Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

It may do if you are wondering if the generalisation presented by the
government means what the govenment want you to think it means. :-)
The point here is that graduates *regardless of topic* are now
expected to pay fees, etc, and the statistic is wheeled out by the
government as one way to justify this. The point of the examination
was to see if the situation was the same across all topics. The
results reported indicated big differences from one topic to another.
So you would need - as common for experimental results and statistics
- to know the context in which the figures are presented.


Quite. You may have a 'bankable' degree but you may not get the job you
had reasonably expected.

Yes, in any group an individual's outcome may differ from the average. But
that does not change the average if it is included in the computation of
the average.


No, I know. But it's why an individual attains below average that's of
importance. 'Average' is of limited use in this discussion, that's all
I'm saying.


Law is a profession that discriminates for example. So the 'high
earning' may correlate if you're a white man, and not if you're a black
woman. So the statistics only start to have meaning once you know who
they apply to - and that research doesn't seem to be in the wild -
although I can't imagine it'd be especially difficult to find out.

I have my doubts that your comments about 'Law' apply generally in physical
science and engineering in the UK. Although for cultural or other reasons
there may be a bias in student preferences at the outset. Don't have data
so can't say.


Pleased to hear it. Mind you, google scholar throws up quite a few hits
when 'sexism engineering' is input.


The implication is that - if you are a studying a topic like comp sci,
etc, - that your degree does tend to increase your probable lifetime
earnings. But that for some other topics going to uni and getting a
degree may be likely to reduce them. People deciding what courses to
take, or careers to aim at, might find that of some interest.

Of course you can argue that 'averages' "don't tell you a great deal"
in any (individual) case. If so, then the initial statistic can also
be dismissed. :-)

Personally, I'd stick with my own standard advice to students, etc.
Simply do what you find interesting and find you can do enjoyably
well. But I know that many students are anxious to take degrees that
will give them a good job or career for obvious reasons.

So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic might
be of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing that
with simply getting to work.


It will be of use in some cases, granted.

Indeed. And unless a specific indivudual has relevant evidence to show they
are *not* average in a systematic way, then their best bet is the averages
they can find. That is likely to be so for most in that situation. But for
'some' it will not.


There's plenty of evidence of discrimination on grounds of race, gender,
class, sexuality and disability for example - so that's always going to
skew things. But this all becomes vicious - it'd be daft to dissuade
someone from studying engineering because they're going to face
discrimination when it gets to the job interview.

In most cases that's to do with society and not the subject, of course.
Although as you probably know, study/teachng/research of natural science
has 'gendered moments' according to some ;-) Another topic on an already
OT subject.


Although as I said, I would personally recommend people to do what they
find interesting and find they can do enjoyably well, be that engineering,
bee keeping, or acting. The 'feedback' of being able to make a living (or
not) will then guide them. :-) I always found it was good to have *not*
had any clear and predeterimed 'career' in mind, but to just take up
opportunities that seems worthwhile. These then present themselves
according to what talents and knowledge you have in my experience.

But I know that many students dislike that approach. They want to know 'how
to pass the exam' with minimal learning or understanding of the subjects,
and 'what courses will get me a good job' where 'good' means money and
status, etc.

My oldest brother was an engineer. Came to it via the Fleet Air Arm and
Birkbeck. Did it the hard way. The best advice he ever gave me was, "Choose
a job you enjoy doing. You spend a lot of your life at work. Enjoying your
work can be worth a lot more than money."


Precisely so, couldn't agree more. As the subjects i teach have very
little to do with commercial gain I don't see much money motivation.

But the problem here is that some students may have totally unrealistic
ideas, and take subjects like 'media studies' because they think they will
be the next Jeremy Paxman, etc. One or two may. But the vast bulk will not,
and may find that some other topics would have suited them better *both*
for getting a job, *and* for jobs they eventually find they enjoy.


I have to accept the strong possibility that some students do media
studies because it's the only course they could get on. Not so sure
about 'vast bulk' though.

I think media is fascinating: snippet news generation, Sky, Wikipedia,
film/violence, commercial vs state media, even boutique hifi mags.
What's all that little lot about? And waht's all this twitter-blog? I
think it's crucial we have people who can not only describe our media,
but have the skills to analyse and evaluate.

Rob