12 February 2010
By Nick Dickens
I know that it isn't strictly relevant to research careers, but as a group of people who work in research and so probably either directly or indirectly in education, I would like to hear people's opinions on the following article in the Guardian on Wednesday. The title of the article is Stop Funding Mickey Mouse Degrees and we've had a few discussions recently about research funding, which isn't entirely unrelated.
In summary, the article is based on statements made by Dr Richard Pike, who is Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry and his opinions on degrees in subjects like celebrity journalism, drama combined with waste management, and international football business management. His opinion can easily be summed up with the quote that they should be "kicked into touch". At a time when there are cuts to research and higher education funding - with the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer describing efforts to make cuts of £600m across the next three years, why should there be money available for these degrees at the detriment of science courses (a good proportion of research training) that are expensive to run.
My opinion is clear, I whole-heartedly agree. I don't see why there is the focus on everyone doing a degree. I think that anyone who is looking for a career in celebrity journalism or international football business management would be better served having more generic training (in English, or Business Management) and then real world experience as part of their career. And as for drama with waste management, there must be very few aspiring actors (that is act-ors to encompass both actors and actresses) who are thinking about having day jobs as refuse collectors while they wait for their big break. Surely, they would be better served with a decent performing arts degree. There is only a finite amount of money in the pot and research is important, especially in an economy where we don't really have a strong manufacturing industry and up until the recent fall of the pound not a great export marker (Matt - forgive my poor grasp of economics it this isn't the case).
So, to cut to the chase (in my best Glasgow accent) - who agrees with my opinions and who Dis-ney?
Comments Subscribe by RSS
Please
log in to post a comment.
Chris Thomson12 February 2010 at 10:49 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Well presumably the University of Northampton (see I did some background research) sees Drama with waste management to be a viable combination. that said I've seen many joint Honours degrees that never attract any students... The purpose of dual honours is to serve specific markets, and I would assume that the is a need for people with theatre experience to advise about recycling. Categorising them as bin men is perhaps a little harsh! In fact it seems they offer a fully modular degree program where you can combine any two subjects of your choice. That said, yes there are "mickey mouse degrees" out there, but I would argue that it is the quality of the education that counts not the subject. Why? Well a quality degree in "international football business management" will almost certainly have modules in business, marketing, accountancy, all focused at a international picture at its core. Specialist degrees of this type attract few students so universities tend not to put on many special modules. Indeed analysis of most departments/faculties will show they have a large numbers of degrees of this type even within science subjects. The distinguishing features will be specific core modules, and no doubt football business management is such a module, optional to pure business students and core to those on the named degree, I'd also suggest that they would do a dissertation in an appropriate area, sound familiar to you? So given that these degrees are basicly a marketing exercise, cost little to run, have the opportunity to offer generic world class education and encourage some people to attend university, why cut them? On the other hand if a University runs a substandard, poorly taught chemistry degree because all the staff focus on their research, not the teaching, maybe we should be cutting that?
Blanka Sengerová12 February 2010 at 10:49 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi Nick, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the dubiousness for people needing degrees to do football management, acting, and celebrity journalism (amongst other things) - these are traditionally, and in my opinion should remain, the domain of on-the-job training and apprenticeship. On the other hand, at least in these degrees, the students are being taught real things, unlike in degrees on homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic and a number of other alternative therapies for whose benefit there is no overwhelming evidence. The fact that people are given a BSc in, say, chiropractice or homeopathy gives them a bit more credibility in front of the unsuspecting general public, who might be forgiven for thinking that these people are actual scientists or doctors. A summary by David Colquhoun on what is taught in such degrees is fairly sobering and worrying: http://www.dcscience.net/Pittilo-consultation-What-is-taught.pdf So whilst I agree with you that mickey mouse degrees take away funding from the more degree-worthy subjects, in my opinion is it even more important to weed out these pseudo-degrees from what is available. Just my two penny's worth, and probably affected by the fact that I have just finished reading a book on this very subject!
Chris Thomson12 February 2010 at 12:13 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Blanka, I strongly agree that degrees that include the information linked to should be firmly banned, its not science so a BSc is inappropriate - as the author says if presented a historical myth, alongside recent evidence it would be acceptable, but as a basis for practice in the field, I'm very worried. Similarly for the other degrees in questionable subjects, if a balanced curriculum is taught I think there is some value in them, but as practitioners I would hope that the students would be able to understand the limitations of what they are taught. I would say it is far more valuable to have good quality degrees on these subjects than none at all. As the students maybe able to weed out the complete wackos over time. I'd hope that they would include modules from traditional medical subjects to give them wide ranging knowledge.
Hannah Dee12 February 2010 at 12:18 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I think the point Chris makes is good - it's very easy to attack "X with Y" degrees but often they're just a consequence of modularisation (I say this speaking as someone who's first degree could be characterised as psychology, philosophy and computing - a seemingly bizarre combination that's actually been rather useful). On the other hand, I have heard that there are more people currently studying media studies in the UK than the total number of UK media jobs. Might be an urban legend, I suppose, but might not... A more interesting question might be "Should we be deciding what's taught in UK universities based upon market forces (i.e., what 18 year-olds are interested in)?"
Chris Thomson12 February 2010 at 12:33 PM
permalinkreport this comment
UCAS lists 84 "Media Studies" courses, but 487 "Mathematics" courses, so it doesn't seem to have an especially large intake, although the maths list had more variations in it including "Fine Art with Mathematics" for the aspiring fresco painters and inverters out there. Along these lines one could ask the question what do Physic's PhDs do? I understand the best option is to go into investment banking... I'm not sure this is best use of funds either... (although you could argue I admit that this is a highly skilled job)
Hannah Dee12 February 2010 at 01:18 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Some interesting facts from HEFCE here - http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2008/08_39/08_39.pdf Table 14 "Percentage of first-degree graduates in a graduate occupation six months after graduation" tells quite a story, as does table 15 (same information at 3 years after graduation) particularly if the aim of HE is to prepare one for the workforce. Media Studies does not fare well. Table 8 "Balance of subjects for first-degree graduates, 2002-03 to 2005-06" gives some data on joint/major-minor/triple degrees, suggesting that about a fifth of students are doing some kind of combination.
Chris Thomson12 February 2010 at 02:44 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Good find! Further to your observations salary figures suggest Media studies graduates recover salary over time (from 6 months to 3 years), but by this time they no longer require their original degree. Table 21. The most striking thing I spotted was that chemistry and medical students who do further study earn less than those who head straight into jobs. It also shows that the only degree that really matters is Medicine because they earn double what everybody else does!
Chris Thomson12 February 2010 at 02:55 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Small update: 28085 (1.2% of graduates) studied media studies in 2008. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/component/option,com_datatables/Itemid,121/task,show_category/catdex,3/#subject
Sarah Davies21 February 2010 at 10:38 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I'm a bit late on the ball (is that a phrase?) here, but I do feel the need to jump in on behalf of media studies (which was introduced in the comments rather than the original discussion of degrees such as drama and waste management) and similar. I'm worried that discussions such as this end up snobbish and elitist: anyone who can watch TV can do media studies, the thinking seems to go, while things like chemistry need 'real' expertise (and, more to the point, having gone to the right kind of school that teaches these 'robust' sciences). This simply isn't true. As anyone who'd bothered to look at a media or cultural studies journal would know, these disciplines are just as complex and specialist as any other. And, as someone else pointed out, chemistry can also be taught badly. More to the point, this goes to the heart of what a university education is for. Is it to learn a particular body of 'facts', of which 'science facts' are more useful than 'English facts' in the outside world? Well, my first degree was Biochemistry, but I'm sorry to say that my recollection of the content of this is hazy (there's something called photosynthesis, right? And glycolysis?). What has remained are the broader skills: writing, critical thinking, presentation and interactional abilities... These are the things, I would suggest, that university is useful for and which equip students for jobs, whether inside the academy or out of it. And I fail to see why these can't be learned through the study of non-traditional subjects - even, dare I say it, the non-sciences. I find the tendency to run down newer disciplines - even the crazy sounding ones - distasteful. At the very least it is disrespectful to those undergraduates who have thought and studied hard and decided that media studies - or whatever - is the best option for them and their future careers. And frankly, given the choice between that and chemistry - which is, of course, *famous* for its relevance to everyday life - who can blame them? Right. Rant over. Thank you for your attention...
Matthew Salois27 February 2010 at 09:04 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Nick, I beamed with excitement with your use of economics! I think your main point regarding scarce resources is spot on. Given that society's scarce and limited resources must be allocated to satisfy near limitless needs and wants, an optimal allocation would involve allocating those resources in a manor which maximizes return. In short, it is critical given the finite funds available that universities allocate those funds to programs which maximize social benefit. I understand Sarah's perspective regarding the "run down" of some degrees as being distasteful and snobbish, but I could not disagree more. There are a variety of economic reasons for which I could state in criticism of (or in defense of) the growing number of “Mickey mouse” degrees (I find hospitality management to be among them). However, the most important point I want to make is that regarding opportunity cost. Briefly stated, opportunity cost is the cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. So if a university decides to offer some new degree program (call it Mickey-Mouseology), then the opportunity cost is the value of the benefits forgone of the next best thing that might have been done with those funds. Funding Mickey-Mouseology means something else is not being funded, such as cancer research, alternative fuels research, research for new vaccines, research into new drought-resistant crop varieties to limit hunger, etc. There may be nothing wrong with studying media as a degree. But I find the choice to use scare funds to offer a degree which someone finds "fun" when those funds can be used to fund a program that works to better the world around us in a more meaningful manner distasteful.