entries.
BA humbug - the perils of an arts degree
Sunday, 18 April 2010 @ 18:23
So, I'm working away at my revision (or not - despite a large coffee I just can't seem to be able to get through another Shakespeare edition today) and I was reminded of a conversation I had last night with my flatmate and my girlfriend. My flatmate asked my girlfriend what letters Social Anthropology would leave her after her degree. Because it's one of those peculiar bridge degrees, which doesn't really sit absolutely happily in either camp, she got to choose, and she chose a B.Sc. My housmate then went on to approve of her decision, and to describe the hierarchy of the degrees in the UK. It goes, according to him, as follows: BA (Third); BA (2:2); BA (2:1); BA (First)....*big gap*...BSc (Third); BSc (2:2)...etc.etc.

Now, obviously my housemate was speaking in jest, but as I said at the time, his little titter at my expense isn't entirely unfounded, at least in terms of the perception of degrees. Which seems a little unfair to me, given that there are a number of subjects (Geography also springs to mind) where students can choose their degree awarded purely on a whim - there are no requirements one way or the other. Despite being a BA student, I have to admit, I think my girlfriend made the right choice - a BSc does certainly seem to hold more sway with Joe Bloggs than a BA. But how can that be, especially given that the difference in some cases is literally non-existent.

Well, I'm going to be a bit cheap here and say that it's not just one cause- the devaluation of the BA degree is a complicated thing, and not really attributable to one event. But I think it's fair to say that Labour's education policies (not in themselves a bad thing) are primarily responsible.

When Labour got into power in 1997 (gosh that seems a long time ago) they got in on the ticket of 'Education, education, education.' A drive to get 50% of school leavers into Higher Education has meant that Labour created a much-enlarged HE sector (in terms of undergraduates), and HEI's (higher education institutes) naturally accomodated for this with the introduction of additional courses, and greater capacity on existing courses. Which is all fine and dandy.

HOWEVER. A few things have changed, and I think these very short term changes have, when put in conjunction with the increased number of undergraduates entering HEI's are essentially the cause for the popular denigration of the BA. The first major blow was tuition fees. Tuition fees, and the argument which surrounded (and still surrounds - I think everyone is well prepared for a nigh on inevitable increase) actually brought into the spotlight the issue of whether students should pay for university. Previously, this had just been unquestioned, though it is with some frustration that current students find themselves treated to statements about their degree's worth, and how they ought to be contributing to it, by politicians who were gifted with a degree gratuit. When the issue came to light, there was a certain reevaluation of the relative value of the (still very substantial) subsidisation of degrees by the government. This reevaluation (particuarly during our recent recession) has put a lot of the anti-intellectual's backs up - claiming that students do nothing for three years, get essentially free grants for further drug/drink abuse, and then totter off with a useless 2:2 in a useless subject from a useless university. Sound like hyperbole? Well, here's a snippet from a comment section on a recent article on the Guardian Higher Education's website. The story, 'NUS elects new president who opposes fees hike', generated the following response from one user:

from PaulBowes01:

For those of you who think this is harsh, I'll change my opinion when I see a senior NUS figure describe students as so many of them are to those of us who don't depend on their good opinion - lazy, cosseted and financially irresponsible - rather than as the 'hard-working, poverty-stricken' victims of NUS mythology and their own endlessly self-indulgent adolescent fantasies. Sadly, from his published comments I suspect that Aaron Porter isn't the man break the mould.

So, there is definitely anger in the community, at least from some, who feel that students are essentially a waste of money for very little return. But that rather covers all degrees. BA's are struck especially hard for a number of reasons.

1. BA's are much easier than BSc's

Itself a fairly useless comment, given how the cases of Social Anthropology (sorry Anna!) and Geography remind us how arbitrary degree post-nominals are. The view stems partly from the fact that BA's do not cover 'proper' subjects. Fewer contact hours, a less visible / quantifiable style of learning and assessment come into this. Also compounding this is the invovement of former polytechnics, and increased course subscriptions due to Labour's 50% benchmark. Teaching is far cheaper than funding research (just ask HEFCE!), and so many of the additional courses, or expanded courses offered to the increased influx of undergraduates, especially at former polytechnics, which tend to be more teaching orientated than research orientated, take the form of BA's. Some members of the public view these degrees as useless, or a waste of time. I have my own gripes against certain courses, and paticularly Labour's 50% drive, but this is more about making sure students understand their employability prospects when thinking about going into such a debt-heavy thing as university. Incidentally, I might add, it's often the former poly's that do best in employability, so that's not a finger pointing at them, more a wish the government was a little bit more transparent with students over the relative merits of university, rather than selling it as a must have.

I have a bit of a problem with people who make this distinction, as it seems to me the very rhetoric of ignorance (see the BNP's listed education policies on their website: "- The abolition of fees and the restoration of full grants to university students studying proper subjects (as opposed to fake “social sciences”);"

2. BA's don't lead to any jobs

Well, in some senses undeniable - there arn't many posts which require a BA in Gender Studies, in the same way that a lawyer needs, well, a law degree (although even this isn't quite true). But this myth comes from a bizarre inflexibility from the public about the value of degrees. It seems odd to me that people can even think that a degree ought to fit cleanly with a profession as a kind of funnel-in. Not many chemists end up doing chemistry, and yet for some reason, because there is a potential career path there, regardless of how likely that path will be trodden, it equates to a more useful degree. The vast majority of graduate jobs don't require any specific degree.

Labour hasn't exactly helped the BA's cause though. In light of the recession, Labour, and particularly the snorting piglet of entitlement Mandelson, Vice Lord Admiral of seemingly every weak-wristed department in the Government, have felt compelled to show people how they are funding STEM (science, technology, engineering, maths/medicine) degrees. Because, like the BNP, they believe those are 'proper' degrees. It makes sense in some ways, we should capitalise on the potential for entrepeunerial and innovative outlets from universities. But this shouldn't come at the expense of an arts programme which is equally world-class, and equally important to the country. Think about Britain's role in in the creative media industry for example. From ringfencing funding to UCAS spaces, the Government has felt compelled to support sciences in a way they simply refuse to for the arts. Now, in a way, I don't expect anything else. We are in a recession, and someone has to take the fall. But what I do resent is someone like Mandelson making the suggestion, with empty lipservice about conserving the arts, but....I don't really trust how far forward Mandelson can think when it comes to HE policy, he seems entirely at the whims of the masses. If you need any example of that, look to the 2 year degree courses he's championing, which won't be recognized in Europe because of the Bologna process, and are more expensive for universities to provide, as well as there being evidence that students need those three years to complete their intellectual development. Nice one Mandy, with your sling-shot policy.

That;s all I have to say on the matter, except that, in all honesty, I can only see BA's falling still further int he public's opinion. Sigh. I wrote a more opinionated, commenty piece for London Student here. The paper is well worth a read - a quality publication, and well above calibre for a student publication. /biased.

Labels: , , ,



quote of the week.

"The circle of human knowledge, illuminated by the pale, cold light of reason, is so infinitesimally small, the dark regions of human ignorance which lie beyond that luminous ring so immeasurably vast, that imagination is feign to step up to the borderline and send the warm, richly colored beams of her fairy lantern streaming out into the darkness ; and so, peering into the gloom, she is apt to mistake the shadowy reflections of her own figure for real beings moving in the abyss.

Sir James George FrazerThe Golden Bough
archives.
miscellany.
The title of this blog comes from a poem by Coleridge, A Wish: Wriiten in Jesus Wood, Feb. 10th, 1792, Plus most blogs are moans anyway. Including this one. lol manuscripts
contact.
about me.
picture.

I'm a 23 year-old student in London Cambridge London, studying English Literature Law. It's hard to really think of anything truly personal I can put here that might give you some idea of who I am, so I will just tell you that my favourite Shakespeare play is Richard II, my favourite chocolate bar is Snickers, and I have a bit of a thing for instant coffee, especially if someone else makes it for me.


I'm interested in Renaissance Literature, Higher Education policy, and libraries.
I'm completely in love with a Scottish girl.