would you like fries with that degree?

[Mich the Tester]

... being taught things directly and being able to ask questions is more powerful than self-study.

...

For some people. But I know people who are self taught and at the very top of their field. James Bach is one of them; he developed and develops the concept of context driven testing and exploratory testing, and wrote a book called the 'buccaneer scholar', which is well worth reading to gain an insight into serious autodidactic learning. Voyage of a Buccaneer-Scholar

I agree on the human interaction part, but that can be found outside formal education systems too.

[d000hg]

Software is a bit of a noddy degree though.

In contrast to CompSci or are you lumping them together?

[minestrone]

In contrast to CompSci or are you lumping them together?

I would say they both are. Never really found computers or languages particularly hard to understand so I struggle to work out how they could make rigorous degrees out of the subjects.

[doodab]

My point was not that a degree turns out a complete worker, but that it turns out someone hireable in that field. If you want to actually work as a chemist/physicist rather than just get a degree and then take a job in an unrelated or tangential field, a plain BSc doesn't really cut it. Whereas a regular Maths/CompSci would - but then Engineering is a whole separate thing nearly as bad as medicine!

I was talking about employers expectations of the education system. In "traditional" subjects it's never been the case that someone with a BSc is the finished article.

It's not true that a maths or comp sci graduate can just start working in the field, a BSc is either a passport to graduate study, or serves much like any other traditional degree and wins you a place on the graduate jobs merry go round. If you get into industry then to end up actually doing that stuff for a living then depending on the profession it's either much the same as law or medicine in that you are still looking at years of additional work post graduation to qualify (an actuary for example might take 6-7 years to become fully qualified after graduating with a maths degree) or much the same as chemistry in that you aren't going to be taken seriously without a graduate degree. You might be able to work as a research assistant and get paid to study while you do it, but the same is true of chemistry if you are in the right place.

[Sysman]

Historically, university was never preparation for work anyway, it was a way for the idle rich to fill their time before inheriting. The increase in people with degrees is simply due to the increased wealth of the less well off segments of society due to capitalism. This is why you don't see people with media studies degrees in North Korea.

Despite their mention of Eaton [sic] and Rugby, this article is from the Yank oersoective:

Universities can’t fulfil the myth, but they can’t become a vocational school either

They claim two purposes for university:

1. to make contacts which will last for years to come
2. to remove the young men from the running of estates and businesses until they are a bit more mature

Interestingly the second one mirrors what so-called primitive tribes do when they take the young lads off somewhere else for a while (separate them from their parents), teach them hunting skills etc and then bring them back into society via an initiation ceremony (cf degree ceremony) as men rather than boys.

For those of us not about to inherit estates to manage or factories to run, in my day the emphasis was a bit different as you hoped to come out of the experience with a bit of paper which would qualify your for entry into a profession. Two things happened at my uni:
[list][*]you learned how to survive on peanuts; I heard it said more than once that uni was designed to take the ambition out of you.[*]if you were "lucky" enough to attend a "top university" they did their best to enforce a respect for the class system status quo on you.
[/url]

[SpontaneousOrder]

You could say that about any degree, since everything taught at degree level is in text books. But most people would not do as well with a reading list, being taught things directly and being able to ask questions is more powerful than self-study.

Even world-renowned academics still like talking to each other and meeting up in person rather than just reading each other's papers. Human interaction is important.

I'd agree. BUT, the important point as far as I'm concerned is that I didn't NEED to in order to get a 2:1 from a decent-ish (I think? UEA) university. So it's hardly surprising that the country is full of numpties with degrees.

To be fair, if I'd spent a little more time on coursework (i.e. not just starting it the night before it was due) I could have gotten the same grade, or better, and have left more clueless when it comes to real-world employability.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I would say they both are. Never really found computers or languages particularly hard to understand so I struggle to work out how they could make rigorous degrees out of the subjects.

Computers & languages have not that much to do with Software Engineering.

[vwdan]

Computers & languages have not that much to do with Software Engineering.

I like the "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes" quote

[doodab]

I would say they both are. Never really found computers or languages particularly hard to understand so I struggle to work out how they could make rigorous degrees out of the subjects.

A large part of Comp Sci is descended from mathematical investigations in the early part of the 20th century, and predates the existence of practical computers and surprisingly little academic comp sci research deals with issues of practical computer or language implementation and usage.

This is one of the big problems with it as a subject for a vocational degree. How to be a computer programmer is not what it's about.

[minestrone]

3 years of the Towers of Hanoi in perl.