Mickey Mouse degrees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mickey Mouse degrees (or Mickey Mouse courses, known as bird courses in Canada[1]) is a term for university degree courses regarded as worthless or irrelevant. The term is a dysphemism, originating in the common usage of "Mickey Mouse" as a pejorative. It came to prominence in the UK after use by the country's national tabloids.

Origins[edit]

The term was used by education minister Margaret Hodge, during a discussion on higher education expansion.[2] Hodge defined a Mickey Mouse course as "one where the content is perhaps not as rigorous as one would expect and where the degree itself may not have huge relevance in the labour market"; and that, furthermore, "simply stacking up numbers on Mickey Mouse courses is not acceptable". 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, as the Labour government created the target of having 50% of students in higher education by 2010.[3]

Examples[edit]

In 2000, Staffordshire University was mocked as providing "David Beckham Studies" because it provided a module on the sociological importance of football to students taking sociology, sports science, or media studies.[4] A professor for the department stressed that the course would not focus on Beckham, and that the module examines "the rise of football from its folk origins in the 17th century, to the power it's become and the central place it occupies in British culture, and indeed world culture, today."[4] In July 2015, MEP Louise Bours referred to the module on Question Time, but as though it was a full degree course. Other degrees deemed "Mickey Mouse" include "golf management" and "surf science."[5] Durham University designed a module centred around Harry Potter to examine "prejudice, citizenship and bullying in modern society" as a part of a B.A. degree in Education Studies.[6]

One thing these courses share is that they are "vocational", which are perceived to be less intellectually rigorous than the traditional academic degrees.[5]

Defenders of these courses object that the derogatory comments made in the media rely on the low symbolic capital of new subjects and rarely discuss course contents beyond the titles.[2] Another factor is the correct or incorrect perception that the take up of these subjects, and the decline of more traditional academic subjects like science, engineering, mathematics,[7] is causing annual grade rise in the United Kingdom.

A-level subjects and "soft options"[edit]

The A-level in General Studies is seen as a Mickey Mouse subject,[5] as well as A-level Critical Thinking, with many universities not accepting it as part of the requirements for an offer.

Additionally, although not considered Mickey Mouse subjects as such, some qualifications are not preferred by top universities and are regarded as "soft options".[8] A 2007 report stated that the sciences were more challenging than subjects such as Media Studies, which might be taken by students to get higher grades for university applications.[9] An American example is a 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.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Everybody Loves a Bird Course". Life @ UofT. 11 December 2008.
  2. ^ a b "'Irresponsible' Hodge under fire", BBC News, 14 January 2003. URL accessed on 24 June 2006.
  3. ^ "50% higher education target doomed, says thinktank", EducationGuardian.co.uk, 14 July 2005. URL accessed on 24 June 2006.
  4. ^ a b "Beckham in degree course", BBC News, 29 March 2000. URL accessed on 24 June 2006.
  5. ^ a b c "Taking the mick", EducationGuardian.co.uk, 15 January 2003. URL accessed on 24 June 2006.
  6. ^ "Durham University students offered Harry Potter course". BBC News. 18 August 2010.
  7. ^ "A-level pupils urged to spurn 'soft' subjects", EducationGuardian.co.uk, 12 August 2005. URL accessed on 24 June 2006.
  8. ^ How to apply: A level subjects", London School of Economics. URL accessed on 19 July 2008.
  9. ^ Asthana, Anushka (12 August 2007). "Too many pupils taking 'easy' A-levels". The Guardian. London.