Uni Scam Degrees

[Sine]

I think your title is a bit extreme but the sentiment is correct. Given the popularity of doing medicine and the common misconception that biomed or science is the best pathway to graduate entry medicine, there are far too many graduates who miss out on medicine and compete for the very few medical research places, generally requiring a PhD and having very little job security due to short contracts.

I don’t have any hard stats but I’d be surprised if any more than 20% of the Melbourne biomed cohort went on to the Melbourne MD program.

generally 30-35% from UoM biomed get into MD @ UoM one year it was 43%( i have stats presented on UoM open day) probably a lower percentage get in elsewhere. 5% go to DDS, 10-20% and another 5% go to optometry/phsyio. All percentages are UoM biomed undergrad to UoM postgrad from the total number of students. However, UoM is increasing biomed places so on average academic quality of students is dropping so a lower percentage will get it in the future but in the end this doesn't change what occurs to the median-->strong academic students in the cohort the real problem lies in the bottom quartile who are stuck for options.

[The Special One]

@Sine

I know 30-35% seems good but Melbourne uni has the highest clearly in for biomed period with a clearly in of 95. That's a very high ATAR needed  really so called weak students can be one of the brightest in the state but still don't get in. Imagine the stats for those who get in to biomed at a uni with a lower clearly in. Would be much lower.

As many  students are in debt by then they can be reluctant to take up another degree and can be stuck in dead end jobs which isn't good for he economy and a waste of their talents really.

I strongly believe that if students want to outside med and don't get in with direct entry they should study for the GAMSAT in their own time and do their best in another degree like engineering or accounting which has room for career progression and old financial security.

[Bri MT]

@Sine

I know 30-35% seems good but Melbourne uni has the highest clearly in for biomed period with a clearly in of 95. That's a very high ATAR needed  really so called weak students can be one of the brightest in the state but still don't get in. Imagine the stats for those who get in to biomed at a uni with a lower clearly in. Would be much lower.

As many  students are in debt by then they can be reluctant to take up another degree and can be stuck in dead end jobs which isn't good for he economy and a waste of their talents really.

I strongly believe that if students want to outside med and don't get in with direct entry they should study for the GAMSAT in their own time and do their best in another degree like engineering or accounting which has room for career progression and old financial security.

Accounting isn't the career it used to be fyi. Automation and overseas work has reduced the amount of jobs available

[The Special One]

i know that book keeping is gradually being  outsourced and automated.

But taxation accountants should sill be in demand right? Both Corporate  and Private.

I can't see tbat being automated anytime soon but I can be wrong more and more people are doing their own taxes 

[Sine]

@Sine

I know 30-35% seems good but Melbourne uni has the highest clearly in for biomed period with a clearly in of 95. That's a very high ATAR needed  really so called weak students can be one of the brightest in the state but still don't get in. Imagine the stats for those who get in to biomed at a uni with a lower clearly in. Would be much lower.

As many  students are in debt by then they can be reluctant to take up another degree and can be stuck in dead end jobs which isn't good for he economy and a waste of their talents really.

I strongly believe that if students want to outside med and don't get in with direct entry they should study for the GAMSAT in their own time and do their best in another degree like engineering or accounting which has room for career progression and old financial security.

not sure if you've kept track with clearly in's but 95 for UoM is very low in comparison to past years 98-99. Anyway I  only tend to think UoM/Monash are appropriate if you think you will excel and not just if you reached the cutoff. I also do agree that in the other lower clearly in unis it is a bit of a money grab from misinformed students but then again I don't know everyone's reasons to do a certain degree or go to a certain uni.

[Bri MT]

i know that book keeping is gradually being  outsourced and automated.

But taxation accountants should sill be in demand right? Both Corporate  and Private.

I can't see tbat being automated anytime soon but I can be wrong more and more people are doing their own taxes 

So not to go into too much of a side tangent from the original post but..

people are developing increasingly better software which reduces the amount of positions available due to that work not having to be done by a person.
Additionally, it is cheaper to use offshore workers as they don't need to be paid as much, which further reduces the number of positions available here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are no jobs in accounting - but the field has changed and people shouldn't walk into it blindly due to outdated notions of what it is or what it provides.

What is becoming increasingly important for people who DO want to work in tax is communication skills and being able to interpret the law.

[Vaike]

I'm a bit confused as to what the point you're trying to convey is. From what I understand, the main message you're trying to convey is that science has poor job prospects if you're expecting a job in science, and that biomed is risky as it is difficult to gain entry medicine? Honestly, despite being a BSc student myself, I think these points are valid and generally correct (apart from the overtly hyperbolic, clickbaity title); its nice to see the citing of sources and I can tell you've put quite a lot of thought into what you have to say. But I'm not sure that it's worth the weight you've placed on it either.

I'm also not so sure that I agree with the inferences that you're making with the statistics provided, and with what I think your contention is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you're suggesting that people should steer away from science because:

it's evident that a bachelor of science is awful for jobs. Not just awful but the lowest across the board, much lower than Arts.

I don't think this is a logical conclusion to draw from the fact that:

The vast majority of science graduates have found work unrelated to any science fields they studied. Moreover the vast majority of science grads go back to commence further study in the hopes of landing a job.

I had a look through the links you supplied, and couldn't find anything to confirm that 'the vast majority of science grads go back to commence further study", so I'm unsure as to whether this is speculation or fact (let me know if I missed anything). The way in which the science graduates end up landing jobs in a diverse range of fields could also simply be interpreted as a testament to not the knowledge science graduates are left with, but to their problem solving and critical thinking skills developed over the course of their degree, which allows them to pursue jobs in a variety of areas, not being limited to simply the area they chose to undertake study. Also, I think its worth noting a few of those articles are from 2013, which was 5 years ago, it would be interesting to see a more recent take.

but research has been dead in Australia for a while.

I don't know if you have any evidence to support this, but from my observations over the last few years I'm not sure this is true. From what I've seen, there is quite a lot of medical research in Australia and iirc, the Australian Government recently announced the formation of a national space program; I'd suggest there would be a fair bit of R&D involved in such an undertaking. Personally, I haven't done any research on the numbers surrounding this, but I do think it's unfair for you to call an industry 'dead' without any evidence.

However, I think perhaps what I disagree with most in your post is the fact that students should be selecting degrees based on job prospects. Picking a degree based on job prospects is, in my view, one of the worst ways possible to select a degree. I could write an entire essay on this, but I'll try to keep it short. Picking a degree you are not 100% invested into because it has great job prospects will probably lead to a difficult university experience due to not being engaged with what's being taught, which could result in you putting less effort into studying, networking and really making the most of your degree. Going up against people who love the degree they're studying and are 100% invested makes the difference even more stark. It'll be easier for them to put in the effort, natural for them to attempt to network, and eager to impress employers for a job they're really keen to do.

Besides, so many jobs that exist now might not exist in four years, and there will be so many jobs in four years existing that don't exist today. Instead, I personally think the decision should be based on interests and general career aspirations, not one based on what one will make getting a job 'easier' as a result of higher demand.

I'm sure this information may suprise many of you as it's swept under the rug unless students go out of their way to research it for themselves. But going by information from grad stats as well as numerous other statistics...

I think I'm rambling now so I'll just end with this. I do understand your interpretation that most science students don't directly end up in science, but don't think it's fair to assume this information would surprise most students, and I know that it's not fair paint the image statistics supply as black or white. I know that for me at least, I'm pursuing science because I love it, and do see potential jobs in it down the line. I'd love to hear from other students too, but high demand of a degree isn't a primary motivator for everyone. Furthermore, statistics provide us with information to help us reach conclusions; they're tools for us to use and interpret meaning from. Hence, I'd be hesitant to suggest that these stats 'show' or 'prove' any contention without interpretation of what they are really showing. They certainly bear meaning, but they are merely one of countless factors that must be considered by a student considering which degree to undertake.

Note: Sorry for the mini-essay, I'm just really passionate about this topic, and really wanted to get another viewpoint out there.

[rosecookiie]

I agree that it is important for people to do their own research about what a Bachelor of Science/Biomed entails in terms of job prospects, however I think it is equally important for people to follow their interests and passions as well. As Vaike said, high demand of a degree isn't a primary motivator for everyone. As a student heading into their first year of the bachelor of science, I can say that for me personally, it seemed like the only natural choice. I was always interested in science, and I felt that pursuing this degree would allow me to hone in on my interests and discover what really fascinates and intrigues me. Now I don't mean to get all inspirational and all, and you can call me an idealist, but as Steve Jobs said, you've got to find what you love. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work.

[The Special One]

I agree that people should do what they love but to an extent. If someone loves biology, loves maths why not become a high school biology teacher or a maths teacher?

The  pay is good and you will have a stable job teaching your passion.

I don't like to use the word compromise. But I think we need to sometimes put our needs ahead of our wants and indeed compromise and make do with the reality of the situation.

One of my points was yes you csn love science but if you check the career outcomes 70+ percent of people say they work in a field unrelated to what they studied. Checking the listed career outcomes on a uni page for a bachelor of science doesn't scream science either it has jobs such as data analyst

For the posts above I'll post the links here. What I say isn't an assumption it's true the vast majority of science grads commence further study when they cannot find a job.

I had more sources but can't find them right now it's not so much a readily available statistic. I'll look for my 100 page PDF on graduate statistics tomorrow.

https://futurestudents.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2343687/Science.pdf

https://ojs.deakin.edu.au/index.php/jtlge/article/download/571/566


EDIT

People may say well those stats only show 72% of science grads commenced further study not that they were dissstisfied with their careers or job prospects.

While that may be true put it this way. You found your dream job why would you commence further study? It's expensive, non CSP supported and time consuming.

I imagine some would of course totally normal but if the number of students is the set majority then something must be wrong.

I have nothing against science students or the degree, I only went to clear up some misconceptions and spur students to do their own research on what every degree entails.

I'm not here to say science is bad don't do it but if you have a passion for science know theirs other more secure options and to think long term not just short term.

Basically consider a plan b if plan a Isn't working out 

[Quantum44]

generally 30-35% from UoM biomed get into MD @ UoM one year it was 43%( i have stats presented on UoM open day) probably a lower percentage get in elsewhere. 5% go to DDS, 10-20% and another 5% go to optometry/phsyio. All percentages are UoM biomed undergrad to UoM postgrad from the total number of students. However, UoM is increasing biomed places so on average academic quality of students is dropping so a lower percentage will get it in the future but in the end this doesn't change what occurs to the median-->strong academic students in the cohort the real problem lies in the bottom quartile who are stuck for options.

Maybe when biomed was a course requiring an ATAR of 99+, this was the case. But now with 900 people competing for 250 CSPs with all the other science/biomed students across the country doing the GAMSAT, the prospects for the average biomed student are not great.

[blasonduo]

I guess I'll put my 2 cents in.

I agree that people should do what they love but to an extent. If someone loves biology, loves maths why not become a high school biology teacher or a maths teacher?

The  pay is good and you will have a stable job teaching your passion.

You can't make an assumption like that. I know many people who are very interested in biology, wanting to do fieldwork and research/analysing results, but never in their lives would they want to teach. They know their communication and teaching skills aren't good and they know the responsibilities that teachers require, such as being able to mentor and be a role model, not just to teach. Teaching science and doing science are almost 2 completely unrelated jobs.

Checking the listed career outcomes on a uni page for a bachelor of science doesn't scream science either it has jobs such as data analyst

This really rang some alarm bells in my head, because a huge part of science is being able to analyze and interpret data given to them and to use critical thinking to look at data or trends and to conclude new things from it. This is what science education is pushing. To say that a data analyst does not scream a "sciencey" job, in my opinion, is really wrong, the skills and requirements to be a data analyst screams a sciencey person. Maybe you can argue that this job isn't what many people wanted, but that is very arguable, heaps of people love it.

[Sine]

Maybe when biomed was a course requiring an ATAR of 99+, this was the case. But now with 900 people competing for 250 CSPs with all the other science/biomed students across the country doing the GAMSAT, the prospects for the average biomed student are not great.

Basically what i said in the 2nd half of my statement

[Quantum44]

Basically what i said in the 2nd half of my statement

I was just reaffirming my reasoning as to why it will probably have a conversion rate of at most 20% with the current first year cohort despite the higher rates in previous years.

[The Special One]

I guess I'll put my 2 cents in.

You can't make an assumption like that. I know many people who are very interested in biology, wanting to do fieldwork and research/analysing results, but never in their lives would they want to teach. They know their communication and teaching skills aren't good and they know the responsibilities that teachers require, such as being able to mentor and be a role model, not just to teach. Teaching science and doing science are almost 2 completely unrelated jobs.

Yes but biology field jobs and research jobs are extremely rare. So many students do a bachelor of science and not all of them will get to work in the field or become a marine biologist that's the reality.

When people do Engineering the job prospects are good enough they can expect to become engineers and it happens.

When you study a bachelor of science you can expect  to work in the field but chances are slim.

And if you don't get that well people need to eat and bills have to be paid is brushing up on those communication and teaching skills may not be a bad idea.


This really rang some alarm bells in my head, because a huge part of science is being able to analyze and interpret data given to them and to use critical thinking to look at data or trends and to conclude new things from it. This is what science education is pushing. To say that a data analyst does not scream a "sciencey" job, in my opinion, is really wrong, the skills and requirements to be a data analyst screams a sciencey person. Maybe you can argue that this job isn't what many people wanted, but that is very arguable, heaps of people love it.

Market analyst is what data analyst entails not sicnecy data if you catch my drift.

Journalist, policy advisor and quality control are other career outcomes from a bachelor of science.

Most of these you wouldn't associate with science.

Of course grads do these jobs because a bachelor of science teaches those skills like analysing data at which you've stated.

And is part of a unis marketing.

[Bri MT]

Market analyst is what data analyst entails not sicnecy data if you catch my drift.

Journalist, policy advisor and quality control are other career outcomes from a bachelor of science.

Most of these you wouldn't associate with science.

Of course grads do these jobs because a bachelor of science teaches those skills like analysing data at which you've stated.

And is part of a unis marketing.

Not sure about others but I, for one, would actually associate those career outcomes with science. Given that universities advertise these as potential outcomes I'm not sure what your issue with this is.