Is University overrated these days? (1 Viewer)

[chefman21]

what are you dim wits on about..?
A bachelors degree value is determined by what uni it was awarded from.
Now the overall value of an ugrad degree has gone down because there has been a huge supply side increase from 2/3rd tier universities such as ACU, UWS, Vic uni, Deakin, Murdoch, etc
I mean, in the past the idiots that attend these uni's would have gone straight into the army or some manual labor industry.
But a university degree from the 'group of eight' hasn't debased much at all, in fact it's probably increased in prestige because there are far more applicants these days..

Wrong... All of it.

First point. Prestige doesn't matter. No employer cares about a name. They care about attitude, skills and initiative.

Second and third tier universities? So are you basing this on prestige? Same point again. No employer cares about a name. They care about initiative, skills and attitude. They are all accredited universities...

Got a problem with the Army? I have a lot more respect for someone who is willing to defend our nation, possibly get themselves killed and has the maturity to actually join the forces out of high school than some 21 year old kid who has graduated with a Bachelor of Who Gives a S#*t. I suppose you are the kind of person who thinks that jobs that don't require a degree from university mean nothing. Careful... they may just end up better than you.

How can they possibly have increased in prestige? If they are letting more people in, doesn't that lower the quality, especially since student:teacher ratio has barely changed thereby reducing quality of teaching? If more people graduate from the same university doesn't that mean it is less prestigious and less like an exclusive club? Also with a lower quality of teaching that would mean the quality of graduate would be less?

 

[Ben1220]

I'm not a fan of the idea of focusing on vocational skills in high school and teaching people a trade while they are in high school, that sort of feels like people are being forced down certain paths far too early. Everyone should be given the opportunity to have a proper rigorous high school education, at least to some base level of quality.

The fact that the complexity involved in most jobs has increased a lot in the last 100 years or so due to new technologies also means that the workforce really does need people with more advanced knowledge and skills then they could get just from high school. Not just in the information industry. In the past, everything had to be done by manually, and many more people were required to complete simple tasks. New technology has made us more efficient and it has automated or completely removed the need of many of these types of jobs. This trend seems set to continue. Think of the "do-it-yourself" checkout machines at supermarkets that have begun to appear in the last few years.

But there are more benefits to a university degree then just the set of extra starting jobs it makes available. We see every day, the results of a lack of education, or perhaps just plain old stupidity. Just watch 60 minutes or something simular to see how many people actually think. Pettiness, Superstitions, pseudoscience, myths, quackery, logical fallacies, irrationality, irrelevance / trivial thinking, and in some cases, almost a complete inability to think critically, think independently, solve problems, and do basic research / fact checking (know which sources to trust). It almost seems as if a pretty significant chunk of adults never quite reached the formal operations stage of development.

I sometimes wonder how different the world would be if everyone who was intelligent enough received a broad and rigorous education, up to the level of a bachelors degree at least, with everyone taking classes in philosophy, history and science. Would we still have wars? Would history be less likely to repeat itself? What about quackery / medical fraud and diet fads? Would a more scientifically inclined populace be less inclined to believe anything they were told, and seek out the facts for themselves? Would policy decisions be decided on through critical thinking as opposed to prejudices and what feels right? Would there be more critical thinking, problem solving and innovation in the workplace? Would employees have more bright ideas about how things could be changed to increase productivity, efficiency, or effectiveness?

But will the higher rates of university attendance being aimed for actually lead to a smarter, better informed, more rational populace in generations Y, Z and beyond? Maybe not so much if everyone is doing a "bachelors of real estate" or a "bachelors of marketing".

 

[Will Shakespear]

I think it should be optional, but encouraged. I'd nearly make it compulsory for years 9 and 10, and for those students who have no plans for university study after years 11 & 12 compulsory to give them options, especially as the job market is so competitive. I think it should be compulsory for those students leaving at the end of year 10 though.

we could teach the very basic tradie skills, like how to remove a holden badge and stick on a chevy badge without damaging ya paint job

EDIT: tailgating cunts on the M7 could also be included

 

[biopia]

My two cents...

As already stated, in the past, if someone was attending university, they would be considered admirable without too much of a second thought. Nowadays, this admiration (from a students perspective) has transformed and is now reliant upon what uni you attend and which course you are doing. A stereotyped example: UWS vs. UNSW or Social Work vs. Medical Science. Personally, no matter what course, or which institution, attending university should be celebrated equally.

 

[Makro]

Just as a general reply, to whoever said forcing people to learn trades is like forcing their career path and that we shouldn't be expected to do music, art and dt post-year 8, I think that that we shouldn't be forced to History, Science and Geography either? I think by year 9 you'd know if you had an interest in all these subject areas. It all depends on when we need to be given choice, right?

I also don't think it's overrated. It's been one of my few aspirations simply 'cos no one else in my family has (lol @ the middle child). Whilst a trade is good money it does get hard to do later in life and your physical health/fitness is almost directly related to your quality of work (for the majority of trades) and then there's really a lack of opportunity. I believe a degree does give you more opportunity. I mean simply just for the "higher-level thinking" you need to pass a bachelor of X.

 

[chefman21]

Aren't you the guy who admitted to working as a drug dependent subordinate kitchen hand? Of course your Employer (the one that hooked you on drugs in order to extort obedience, and beat you when your dish washing wasn't performed hastily enough) does not recognize higher education qualifications. Stop trying to enforce your manic views on vulnerable highschool kids.

So are you the same guy (adinfinium/comingupforair/whatever other name you are using? Because that's almost exactly what they said... I'm not forcing views. People can take it or leave it. That's why it's a "forum".

 

[chefman21]

I'm not a fan of the idea of focusing on vocational skills in high school and teaching people a trade while they are in high school, that sort of feels like people are being forced down certain paths far too early. Everyone should be given the opportunity to have a proper rigorous high school education, at least to some base level of quality.

The fact that the complexity involved in most jobs has increased a lot in the last 100 years or so due to new technologies also means that the workforce really does need people with more advanced knowledge and skills then they could get just from high school. Not just in the information industry. In the past, everything had to be done by manually, and many more people were required to complete simple tasks. New technology has made us more efficient and it has automated or completely removed the need of many of these types of jobs. This trend seems set to continue. Think of the "do-it-yourself" checkout machines at supermarkets that have begun to appear in the last few years.

But there are more benefits to a university degree then just the set of extra starting jobs it makes available. We see every day, the results of a lack of education, or perhaps just plain old stupidity. Just watch 60 minutes or something simular to see how many people actually think. Pettiness, Superstitions, pseudoscience, myths, quackery, logical fallacies, irrationality, irrelevance / trivial thinking, and in some cases, almost a complete inability to think critically, think independently, solve problems, and do basic research / fact checking (know which sources to trust). It almost seems as if a pretty significant chunk of adults never quite reached the formal operations stage of development.

I sometimes wonder how different the world would be if everyone who was intelligent enough received a broad and rigorous education, up to the level of a bachelors degree at least, with everyone taking classes in philosophy, history and science. Would we still have wars? Would history be less likely to repeat itself? What about quackery / medical fraud and diet fads? Would a more scientifically inclined populace be less inclined to believe anything they were told, and seek out the facts for themselves? Would policy decisions be decided on through critical thinking as opposed to prejudices and what feels right? Would there be more critical thinking, problem solving and innovation in the workplace? Would employees have more bright ideas about how things could be changed to increase productivity, efficiency, or effectiveness?

But will the higher rates of university attendance being aimed for actually lead to a smarter, better informed, more rational populace in generations Y, Z and beyond? Maybe not so much if everyone is doing a "bachelors of real estate" or a "bachelors of marketing".

Nicely argued. That's the way it should be. I don't agree with some of it, but it is well thought out and well argued.

I don't agree with the point about vocational education. I don't think it should be forced, but I do think it should be part of the curriculum. They don't have to leave fully qualified, but leaving with at least a Certificate I or II I think would be a benefit.

I'm not sure I agree with the point about benefits of a university degree in relation to how people think. I've met quite a few graduates with both undergrad and postgrad degrees from a number of different areas and backgrounds who's thought processes are... questionable. I have also met tradesman in the same boat. I don't know whether it's a lack of social education, narrow mindedness or something else, but it happens all too often. I find a lot of it comes from a low socio-economic background, but that's personal experience and may not be an accurate representation.

I also think about the same thing you do in relation to what would (and wouldn't) happen with a better education. The thing I keep coming back too though is we are human. While we exist, we will never see the end of war. While there are humans, there will always be the Seven Deadly Sins and there will always be problems. I think education will help, but it won't stop it.

Your last point is interesting. How can a degree like those mentioned give a student an understanding of the world. One of the things that an Arts degree, despite it's criticisms, provides better than virtually any other degree is a focus on areas that provide an understanding of world history, politics and social issues.

 

[rx34]

These days the questioner is not satisfied with just a mere confirmation of attending uni. They dig deeper. Now they ask what uni you attend and more importantly what course you do.

EDIT: i also believe that trades should be and are done mainly as a last resort for many. I mean most people don't choose to become plumbers or sparkys because they love toilets or fuse boxes. they do it because it is the only stable employment option for them if they could not get into uni.

I usually don't agree with you Ben. But you're spot on in this matter. Telling the questioner you do 'law' is not good enough these days. Often they would ask which university you do it at, and if it is perceived as a lower tier university, they would shun it away.

And yes, trades are great they earn good money. But who actually aspires to be a plumber? Most common answers are doctors, teachers, firemen and lawyers.

 

[Cookie182]

I personally dislike the Australian Education system, mostly due to the underlying vocational sentiment.

I support a classical education model, in parts similar to mid-tier and above American universities, where students are forced to do a 4 year program, usually covering broad areas of study and developing strong criticial thinking & research skills.

The main drawback of cause with America is the cost- but we all know their welfare system sucks. If Australia though had a similar model (that is, you enrolled in a 4 yr BA or BSc program before choosing a grad school in your field) but the fee structure was still HECS I think this would be awsome.

In my opinion, a rigorous and broad education should ALWAYS encompass the following subjects:

- 1 or 2 Semesters of mathematics (Basic calculus, Algebra, logic, Business/Financial maths)...lots of options here depending on students background/interest
- History
- Basic sciences (at least a semester of physics OR chem OR Biology OR Environmental Science/Earth)...again depends on background/interest
- Philosophy
- Minimum 1 or 2 semesters of foreign language
- Statistics & Research Design
- Minimum 1 semester of IT or C. Science [important these days]
- Economics OR Politics OR Geography OR a intro business course (accy or finance)
- Perhaps an English Literature subject/Classics/Communications/Psychology OR "general Ed" class

Of course the program (being 4 yrs) would be flexible enough to then allow a major specialisation in one or even 2 areas. A 'double degree' would not be needed.

Obviously major areas in the BA like history, politics, philosophy, geography, economics, business admin, accounting/finance, management, psychology, languages etc would be offered.

In the BSc, mathematics, all sciences, engineering, computing sciences etc

All students would have a specialisation + a basic grasp of broad eduational subjects.

This trains a critical thinker whilst giving people in their young years a real feel for what they might like to do.

You then have the option of grad school in your area (business, science/engineering masters, law or medicine etc) or can go out and work.

Much better

 

[SFinspired]

and yet America has one of the lowest literacy rates as a 1st world country..

 

[sinophile]

and yet America has one of the lowest literacy rates as a 1st world country..

probably because of the disproportionate levelts of illeteracy in the african american community

 

[ambermorn]

IMHO i think degrees with minimum enrollments and mostly in the 96 97 and beyond cutoffs are prestigous and safe. What i mean is there are over 600 students who finished uni last year doing commerce at UNSW. That can't be sustainable for the future, but isn't exactly a scarce resource and therefore not prestigious and awe inspiring.

And what if thpse "prestigious" degrees has no job opportunities, espectially if it's gained with poor marks? Sure, it's a nice piece of paper, but it won't help you in the dole line.

 

[SFinspired]

So is Social Sciences

 

[ambermorn]

Honestly, what the fuck have you got against me? I have told you before that I did well enough to get into BPsych, or study at other uni's, plus I have a high enough GPA to transfer if I wish. I chose where I fucking went, I'm happy and I will get a career out of it.

Pull your head out of your fucking arse and get the fuck over yourself.

I was meaning degrees like philosophy at Sydney, which have little career prospects besides academia, but of course replying to you is a waste of my time because all you'll think is that I must be oh so stupid and a failure for daring to study at a 'second tier' uni.

Now can you move the fuck on and ignore me, and stop neg repping every single post I make just because I go to UWS, it's really fucking sad. I'm sure it makes you feel like king shit though, man you're so cool.

 

[SFinspired]

And UWS isn't a second tier university. Its a third if not 4th. Its shit.

LOL 3rd or 4th tier? That's too harsh

 

[rx34]

I don't get why everyone likes to compare the quality of university degrees like this:

"It doesn't matter where you get your degree from, as long as you study hard it's all the same!"
Student A goes to a top tier law school and achieves pass/credit marks. Whereas Student B goes to a lower tier law school like Newcastle and achieves distinction marks. Therefore, the big law firm would hire Student B because of his great marks.

Why is it assumed that the student at the lower tier university would study harder in general? Lame, it is not a fair comparison.

 

[bio_nut]

I don't get why everyone likes to compare the quality of university degrees like this:


Why is it assumed that the student at the lower tier university would study harder in general? Lame, it is not a fair comparison.

Yeah, I know, is a bit silly. To be a fair comparison, should be the same marks, as to see whether prestige blah blah comes into play, the other factors must be equal.

 

[Omar-Comin]

lol philosophy at usyd isn't in the 97s. Learn to fucking read. I havn't got anything against you personally. And UWS isn't a second tier university. Its a third if not 4th. Its shit.


You've seemed to miss my point, which was that, degrees like yours have diluted the once envied study of psychology.
And of course you could get into usyd psych but chose uws because its closer. Am i right?

totally agree, studying psychology at a place like UWS makes an absolute mockery of the notion of 'tertiary education'. Places like UWS, and courses like psychology, are just continuations of high school like 'sit and get taught' learning. Most people could pass their shit-easy exams without even taking the course. It's a joke.
And ambermorn please stop apologizing for the fact you got into UWS, your not fooling anyone.

 

[klaris]

I don't think it's overrated. I think, Gen Y have just had bigger and better goals than the baby boomers.

We're constantly told at school that the good life is linked to a good education. Hence, the pressures of the HSC and the aim to get into a good uni, to get a good job, to get a good pay, to get a good house and so on and so forth.

 

[paulpang22288]

Honestly, what the fuck have you got against me? I have told you before that I did well enough to get into BPsych, or study at other uni's, plus I have a high enough GPA to transfer if I wish. I chose where I fucking went, I'm happy and I will get a career out of it.

Pull your head out of your fucking arse and get the fuck over yourself.

I was meaning degrees like philosophy at Sydney, which have little career prospects besides academia, but of course replying to you is a waste of my time because all you'll think is that I must be oh so stupid and a failure for daring to study at a 'second tier' uni.

Now can you move the fuck on and ignore me, and stop neg repping every single post I make just because I go to UWS, it's really fucking sad. I'm sure it makes you feel like king shit though, man you're so cool.

Okay NOTHING against you since this is my first post in this thread anyway.

BPsych @ UWS ATAR cutoff 2010 = 81.75 (Depends how you define "well enough")

YOU, are currently a BA(Psych) student at UWS (as stated in your signature).

BA(Psych) @ UWS ATAR cutoff 2010 = 70.25/70.75 (REALLY stretching it if you define 70s as "well enough")

BA(Psych) is not a professional degree. You might get a career out of it, but definitely not a professional one. BPsych* is the one you SHOULD BE doing but you happened not to choose it (based on your signature) yet claim you do (based on the above quote).


Again, your signature might be a typo, or you upgraded into BPsych already and the signature's outdated or something. So I could be wrong.

Again, completely neutral. I didn't even stir up the UWS=bottom tier argument.


*The one that gets you a conditional registration as a psychologist-in-training by the NSW Psychologists Registration Board and associate membership of the Australian Psychological Society).