When asking friends their thoughts on a Mickey Mouse degree, I got a varied response. From "what a waste of money" to "I wish I was doing one" to (quite honestly) "you can actually do a degree in Mickey Mouse?" Despite Unnamed Friend A not entirely understanding the terminology, her statement has a sense of irony. One American university is proposing a course on the life and works of Disney. A perfect example of a Mickey Mouse degree.

A Mickey Mouse degree is defined as "one where the content is perhaps not as rigorous as one would expect and which may not have a huge relevance in the labour market." The phrase developed in the 1990s with the Labour government's target to get 50 percent of students into higher education by 2012. However, ministers did not consider that a person getting three Ds at A-level was perhaps not best suited to academia. This led the number of vocational and less academically intensive courses to increase, ranging from Media Studies to Happiness Degrees (UEL) to Klingon for Beginners.

Woodhead, former chief inspector of Ofsted, remarked that "students are simply taking on a lot of debt to do courses which employers do not value." With figures this year stating that, by graduation, the average UK student debt is reaching £17,500, to do a worthless degree seems of more consequence than ever. Yet a recent survey by the Taxpayers Allowance found 401 'non-courses' being offered by universities. Jake, a University of Edinburgh Physics student, observed that "people up and down the country go to university for the experience. They spend three years 'experiencing', doing a scam of a course, assuming that they'll have a job at the end of it because they have a 'degree'. Yet what employer is going to be impressed by a course like Outdoor Adventure with Philosophy? It's utterly stupid."

Indeed this is the view of many. A pandemic in higher education. Rather than getting a pointless qualification, it is thought that those who are less academically inclined should get a job after school, or gain an apprenticeship in something vocationally based.

Yet do universities wish to educate students or merely to train them? Is it courageous that these young people are so interested by their course, they are willing to pursue a subject deemed 'useless'? Naomi, a second-year Historian, was passionate about film making and studies. "I looked into all the courses, I attended some genuinely stimulating lectures and was excited to apply." However after a talk with her careers counsellor, she was told "leave the fake degrees for the intellectually challenged. No one is looking for a degree in film making and studies."

If these students are taking courses in areas they are truly fascinated by, what right to we have to attack their interests? Every generation has their Mickey Mouse degrees. The arts were mocked in the 70s, sociology in the 80s and gender studies in the 90s. All of which are now recognised as legitimate by most academics. Danny from Falmer University is currently enjoying a three year course in Media Studies. "I get to make my own documentaries and learn about popular culture. It's much more relevant to the outside world and has taught me so many different skills." He pauses. "It just doesn't seem to have taught me anything specific." Yet getting an education should not just be about what you learn that will aid you in the job market. The DirectGov website states that a reason for going to university is to "let you study something you love." For many this is not going to be a prestigious subject, yet how patronising of us to assume whether this will be of any intellectual or financial benefit to the student.

Indeed the London mayor, Boris Johnson, is a principal supporter of Mickey Mouse degrees. "It is ridiculous for critics to denounce 'Mickey Mouse degrees' and say that the students would be better off doing vocational courses - when the whole point of these degrees is that they're largely vocational." This is true of many of the so-called Mickey Mouse degrees such as hairdressing and textile design, which are just as vocational as medicine and architecture, but still not held in as high esteem. The main difference is that these provide for the service industry, a highly profitable field, yet not seen as needing a degree to enter.

Looking at post-graduate employment however, you see the relevance of these degrees. 81 percent of students from Sheffield University went straight into employment following a Communication and Media Studies degree. Compare this with the number of graduates going into employment following an English Literature degree at Edinburgh, 63 percent. All of the most distinguished universities offer an English Literature course. Yet using the evidence and the proper definition of a Mickey Mouse degree, English would therefore be more suited to the term. This is obviously not true. Despite English being mocked in the media with songs such as "What to do with a BA in English?", English requires much academic expertise, and the analytical skills developed are required in many first-class jobs. So perhaps the name 'Mickey Mouse degree' is being overused?

There are many problems with higher education: rising tuition fees, oversubscription, the 'dumbing down of degrees', but so-called Mickey Mouse courses aren't one of them. Obviously there are still going to be ridiculous degrees which will never be revered in the same way as traditional subjects, but most Mickey Mouse degrees require just as much training and lesson time as other respectable courses. This is an example of the information problem. There is an assumption that these degrees are pointless, but looking at the facts this is obviously not the case. Employers and students need to be able to tell the difference between an actual Mickey Mouse degree and those that merely look like one.

Sceptical? Last year, Lucy Maynard recieved a BA in the study of Stained Glass Windows from Swansea. She's now successfully self-employed and "has absolutely her dream job." How many people have you heard saying that recently?