He believes that, although intellectual development is a good thing, “…all courses, given the high payment, the cost, the loan you take, should be about high-skilled employability. Every course.”
If you want to study subjects that do not address employability – such as mediaeval history – you shouldn’t expect to get any incentives or discounts unlike people aiming to work in areas where the country has a skills deficit such as healthcare, coding, construction, engineering and digital.
He also criticises the Russell group of universities which he says have impressive marketing rather than results, and are complacently resting on their reputations. Their response was to say its members’ “number one priority is to support their undergraduates to become highly skilled, self-motivated young adults, who are capable of thinking for themselves and adapting to new work environments.”
Which are the best degrees to get you a job within six months of graduating?
Chemical engineering 78%
Physics & astronomy 77%
Which are worst degrees for employability?
Animal science 45%
Agriculture & forestry 55%
Creative writing 55%
I’m surprised there aren’t other micky-mouse degrees on the list like media studies or history of art but I think the point is well made. Can we afford to provide degree courses because it’s a good thing to do rather than because your country needs you?
For years the military attracted graduates by paying their way through university and modern apprenticeships and Dyson’s new university are very focussed on work outcomes.
I’m not suggesting we go the old soviet route of directed employment although I remember an argument between two german psychologists I met in Finland. One was from the former east who wanted to be a doctor but was told to do a psychology degree instead, and one from the west who thought that was scandalous. Both were happy in their jobs.
Of course it will upset the snowflakes…..
Good-looking men are more likely to be selfish, new research claims. The study, carried out by psychology researchers at Brunel University London, used 125 male and female participants to test an evolutionary theory that more attractive individuals profit from social inequality and so perpetuate the practise in society.
Researchers found that although attractive men were less generous, attractive women did not display the same tendency towards continuing inequality. Lead investigator and senior lecturer Dr Michael Price said: “The results suggest that better-looking men may be biased towards being more selfish and less egalitarian.”
Participants’ bodies were measured using a 3D scanner, scored on a traditional physical attractiveness measures – i.e. slimness, waist-to-chest ratio for men, and waist-to-hip ratio for women – and then rated by two separate groups. The first group of ‘raters’ scored the 125 on attractiveness and the second judged how altruistic and egalitarian they believed the images of…
View original post 189 more words