Talk:Mickey Mouse degrees

Additions
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)

This article seems bias against the idea that some degrees are 'mickey mouse'.

I personally think that alot of degrees are mickey mouse but I wouldnt let that shine through into the article.

Im sure a degree in surf management can lead to very profitable careers in banking, insurance, the military, politics. Hey I mean surfing is even a pre-requisite for astronauts these days. Its a known fact that 101% of employers would take someone with a degree in surfing over one with a degree in econometrics to train as a city analyst any day of the week.

lol.

--lincs_geezer 17:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Role of Media
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)


 * 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)

Reason of Criticisms
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)

As of November 7, 2009 - the article's Origins claims: The term was used by education minister Margaret Hodge, during a discussion on higher education expansion. and cites "'Irresponsible' Hodge under fire", BBC News, 14 January 2003. URL accessed on 24 June 2006. I can can offer (only anecdotally) that my late father, a US High School teacher, was using this term in the late 1970s. Elroymatrix (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Politics
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)

Politics is the study of government, which is an immensely valuable subject in society. If one is to say that Politics is a mickey mouse degree, then subjects like economics (study of the market, and also a social science) and law (also a form of study of government)should also be included in this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.124.11 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Appraisal of the Term
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)
 * 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 JPS talk to me  16:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Term
The term Mickey Mouse degree could probably be criticised (and is criticised) for not taking into account course contents (for example, a “Computing and Media Studies” course could end up using the same software as is studied within a CAD course, or a Design and Engineering course where advanced schematics are studied – using the same skills as are required to generated films like The Matrix). There are, of course many more reasons to criticise the term. The most obvious one being that NO-ONE HAS DEFINED WHAT A MICKEY MOUSE DEGREE MEANS.

There should probably be an etymology section. ConcernedScientist 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ConcernedScientist 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In my experience, there are four main categories of degree that are commonly described as Mickey Mouse, often based purely on the name of the degree rather than a detailed analysis of the course contents:


 * a) Socially trendy or liberal topics, e.g. Gender Studies, Racism Studies, Lesbian and Gay Studies
 * b) Easy to trivialise, e.g. Sports Studies ("anyone can kick a ball around"), Media Studies ("reading papers and watching telly")
 * c) Vague and non-specific, e.g. Decision-making Studies, General Studies, Study Studies
 * d) Very specific topics, e.g. Glass-blowing Studies, Playing The Xylophone One-Handed Studies


 * Other common indicators are: the word "studies" or "management" in the degree title; and a degree subject with a connection to popular culture, sports, or entertainment. But that's not a given by any means.


 * One could say that it's a catch-all term for a number of unrelated educational trends that the media have arbitrarily chosen to lump under one banner as part of a wider debate about academic standards. The journalists who constantly rail against these things rarely manage to define and pin down what exactly it is that they're criticising. 217.155.20.163 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eng Lit
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)

I've added a few lines to the 'origins' section to express my dissatisfaction as a linguistics postgraduate with the term and the general trend with highly-strung news reports about the decline in academic rigour. The distinction of 'media' is skewed, too. The printed press and the telephone are both forms of media communications, and both have been researched by linguists, semioticians and anthropologists. I studied a great deal of media philosophy and history during my undergraduate course - you only have to read up on Joseph Goebbels, public diplomacy or even the Printing Press to realise that it is not simply being a film nut). It was an obvious choice to move to the 'difficult' subject of linguistics for my Masters within this context. The weary irony of the whole outrage is that classical media criticism is dead against the populist drivel that the public presumes the average media student is so keen to watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.69.48 (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Classical criticism (the 'cultural decline' thesis), certainly, whilst contemporary media studies addresses the "populist drivel" in more complex terms than the public presumes. The JPS talk to me  19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What global view?
The use of the globalize/UK 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)

I have to say that I agree. I studied at UCL with many international students as my colleagues and, anecdotally, I have to say none of them had heard the term "Mickey Mouse subject" before us Brits brought it up in conversation. This article makes it clear in the origin section that the erm was coined by the then education minister Margaret Hodge, and was later picked up by UK tabloids. As such, I must say I agree with Xyiyizi - the term is a UK-specific one, and as such the globalize/UK tag on this article seems strange to me, too. If any non-UK users would like to enter their opinion at this point, I'd be very interested in hearing it. --Billydeeuk (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, as an American, the specific term "Mickey Mouse Degree" is not in common use, the term "Mickey Mouse" attached to things like "course", "class", "subject" is well known. In fact, the use of the phrase "Mickey Mouse" to describe anything perceived to be trivial, easy, useless or the like is common even outside of academia. An employee might well refer to a "Mickey Mouse" task (outside of the boss's hearing, of course!). Wschart (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinion, citations lacking
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)


 * this notwithstanding that her own degree was in Social Sciences from Blackburn College.

This sounds too sarcastic for an encyclopedia, either. 94.119.66.8 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Marek

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

Canadian equivalent?
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)