From NEIL WALKER and RICHARD JORDAN
In reference to Comment (29 August), we would like to give the point
of view of two second-year physics undergraduates. To quote a recent Radio
4 economics programme, just after the release of the A-level results:
‘Most students go to university, not for a challenge, but for something
easy to do for three years. This is why places on politics, English and
philosophy courses will always be in greater demand than those in science
and engineering that are actually essential to the country’s economic growth
and wellbeing.’
When visiting our BA friends at this and other universities, it is disheartening
to discover that they are obtaining firsts and upper seconds after doing
the same amount of work (and attending only two-thirds the lectures) we
would have to do to obtain a low third. It is ironic that they will on
average out-earn science and engineering graduates on a ratio of two to
one.
Our childhood passion for the physical sciences will remain with us.
However, practicality has to overtake idealism.
Advertisement
We could leave after obtaining our degrees and become, for example,
House of Commons researchers on £14 000; do a two-year law conversion
and look at a starting salary of around Pounds sterling 20 000, or we
could stay with the subject, spend three years on a PhD and then go to a
postdoctoral salary of £12 000.
This letter was borne of conversation between more than a dozen undergraduates
in a physics common room. The general consensus was that almost anything
was better than the last option.
The manufacturing base of this country undoubtedly won’t notice the
loss of a couple of physicists – it probably wouldn’t miss the dozen of
us – but if this conversation is repeated in the universities, colleges
and polytechnics throughout the Britain, then we fear for the economic wellbeing
of this nation.
Neil Walker and Richard Jordan University of Leeds
