Oh yes, again I agree, but that is perhaps a subject for a new thread

i went to university in Scotland in the 90s and I knew a few folk who had no intention of doing any work but they saw it as a way to have a year of partying that was socially acceptable. They wanted to have the 'college' experience of staying in halls and meeting a lot of student girls. They were able to borrow money at a good rate as a student so they saw the debt as worth it. £9k a year would put a stop to this. But as a society we have to ask ourselves if we want 50%(the percentage i think that go to further education in Scotland) of people to have had the mind broadening experience of even a year as a student. I agree that more people should do apprenticeships and vocational courses and they should have the same advantages that they would have got if they had gone to university.

if the unis went back to concentrating on the sciences and arts/humanities like they used to and dropped all the mickey mouse degrees you wouldnt have some of the probs above

But Medieval British History is an arts/humanities degree, and Human Geography is a science degree.

Profs and Readers are the very senior academics who teach on the courses, who mark the work, or supervise PhD's, as well as researching their subject.

but i know this.

iim not sure what you are telling me.

You said:

So, I suppose my question should have been: what's a Mickey Mouse degree?

We have 4 faculties here: Arts & Social Sciences, Science & Technology, Management School and Health & Medicine.

Whilst not every course is relevant to a specific career, I'm not sure what you mean by a Mickey Mouse degree.

I'm not entirely sure what a Mickey Mouse degree is either. Is it like Underwater Basket Weaving?

People claim some things (like English Lit) as 'fake' degrees, but I counter it with 'then who is going to teach your kids the canon in twenty years time?'

As I fully plan on staying in academia as a professor it is a rather difficult thing to worry about. In all honesty I think the whole education system needs to be revamped completely - but who is willing to take that step?

Don't you think its odd that children learn a second language as teenagers when the benefits of learning a second language is so much more beneficial in primary school? And yet history is shoved down the throats of 7 year olds who can't even master mathematics, let alone figure out how long 100 years really is! Not to mention most of history is too complicated for children.

While I agree that this 9,000 a year seems more like a quick fix, I could see how the government is using it as a band-aid AS LONG AS they go about revamping universities and aiding polytechnic schools in the meantime.

A part of me wonders if the reason that students insist on going to university these days is because of the influence of American universities that push for 'exploring options' while panty-raiding and binge-drinking. You don't even have to pick a major until your second year of university, when you're 19-20!

Has nobody ever thought of actually asking the parents/children what they would like to be taught I wonder? Why can't we have a survey done, it might be interesting to see the conclusion of it, instead of all the other countless, pointless surveys telling us something we already knew in the first place!

I think the majority of people go to university because they think it will get them a better job and because they think it is fun. Oh yeah and peer pressure/social convention. I personally think that even 20 is too young to pick a major.

Reg mickey mouse degrees. A bit of a touchy subject. A lot of the guys who end up in the City do Art History at one of the 'good' universities. I would say that was a mickey mouse degree but it does not seem to do them any harm!

I agree we need more vocational courses and there has to be incentives to make people do them.

Ah but what you are talking about is a democracy What we have is some people who say they will do a lot of stuff and have referendums on issues and then when they are in power they do what they think is best for us

Reg studying history. It might seem pointless but the more history you know, the less chance you have of repeating it

If only it were true in practice! Its not pointless, so much as useless when teaching children; adolescence/teenagers are better suited for history - their brain development is better for it, while children are better suited to learn languages and math.

I haven't read much about this but does anyone know if they have set up a future plan for framework for universities? Like what they have in mind for ten years time or is this it?