Tertiary and Continuing Which degrees are useless/useful?

[deeman12]

You don't need to couple it with anything. Do an arts degree, then do some postgraduate study. Takes as long as a law degree, and law is a big slog if you have no interest in being a lawyer.

Christ, it shits me that law courses are full of kids who did well at school, but are only doing the degree just because it makes them 'more employable". It just drives up the entrance mark for people who would genuinely like to practice law, but didn't get the prohibitively high ENTER score.

In terms of general intellectual skills, you won't get anything from law that you can't get from an arts degree. Employers who treat a law degree as some hoop to be jumped through, or as proof of intelligence, deserve a bullet.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor an arts graduate.

In Victoria it will take you six years all up if you do law post-grad. It'll take an undergrad 5 years to get their double-degree, provided that they don't fail though.

Also have to massively disagree with your last comment. Law is significantly more challenging than your standard Arts subject. It also hones your analytical skills, whereas you can get away with doing nothing in Arts. With that said, law is so unedifying compared to a subject like Anthropology which really tells you something about life and living.

It's a real shame that so many people do law because they don't know what else to do though. Also far too many private school flogs in the course.

 

[yeah_nah]

Also far too many private school flogs in the course.

Far too many of said flogs at university in general.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

currently I am doing a bachelor arts majoring in politics and international affairs. What could post-grade course could I do if I want be involved in policy making or in foreign affairs.

Would honours be any benefit?

 

[J_Moore]

In Victoria it will take you six years all up if you do law post-grad. It'll take an undergrad 5 years to get their double-degree, provided that they don't fail though.

Also have to massively disagree with your last comment. Law is significantly more challenging than your standard Arts subject. It also hones your analytical skills, whereas you can get away with doing nothing in Arts. With that said, law is so unedifying compared to a subject like Anthropology which really tells you something about life and living.

It's a real shame that so many people do law because they don't know what else to do though. Also far too many private school flogs in the course.

I'm not talking about doing law post-grad. I'm talking about doing a standard 2 years masters course.

And law students -especially ones that haven't graduated yet - love to overstate how great their "analytical skills" and argumentative skills are. It's nonsense. It's possible to just skate by an arts degree not doing much, but if you want to do well and consistently pull out HDs and the like, you'll need to write just as clearly and persuasively, and work just as hard, as you'd need to in a law unit.

 

[J_Moore]

currently I am doing a bachelor arts majoring in politics and international affairs. What could post-grade course could I do if I want be involved in policy making or in foreign affairs.

Would honours be any benefit?

Honours would be a massive benefit.

 

[ObaMartins]

Far too many of said flogs at university in general.

That the good thing about having Bond here on the coast.

All the private school ****, self loving ****wits and the sons of oil tycoons all go there, and leave the rest of the Uni's in Brisbane/Gold Coast free of them.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

Honours would be a massive benefit.

In what ways would it be beneficial for the careers I am looking at. They are Policy or Foreign Affairs.

These are of the honour courses offered
Australian-Indonesian relations, Australia and the Anglo-American Alliance, Defence, Intelligence and International Law

Which would be better?

 

[J_Moore]

"Policy making" is pretty broad. What honours or post-grad study you'd do would depend on what policy area you're interested in.

If you're interested in foreign policy, it basically means you're interested in DFAT (maybe a think tank). DFAT regards honours degrees pretty favourably. They demonstrate you can undertake independent, complex research, and can form sustained & coherent arguments.

From their website: "Successful applicants will have a strong record of academic achievement and may have honours, combined or higher degrees."
That basically means is "successful applicants WILL have honours, combined or higher degrees."

If you've done honours in politics/international relations (and done well), you'll be as highly regarded as someone who's done a combined law degree. Despite what deeman was saying earlier in the thread, a law degree isn't a prerequisite to getting a job there (I know several law graduates who didn't get offers, and a couple of non-law grads who did.)

In terms of the courses you listed: they look like coursework-based honours programs. A bit different from the ones I'm familiar with, which were primarily research years, where you determined your own area of study. I'd check with your uni. I can't imagine DFAT would regard one more highly than another, though, at least in terms of applying to the graduate program. You'd probably want to do the one you were most interested in, because that's probably the one you'd do best at, and the one you'd be able to motivate yourself to do the work for when you're left on your own to write a big arse thesis.

 

[Power King]

You don't need to couple it with anything. Do an arts degree, then do some postgraduate study. Takes as long as a law degree, and law is a big slog if you have no interest in being a lawyer.

Christ, it shits me that law courses are full of kids who did well at school, but are only doing the degree just because it makes them 'more employable". It just drives up the entrance mark for people who would genuinely like to practice law, but didn't get the prohibitively high ENTER score.

In terms of general intellectual skills, you won't get anything from law that you can't get from an arts degree. Employers who treat a law degree as some hoop to be jumped through, or as proof of intelligence, deserve a bullet.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor an arts graduate.

What do you expect a high-achieving humanities student finishing year 12 to do if unsure about what he/she wants to do with their career?

If faced with the option of law or arts, the intelligent thing to do would be to choose the degree that will allow for greater employment prospects in the future. They should not give a **** because someone else has a passion to do law yet does not have what it takes to gain entry into the degree compared to him/herself. "Oh, right, other people have more passion to practice law than me, so I'll just let them take my place in the degree so that I can have lesser employment prospects in the future". You'd be a damn right naive fool to think like this.

If you're going to respond with the argument that an arts degree can offer as much (if not more) than law, then keep in mind that if you're a humanities student doing well in high school such that you could be accepted into law, then chances are you're going to be accepted into a law double degree (with arts for example) anyway.

 

[J_Moore]

Hey, I'm not placing the blame for this situation at the foot of school kids (although it's ****ing weird that most of them can't imagine anything more for the future than "must get goodest job"). It's mostly the fault of employers who treat a law degree like some special test, and devalue a general Arts/Commerce/Science degree.

But it does **** things up for people who'd like to practice law, but didn't do amazingly well at school. That's not an unreasonable concern. Imagine if companies or government departments started treating medical degrees the same way?

Not that there's a shortage of lawyers, but y'know.

It's just an absurd situation we've arrived at. Generalist degrees are treated with scorn by employers and the general population alike, as if they're a piss of piss. They might be to pass, sometimes, but never to do well in.

And what should be a professional qualification is turned into some bizarre general aptitude test.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

"Policy making" is pretty broad. What honours or post-grad study you'd do would depend on what policy area you're interested in.

If you're interested in foreign policy, it basically means you're interested in DFAT (maybe a think tank). DFAT regards honours degrees pretty favourably. They demonstrate you can undertake independent, complex research, and can form sustained & coherent arguments.

From their website: "Successful applicants will have a strong record of academic achievement and may have honours, combined or higher degrees."
That basically means is "successful applicants WILL have honours, combined or higher degrees."

If you've done honours in politics/international relations (and done well), you'll be as highly regarded as someone who's done a combined law degree. Despite what deeman was saying earlier in the thread, a law degree isn't a prerequisite to getting a job there (I know several law graduates who didn't get offers, and a couple of non-law grads who did.)

In terms of the courses you listed: they look like coursework-based honours programs. A bit different from the ones I'm familiar with, which were primarily research years, where you determined your own area of study. I'd check with your uni. I can't imagine DFAT would regard one more highly than another, though, at least in terms of applying to the graduate program. You'd probably want to do the one you were most interested in, because that's probably the one you'd do best at, and the one you'd be able to motivate yourself to do the work for when you're left on your own to write a big arse thesis.

Yeah thanks for that. That was the kind of department I was looking in getting into. Immigration and Citzenship was another department that interested me too. After looking through the honours offered I think I might aim for Defence.

 

[Power King]

...

But it does **** things up for people who'd like to practice law, but didn't do amazingly well at school. That's not an unreasonable concern. Imagine if companies or government departments started treating medical degrees the same way?

...

And what should be a professional qualification is turned into some bizarre general aptitude test.

Good points and I agree.

 

[Rioli magic]

It's mostly the fault of employers who treat a law degree like some special test, and devalue a general Arts/Commerce/Science degree.

But it does **** things up for people who'd like to practice law, but didn't do amazingly well at school.

Unless I've mis-read something allowing students who don't do well at school to do a Law degree will significantly devalue it. Law is not really an industry for people who struggle in school but are interested nonetheless. University is as much about teaching people how to think as it is teaching someone actual things, doing well in a law degree does tick this box and employers know it. Students who battle through school either lack commitment and discipline or are not up to it intellectually. Doing an Arts degree is no indication that you're not these things or that you're capable of making decisions in alot of employers eyes. If you're so keen on doing Law and can't get in you should take another course like commerce or management, nail the 1st year and transfer/pick up the double - X/Law degree.

 

[Isandula]

I say choose a degree that has a variety of options available and units to choose from or that could be me....dont do just plain old Bachelor of Science, its stupid I found out and changed to BNEWS (Bachelor of Natural Environment and Wilderness Studies), huge range of units, can pick and choose to specialise in an area and the job opportunities look prime, especially for Tassie.

If anything, mind you this is more pointed at the Tas population, don't become an ordinary teacher....theres like way more people who graduate than there are jobs. Thats unless you wont to move.

 

[Hollow Knight]

currently I am doing a bachelor arts majoring in politics and international affairs. What could post-grade course could I do if I want be involved in policy making or in foreign affairs.

Would honours be any benefit?

Political Science/Public Policy dual-major here... just accepted a graduate policy role in a QLD government department.

I was eligible for honours but decided to forego it in order to just get into the workforce. It's a hard slog to get into government policy work at the moment and I consider myself pretty lucky that I got this job. Was starting to regret not doing honours but now that I am in with the govt, they will be subsidising any future study I do.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Unless I've mis-read something allowing students who don't do well at school to do a Law degree will significantly devalue it. Law is not really an industry for people who struggle in school but are interested nonetheless. University is as much about teaching people how to think as it is teaching someone actual things, doing well in a law degree does tick this box and employers know it. Students who battle through school either lack commitment and discipline or are not up to it intellectually. Doing an Arts degree is no indication that you're not these things or that you're capable of making decisions in alot of employers eyes. If you're so keen on doing Law and can't get in you should take another course like commerce or management, nail the 1st year and transfer/pick up the double - X/Law degree.

This, this & this. You wouldn't want someone who battles through HS operating on you because they really want to practice medicine but just didn't get the TER to get into the degree.

You wouldn't want to stake your freedom/financial future/child's custody on someone who wasn't intellectually up to it.

FWIW the sector is already saturated with law grads. The TER's should be pushed further up.

 

[TheSaviour]

Law degrees can be done online now. It's the new commerce.

 

[Power King]

This, this & this. You wouldn't want someone who battles through HS operating on you because they really want to practice medicine but just didn't get the TER to get into the degree.

You wouldn't want to stake your freedom/financial future/child's custody on someone who wasn't intellectually up to it.

FWIW the sector is already saturated with law grads. The TER's should be pushed further up.

Agree 150%.

 

[J_Moore]

This, this & this. You wouldn't want someone who battles through HS operating on you because they really want to practice medicine but just didn't get the TER to get into the degree.

You wouldn't want to stake your freedom/financial future/child's custody on someone who wasn't intellectually up to it.

FWIW the sector is already saturated with law grads. The TER's should be pushed further up.

I don't think you guys understand how TERs/ATAR cutoffs work. They're not set by the university, and they're no indication of how difficult a course is. They're purely determined by supply and demand. At they're moment, they're very high because an enormous proportion of kids who do very, very well at high school (we're talking top 1% type of thing) go into a law degree, often because they believe it will help them in a non-law career.

If law courses had a lower entry mark, it would either mean that more places are created (which is not what I'm advocating), or that less high-end year 12 kids are applying (which is what I think should probably happen).

The content of the courses themselves don't necessarily change in response. It doesn't suddenly become easier to pass the degree. Your law graduates are just as educated when they finish as they were before, and all the old indicators of performance still apply.

Your arguments also rest on this weird assumption that someones year 12 results are the best indicator of someone's intelligence or professional aptitude. I would say that is very much not the case. A law firm is far more interested in how you went in your law degree, not your HSC.

But there are plenty of people who could do quite well in law at university who are precluded from studying it (at least at major metropolitan unis; here, they all have cutoffs around the 99 mark) because of the very high entry marks out of high school. Your "just transfer" argument isn't a good one either, because transfer applications tend to rely very heavily on high school results, anyway.

Finally, I don't understand when this became about "people who battled through high school" studying law. Was never arguing that, or anything close to that. If you guys are law students, you can't be good ones.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

anyone know any good scholarships in NSW or ACT to apply for? I am aiming to work in teh government somehow. Possibly DFAT or similar.

 

[checkraiseulite]

I don't think you guys understand how TERs/ATAR cutoffs work. They're not set by the university, and they're no indication of how difficult a course is. They're purely determined by supply and demand. At they're moment, they're very high because an enormous proportion of kids who do very, very well at high school (we're talking top 1% type of thing) go into a law degree, often because they believe it will help them in a non-law career.

If law courses had a lower entry mark, it would either mean that more places are created (which is not what I'm advocating), or that less high-end year 12 kids are applying (which is what I think should probably happen).

The content of the courses themselves don't necessarily change in response. It doesn't suddenly become easier to pass the degree. Your law graduates are just as educated when they finish as they were before, and all the old indicators of performance still apply.

Your arguments also rest on this weird assumption that someones year 12 results are the best indicator of someone's intelligence or professional aptitude. I would say that is very much not the case. A law firm is far more interested in how you went in your law degree, not your HSC.

But there are plenty of people who could do quite well in law at university who are precluded from studying it (at least at major metropolitan unis; here, they all have cutoffs around the 99 mark) because of the very high entry marks out of high school. Your "just transfer" argument isn't a good one either, because transfer applications tend to rely very heavily on high school results, anyway.

Finally, I don't understand when this became about "people who battled through high school" studying law. Was never arguing that, or anything close to that. If you guys are law students, you can't be good ones.

I understand the supply & demand process for tertiary applications. What I am advocating is a cut the supply of places for law students.

IMO it is unconscionable for places like VU to be offering law degrees and representing that their students have viable futures in the industry. They don't. The content and quality does differ between providers, it's obvious.

You cut the places, the TER goes up. Arguably the quality of the grad's go will go up and there will be less people graduating and being unable to find a job.

What other method do you propose they use to decide between candidates after they have just finished high school? TER's aren't perfect but they are the only realistic option at this stage. It's simplistic, but TER's and intelligence would be pretty closely linked. Admittedly there are lots of people who are very intelligent but lack the motivation/support/commitment to do well in the TER. But a 4/5 year degree will also require motivation/commitment.

Your arguments also rest on the assumption that every 'high-end grad' knows what they want to do as soon as they receive their TER. This is erroneous. 'High-end grads' aren't doing the law degree just because it's expected or fashionable or whatever. How would you implement your system? Just ban people over a certain TER from applying for an LLB?

Law degrees are a viable pathway to a multitude of opportunities, be it career in law, government, academia, business, social work and probably many other industries. That is why high end students who may not necessarily have their minds set on a career in law are doing an LLB.

When you combine that law degree with a commerce/engineering/arts/science degree you expand your opportunities. This is just a no-brainer if you still haven't decided what you want to do. Can you not understand this?

I'm currently doing a commerce/law degree and when I first started I had no idea what I wanted to do, so I selected a course that would give me flexibility and options. I think I've made the correct decision.

If you really want a law degree, put in the effort for more than one semester, do a commerce degree. Ace it. Apply for a JD or an LLB as a mature age student. Your ENTER is irrelevant. You'll get to sit the LSTAT or something similar.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Finally, I don't understand when this became about "people who battled through high school" studying law. Was never arguing that, or anything close to that. If you guys are law students, you can't be good ones.

The basic idea of your posts is that you want to do a law degree, but don't have the TER to do it & that the system needs to be changed etc etc.

You may not have 'battled through highschool' but you don't appear to have met the HS requirements for admission to a law degree either.

DUCY?

 

[J_Moore]

[/B]Your arguments also rest on the assumption that every 'high-end grad' knows what they want to do as soon as they receive their TER. This is erroneous. 'High-end grads' aren't doing the law degree just because it's expected or fashionable or whatever. How would you implement your system? Just ban people over a certain TER from applying for an LLB?

Law degrees are a viable pathway to a multitude of opportunities, be it career in law, government, academia, business, social work and probably many other industries. That is why high end students who may not necessarily have their minds set on a career in law are doing an LLB.

Easy with the bold, tiger. I know all this, and have acknowledged all this. But I don't think you know what my argument is.

My original argument - in fact, my only argument - is that employers (principally banks, government departments and consultancy firms) treating law degrees as an extra-prestigious generalist degree rather than a professional qualification leads to the situation you describe - a number of top achievers at high school doing the degree because it keeps their options open.

I understand why the students do it. But I think the whole situation locks a number of people out of the degree who would be quite capable lawyers, and who would love to practice. Instead, they either miss out on the degree, or end up studying 2nd-rate degrees which, as you point out, often don't really leave them with a whole lot of options on graduating.

And I'm not proposing a systemic change. I never came close to suggesting it. I just said the relative value that people assign to law degrees versus other degrees is, in my opinion, ****ing stupid, and should change.

The basic idea of your posts is that you want to do a law degree, but don't have the TER to do it & that the system needs to be changed etc etc.

You may not have 'battled through highschool' but you don't appear to have met the HS requirements for admission to a law degree either.

Don't worry about me, dude. I had no interest in doing law when I left high school, and I have no interest in doing it now, 8 years later.

I'm currently doing a commerce/law degree...

Disclaimer not needed. Was obvious.

 

[Rioli magic]

But there are plenty of people who could do quite well in law at university who are precluded from studying it (at least at major metropolitan unis; here, they all have cutoffs around the 99 mark) because of the very high entry marks out of high school. Your "just transfer" argument isn't a good one either, because transfer applications tend to rely very heavily on high school results, anyway.

Rubbish. If you average 90's in a business degree, most likely in the same faculty as law, you think the university is going to say "It doesn't matter that our own academics rate this students ability, we will disregard that and base it on what the state high school system thought earlier". Hundreds of students get into a law degree this way who didn't get a high enough TER/ENTER score from HS.

Finally, I don't understand when this became about "people who battled through high school" studying law. Was never arguing that, or anything close to that. If you guys are law students, you can't be good ones.

It was more from a prospective employers point of view, and has nothing to do with law itself. The reason it was brought up was because you said:

But it does **** things up for people who'd like to practice law, but didn't do amazingly well at school.

I said people who don't do well generally lack committment, discipline or intellegence - none of those are of interest to employers, and can generally be ruled out for someone with an LLB.

My original argument - in fact, my only argument - is that employers (principally banks, government departments and consultancy firms) treating law degrees as an extra-prestigious generalist degree rather than a professional qualification leads to the situation you describe - a number of top achievers at high school doing the degree because it keeps their options open.

I agree with what you're saying but why wouldn't these industries want the highest acheiving students? They run a business not goodwill. Correct, you don't need a law degree to work in these fields, they just want the best "thinkers" they can get and will apply the technical skills required. They also employ countless people without law degrees, and every board has people on it with accounting/finance backgrounds.

I understand why the students do it. But I think the whole situation locks a number of people out of the degree who would be quite capable lawyers, and who would love to practice. Instead, they either miss out on the degree, or end up studying 2nd-rate degrees which, as you point out, often don't really leave them with a whole lot of options on graduating.

If you want to do a law degree and are capable there is absolutely nothing stopping you apart from hard work. If you do something like an accounting degree, it has a body like law and is just about the only way you will qualify, and it certainly isn't considered 2nd rate. It's easier to get into than law and has a skill set unlike an arts or even management degree. Completing an accounting or accounting/law degree will not leave you short of options, it just depends on what area of law you're interested in. IMO educating yourself in anything with relevance to society or the workforce will no be a waste. If aquiring a law degree means you have to pick up another degree and spend an extra year or 2 at school is it really such a burden? If you are unable to get the results in the "lesser" degree you shouldn't be doing law anyway.

 

[Power King]

I don't think you guys understand how TERs/ATAR cutoffs work. They're not set by the university, and they're no indication of how difficult a course is. They're purely determined by supply and demand. At they're moment, they're very high because an enormous proportion of kids who do very, very well at high school (we're talking top 1% type of thing) go into a law degree, often because they believe it will help them in a non-law career.

If law courses had a lower entry mark, it would either mean that more places are created (which is not what I'm advocating), or that less high-end year 12 kids are applying (which is what I think should probably happen).

The content of the courses themselves don't necessarily change in response. It doesn't suddenly become easier to pass the degree. Your law graduates are just as educated when they finish as they were before, and all the old indicators of performance still apply.

Your arguments also rest on this weird assumption that someones year 12 results are the best indicator of someone's intelligence or professional aptitude. I would say that is very much not the case. A law firm is far more interested in how you went in your law degree, not your HSC.

But there are plenty of people who could do quite well in law at university who are precluded from studying it (at least at major metropolitan unis; here, they all have cutoffs around the 99 mark) because of the very high entry marks out of high school. Your "just transfer" argument isn't a good one either, because transfer applications tend to rely very heavily on high school results, anyway.

Finally, I don't understand when this became about "people who battled through high school" studying law. Was never arguing that, or anything close to that. If you guys are law students, you can't be good ones.

I did not do law. Anyway, if you look at the vast majority of courses with high TER requirements, yes the demand of the degree is overwhelming, however one must think about why that course is demanded so heavily in the first place. You cannot dismiss the degree's difficulty so simply. The demand is largely influenced by the attractiveness of the career offered at the end of the road, and the attractiveness has much to do with financial prospects (as well as so many other aspects, but why wouldn't an academic achiever want to be financially stable?). Why are financial prospects often good? Because in the real world, these careers require intelligent people (employers are going to want the best thinkers from those available), and so these people are going to be rewarded financially well because they are going to perform better at the required tasks (that are difficult in nature anyway) than people that are less intelligent than themselves (I realise this sounds elitist). It only makes sense to give places to those that are more likely to understand the material better. That's not to say that people that didn't get into the degree wouldn't be able to succeed, but when you're presented with limited places, then why wouldn't you choose the students that have a stronger guarantee of being able to understand the subject matter.

There are degrees with lower entry requirements that are still difficult, however I believe the argument made earlier was to do with degrees with higher entry requirements, not lower.

Why should less year 12 kids that exceed academically apply for law? Academic performance and intelligence always has been and always should be the main discriminating factor when it comes to selecting students for entry. What is your suggestion? There are a limited number of places in say a law degree with an entry requirement of 99 for example. It would be ludicrous to give it to the students who 'want' it the most, because then we'd be seeing students with TER's in the 60's making it in. Goodwill is important, but it is simply false to say that students that do not meet the entry requirements have more good will than those that do meet the requirements. I am genuinely interested in what you propose should happen.

Obviously, a changing entry requirement doesn't alter the difficulty of the degree, however based on this decade, entry requirements only ever differ by a couple of points at the most from year to year anyway. Your classic degrees generally tend to stay the same, although you will see cases of degrees changing significantly because of a marked increase in their demand (eg mining engineering) because of the nature of the industry at that time.

As for professional aptitude, I think it's silly to suggest that a high school kid's professional aptitude can be judged so accurately for a career that he/she will be entering in over 5 years time. This is where work experience, interviews, life experience comes into play, but in my opinion these are more accurately determined in adulthood (ie 18+) rather than in the high school years. Academic performance will still be looked at in your high school years (ie TER) and obviously in adulthood (18+, whilst you're at uni).

At the end of the day, if someone wants to study a degree that they couldn't get in to after high school, there will almost always be a way into it post-graduate or via transfer - if you are willing to put in the hard yards. In my opinion, there is no use complaining about a system that you cannot change. "Control the controllable" - Brendon Goddard