Mickey Mouse degrees (or Mickey Mouse courses, also known as bird courses in Canada) 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 The term was used by the Minister of State for Universities Margaret Hodge, during a discussion on higher education expansion. 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. Examples In 2000, Staffordshire University received negative press coverage when a module on the sociological importance of football which had been designed for students taking sociology, sports science, or media studies was portrayed as a "degree in David Beckham Studies". 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". In July 2015, UK Independence Party 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". Durham University designed an optional module centred around Harry Potter to examine "prejudice, citizenship and bullying in modern society" as part of a B.A. degree in Education Studies. One thing these courses share is that they are "vocational", which are perceived to be less intellectually rigorous than the traditional academic degrees. 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. 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,