Here’s an idea. We have a problem with too many students dropping out of their degree courses — so let’s make degrees longer! Why would anyone think that would cut the dropout rate?
I guess it doesn’t rate up there with, “ask not what your country can do for you…” but my new favourite quote comes from a Business Day editorial about Alec Erwin.
“If it wasn’t so misguided there’d be something almost touching about Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin’s vision for a vastly expanded state-owned industrial empire,” Business Day said on the 16th of May.
Well it’s not the most misguided initiative that a minister has come up with recently. Education Minister Naledi Pandor has asked the Council for Higher Education to investigate the possibility of increasing university degree courses from three years to four!
I would have thought that the head of a national department which is primarily engaged in policy planning could come up with some better ideas than that.
Students are struggling to complete degrees, so let’s make it longer and therefore harder for them to complete! The logic escapes me.
One of the problems Pandor highlights is that students do not have a well rounded educational background. Well,not if they went to the schools that Minister Naledi Pandor is responsible for they don’t!
The problem is the school education and you don’t fix that by tampering with the university education.
There are many problems with our higher education system. One of the most serious is the very high number of students who start a degree programme and drop out before completing.
Unfortunately, conventional wisdom has it that if you complete two years of a university degree and then drop out, your time has been wasted. You are considered a failure and your academic record is no better than when you completed matric.
I have to challenge the conventional wisdom. Who says that two years of study equals nothing but three years of study equals a graduate who can now command a high salary in the workplace? Did something miraculous happen in third year? Of course not.
Research has shown that the most common reason for student’s dropping out is financial. They either can’t afford to pay for their tuition and upkeep — or they have to get a job to support their family.
So here’s a better idea — let’s make the third year of a university degree free. The government will cover the student fees of all students who have successfully completed the first two years.
How are we going to fund this? Simple. We borrow the money. I’m sure Trevor Manuel will agree because the growth report that he released this week includes a number of good ideas for supporting growth (as reported by the Business Times). One is to “improve the quality and output of skills, and commit more resource to secondary and tertiary education”.
Because it isn’t really expenditure, its investment in one of our abundant raw material — brain power. With China seeing more than one million graduates a year there’s no way we can keep up with the modern world if we don’t increase our output of skilled citizens.
It all comes down to whether education is a personal or societal issue. If the degree predominantly supports the individual then they should pay for it. However, if society as a whole will benefit, then society should pay.
The neat trick to the free third year offer is that there could be some form of working commitment attached. If you choose to have the government fund your third year of engineering you will agree to work for one year as an engineer at a municipality somewhere. This solves the skills shortage and graduate unemployment problems at a stroke. And those who are planning to shoot off to Dubai to start earning dollars as soon as they graduate can choose to pay for the third year themselves.
There’s little chance of my idea being accepted as national policy — as brilliant as it is! So here’s something a little less radical. Students enter university for a degree programme which is made up of three parts.
Those who successfully complete one year of university study can either graduate with a certificate qualification, or continue studying. Those who successfully complete the second year can graduate with a diploma qualification, or continue studying. Finish three years successfully and you get the full degree.
This makes full use of our resources (people resources that is) and avoids the “all or nothing” mentality that prevails at the moment.
There’s no reason why universities shouldn’t support it as they retain full control over their academic programmes and standards. They don’t even have to go to the trouble of ensuring that what they teach students is what is going to help them get a job in the future.
The idea is hardly radical. It’s how the national qualifications framework (NQF) operates. The NQF is intended to support and develop our people — including those who are currently disposed of skills so is something that everyone in our country should support.
Unfortunately, the universities major interest is in supporting and developing their academic staff, so I’m not holding my breath while I wait to hear if they are going to implement this idea either!
But the success stories are there. Studies on the economic success of Ireland over the last two decades have identified two key elements. They targeted post-school, sub-degree qualifications. The kind of qualification technikons would have delivered if they were still around.
The second key element of their strategy? These qualifications were much cheaper than full degrees.
This strategy of universities offering certificates, diplomas and degrees would meet these national needs — more qualified people, at a lower cost.
So if the universities aren’t prepared to give our society what it needs why should we continue to support them with our tax rands?
The person who came up with the idea of “upgrading” Technikons to “Universities” should be nutted. This became half done, the former technikons still offer diplomas and also proper Bsc degrees at separate but equal campuses, the case in point is UJ/Rau/WitsTechnikon/Vista.
Yes, I agree with you. I have grown impatient with people offering complicated reasons as to why this or that cannot be done, while the real reason is lack of political will. We certainly have the financial resources to solve many educational problems. Better support from government for students – as you suggest , or even in the form of (very) low-interest loans – is one. But I don’t think tertiary education is the right starting point; and you hint as well at problems in primary and secondary education. The government needs to pour all resources into providing proper mass-education at all levels, and returning the profession of teaching to its proper place in developing society (i.e. train teachers better, attract and keep teachers through better salaries, etc etc; this in turn will, for instance, bolster teacher training programmes at tertiary institutions, which have been decimated over the past decade).
While we don’t have a proper mass-education system for all, universities will always engaged in stop-gap activity. In this way, the quality of education at university itself suffers and institutions shift focus onto ‘through-put’. The philosophy then becomes one of numbers instead of quality: rather 3000 mediocre graduates than 1000 well-educated ones.
Alan,
Excellent points and this can easily improve the overall SA situation in the long term, with little cost to the state (us!) and well worth it.
South Africa is going to be lost if we do not solve the Education conundrum TODAY. (TODAY!)
I hope you are wrong and that the Council for Higher Education takes a keen interest in your point of view, with sound debate and ACTION NOW.
Possibly even make the second year 50% of cost, if the student has a higher than 60% average for the 1st year or something along those lines.
Incentivise it and make it attractive and possible for all those who are capable. As you note – we do have the potential (abundant brain power), it just needs to be well managed and put to good use. It will not be enough to rely on selling our natural resources in a raw state out of the ground.
Lets get this country moving forward NOW!
We need these graduates or educated 2nd year diploma holders to take SA into the 21st Century and to help build that “Better Life For All” because the state sure ain’t doing it right yet.
Keep up the fight!
la la la la la la, I can’t hear you.
I thought about commenting on this the other day, threw it out at a friend who immediately said something along the lines of ‘social engineering, keep people off unemployment lists’, and I shrugged and went back to my life.
First thought: let’s see if the years get cheaper, huh?
What this country ACTUALLY needs is staged education. Not everyone is academically oriented and nor should they be. Some of the most successful people I know do not have degrees, nor even school-leaving certificates. They were smart enough to figure out that schooling wasn’t their talent, got themselves trade certificates by working in low-paid jobs and getting training effectively for free and either marched up the ladder on solid work experience or now run their own successful businesses.
Give kids an out. This country is obsessed with failure. Matric is the only end to schooling. If you don’t get there, you get beaten twice. Once by wasting two or three or four productive years of your life wasting away in an environment where you don’t feel successful and twice by being branded with the iron rod of FAILURE.
Give that child who absolutely knows that he wants to be a Ferrari motor mechanic the ability to go into trade school or an apprenticeship at the age of 16. If he finds later he wants academic qualifications also, there is always adult education – aka night school in other parts of the world. He’ll do much better when he does it because he WANTS TO.
Then for matriculants, again the options are university or FAIL. There should be colleges, trade schools and works programmes to ensure that matriculants develop working skills so that they can be successful.
As for a four year degree. Whatever. It’s an admission that the government earns a FAIL on so many levels. I can knock it on so many levels…cost, time, keeping kids out of the workforce when they need to send siblings to school, even more anger when you come out of FOUR years and still can’t find a job….come on already, get real.
Go eat your apple pie, Ms Pandor. For people who want to study for four full time years they should come out with something a damn sight brighter than a second-rate diploma. An honours or masters degree springs to mind. Next, instead of intensifying schooling and offering certification and other opportunities before matric, we’ll be extending matric till kids are 21 just to make it really fun. In fact, why not that for your next trick? That will really keep the unemployment figures down.
Here is another obvious idea: let’s stop allowing talent to go to waste. Because of racist quotas at for example university medical schools, those with good marks but the wrong skin colour are turned away in favour of academically inferior candidates.
The result is that the victims of this racism tend to emigrate and exacerbate the brain drain.
State-sponsored racism such as quotas and affirmative action is not only obscene, but also a luxury a country starved of skills can ill afford.
I thought that was the whole point of FET colleges?
Drop out might be a problem, but another huge problem is first years who are really unprepared to deal with first year level work.
You can’t just say “fix the schools then!!” because what becomes of the many many school leavers now and in the coming years before our schools are up to scratch? These kids might be intelligent, very capable, and ideal university material, but many won’t make it at university level, even if they have a matric exemption.
I don’t know if four year degrees is the best way to deal with this problem, but at least it is an attempt to deal with it.
What south africans need to understand is that university is not for everyone, it is designe for top 10 or 15% of the population who have the required IQ to complete a degree, while some studnents do drop out due to finacial reasons, most students drop out due to being unprepared at school. the truht is that is you are intelligent high school teaches you nothing other then that if you are smart you don’t have to work. intilligent students need to be identified early and put onto a more difficult stream. in germany a similar system is in place and one only has to look at the quality of its graduates to see its effectiveness.
Alan
Sorry – none of your ideas are practical. The problem is not with the third year, but with the first year. Any student who passes 2 years can get a loan for the third – even from a bank, but better from the government.
What we need to do is have A UNIVERSITY ENTERENCE EXAM. If you do not pass then you qualify for a POST-MATRIC PREPARATION YEAR. Much cheaper, much simpler, and unloads the Universities.
I would also suggest an IQ test. You CANT pass a degree without a minimum level of IQ.
Here I sit, R50 000 in debt to Standard Bank, apparently very employsble being both female and affirmative action friendly – yet I am not. UCT went from charging R17 000 in my first year of study up to R25 000 by my last.
A Bachelors Degree is apperently not worth mentioning in many European countries where an honours degree is built in to the genereal curriculum, however these countries do tend to provide free education or at a minimal cost.
A friend of mine sitting in Germany pays Euro 1000 per annum for her studies !!! That is half of what I pay in Rands. An additionla R25 000 for an honours degree is no option, I have to spend the next few years paying off my accumalated debt and then gof rot he cheaper DIY option of UNISA for further educaiton.
I agree with Rustum in that there is no reaosn to compromise the standard of current university education rather there is a greater demand to educate people but try the approach of low price and high quality for a change.
They should introduce a two year Associate’s degree which can be upgraded to a full Bachelor’s degree.
So after two years of successful study, you graduate with an Associate’s degree. After another two, you get the B degree which is the equivalent of our current three year programs plus the honours degree.
I believe that is how they do it in the US.
Well, how about a semester of improving student’s communication skills(English), and teach them how to write papers without pladgiarising, do research at the library and maybe learn som analytical skills, based on the field they want to pursue. And learning the basic glossary of terms or phrases in their field of choice can prepare them for text reading. I know some of these skills need to be taught in high school at least,but unfortunately our educatin system is so messed up- that some English teachers teach an English language in Xhosa, or Afrikaans.
And sometimes just cramming and memorizing concepts does not help if students do not have real world cases they canrefer to and understand. So for every concept taught nd learned( in Economics), lecturers and professors should help students figure out how to do research in finding empirical evidence. One does not need to be in their final year to learn all this stuff.
And before students can learn al of the above, there should be a pre-entry class in English/Communication and writing for most fields.
And I have to agree with Kit 100% about trade schools. University is not for everybody. Our intellectual make up is different. Some perform well with visual tasks than abstracts.
All of the ideas above are worth considering.
Alan, this is an interesting thought.
Wasn’t there something called TEFSA or some other acronym of that sort helping with student fees, or is this just a black thing? That’s wrong.
Infact I have had a thought for a while now concerning colleges of education. Instead of opening them to their old forms why not open them as (the US-like) liberal arts colleges, offering four year B. A. degrees in pedagogy, engineering science, information technology, police science, laws, nursing science, medical assistants etc…
As for funding these could be controlled at provincial level, with teachers feeding into local schools, police employed by local municipalities, provincial and national governments, and law graduates helping with the backlog in our courts and offering prosecutorial and defence services in magistrates courts. Of course most initial funding will come from government but eventually these will become private institutes owned by the local communities employing quality professors and competing for students. As we get close normalcy then these institutes could raise funds from their alumni and other sources.
These institutes could do some research, but not necessarily offer higher degrees but again if they do they could offer M.A. (Mathematics) as an example. Of course if the NQF could be trusted, these colleges could be appraised from time to time.
But your observation is correct. I remember I went to a school where most of the teachers had dropped out from Unizul’s BPead degrees. I’m not necessarily saying they were the best teachers but we got by with these teachers who certainly were better than Amanzimtoti College of Education graduates. Some of these teachers have gone on and finished their degrees.
Alan,
I want to put it to the members here categorically that I was a member of the SRC for 2 years of my 3 years at Tukkies and one of my problems when I laid my poor foot at that University was financial instability.
I had all the minimum prerequisits for a BCom Accounting Sciences which I so intended to get it over and done with within 3 years of my stay there. I became flarbbagasted by the fact that the University of Pretoria firstly sent me to their Mamelodi campus when that alone was enough to hit me with unwanted frustration I was advised to take BCompt which was a 4 year programme.
Of course with my level of unquenched determination I questioned and lamented with the administration crew that I wanted to complete my degree in 3 years and of course the poor guy said “you can’t”. I felt insulted like I felt when my high school teached told me “you can’t” do Maths at Higher Grade as if one required an extraodinary level of wisdom to get a pass in Maths.
I was advised to change my programme to BCom General so I can “do what I want” with the courses. I did and walked away with my all BCompt courses in 3 years. What if I did not change? My dad and mom would have to cough out another R16000 they did not have for me to complete a R4000 worth of 2 major courses. It was a Cost and Benefit downfall and I still hate it with passion.
Naledi Pandor needs to address real problems and they have nothing to do with the duration of the degree programmes but the costs associated with obtaining a degree.
I am very much with you on the suggestion of breaking the Degree into smaller, achievable and usable qualifications. Like you just said it this is not a radical suggestion it just requires cooperation between the minister and our University management in addressing our skills shortage problems by applying proggrames that are marketable and which constitute value for money to the needy of this country.
Dithabana
Nzuzo, most universities do offer pre-course pre-course literacy courses. In practical terms I would imagine these to be of negligible value (I see no empirical evidence that suggests that drop-out rates are any better since their introduction) and they simply add both time and cost to the qualification.
We have really got to address this problem lower down. Intelligent people should not be emerging from schools functionally illiterate because of the current combination of factors.
Additionally, it may work better to leave degree courses as is to some extent but encourage students who are able but not quite yet sufficiently literate as a result of attending poor schools to complete diplomas or pre-degree courses separately – and heavily subsidised or free from the state.
One other thing I have noticed. Universities appear to be using these courses as a money-making mechanism. Having decided to pursue a post-grad LLB through Unisa, I was fairly shocked to be told that the pre-course literacy course and the part-of -course literacy courses and introductory courses (five courses in all, all at regular course fees) were non-negotiable regardless of the fact that I’m already degreed and have honours courses from elsewhere. Quite amazed was I, and every attempt to discuss why this is has been met with a brick wall. It has somewhat dampened my enthusiasm, to be honest, and I’m just leaving them for last (which of course defeats the object).
But if these courses are useful, offer them at a heavily subsidised fee and put up the prices of other courses fractionally to cover the cost. I don’t mind effectively paying for someone else to do them by this cross-subsidisation but to make everyone do them again and again just seems like someone is trying to make a quick buck.
For people who don’t get through them, it’s even more wasteful, hence the reason why they should be cheaper.
Four year degree is worthy of exploration
Alan Hammond has made some very interesting suggestions in his response to what he calls my “incredibly misguided idea” of a four-year degree.
He probably knows that the majority of students (from all backgrounds) take four and more years to complete our three-year degrees. He also probably knows that we have significant first-year failures in all our universities.
I am sure that he is also aware of the fact that many of our current degree structures have existed as they are for more than three decades with quite inadequate curriculum restructuring (structure and not content).
He is definitely well aware of concerns expressed by many employers that universities do not teach the key skills of communication, quantitative literacy and analytical reasoning.
The “incredibly misguided” proposal that the CHE (a statutory body established to advise the Minister) should investigate the possibility of a four-year degree seeks to find guidance on these important challenges.
I have discussed the challenges with university leaders and other interested parties and we agreed that an investigation is merited.
Further, we agreed that the advice should not focus on inflexible solutions – only a 3 or 4 year degree structure for example – but should be alert to the possibility that flexible repackaging may be necessary.
I did indicate to university leaders that rethinking the structure of a degree may allow us to address the skills gaps and also provide opportunities for first-year students to be supported in acquiring an introduction to epistemology and cognitive practice of higher education as distinct from school.
I regret that Mr Hammond believes such enquiries signify poor intelligence on the part of proposing ministers. It is clear that we must act to address the poor success rate in our institutions.
I assure him that I am committed to striving hard to find solutions to the many intractable challenges in education. We have several initiatives that seek to improve opportunity and support quality outcomes.
The work we have done in FET colleges is a case in point. They have been recapitalized as part of a very large investment in skills. The opportunities in this sector have been expanded through a non-refundable bursary programme for FETs that we introduced in 2007. In fact, this is free education for beneficiaries, along the lines he suggests for universities.
Added to this is the plan for developing our technical high schools into state of the art centres of technical skills development.
Furthermore, we have been funding foundation programmes in science, engineering, and technology in all our universities. This year alone R131 million was earmarked for this purpose.
My provincial colleagues and I are also hard at work to transform the school sector. There are many initiatives that do not appear in the headlines. They are in policy speeches (all on our web site), in changes we see at schools, and in progress we record in our colleges and universities.
Mr Hammond, I have thought of this four-year degree idea for some time, but I know I do not have the answers. Hence, I referred it to the experts at the CHE. Let me thank you for writing on this matter. The incentives idea for funding students is intriguing and will be studied as well.
I hope this rather simple response will convince you that an investigation is worth while.
Naledi Pandor
Reading through all the responses including our Minister of Education, I would suggest that we cannot fix the problem by adjusting the icing once it has been put onto the cake. The problem lies with the quality of education, which does not adequately prepare those with the potential to study at tertiary level.
What can we do to improve schooling? Why don’t we develop a public works programme which engages all the currently unemployed youth in development, repair, sports activities, and other general duties at schools, enabling teachers to concentrate on teaching. Many of the youth will have the ability to coach younger pupils.
Dear Minister Pandor
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my blog posting on university degrees.
For the record, I never said there was any possibility of ‘poor intelligence from ministers’ and certainly don’t believe this. But even intelligent people can be misguided.
I am very pleased to hear that the investigation into university programmes will be broader than just looking at a four year degree – which was the issue that you raised in your budget speech to parliament.
I also believe strongly that the debate must take place more widely that just the CHE – hence my original blog on the topic.
I know that the CHE is an independent body that advises the Minister, but the Council comprises mainly academics (with one union and one business rep I believe). They are all of very high standing but are not a diverse social group representative of our society.
Government funding for universities comes from all of us. Everyone in the country who purchases products pays VAT, and five million people in the country pay income tax. We should all be involved in a discussion about how our money is spent at universities.
I hope the debate about university policies and programmes will be taken up at Nedlac, the ANC, Cosatu, Busa and other forums.
The whole country should be debating how we can support the growth of our higher education sector and continue to raise standards so they are even higher.
Alan Hammond
2 things come to mind here
1. When i came from my strict family background and started in the wonderful world that is tertiary it took me a while to learn self-control and self-discipline. Hence the high failure rate by some of my other fellow students as well. And i find that most of them are of previously-disadvantaged ilk.
2. NFSAS loan i took out started earning interest when i was still at tertiary. The same characters(me) who rely on this state funding have their future already looking bleak because you know by the end of your 4 year tenure at such tertiary institutions you are already looking at a nice R50k bill NFSAS wants. And they set their hounds on you will alarming speed. And never once has this wonderful financial institution called me and attempted to assist me finding a job.
So dear Minister, why hobble the poor kids before they can even flex their wings???
i think its time you hear what the students have to say as well. no one ever consults them and every year at registration you experience the same frustrated students wrecking campuses, which could have been avoided.
uChizama rests( for now)
Thank you Alan, for your precise response to the minister.
I echo in particular your view that the minister needs to broaden the base to which she lends her ear to. She and her provincial colleagues and representative need to engage the public and particularly us, the poor, in our education. For it is us who have continuously relied on government for our and our kids education.
Instead of talking down to us everytime, she could think of townhall meetings, where the voices of the people will be heard. Alan is very right in pointing out that the present structure of the CHE is not appropriate to understand the confusions. Instead of listening to only the Loyiso’s who herded their father’s kattle what about also listening to those of us who herded other people cattle to buy school shoes. We don’t claim to know better but we care.
I’m not sure in anyway whether the universities are supposed to teach the things the minister claims are required by employers, but that is the debate for another day. What is important for now, is for instance to make clear that meddling with technikons does very little to advance our skills improvement effort. Of course the technikons, as an example, needs to be improved and the faculty and eventually the institutions themselves need to be properly appraised from time to time to check whether they are leaving to their mandate. (Like your predecessors did a few years ago in school and ended up rooting a lot of fradulent qualifications of our teachers).
But the technikons should not be confused. A university is different to a technikon and the mandates are also different.
This is effort by the minister to listen and engage us is much appreciated.
But she has to realise that we are angry, bitter and disillusioned.
Now that we know she is listening we will engage respectfully. We apologise for disrepecteful comments here and elesewhere and will refrain for so long as she is listening.
Sylvia, there is an intelligent blogger who has a strange name, something like AN OLD PALE FACE LADY. A very intelligent lady but with a very strange name. She recalled once that sometime after the war the regime had a programme along the lines you are suggesting.
I fully agree. Infact engage parents as well so that it is not only teachers who take the blame but we also share the responsibility for our children’s corruption.
You are on the money. I think Alan and others in the skills portal realise that part of the solution to skills development has to be the improvement of schools.
We need job and help as SAfricans. We need your good thoughts, keep it up guz, It make sense to me.
I believe that the greatest horror that this country’s education system is facing is a lack of socio-economic understanding especially concerning Historically Disadvantaged Individuals(HDI’s), you see making a diploma which was achieved in three years to four years is really absurd and non-constructive, if I cannot swallow soft porridge how can one expect me to consume hard-porridge(I mean “phuthu”).What I am implying is that completing a three year course is already hard for us, at least let the DOE consider another alternative like bringing financial incentives as a form of motivation to those who are keen of pursuing such a straineous work,for an example the government must pay for this level.This country is faced with transformational burden especially concerning Knowledge Management in both private and public sector.Staying at versity is like being stuck in a mud without being sure that if you get out you will find clean water to wash yourself. This is spending four years in university and still add to the rapidly escalating statistics of unemployment rate. To the minister of Education Ms. Naledi Pandor, consider the Bill of Rights before taking any Educational decision which will bring detriment to our academical progress, rather invest in intangible resources of the economy (i.e.Knowledge reosorces)
Here was my Situation
Hated School……Hence the 2E’s, 2D’s and 2C’s….
SG Maths…..The 2E’s = Failed Accounting and Economics.
All my friends were going to Varsity, So i needed to follow.
Did not receive the allotted academic amount of points to do a B.Com degree, but had enough to do B.A. No offence to a B.A degree, but it was not the line I wanted to follw.
I found that the University (UJ APK – Formally RUA) offered a Foundation Program “was called that in 2003), which was a program to help you adjust to Varisty life, then once completed I could attempt my B.Com Degree (to my knowledge My group was the second Year of the program run by a man named Dr. Chetty). It was like going back to school, I had to do basic/Intermediate subjects such as English, Maths, Economics, Business Management and Uni-prep(Univeristy Preperation). These subjects had “normal” once or twice a week classes, but the main thing was that i had group classes everyday (like school). These group classes (compulsory) were established so that we can interpret what we learnt, have a discussion and how to go about answering possible questions (take note that B.Com credits are awarded for completing Economics and Bus Man) . Bare in mind all my friends were starting with there degrees with like 4/5 two hour classes a week and living the varsity “dream)
So……having completed the course for “slow people” I had obtained a diploma is Economic Management Sciences with the possibiltity to study my B.Com. I took that opportunity and studied towards my B.Com Hr degree. Meaning my actual second year of varisty would actually be my first year, minus business management and economics which made the work load easier, and it was easier to adjust to the “normal” varsity life.
So my first two years – equalled one year of varsity, with the added benefit of learning how to study and cope with varsity.
I cruised through my degree….Obtaining nearly distinctions in all the subjects, 3rd year being my best year academically…p.s. I got a distinction for Accounting and Economics.
There was only a handful that took the opportunity to study towards there degree. I have also completed my Honours in B.Com Strategic Management, with the odd distinction. So, 5 years for a diploma, degree and honours.
What I am trying to explain is, that the “theory” to split up some years of your degree is very important, It tought me a lot and received my degree before most my friends, although I was a year behind…Not bad for someone who hated school and had knew that he had to make a difference in his life and work hard. If it drives you, you will succeed. Obviously I need to mention that a lot of sacrifices were made by my parents, which some people dont have.
Now i’m striving towards my Masters…….but like people have mentioned before…….If academics doesn’t interest you and you are not “capable’ of being an academic, then pursue what you love…
All that I can say is that I am so grateful for the opportunity for the program I attended in my first year….p.s For the life of me I cant think of what the program is called now, and I did become a tutor for students who took part in the program and helping them with varsity concepts etc…
Skills development is highly important obviously, but no matter what programs are in place, if you not interested, dedicated or have that “academic” drive, its not gonna help.