It isn't just about specific relevant degrees, but a question of job level.

In the 1990s and earlier, one would undertake a degree, possibly in a strictly academic discipline such as history or philosophy, and, if one didn't then enter academia, one might (for example) join a Graduate Training Programme at a big company or the Civil Service, and become a management consultant, strategic analyst, policy advisor, or some other such position that is considered to require the kind of intellectual rigour that is supposed to be evidenced by achieving a degree. i.e. a "graduate level" position. Politics and Philosophy is exactly the kind of degree that such positions used to crave.

Now, such people are becoming bartenders, receptionists and estate agents, jobs that would historically have been occupied by those with little or no post-16 education.

I have no idea of the ratio of graduates of vocational vs academic degrees, but given the number of non-vocational degrees available, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of graduates have "jobless" degrees.

Also, given that the banking sector seems to be hoovering up graduates in numerate disciplines, and that a PhD is now often the entry requirement for Bench Science jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of (e.g) Chemistry graduates are going into finance for big bucks now, instead of taking on a further 3-4 years of low wages to get the qualifications to start a relevant career.

I find the level of scorn that is nowadays placed on non-STEM pure academic degrees interesting, as though anything other than vocational education is a waste of time. When I was an undergraduate, it was shortly after all the polytechnics became universities. At that time scorn was mostly heaped upon all the new vocational degrees.

On one hand, I do think that graduates entering long term employment as bartenders have good reason to feel cheated. But, I'm not entirely sure how to think about this on the macro level.

One way is that in the 90s most bartenders were high school educated. We as a society and they spent a lot of time and money educating them to University level for no reason. Bartending demands haven't change much. Taking that further though, a generation prior most bartenders were primary educated and that worked too. If we keep rolling back to illiterate bartenders we probably hit a point where the education is actually useful. You're better off to a literate bartender, but it seems like the 0-marginal-return-on-education for a bartender line was crossed before University.

If everyone is to be University educated (the trend leads here), then we'll either have no bartenders or university educated bartenders.

^Obviously, there was always a mix of education levels among bartenders. I'm talking about trends and volume.

>The rest of the article is just "I did a stupid degree and didn't get a job!"

I agree that the examples in the article aren't great. I think "I did a stupid degree and didn't get a job!" is a bit unfair.

In my state-run sixth form college (age 16-18 in the UK) all students were encouraged to go to university. But unfortunately, and I think wrongly, many were encouraged to study subjects which required both exceptional talent and luck to end up working in the field, e.g. music technology, fine art, and photography. Fair enough if they want to do it for personal reasons, but a lot of people were sold university courses (by further and higher ed institutions) as a way into a careers that don't really exist or very few in number.

>Two of the three degrees are jobless anyway

>The rest of the article is just "I did a stupid degree and didn't get a job!"

This is interesting in itself. Why do people spend so much time and money on something like that?

The town planner was unlucky. Not much can be done about that.

The 'politics and philosophy guy' says he was misled. He does not say his age, but I bet he was young and immature when he chose his mayor.

The conservation biologist says she wanted to work in something that helps people and not just make money. If she had given half of the money she used to study biology to whichever organization she hoped would hire her, she would have saved money, time, and would have helped more.

The article doesn't really give an answer, but it raises an important question.

Note that UK degrees don't have "majors": you pick a subject at about 17 before you're doing your final "high school"-level exams.

The whole thing is probably fallout from the Blairite changes to the system. It used to be that degrees were free and scarce - limited by academic admissions criteria. They have been changed to widespread and loan-based. People expect them to have the door-opening prestige of the old system and haven't really adapted to them becoming an expensive trade school for the middle class.

The problem isn't so much that they are no longer door-opening, it's rather that not having a degree has become door-closing.

I wonder if that's really true.

I understand that nobody wants to do the experiment with their own lives, but if you can realize that there are competent people who aren't getting hired because they lack college degrees, surely employers will realize that too.

Would they leave money on the table like that?

> Why do people spend so much time and money on something like that?

Probably because it makes them feel unique and special. It's a badge they can wear that sets them apart. Nobody really advertises that they're getting a History/Literature or CompSci/Engineering (or some other dime-a-dozen major) degree without being prompted, but I guarantee you that girl that's studying "Oriental Medicine and Horticulture" or that guy that's majoring in "Fermentation Sciences" are going to tell everyone they meet.

Re: conservation biology, Google sent me to Society for Conservation Biology Career Center: http://careers.conbio.org/

The only UK place it seems to be aware of is London, where there is exactly one job within 100 miles.