It isn't just about specific relevant degrees, but a question of job level. In the 1990s and earlier, one would undertake a degree, possibly in a strictly acad

It isn't just about specific relevant degrees, but a question of job level. In the 1990s and earlier, one would undertake a degree, possibly in a strictly academic discipline such as history or philosophy, and, if one didn't then enter academia, one might (for example) join a Graduate Training Programme at a big company or the Civil Service, and become a management consultant, strategic analyst, policy advisor, or some other such position that is considered to require the kind of intellectual rigour that is supposed to be evidenced by achieving a degree. i.e. a "graduate level" position. Politics and Philosophy is exactly the kind of degree that such positions used to crave. Now, such people are becoming bartenders, receptionists and estate agents, jobs that would historically have been occupied by those with little or no post-16 education. I have no idea of the ratio of graduates of vocational vs academic degrees, but given the number of non-vocational degrees available, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of graduates have "jobless" degrees. Also, given that the banking sector seems to be hoovering up graduates in numerate disciplines, and that a PhD is now often the entry requirement for Bench Science jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of (e.g) Chemistry graduates are going into finance for big bucks now, instead of taking on a further 3-4 years of low wages to get the qualifications to start a relevant career. I find the level of scorn that is nowadays placed on non-STEM pure academic degrees interesting, as though anything other than vocational education is a waste of time. When I was an undergraduate, it was shortly after all the polytechnics became universities. At that time scorn was mostly heaped upon all the new vocational degrees.