate in a lecture with a hangover!

 

[All Line Rover]

Apparently that is the first skill taught at Uni - how to concentrate in a lecture with a hangover!

Don't drink alcohol - simple!

Personally I do not like the taste of alcohol, and do not like the felling of being drowsy and having my inhibitions lowered.

 

[exile]

I have to declare an interest - I work at a University so my job depends on people continuing to go to Uni!
Putting that aside:-
pro Uni:-
1. in some cases a degree is absolutely essential, where it acts as a vocational qualification - medicine, law, or any research-based job
2. in other cases, your qualification is evidence of a certain level of intelligence and the ability to apply it. However - you could demonstrate that in other ways.
3. qualifications allow employers to filter applications. They'll sometimes state "graduates wanted" even though a degree may not be strictly necessary.
4. a degree allows you to pursue an interest and even make an original contribution eg in research or by teaching others
5. Going to uni allows you to meet people from all countries and walks of life. Again, you could get this in other ways, eg voluntary work overseas
Cons:-
1. student loans
2. no or very low income whilst studying
3. compared to someone who enters a career without going to Uni, you'll be 3/4 years behind in experience
Basically, it's a personal decision. Now I'm in my 50s I'd like to go back to Uni if possible should I get the chance to retire early (or get pushed!) but that would be purely out of interest rather than career development.

 

[DarloRich]

I agree with you there, Dave. You are definitely a thinking person!

On the matter of university, I will not be going to university. College, yes, university, no. I would rather have a JOB (preferably with Virgin, although I am keeping my horizons open) instead of being landed in around £100k of debt (there are more costs to university than simply the education!) after having earned nothing (cash-wise) for three (or more) years, and being forced to find a very specific job which I may not get.

Furthermore, the types of career that I want do not involve going to university. I would prefer to "work my way up the ladder" as it were (although no matter how good the pay is I will never go for a stressful job that involves being on call 24/7 - I prefer good health to money).

On the matter of evolution and creation, few people seem to know a great deal about either subject, and yet feel able to praise/criticize either one.

Furthermore, there are many differing views about evolution and creation - some views contain a "mixture" of both! - and these many different "views" could be considered to be different "theories" in their own right.

I would also add, if people don't mind, that the following types of people - a. staunch evolutionists who try and disprove creation by saying that it claims everything was created in six 24 hour days (!), and b. staunch creationists who claim that everything was created in six 24 hour days (!) - can both be quickly disproved by a brief look at Genesis 2:4 (in the Bible!) and a little research into what the Hebrew word "day" actually means.

I wonder if you have examined this, Dave, taking into account your clearly extensive knowledge of literary works?

I don’t think you should reject university out of hand. I went to university for 4 years. I think everyone should have the chance to go to university.

My course was required so that I could follow my chosen profession. I no longer have that career but without my degree I could not have worked for 10 years in the field I did. You could not work your way up from the floor; you got the degree as stage one of a 3 stage qualification process.

You are clearly a younger person (you say you would go to college so i would say you are about GCSE age - apologies if I am wrong) and you are clearly of at least decent intelligence. You should consider your future carefully. Don’t close off a route to either better yourself or better your future. Your views on your future now may well change when you get out into the big bad world and get a few more life experiences/knockdowns under your belt.

I would suggest that you think carefully and hard about what you want and where you want to go. Give yourself the chance to achieve the most you can in your life. Please don’t think I am getting at you. I would say this to anyone. I am a great believer in the benefits of an university education

University can teach you so much about life and other people and both generate and affirm skills that can be used in all kinds of different areas in your future career. I understand that the debt problem is a big issue today ( I have student debt, but not as much a i would have if i went to university today!) HOWEVER it is worth going to university given the chance. You can always take a job while you are there and use that to offset some of the costs.

As for religious beliefs in general, I would say I defend your right to hold such beliefs and would fight for that right to continue, however I am not of faith.

I can not see how God can exist and allow such awful things to happen. I know this is the oldest argument of all but it is never answered in a proper manner. How could a benevolent God allow millions of people to be rounded up and killed by Nazis during the second world war, or allow millions to die during the first world war, or allow religious people to slaughter each other for hundreds of years during the crusades or allow millions of ordinary people to die of plague, or starve to death, or allow the everyday small (in the larger scale of life) cruelties that can strike decent people at any time?

Why would such a God send his only son to walk amongst us during the Roman period? Why, being all knowing could God not see, say, the Second World War coming and send his son to earth at that time to end the suffering and the killing?

I don’t wish to seem that I am attacking you, far from it; I would never attack those of faith. I can understand how having such a faith to fall back on at times of need or difficulty will give comfort, strength, guidance and advice but I can’t follow that faith. I don’t want to say you are wrong in your beliefs or assumptions, just that I don’t agree.

 

[387star]

Ah but getting this experience is never easy and students find univeristy more secure because it gives them something to do for a few years and a lot of them don't think ahead!

By the way a lot go to uni for the social side these days!

 

[LE Greys]

I'm guessing that it was the Big Bang/origins of the universe that annoyed you?

The vast majority of modern physics research seems to be utterly pointless, until you realise that research into subatomic physics seemed utterly pointless because everyone thought the atom was indivisible - except physicists. Then it suddenly became extremely relevant in World War 2 with the development of nuclear weapons, and remains so to this day with nuclear reactors. Starting from a point where the general public had not heard of a neutron and did not really care what it was and going on to a point where it was relevant to the point where it seemed a real threat to their lives rather changes the picture.

Currently, the picture is roughly similar with (say) the Higgs boson. Most people think they know what happened at the Big Bang. Something caused it (God farting or whatever) and POW!, there was the Universe. It often seems that we do not need to know any more than that, what are the practical applications? I'm at a loss myself, but I'm sure something will come up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hope you know the famous differential equation that came out of animal population dynamics. Every Mathematics undergraduate gets taught that somewhere down the line.

I had to look up what a differential equation was, partly through being a bit rusty, partly through the fact that it disappeared under the weight of all the other theories and models. I think it's something to do with logarithmic population growth, which is a function of available resources and reproduction rate. Then that's just me thinking practically about real animals rather than theoretical constructs. You can't have 0.85 of a fish. In fact, unless you have 2 (which have to be of opposite sex) the population is functionally extinct. Animals work in integers only. Still, if you ramp up the reproduction rate enough, you get a cyclical population, and that's when it gets interesting, because it affects other species.

 

[All Line Rover]

I'm guessing that it was the Big Bang/origins of the universe that annoyed you?

I'm particularly bothered about "origin of the universe" theories - to be honest, although many scientists thing (or like to think) that they know everything, a lot of speculation is involved.

More the origin of life theories. An example...

• Me: "So you're telling me that apes have evolved from a single-celled microorganism?"
• Teacher: "Yes."
• Me: "OK, so where can I see some evidence of that - for example, in the fossil record?"
• Teacher: "[ALR], you're going much too deep there! "
• Me: "Too deep?! You're always going on about it as if it's fact! Also, if you're telling me that the first life form was a single-celled microorganism, where did that come from?"
• Teacher: "Well, we don't really know."
• Me: ":roll:."

Now I don't want to go into a whole debate about this! But it really drove me mad that we were just supposed to "accept" such things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the simple answer is yes if you want to progress in almost any carrer path. More and more jobs are now advertising for graduates, and many people without degrees find they hit a glass ceiling due to their lack of a degree. As more and more people get degrees it's natural that those who do not have a degree are looked on as under qualified for many positions, afterall they say almost anyone can get a degree these days, so that doesn't look good on someone who can't. Especially for young people, who lack experiance and need to get jobs to be able to get experiance, qualifications are one of the best ways to distinguish themselves from the tight competition for jobs, and qualifications are also an easy way for employers to weed out candidates from the hundereds they get applying for each position. That said it's not just degrees that are useful, there are plenty of other qualifications too, and it would be better if more emphasis was put on vocational qualifications for many types of work. I would argue that the likes of Nurses and Teachers should not need degrees, and perhaps by expecting them to have degrees, good candidates are blocked from that sort of work.

Virgin aren't advertising any jobs for graduates, and don't have any plans to do so.

Arriva XC hired some graduates - but only about 20! I imagine many more people applied than that!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Four quite separate points:-

1. One factor to consider when putting a University Education onto the balance is this: who stands to benefit most from a University education? The answer may be: The Universities.
In some cities, the Universities are the biggest growth industry, and they are thriving on that growth, in much the same way that the Real Estate and Financial Services sectors were until 2007. They are building and need people to fill those buildings. Their interests are not as benevolent and student-focussed as some might wish.

2. I would recommend a University education to anyone who has a passion for learning and knowledge. I would not be confident in making such a recommendation to anyone who hopes it will lead to better paid employment (that is simply a gamble, which could be expensive and could fail). I would not recommend it to anyone who reckons its better than nothing / that it sounds fun / that it would be a way of making friends / that they'll work out what they want to do in the next year or two. All of these can be achieved by more direct means (and may be cheaper and may benefit the person in other ways).

3. On the side topic of Evolution and Religious Faith, can I add that these are not two mutually exhaustive theories? Personally, I find problems both with Creationism and with Darwinianism. There may well be a third, fourth or even countless other theories which map our path to appearance on earth (or even elsewhere). Its just a fact that we don't have many theories to go on at present, and those two have gained a lot of support - but lets not fall into the trap of assuming that if one is flawed then the other is somehow automatically 'proved'. It is not.

4. Science and Scientists have been charged with 'believing' and 'proving' things on here, and even with expecting 'us' to accept their beliefs. Sadly, Science is unable to prove anything, it can only disprove.
(See K Popper, R Feynman, T Khun)
We shouldn't blame ordinary folk for expecting this of science, because it is we ordinary folk who keep asking for the explanations, but an analysis of science over time shows that it is a process of revisionism: it comes up with one set of theories, many are disproved leaving one remaining, then other theories are devised to join it, many are again disproved, and one remains. Science is a very dynamic set of propositions and few remain popular for long.

Hope this helps.

 

[All Line Rover]

Four quite separate points:-

1. One factor to consider when putting a University Education onto the balance is this: who stands to benefit most from a University education? The answer may be: The Universities.
In some cities, the Universities are the biggest growth industry, and they are thriving on that growth, in much the same way that the Real Estate and Financial Services sectors were until 2007. They are building and need people to fill those buildings. Their interests are not as benevolent and student-focussed as some might wish.

2. I would recommend a University education to anyone who has a passion for learning and knowledge. I would not be confident in making such a recommendation to anyone who hopes it will lead to better paid employment (that is simply a gamble, which could be expensive and could fail). I would not recommend it to anyone who reckons its better than nothing / that it sounds fun / that it would be a way of making friends / that they'll work out what they want to do in the next year or two. All of these can be achieved by more direct means (and may be cheaper and may benefit the person in other ways).

3. On the side topic of Evolution and Religious Faith, can I add that these are not two mutually exhaustive theories? Personally, I find problems both with Creationism and with Darwinianism. There may well be a third, fourth or even countless other theories which map our path to appearance on earth (or even elsewhere). Its just a fact that we don't have many theories to go on at present, and those two have gained a lot of support - but lets not fall into the trap of assuming that if one is flawed then the other is somehow automatically 'proved'. It is not.

4. Science and Scientists have been charged with 'believing' and 'proving' things on here, and even with expecting 'us' to accept their beliefs. Sadly, Science is unable to prove anything, it can only disprove.
(See K Popper, R Feynman, T Khun)
We shouldn't blame ordinary folk for expecting this of science, because it is we ordinary folk who keep asking for the explanations, but an analysis of science over time shows that it is a process of revisionism: it comes up with one set of theories, many are disproved leaving one remaining, then other theories are devised to join it, many are again disproved, and one remains. Science is a very dynamic set of propositions and few remain popular for long.

Hope this helps.

I agree with you there, Dave. You are definitely a thinking person!

On the matter of university, I will not be going to university. College, yes, university, no. I would rather have a JOB (preferably with Virgin, although I am keeping my horizons open) instead of being landed in around £100k of debt (there are more costs to university than simply the education!) after having earned nothing (cash-wise) for three (or more) years, and being forced to find a very specific job which I may not get.

Furthermore, the types of career that I want do not involve going to university. I would prefer to "work my way up the ladder" as it were (although no matter how good the pay is I will never go for a stressful job that involves being on call 24/7 - I prefer good health to money).

On the matter of evolution and creation, few people seem to know a great deal about either subject, and yet feel able to praise/criticize either one.

Furthermore, there are many differing views about evolution and creation - some views contain a "mixture" of both! - and these many different "views" could be considered to be different "theories" in their own right.

I would also add, if people don't mind, that the following types of people - a. staunch evolutionists who try and disprove creation by saying that it claims everything was created in six 24 hour days (!), and b. staunch creationists who claim that everything was created in six 24 hour days (!) - can both be quickly disproved by a brief look at Genesis 2:4 (in the Bible!) and a little research into what the Hebrew word "day" actually means.

I wonder if you have examined this, Dave, taking into account your clearly extensive knowledge of literary works?