50 replies to this topic

[IndiaTango]

I've only been a part of this forum for around eight months, which, isn't a long time at all. I know there are some users on here that have been a part of the forum since the dawn of time. What I have seen in these eight months is a fair few unflattering comments relating to subjects and/or degrees that are achievable through university.

One example of a 'Fake' subject is "Fashion". A few comments have been made about this subject to the effect of "It's a joke" or, that it's not a real subject. I'm not going to quote any names or any specific posts, as I'm sure many of you are aware of these posts.

Firstly, I'd like to mention that I've met a Police Constable, aRegular Constable who actually holds a degree in 'Fashion'. They were in fact a very good Officer, knew what they were doing and managed situations very well. Did I think any less of them because they held a degree in fashion? No, I did not. Why would I? If anything, I looked up at them even more.

I do not hold a degree in anything. I don't even have any A-levels. So, I take my hat off to anyone who has given the time to study for one.

'Given the time to study for one'. Because that's a major part of it. Anyone who holds a degree has had to spend three years studying for one. They've given up time to learn, to revise and then to sit some exams to prove they've retained the knowledge. Commitment. Companies don't employ people if they think they're going to leave straight away or if they feel that it's not right for them. This holds true for the Police. Why would the Police invest time and money training someone, for them to walk out a week later? I appreciate that people will join jobs and realise that it's not for them. I myself took up a job in a restaurant to find that I didn't enjoy it. I held out for a month and followed correct procedure and then left. Commitment is a strong quality.

In regards to 'Fake' and 'Real' subjects. Who decides the 'worthiness' of a subject? Who are we to say that one degree is not as good as another? I imagine many people believe that subjects like; Maths, Chemistry and Medicine are real subjects, but let me ask you this.

Can you design and create a range of clothes? Can you put on a stage production, or direct a production of 4:48 Psychosis?

We're all more than happy to wear designer clothes, or to go to the cinema or to the theatre, but we still don't class the subjects that bring us these 'real'. Why not? Do they not make a difference to our lives? Sure. You can walk into a hospital with some injuries and you'll walk out without them. That's life changing. But what about a piece of theatre that questions how you live, or your morals. Does a piece of theatre that questions society not have an effect on us?

Funnily enough, my girlfriend has just graduated today from Warwick university with a 2:1 in Theatre Studies. Her aim is to direct productions. To create. Who am I to turn around and say that she's not done a 'real' subject? She, like everyone else that studies at university, worked her rear off, to get there.

Some of you have said that people graduating won't have a clue on how to deal with things operationally, which, I imagine will hold true for a fair number of them. But you don't know what else those students have done. Maybe they volunteer with the Red Cross, or St John and regularly manage 100 First Aiders, 10 ambulances, Healthcare Professionals and patients at a concert. I understand that that's not Police related, but do you see where I am coming from?

I'm quite shocked and surprised by some of the comments on this forum relating to this.

We should not be judging people because of the degree they hold. A degree is a degree. They will have worked hard to get it. Please. Show some respect.

[HarryB]

Nail, Head, Hit.

[Seandesy1]

I did Politics, it took 10 hours a week of which I rarely showed up for half the lectures due to me doing Special shifts instead, I still managed to get a 2.1 and yet I don't consider it a proper degree compared to the Maths/Sciences. If I had decided to do Aeronatuical engineering or Naval Architecture then I might have felt differently. One of my primary school mates went to uni and took a degree in surfboard technology, at first I thought it might be an alright degree, thinking it might help him in other fields, but no, his degree was 3 years of studying surfboard design/shape/materials. Nothing would be transferrable to a maritime design role!

Though there is a difference in people doing degrees for the sake of going to university and those going to university with the aim of getting a degree in something they want to do.

Edited by Seandesy1, 17 July 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[IndiaTango]

I did Politics, it took 10 hours a week of which I rarely showed up for half the lectures due to me doing Special shifts instead, I still managed to get a 2.1 and yet I don't consider it a proper degree compared to the Maths/Sciences. If I had decided to do Aeronatuical engineering or Naval Architecture then I might have felt differently. One of my primary school mates went to uni and took a degree in surfboard technology, at first I thought it might be an alright degree, thinking it might help him in other fields, but no, his degree was 3 years of studying surfboard design/shape/materials. Nothing would be transferrable to a maritime design role!

Though there is a difference in people doing degrees for the sake of going to university and those going to university with the aim of getting a degree in something they want to do.

I appreciate this, I do. However in regards to getting a degree in something you want to do, why do we as a forum then tell people not to take a Policing degree, or similar? The consensus always seem to be 'Leave your options open'.

[Owen]

I'm going to uni in Sept to do Disaster Management and Emergency Planning BSc. No doubt people will say this is a fake degree or whatever, but the British and American Govt recommend it from Coventry and this is shown by the jobs of the graduates!

Any degree gives certain skills which uni brings, some different to others.

[HarryB]

A lot of employers don't actually care what degree you have done, whether it is Mathematics at a red brick with 40 hours a week contact time, or Surfboard Design at an ex-poly with 6 hours a week contact time, they all generally provide the students with transferable skills which can be used later on. You still have to study outside of the timetabled contact time, you still have to manage your time well, you still are likely to write a dissertation or do a final year project. You have shown these by getting a degree in 99.9% of subjects, hence why a lot of grad schemes in the civi world, and even the armed forces, aren't really fussed about the actual degree course. Worth bearing in mind when people get slated for doing a "fake" degree - they need to enjoy it, and it equips them with so many skills and opportunities that otherwise wouldn't be open to them.

[N7_Spectre]

I've only been a part of this forum for around eight months, which, isn't a long time at all. I know there are some users on here that have been a part of the forum since the dawn of time. What I have seen in these eight months is a fair few unflattering comments relating to subjects and/or degrees that are achievable through university.

One example of a 'Fake' subject is "Fashion". A few comments have been made about this subject to the effect of "It's a joke" or, that it's not a real subject. I'm not going to quote any names or any specific posts, as I'm sure many of you are aware of these posts.

Firstly, I'd like to mention that I've met a Police Constable, aRegular Constable who actually holds a degree in 'Fashion'. They were in fact a very good Officer, knew what they were doing and managed situations very well. Did I think any less of them because they held a degree in fashion? No, I did not. Why would I? If anything, I looked up at them even more.

I do not hold a degree in anything. I don't even have any A-levels. So, I take my hat off to anyone who has given the time to study for one.

'Given the time to study for one'. Because that's a major part of it. Anyone who holds a degree has had to spend three years studying for one. They've given up time to learn, to revise and then to sit some exams to prove they've retained the knowledge. Commitment. Companies don't employ people if they think they're going to leave straight away or if they feel that it's not right for them. This holds true for the Police. Why would the Police invest time and money training someone, for them to walk out a week later? I appreciate that people will join jobs and realise that it's not for them. I myself took up a job in a restaurant to find that I didn't enjoy it. I held out for a month and followed correct procedure and then left. Commitment is a strong quality.

In regards to 'Fake' and 'Real' subjects. Who decides the 'worthiness' of a subject? Who are we to say that one degree is not as good as another? I imagine many people believe that subjects like; Maths, Chemistry and Medicine are real subjects, but let me ask you this.

Can you design and create a range of clothes? Can you put on a stage production, or direct a production of 4:48 Psychosis?

We're all more than happy to wear designer clothes, or to go to the cinema or to the theatre, but we still don't class the subjects that bring us these 'real'. Why not? Do they not make a difference to our lives? Sure. You can walk into a hospital with some injuries and you'll walk out without them. That's life changing. But what about a piece of theatre that questions how you live, or your morals. Does a piece of theatre that questions society not have an effect on us?

Funnily enough, my girlfriend has just graduated today from Warwick university with a 2:1 in Theatre Studies. Her aim is to direct productions. To create. Who am I to turn around and say that she's not done a 'real' subject? She, like everyone else that studies at university, worked her rear off, to get there.

Some of you have said that people graduating won't have a clue on how to deal with things operationally, which, I imagine will hold true for a fair number of them. But you don't know what else those students have done. Maybe they volunteer with the Red Cross, or St John and regularly manage 100 First Aiders, 10 ambulances, Healthcare Professionals and patients at a concert. I understand that that's not Police related, but do you see where I am coming from?

I'm quite shocked and surprised by some of the comments on this forum relating to this.

We should not be judging people because of the degree they hold. A degree is a degree. They will have worked hard to get it. Please. Show some respect.

You my friend, have got a lot of sense and hit it bang on with everything you said there and I definitely see where you're coming from with this.

I'm in a firm belief that the whole "real" and "fake" subjects kind of thing is just a derogatory influence made by the elite to make themselves seem superior to those who prefer to do different courses that aren't your usual generic Maths and English. I have that opinion because people who have taken A-levels such as Electronics aren't even considered for the top universities because the subjects are "too soft" even though they could have achieved all A* grades, have a whole wealth of skills gained from external activities and would make really high calibre students.

I'm going to uni in Sept to do Disaster Management and Emergency Planning BSc. No doubt people will say this is a fake degree or whatever, but the British and American Govt recommend it from Coventry and this is shown by the jobs of the graduates!

Any degree gives certain skills which uni brings, some different to others.

This is true, suitability shouldn't be decided on either the name of the university or what degree you do - it's what skills you gained personally and how you can show evidence of them what counts.

I don't think there is one subject I can think of offered that doesn't have a place in society (OK some courses Oxford and the likes offer like Medieval Language are...quite obsolete in my view and just there to say "I went to a top university"). We see disasters or emergencies happening everyday all over the world. Look at the recent landslide in Dorset for example, the flood warnings too. How people can say it's a fake degree is beyond me because you're always going to need people able to manage and be able to prepare contingency plans for such events otherwise you're heading towards a national calamity. Best of luck with your degree and I hope you do well at it!


On the bottom line: you could have a 1st class honours in something but if someone's got more transferable skills - they'll be preferred so no degree is fake.

[jvt1]

university doesn't just teach you a subject, it equips you with various life and transferable skills too and the opportunity to meet some incredible people who you can learn an incredible amount from.

Edited by jvt1, 17 July 2012 - 10:58 PM.

[Übèrnamè]

I think the main crux of the problem is people using extremities in light of the Higher Development Scheme in the Met. People are completing degrees in unrelated subjects and will have little relevant skills in the role of an inspector or chief inspector. Honestly, I think it's a good idea, it's a small recruitment drive trying to find academics and put them in roles in which they can put their particular skills to use in the management boards and offices. People just aren't keen on the idea of a university graduate coming into a high role with little policing experience.

I also believe there is a large gap in certain degrees in relations to practical use and niche subjects. If you're wanting to get a job in fashion then obviously a degree in that field will help you a lot. If we take your example of the copper with a fashion degree, how much of that learning will apply to her job? (Although admittedly it is a good fall back option if things don't work out in the police).

Certain degrees, such as the sciences, politics, economics and maths will always be of more use practically in a wide range of jobs and career options in comparison to degrees such as sociology, media studies and fashion. The types of learning in these fields are generally harder and are very competitive fields and as of such are more sought after. It all depends on what you do with the degrees that matter.

If you do manage to get a degree in any subject it does show a few things

1. You're academic and value learning and application.
2. You have patience and adaptability in regards to types of coursework, subject matter and testing.
3. You are adept at that field and are considered one of the best at that subject.

University has certainly changed in the last 20/30 years or so, I remember one quote; "They say university students are the cream of society, rich and thick" and I believe this alludes to it being a middle/upper class route of learning.

Fortunately it is much more accessible now and is seen as a valid and earnest option to further one's career and prospects.

I believe you have to take the facetious comments on the chin and just take them with a pinch of salt.

I have one final thing to say on the matter "Knowledge without application is useless". What's the point in knowing the cure to cancer if you're not going to put that to good use? Hopefully the new recruits for the Met will apply this to their new jobs and we will be seeing some positive changes from now on.

[caveat_civis]

I appreciate that people have different strengths - some people are fantastic artists or designers rather than necessarily engineers or scholars. The world needs all of these diverse talents.
Exactly why people are so different is all very interesting, but it's not the topic of this discussion. I will say, however, that I think our education system ought to be less rigid, to allow people with more artisitic talents to thrive in the same way that mathematically-minded people can thrive in a maths class. Watch the famous TED talks by Ken Robinson if you're interested in that side of things.

I'm going to play a little bit of devil's advocate here and disagree with some of what you're saying.

Who decides the 'worthiness' of a subject? Who are we to say that one degree is not as good as another?

Who are we to pretend that they are all equivalent? We are trying to apply an equal standard to things that are quite clearly not equal or comparable in any way. Some subjects are more demanding, more academically rigorous and intellectual, and above all more useful to society, and it shouldn't be offensive to say so.

Can you design and create a range of clothes? Can you put on a stage production, or direct a production of 4:48 Psychosis?

The reality is that a Mechanical Engineer is capable of taking photographs, but a photographer is not capable of building an engine.
And in many ways the skills involved learning to build engines are a great deal more important and useful.

Another way of putting it is that an engineer can have a go at an artisitic subject and they won't be wrong (they might even be praised for demonstrating "modern art"), whereas we would not be happy to cross a bridge built by someone with a Fashion degree.


It comes down to what skills you are looking for in a person. It's alright if you are looking for someone who has a very specific set of technical skills because it's obvious which degree subject you should be looking for on their CV.
But it is silly to say that someone with a 2:1 degree in ANY current subject can apply for job X but people without a degree cannot, because it is entirely possible for people without a degree to demonstrate the skills that all degrees have in common - the general life skills like commitment and dedication.

One problem with some "new" degree subjects is that it is unclear what skills they demonstrate. Can a person with a Photography degree write reports or work in a team? Can they solve general everyday problems? I don't know! It doesn't sound like a subject that would require those skills. Should I be so confident that the Photography graduate will be as good as a Computer Scientist at those things? I don't think you should, even though they are both at so-called 2:1 level.

Yes, the person with the degree in Choreography has shown a level of skill in that artistic form and has evidence of general transferable skills, like commitment, and they deserve praise. But why are we labelling their achievement as on an equivalent platform to someone who has mastered Economics? People who have studied Economics, whilst demonstrating all the same general life skills, have also come out of it with proof that they are capable of analysing complex data, understanding and applying highly technical concepts, producing professional reports, working in a corporate team environment, etc etc - not to mention that their skills help them to benefit the economy.

Art is important but the accuracy and the skill involved in producing the content doesn't really matter. On the other hand, the accuracy of an economist's or engineer's calculations does matter to us and has a very real effect on our world, so we should hold their academic credentials in suitable esteem.

[Wookie]

Edit. Double post.

Edited by Wookie, 18 July 2012 - 05:34 AM.

[Wookie]

Ooh, I'm glad you mentioned photography. :-)

I have a 1st class honours degree in that very subject and the subjects we covered were how to set up a business, law, economics, computer skills, working with the public, working as part of a team (in setting up and running a business as well as putting on an exhibition), research and essay writing for our 10k word dissertation (as well as many other reports), working to a schedule and even how to take outstanding photographs.

Being a professional photographer is not just about pressing a button, there is so much more to it but unless you have done the course it may well sound like an easy option.

I now mentor at my local college and there is a 25% drop out in the first year because people think photography is an easy option.

Also, I should add that I undertook the first two years whilst still in full time employment using holidays and unpaid leave to attend lectures. As soon as I finished work I studied, only stopping to eat or sleep and at weekends I studied for at least 8 hours a day.

Edited by Wookie, 18 July 2012 - 05:39 AM.

[David]

The degree discussion again.

I don't think anyone's ever decried anyone going to university, what's been under discussion is the validity of some of the 'degrees' on offer where many jobs/qualifications can be learned as an apprenticeship or at college. It's where the 'degree' also ties in with the modern obsession that everyone must have one for some reason. Personally I think it's to massage statistics and to delay young people entering the job market for another few years in the hope there will be more jobs for them by then.

Degree in 'fashion' and he's a good officer. Well, great. Do you need that degree, in fashion or otherwise, to be a good police officer? You say you don't have one, original poster, so what's that proved? Nothing. You are both capable of being effective officers since a degree proves nothing on that score.

I don't have one either, but then I was never capable of university and I admit it, so where does that leave me?

Are many jobs, such as fashion, those that are able to be taught at college and I think it sad that at a time of everyone being told to get a degree coincides with them leaving tens of thousands in debt to get it, even before they enter the work market.

For those doing degrees now, of whatever persuasion, well done, I admire and respect that, please continue and do well. But I honestly don't think they are the panacea they're being sold as.

[HarryB]

The reality is that a Mechanical Engineer is capable of taking photographs, but a photographer is not capable of building an engine.

Not really - a mech eng may be able to take a photograph. But, can they take a good photograph with a professional camera? (and I'm talking manual controls only, not a point and shoot) Very doubtful, without training or experience. Same goes for a photographer, with training and experience I'm sure they could build an engine.

Another way of putting it is that an engineer can have a go at an artisitic subject and they won't be wrong (they might even be praised for demonstrating "modern art"), whereas we would not be happy to cross a bridge built by someone with a Fashion degree.

Ok, mech eng takes a photo, it can still be under exposed, over exposed, blurry, out of focus. So yes they can take a photo, albeit a gash one. So again, not really an argument, as a photographer, or a golf management graduate could build a bridge.. doesn't mean it's going to be any good, or hold the specified weight or meet pressure tolerances.

It comes down to what skills you are looking for in a person. It's alright if you are looking for someone who has a very specific set of technical skills because it's obvious which degree subject you should be looking for on their CV.
But it is silly to say that someone with a 2:1 degree in ANY current subject can apply for job X but people without a degree cannot, because it is entirely possible for people without a degree to demonstrate the skills that all degrees have in common - the general life skills like commitment and dedication.

One problem with some "new" degree subjects is that it is unclear what skills they demonstrate. Can a person with a Photography degree write reports or work in a team? Can they solve general everyday problems? I don't know! It doesn't sound like a subject that would require those skills. Should I be so confident that the Photography graduate will be as good as a Computer Scientist at those things? I don't think you should, even though they are both at so-called 2:1 level.

It's all about playing the game though. Employers know the general experience and skills a graduate in ANY degree will have. I agree, a non-graduate might have similar or better skills, gained from other experiences.. BUT, how does an employer check this in order to sift the number of candidates to a reasonable number in the most cost effective manner, and let's be honest, it's all about getting as much as you can for as cheap as possible in the business world, especially in the current economic climate.

I've got a 2:1 in Computer Science. Do you know how many reports I wrote during my 4 years at university? 1, and that was my final project. Do you know how many group projects I did? 3, and these were so insignificant to the marks of the module, and such small projects, it was unreal. Some of the people who do the same course, and no external societies, both at my old university and others lack these basic skills. Courses vary so much between institutions a photography graduate may well posses these skills. People write off certain degrees too quickly - try it before you knock it for being irrelevant.

[Derf]

I've got shares in Golden Wonder - makers of Pot Noodle.
More mickey mouse degrees means more students, means bigger dividends for Uncle Derf

Kerrr-ching!

Edited by Derf, 18 July 2012 - 03:42 PM.

[Kellym82]

What about 'David Beckham studies'?

Personally I think too many people are going to uni and actually wasting their time in some cases, because what they study won't help them in a career.

I think that most subject choices do have their place - Wookie I agree with you on photography, when it gets technical it's pretty complicated and requires a lot of knowledge! But I do think that degrees, which used to be about academics, is now a much wider term encorporating a variety of courses which are far more vocational (the types of courses polys used to do).

I am getting a degree in Business Administration with Marketing in my free time as it is a subject that I know (having spoken to my bosses) will help me get a promotion at work. The content of the degree itself however has no influence over my day job at all!

For me there are 2 issues here
1. The 'mickey mouse' degree subjects (of which there are definitely some!)
2. The value of a degree in relation to a career. Many people may well be better off with vocational qualifications/experience than with a BSc or BA under their belt.

[MacGregor]

Not really - a mech eng may be able to take a photograph. But, can they take a good photograph with a professional camera? (and I'm talking manual controls only, not a point and shoot) Very doubtful, without training or experience. Same goes for a photographer, with training and experience I'm sure they could build an engine.

Tangential to the entire discussion but I know a couple of professional photographers who don't bother doing everything with every setting set manually. Time is money to them and five seconds spent messing about with settings every time the light changes is money lost. A good photographer will know when they can get away with using something something like aperture priority mode and when they need to change every setting themselves.

[David]

But like so many jobs out there, you really, really don't need a degree in photography.

Years of experience and/or an apprenticeship with an apprenticed (or extremely experienced photographer) with some sort of proper City & Guilds at the end of it (or equivalent) after studying at college, like so many other jobs now that have a 'degree' attached to them.

Sadly, even apprenticeships are being debased now and whilst there are definitely still some worthwhile ones there are some - quite frankly - insulting ones too: I've seen some in 'admin procedures' and 'sandwich shop' where they'd be taught how to make sandwiches and keep the area clean! An apprenticeship! I spent 4 years in print doing mine as did engineers, draftsmen, builders, craftsmen etc and came out with a meaningful (at the time) trade.

[HarryB]

What about 'David Beckham studies'?

From my memory, that was a module, not an entire degree, and was for Sociology, Sports Science and another course at some uni up north (Staffordshire or Keele I think). I may be wrong though...

Tangential to the entire discussion but I know a couple of professional photographers who don't bother doing everything with every setting set manually. Time is money to them and five seconds spent messing about with settings every time the light changes is money lost. A good photographer will know when they can get away with using something something like aperture priority mode and when they need to change every setting themselves.

I know, I also happen to own my own photography business The point remains the same though, even in Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority, you have control over the exposure bias and ISO (unless it's set to auto which is not too often).

But like so many jobs out there, you really, really don't need a degree in photography.

Years of experience and/or an apprenticeship with an apprenticed (or extremely experienced photographer) with some sort of proper City & Guilds at the end of it (or equivalent) after studying at college, like so many other jobs now that have a 'degree' attached to them.

Sadly, even apprenticeships are being debased now and whilst there are definitely still some worthwhile ones there are some - quite frankly - insulting ones too: I've seen some in 'admin procedures' and 'sandwich shop' where they'd be taught how to make sandwiches and keep the area clean! An apprenticeship! I spent 4 years in print doing mine as did engineers, draftsmen, builders, craftsmen etc and came out with a meaningful (at the time) trade.

I agree, and never said that you need a degree in a subject to enter that field. Take me for example - I have my own photography business (admittedly not my main career), yet my degree was in Computer Science. I'm pretty much self taught, yet still have contracts with several Universities, Councils and numerous other clients. Arguably in certain fields, a degree in it won't be of too much use. My photography for example is of a different nature to the content of most photography degree modules (I do mostly events, PR work and sport).

It doesn't detract from the fact a photography graduate still has skills that can be transferred to other jobs and sectors, which I think is the main point here.

[IndiaTango]

The thing is, i'm not trying to say that people with fashion degrees should be building bridges. Or that people with degrees in Biomedical Science should be baking cakes.

I just don't think it's right that people look down on other people's degrees. We are supposed to be good people.

All I'm asking is that people show some respect. So what if you don't think that a degree in Art is as hard as a degree in Physics? (That being said, GCSE Art was far harder than any other subject I took) It's irrelevant.

[Wookie]

But like so many jobs out there, you really, really don't need a degree in photography.

Years of experience and/or an apprenticeship with an apprenticed (or extremely experienced photographer) with some sort of proper City & Guilds at the end of it (or equivalent) after studying at college, like so many other jobs now that have a 'degree' attached to them.

Sadly, even apprenticeships are being debased now and whilst there are definitely still some worthwhile ones there are some - quite frankly - insulting ones too: I've seen some in 'admin procedures' and 'sandwich shop' where they'd be taught how to make sandwiches and keep the area clean! An apprenticeship! I spent 4 years in print doing mine as did engineers, draftsmen, builders, craftsmen etc and came out with a meaningful (at the time) trade.

I take it you missed my post then? It's very easy to say a course is easy if you have never done it yourself.

[Chewie]

Being a professional photographer is not just about pressing a button, there is so much more to it but unless you have done the course it may well sound like an easy option.

I now mentor at my local college and there is a 25% drop out in the first year because people think photography is an easy option.

The fact that 25% of those starting the course drop out because they think it's the easy option shows that even those who go on to higher education believe there are 'real' and 'fake' degrees... until they show some commitment to the cause, then the general public will continue to think along the same lines.

university doesn't just teach you a subject, it equips you with various life and transferable skills too and the opportunity to meet some incredible people who you can learn an incredible amount from.

So does working in McDonalds.

Not really - a mech eng may be able to take a photograph. But, can they take a good photograph with a professional camera? (and I'm talking manual controls only, not a point and shoot) Very doubtful, without training or experience. Same goes for a photographer, with training and experience I'm sure they could build an engine.

Working on that basis, I shouldn't be able to take photographs or play musical instruments - I've had no formal training whatsoever. Strangely, I've managed to do both, very well, for years...

Edited by Chewie, 18 July 2012 - 10:54 PM.

[Law_Grad]

But like so many jobs out there, you really, really don't need a degree in photography.

Years of experience and/or an apprenticeship with an apprenticed (or extremely experienced photographer) with some sort of proper City & Guilds at the end of it (or equivalent) after studying at college, like so many other jobs now that have a 'degree' attached to them.

Sadly, even apprenticeships are being debased now and whilst there are definitely still some worthwhile ones there are some - quite frankly - insulting ones too: I've seen some in 'admin procedures' and 'sandwich shop' where they'd be taught how to make sandwiches and keep the area clean! An apprenticeship! I spent 4 years in print doing mine as did engineers, draftsmen, builders, craftsmen etc and came out with a meaningful (at the time) trade.

You seem to have stumbled upon the reason without noticing it.

Perhaps its time for society to look at the blanket value they are awarding degrees, and update their views on what they are and the motivations of the recipients.

Modern society favours each individual considering themselves as being a business or small company, where education and skills are an investment in their own earning potential. And the qualifications are owned & stored in each person's portfolio, as opposed to in-house qualifications stored in an office filing cabinet. In certain respects this can be seen by the photography degree info above.

There will still be the classic degree subjects, but does that mean the use of a degree as a measure of higher standard or achievement in regards personal vocational achievement should be considered a charlatan or fraud. Maybe its time that better education was given in relation to different types of degrees and the applicability in the workplace. In many respects akin to the old time served papers of the apprentice, and certain degrees being considered as having served the educational time needed to understand a certain trade.

And I can't help at times but think that the tabloids this bizarre snobbery. Getting hardworking trades / craftsman / journey men / skilled artisans and the like (such as yourself) to support the myth of certain subjects being the elite, and all the rest mere trifles or common education…I can't shift this image of cloistered gothic piles & their inhabitants sneering at the Sunday school kids / polytechnic / evening classes.

[mknapp]

From somebody studying at a 'red brick' university and doing a criminology and sociology degree, I have found that university has taught me life skills, but nothing in relation to policing.
To be fair, my degree wasn't meant to teach me how to be a good police officer but it has given me a good basic understanding of legislation (modules in criminal law helped alot!) and the whole 'police = institutional racism bull'.
As I've always wanted to be in the police later on in life, I thought my degree would put me in a good position for it.
That being said, there is a massive but coming up!!
The recommendation that people should be 'fast-tracked' if they have degrees is ludicrous. Coming out of university will not make me a good police officer, forensic psychologist etc. so I thought I would become a Special alongside my studies so that I have some experience AND a degree when I finish!
I love my degree but without experience it is mostly useless to me! (not everybody!)

[David]

I take it you missed my post then? It's very easy to say a course is easy if you have never done it yourself.

Where did I ever say any course was necessarily 'easy'?