Talk:Mickey Mouse degrees

message: I think physcology and law should be added to the a-level list  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel geek (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can't imagine why someone who is even remotely interested in a career in politics or banking would take a degree in surf management, but that isn't really the point... I mean, a degree in econometrics (whatever that is) isn't going to be much good to you if you have your heart set on becoming a surfing instructor. 217.155.20.163 02:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions

message: Hi,
I made the last edits before 81.178.245.238. I agree with most of the edits - and am embarrassed by the errors in English :-) - but shouldn't some reference be made to the role of the media in this term? Or does this prevent a NPOV?
In the UK at least the summer is a very quiet time for news, so talk about Mickey Mouse degrees gives the "Moral outrage" brand of journalism something to talk about. Any media studies people out there know of any work that looks at news cycles, which might be applicable?
80.3.82.107 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More than a year's gone by since you posed the question, so it would seem not. Mind you, I guess they're all pretty busy flipping burgers.Bedesboy 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of Media 

message: The article states :
"One thing these courses share is that they are vocational, whereas degrees have traditionally been in purely academic subjects". I would argue the criticism of these courses is not that they are vocational, it is that they have no perceived academic rigour. There has been a long tradition of erudite vocational courses;  Dentistry, Electronic Engineering, Computing, etc --Ade myers 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason of Criticisms

message: It would be better to use the more general one above. Skinnyweed 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to [[Mickey Mouse subjects]] 

message: Looking through the past edits I see that very recently politics was removed. Well done to whoever did that. Politics is a prestigious subject that has existed for many years, and to group it with subjects like wine studies and surfing is very insulting to politics students. I hope the edit is not reverted. 86.136.152.254
In a scientific and non-dysfunctional society - what possible role does politics have beyond supporting unscientific decision making processes?  This all depends upon how you define politics.  But to say that a politician would be inclined towards making more sound and valid judgements than a scientist is questionable....So in a way, Politics IS a Mickey Mouse subject!!!
:Politicians aren't the ones who study politics... if they did, things would be different. Leushenko (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: Generally, I think that most people would agree that, for example, courses in the Hard Sciences both develop common sense and, even if such courses didn't result in profitable careers, they would probably be worthwhile in and of themselves.  The article provides examples of Mickey Mouse degrees – but does not why they might be Mickey Mouse degrees (of course, they don't help improve human living standards in any real or concrete way).  People could argue that the 
sheer waste of human and capital resources that some “Mickey Mouse” degrees are associated with should be made illegal.  I was especially shocked by the statement that there are “43 times as many Media Studies students in higher education as there are jobs available in the media annually”.  Then why on earth does Higher Education both funding such degrees?  
  
Perhaps counter-examples to Mickey Mouse degrees could be provided also.  Explaining why Mathematics and Physics AREN'T Mickey Mouse degrees would be a good idea.  For example, some people would call String Theory a Mickey Mouse subject as it probably has no direct application to real life, and some scientists even go so far as to state that String Theory isn't Science – yet most people wouldn't state that String Theory is a Mickey Mouse subject.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to explain why some specialisms are a lesser waste of time than are others (there seem to be issues concerning the scientific foundations of economics here – Plumbing seems to be eminently more practical than either Mathematics or Media Studies.... : ).  
ConcernedScientist 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Media Studies (as opposed to Media Production) students might not necessarily want to work in the media. Of course, although developing the article is a good idea, it must, absolutely must, be developed with reliable sources. I'm not sure some journalist on a rant in order to fill some blank space against a deadline is a reliable source here. Journalists are likely to have their own agenda (protect their expertise, and attend to the face of their readers). The JPStalk to me 16:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appraisal of the Term

message: The article currently contains the line: "English Literature, a subject which has now become prestigious because of the high analytical and theoretical skills, or level of intellectual inquiry, required for a discussion of texts". Who on earth considers Eng Lit prestigious? --Paularblaster (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical criticism (the 'cultural decline' thesis), certainly, whilst contemporary media studies addresses the "populist drivel" in more complex terms than the public presumes. The JPStalk to me 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eng Lit 

message: The use of the  tag on this article seems strange to me, seeing as far as I know, the term "Mickey Mouse Degree" is not really used anywhere outside the UK. How else should this article be written, then?--Xyiyizi 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What global view? 

message: This article reads rather like personal opinion and many of the statements lack support or citations. e.g.
* It came to prominence in the UK after use by the country's national tabloids
* This opinion is often raised in the summer when exam results are released and new university courses revealed
* The phrase took off in the late 1990s [the main quote for the use of the phrase is Margaret Hodge in 2003]
* Hodge appeared to be reflecting particularly on those reading ... "Greats" at Oxford University [this is not supported by the linked article which says "she refused to identify any specific Mickey Mouse courses"]
* presumably the objection is that it is inappropriate material for an undergraduate degree course
* In July 2015, MEP Louise Bours referred scathingly to the module on Question Time
* These universities then have trouble competing with the more established institutions instead of being judged as polytechnic universities
* ... have been offering bachelors, masters, and doctorate degrees in academically challenging subjects such as engineering, physics, mathematics, and natural sciences since the early 1900s [reading the Wikipedia page on Polytechnics, it seems they have only been offering degrees since 1965]
* is causing the predictable annual grade rise
* degree in physical education. These have been issued to members of the college's athletics teams, to make them eligible to play; otherwise they would fail to pass traditional subjects
I have not added citation-needed flags as it seems to me a lot of the comments are just conjecture. I didn't want to just delete half the article though, if someone has the information to support what it says.
--philmcgrove (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal opinion, citations lacking 

message: I have deleted unreferenced material. WP:OR needs to be applied scrupulously around a neologism. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Bird course redirects here, but I don’t think the term, as described, matches the definition of “bird course” in Canada. In Canada the term bird course simply means the course (a single course, not an entire degree) is very easy; it doesn’t need to be irrelevant.
For example, I would call my first-year physics course a bird course (not because it’s irrelevant, but because I already studied the same stuff in high school — in another country). I’ve also taken a 4th-year linguistics course that I’d call a bird course, but obviously that course is also not irrelevant. — al12si (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian equivalent?