GOGSoc Episode VI: The GoG, the Bad and the Ugly

Original post by Craghyrax

Good article about the culture of Ivy Leagues. I'm glad Cambridge wasn't this bad, but it could go that way.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118747/ivy-league-schools-are-overrated-send-your-kids-elsewhere

I've actually found this article really curious. For one thing, I am afraid that the thing he mentions, about people not knowing what they're doing when they go to college, not having a "passion", actually happens a lot, not just within very brilliant people.

As to the rest of it, I find it more and more. During my first year at Imperial, I thought getting 2.1 was fantastic (I got a first that year), by the time I received my degree, getting a 2.1 seemed like a failure, even though I'd had a much better time during my third year than I did during my first year (yes, my 2.1 was due to me slacking on my third year more than anything else).

Another worrying thing about what he mentions about people only knowing success and being scared of risk is the fact that when these people actually are in huge risk of becoming very depressed when they go into a high pressure environment where they meet people as good at them because they are not the "best" anymore.

In any case, what the article seems to be focussing on (though this might just be my perspective) is that we are seeing university more and more as a means to an end (the end being "success" in a not very specified way: having money? being prestigious?) rather than as an institution where you learn interesting things, have brilliant conversations, read more, and to say it cheesily, expand your horizons. That we see uni more and more as a "training centre" so that we can get that job and meet those people. It's actually quite sad, because it means that more and more we are looking at universities as financial institutions (in the sense "they provide a service we pay for and we are clients) rather than institutions of learning.

Anyways, very interesting article. Thanks for sharing!

(I'm actually now laughing at what I've just written, wrote it about halfway through the article and now realise that most of it is exactly what the author is getting at).

Funnily (and sadly) enough I think this article represents Imperial College extremely well. So many students out of Imperial go into banking, consulting or retrain as lawyers...

Anyways, again, just really enjoyed the article.

Reply 9022

Original post by Puck_1991

In any case, what the article seems to be focussing on (though this might just be my perspective) is that we are seeing university more and more as a means to an end (the end being "success" in a not very specified way: having money? being prestigious?) rather than as an institution where you learn interesting things, have brilliant conversations, read more, and to say it cheesily, expand your horizons. That we see uni more and more as a "training centre" so that we can get that job and meet those people. It's actually quite sad, because it means that more and more we are looking at universities as financial institutions (in the sense "they provide a service we pay for and we are clients) rather than institutions of learning.

I agree in part, but I don't think it's that black and white.

University is far more accessible now than it ever was before. As graduates have risen sharply so too have requirements for jobs, and degrees have inevitably lost their value in the labour market. It makes sense, then, that universities are becoming more business-like when you consider that a degree is nothing more than a minimum requirement. However, I don't think you can necessarily infer form this that students are no longer going to university to read a subject they are curious about, and instead view it as a pragmatic step to financial reward. I think the two have simply been forced to merge. If you look at the subjects people have chosen over the past couple of decades, humanities graduates have mostly increased at a faster rate than social sciences and sciences. If university is now more of a means to an end, we would have expected humanities to dwindle quickly, and we certainly wouldn't expect to see Classics still existing (and slowly rising in popularity, the stubborn bugger that it is).

One explanation for this is that a lot of graduate schemes don't specify a discipline requirement so people do see university as a means to an end but, precisely because of this, they choose a subject they are interested in, as general graduate employers don't terribly care whether they know about Keynesian macroeconomics or string theory or what the hell Joyce was on about.

It seems the greatest change hasn't been in the students themselves and their motives for attending university - but rather employers and the institutions. Perhaps universities do see undergraduates more as customers than budding researchers, and perhaps the graduate labour market has distorted how a degree is viewed, but I think students, by and large, haven't changed much in terms of viewing university as a place of developing their academic tastes - they are just keenly aware of the increasingly fierce competition the other side.

Reply 9023

Original post by maskofsanity

I agree in part, but I don't think it's that black and white.

University is far more accessible now than it ever was before. As graduates have risen sharply so too have requirements for jobs, and degrees have inevitably lost their value in the labour market. It makes sense, then, that universities are becoming more business-like (more of a conveyor belt) when you consider that a degree is nothing more than a minimum requirement. However, I don't think you can necessarily infer form this that students are no longer going to university to read a subject they are curious about, and instead view it as a pragmatic step to financial reward. I think the two have simply been forced to merge. If you look at the subjects people have chosen over the past couple of decades, humanities graduates have mostly increased at a faster rate than social sciences and sciences. If university is now more of a means to an end, we would have expected humanities to dwindle quickly, and we certainly wouldn't expect to see Classics still exiting (and slowly rising in popularity, the stubborn bugger that it is).

One explanation for this is that a lot of graduate schemes don't specify a discipline requirement so people do see university as a means to an end but, precisely because of this, they choose a subject they are interested in, as general graduate employers don't terribly care whether they know about Keynesian macroeconomics or string theory or what the hell Joyce was on about.

It seems the greatest change hasn't been in the students themselves and their motives for attending university - but rather employers and the institutions. Perhaps universities do see undergraduates more as customers than budding researchers, and perhaps the graduate labour market has distorted how a degree is viewed, but I think students, by and large, haven't changed much in terms of viewing university as a place of developing their academic tastes - they are just keenly aware of the increasingly fierce competition the other side.

I agree with you... to an extent.

I suspect because university has become more accessible (and this is a great thing, except for what I'm going to say next) people take it as the necessary next step. Of course there are a lot of people who go to Uni because they love their subject, but there are so many who go because it's what you do after high school if you were even just mediocre at it (I hate to put it that way, I don't mean to imply that people are mediocre, but I think we might agree that there are some mediocre students out there who still go to uni and do reasonably well). There are even people who are high achievers who go because "it's what you do". I've got a couple of friends who now say they don't understand why they "wasted their time doing a degree", and this is coming from Imperial, a very science based institution where people supposedly go to for a good science education.

There's also the last point in your reply "they are just keenly aware of the increasingly fierce competition on the other side". This is only because "the other side" is only ever banking or consulting or politics. If they were trying to be (let's say) artists (including writers, film-makers, etc.), the competition is there but it's only as good as you are, your degree won't matter as much.

In essence, I do admit I might just be arguing for the sake of argument but I do think that easier access to university has meant that people take university for granted (even people who might not want to go to uni or who are not well suited for academic learning!), which obviously leads to jobs becoming more competitive and requiring more qualifications.

Quite honestly, what "employers not caring about the subject of your degree" (this is not quoting you, I just wanted to separate that phrase) says to me is that you don't really need a degree to do that job, but it significantly lowers the number of applicants, even if someone with no qualifications could be just as good at it. These are companies' problems, it shouldn't be made into unis' problems.

Reply 9024

Original post by Puck_1991

I agree with you... to an extent.

I suspect because university has become more accessible (and this is a great thing, except for what I'm going to say next) people take it as the necessary next step. Of course there are a lot of people who go to Uni because they love their subject, but there are so many who go because it's what you do after high school if you were even just mediocre at it (I hate to put it that way, I don't mean to imply that people are mediocre, but I think we might agree that there are some mediocre students out there who still go to uni and do reasonably well). There are even people who are high achievers who go because "it's what you do". I've got a couple of friends who now say they don't understand why they "wasted their time doing a degree", and this is coming from Imperial, a very science based institution where people supposedly go to for a good science education.

It's true a degree is seen as "what you do" now, but that's because it's a minimum requirement - and you can't then infer from this that people aren't also going to enjoy their subject. The two have merged as the labour market is too competitive. Surely this is better than only the wealthy attending university? What's the alternative? I also think perhaps you're romanticising university a little. It will never be the case that the majority of people who attend university do so simply for love of their subject. University is hard work and often boring, and for many it ruins a subject they thought they were interested in (this is common in literature and philosophy, for example). University isn't just about the subject - it's about transferrable skills, internships, growing up, sport, socialising, etc. all of which is heavily attractive to teenagers personally not professionally.

Original post by Puck_1991

There's also the last point in your reply "they are just keenly aware of the increasingly fierce competition on the other side". This is only because "the other side" is only ever banking or consulting or politics. If they were trying to be (let's say) artists (including writers, film-makers, etc.), the competition is there but it's only as good as you are, your degree won't matter as much.

That's how it's always been; you don't go to university as a means to be an artist or a writer or a film-maker but they may still want to experience university. Not many are interested in these pursuits over a stable career and/or making a lot of money - that's nothing new.

Original post by Puck_1991

In essence, I do admit I might just be arguing for the sake of argument but I do think that easier access to university has meant that people take university for granted (even people who might not want to go to uni or who are not well suited for academic learning!), which obviously leads to jobs becoming more competitive and requiring more qualifications.

Those who are not suited for university or who don't really want to go, will not be competitive for graduate jobs and therefore won't push up competition. I think the stronger argument is that when university was less accessible, i.e. you needed a wealthy background, these rich kids were taking university for granted more than anyone, even more so when you consider how there was no such thing as a 2.1 requirement for a job. Not to mention it promoted a state of distinct classes and a move further and further away from socialism (which is now unreachable, regardless of Milliband's preaching).

Original post by Puck_1991

Quite honestly, what "employers not caring about the subject of your degree" (this is not quoting you, I just wanted to separate that phrase) says to me is that you don't really need a degree to do that job, but it significantly lowers the number of applicants, even if someone with no qualifications could be just as good at it. These are companies' problems, it shouldn't be made into unis' problems.

The transferrable skills you develop at university are valuable to graduate employers - the subject-specific theory not so much. You can still apply to these firms without a degree but you would have to go through the experienced hire route not the graduate scheme. It's neither a problem for firms nor universities as far as I can see, only for graduates who have to deal with the competition. But that's capitalism for you.

Reply 9025

Original post by maskofsanity

It's true a degree is seen as "what you do" now, but that's because it's a minimum requirement - and you can't then infer from this that people aren't also going to enjoy their subject. The two have merged as the labour market is too competitive. Surely this is better than only the wealthy attending university? What's the alternative? I also think perhaps you're romanticising university a little. It will never be the case that the majority of people who attend university do so simply for love of their subject. University is hard work and often boring, and for many it ruins a subject they thought they were interested in (this is common in literature and philosophy, for example). University isn't just about the subject - it's about transferrable skills, internships, growing up, sport, socialising, etc. all of which is heavily attractive to teenagers personally not professionally.

The alternative is a meritocracy, where only the best go to Uni (rather than the wealthy). I know that according to the article we were originally discussing this has happened, but obviously it hasn't when people get into University based on sports or wealth (to be fair, I don't think this really happens that much in the UK).

Original post by maskofsanity

Those who are not suited for university or who don't really want to go, will not be competitive for graduate jobs and therefore won't push up competition. I think the stronger argument is that when university was less accessible, i.e. you needed a wealthy background, these rich kids were taking university for granted more than anyone, even more so when you consider how there was no such thing as a 2.1 requirement for a job. Not to mention it promoted a state of distinct classes and a move further and further away from socialism (which is now unreachable, regardless of Milliband's preaching).

The transferrable skills you develop at university are valuable to graduate employers - the subject-specific theory not so much. You can still apply to these firms without a degree but you would have to go through the experienced hire route not the graduate scheme. It's neither a problem for firms nor universities as far as I can see, only for graduates who have to deal with the competition. But that's capitalism for you.

Herein lies the problem if you ask me. "Graduate jobs" should not exist except for posts which actually require a specific degree. Transferable skills (because they are transferable) can be acquired in so many more ways than University. I'm not going to go into this in detail (because it sounds incidental) but I know at least two people who started in banks "from the bottom" (without a degree) and who've worked themselves up to positions above graduates. Graduate jobs as such don't exist, it's more graduate job schemes that allow you to advance quicker. And I'm not convinced that this a fair way to do it.

Reply 9026

Original post by Puck_1991

The alternative is a meritocracy, where only the best go to Uni (rather than the wealthy). I know that according to the article we were originally discussing this has happened, but obviously it hasn't when people get into University based on sports or wealth (to be fair, I don't think this really happens that much in the UK).

How do we realistically define the "best" and why should only the "best" get to further their education? Simply because, by sheer luck, they were born with higher intelligence or into an environment where university is very accessible and expected or because their parents are wealthy enough to send them to prep and grammar schools? What about those who flourish at university after doing poorly beforehand? What about all the thousands who aren't pushed to aim for university because of where they live or due to having unsupportive families or no money? You'll find that a lot of the students who would be considered part of the "best" simply do not have realistic access to university. There's no such thing as a meritocracy in a capitalist society because we are not all on a level playing field. In fact, the result of an attempted meritocracy is exactly what you're opposing in that article! Students turning into robots trying to be the "best".

Reply 9027

Original post by maskofsanity

How do we realistically define the "best" and why should only the "best" get to further their education? Simply because, by sheer luck, they were born with higher intelligence or into an environment where university is very accessible and expected or because their parents are wealthy enough to send them to prep and grammar schools? What about those who flourish at university after doing poorly beforehand? What about all the thousands who aren't pushed to aim for university because of where they live or due to having unsupportive families or no money? You'll find that a lot of the students who would be considered part of the "best" simply do not have realistic access to university. There's no such thing as a meritocracy in a capitalist society because we are not all on a level playing field. In fact, the result of an attempted meritocracy is exactly what you're opposing in that article! Students turning into robots trying to be the "best".

I agree with you, it is difficult (or impossible) to assess "the best". However, I do believe that in the same way that not everyone can participate in the Olympics, because not everyone is that physically gifted; not everyone should go to Uni, because not everyone is that intelligent. I don't understand why not going to the olympics, or saying "you are not fit enough, or strong enough, or physically good enough" is perfectly acceptable, but saying "you're not academically smart enough" is considered an insult. Yes, universities are schools of learning, and yes, only the most intelligent should have access. As to how to assess who these people are, I agree, it is difficult or very near impossible in a system where money plays such an important role, but that's one of the problems of meritocracy such as it stands in the US: it's not meritocracy, it's whether or not you have the money to make up for the fact that you don't have merit (this is what I'm against in the meritocracy system, the fact that rich people can pay their way out of it).

The other problem with meritocracy the way it is currently defined in the States is that it relies on pretty much "being good at everything and on top of that have extraordinary experiences", rather than "have a keen interest in a certain area and a lively intelligence that will mean that you can be successful in your studies of that are". In that sense, I think British universities are doing a better job of choosing their students based on their interest in their field.

I would also like to point out that yes, some people do flourish in university. This is true. However, couldn't these same people have flourished during primary and secondary school if the right stimuli had been available?

Reply 9028

wadhamite

Dear GOGs, I need career advice.

I've had a temporary teaching contract this year, which I have loved; but I need publications, so I have accepted a post-doc position for the next 15 months at a new institution. My current department still want me to teach next year, and will pay me, but the time commitment would be much smaller (six hours/week in term time versus the current 37.5).

New boss has said "I think it's a very bad idea for you to teach next year. We can re-evaluate in 12 months' time."

I *really* want/need more teaching experience on my CV and I enjoy teaching.
I wrote the course from scratch last year that I would teach again, which doesn't need updating.
It would give me a day/half day a week (in the two teaching terms, so only for four months of the year total) at my old institute, which opens up access to additional travel funding (have already won a small travel grant contingent on being at current institute).

The post-doc position pays less than my current job; this teaching would help to buffer that salary loss. I don't know how to proceed from here in a way that's respectful of the new boss but is still assertive - the new boss is a very powerful scientist, but I do not want her to think she can walk all over me.

Any suggestions?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 9029

Original post by wadhamite

Dear GOGs, I need career advice.

I've had a temporary teaching contract this year, which I have loved; but I need publications, so I have accepted a post-doc position for the next 15 months at a new institution. My current department still want me to teach next year, and will pay me, but the time commitment would be much smaller (six hours/week in term time versus the current 37.5).

New boss has said "I think it's a very bad idea for you to teach next year. We can re-evaluate in 12 months' time."

I *really* want/need more teaching experience on my CV and I enjoy teaching.
I wrote the course from scratch last year that I would teach again, which doesn't need updating.
It would give me a day/half day a week (in the two teaching terms, so only for four months of the year total) at my old institute, which opens up access to additional travel funding (have already won a small travel grant contingent on being at current institute).

The post-doc position pays less than my current job; this teaching would help to buffer that salary loss. I don't know how to proceed from here in a way that's respectful of the new boss but is still assertive - the new boss is a very powerful scientist, but I do not want her to think she can walk all over me.

Any suggestions?

That's a tough one. For one thing, check your contract. Does it allow you to take on other working responsibilities whilst your working at your new institution? If so, then you should be able to do what you want. However, it is important to consider that if your contract has certain hours stipulated in it (e.g. 37 hours/week) and you don't cover them, your boss can use this against you.

A suggestion might be to talk to HR at your new institution. They will be able to determine whether you would be breaking any rules taking the teaching job and it would also give them an advance warning if your boss were not happy with it.

As to how to proceed with the new boss in a way that is "respectful but is still assertive"... Quite honestly, you asked for permission to do something and she said no (or pretty much said no). You are still planning on going ahead and doing what you were going to do anyway. I don't think anything you can say now (from I would use it as a buffer against the change in salary to I think teaching will benefit my long term career) will make her change her mind. I can see her making the argument that other post-docs are not taking time of their job in order to pursue another job in a different institution that does not benefit her department in any way, and they're getting paid the same as you.

If you really want to proceed I would assume that it will be against your boss' wishes (unless you wait for a year and then try to convince her to change her mind). You can tell her "I am an adult, and I think that this will benefit my career, so this is a choice I am making. I thank you for your advice, since I really appreciate it, and if my job here suffers I will consider giving up my teaching, but for now, this is the decision I have taken and I would appreciate it if you could respect it". This seems to me like the nicest way to phrase it but it doesn't mean that she will be happy about it or accept it.

Just out of curiosity, will you be working in a lab at an institute? In my experience (which is very limited I admit), if this is the case your boss can make your life quite difficult and it can be quite hard to get around it, so I would try to not make things too confrontational.

Sorry if what I'm saying isn't very helpful, just wanted to give you my point of view. Hope others can be a bit more optimistic than I am.

Reply 9030

apotoftea

OP

19

Original post by wadhamite

Dear GOGs, I need career advice.

I've had a temporary teaching contract this year, which I have loved; but I need publications, so I have accepted a post-doc position for the next 15 months at a new institution. My current department still want me to teach next year, and will pay me, but the time commitment would be much smaller (six hours/week in term time versus the current 37.5).

New boss has said "I think it's a very bad idea for you to teach next year. We can re-evaluate in 12 months' time."

I *really* want/need more teaching experience on my CV and I enjoy teaching.
I wrote the course from scratch last year that I would teach again, which doesn't need updating.
It would give me a day/half day a week (in the two teaching terms, so only for four months of the year total) at my old institute, which opens up access to additional travel funding (have already won a small travel grant contingent on being at current institute).

The post-doc position pays less than my current job; this teaching would help to buffer that salary loss. I don't know how to proceed from here in a way that's respectful of the new boss but is still assertive - the new boss is a very powerful scientist, but I do not want her to think she can walk all over me.

Any suggestions?

Why exactly are they anti you teaching? I'd be quite firm in your position as turning down the contract would be silly IMHO

Reply 9031

Original post by Puck_1991

I agree with you, it is difficult (or impossible) to assess "the best". However, I do believe that in the same way that not everyone can participate in the Olympics, because not everyone is that physically gifted; not everyone should go to Uni, because not everyone is that intelligent. I don't understand why not going to the olympics, or saying "you are not fit enough, or strong enough, or physically good enough" is perfectly acceptable, but saying "you're not academically smart enough" is considered an insult. Yes, universities are schools of learning, and yes, only the most intelligent should have access. As to how to assess who these people are, I agree, it is difficult or very near impossible in a system where money plays such an important role, but that's one of the problems of meritocracy such as it stands in the US: it's not meritocracy, it's whether or not you have the money to make up for the fact that you don't have merit (this is what I'm against in the meritocracy system, the fact that rich people can pay their way out of it).

The other problem with meritocracy the way it is currently defined in the States is that it relies on pretty much "being good at everything and on top of that have extraordinary experiences", rather than "have a keen interest in a certain area and a lively intelligence that will mean that you can be successful in your studies of that are". In that sense, I think British universities are doing a better job of choosing their students based on their interest in their field.

I would also like to point out that yes, some people do flourish in university. This is true. However, couldn't these same people have flourished during primary and secondary school if the right stimuli had been available?

I think this is a very narrow view of education. The Olympics is a competition - education is not. The Olympics is public entertainment which provides direct revenue - education is not. The Olympics is only about ability in your sport - university is more than just about academics. University is not just studying full-stop - do you know what the Ivy League is named after? Do you have any idea how important sport, societies and clubs are to personal and professional development of students?

Of course those students could have flourished but the stimuli wasn't there. Perhaps they grew up on a council estate as thousands do, perhaps they went to a poor school that didn't push them, perhaps they disliked the memorising and exam-technique that dominates pre-university studies, perhaps they came from an unstable family/environment... the list is endless.

Original post by Puck_1991

Herein lies the problem if you ask me. "Graduate jobs" should not exist except for posts which actually require a specific degree. Transferable skills (because they are transferable) can be acquired in so many more ways than University. I'm not going to go into this in detail (because it sounds incidental) but I know at least two people who started in banks "from the bottom" (without a degree) and who've worked themselves up to positions above graduates. Graduate jobs as such don't exist, it's more graduate job schemes that allow you to advance quicker. And I'm not convinced that this a fair way to do it.

When an employer decides that they are going to create some "graduate jobs", it is primarily a way of them saying that they would like to recruit some people who were at least in the top half (likely in the top quarter if they require a 2:1 or above) of the ability distribution for entry level positions in the company, with a view to initially quick career progression, with the possibility of perhaps moving to other departments or lines of work in the company.

I think this is largely because the bright, sedulous 16-18 year olds that would have at one point been recruited into these entry level positions and trained up are no longer on the market: they all go to university now and are now recruited as part of the graduate intake.

It would be impossible to restrict graduate jobs to only jobs that genuinely require a degree because how is it defined whether the job genuinely requires a degree? Almost any example you can give likely had a non-graduate route 30 years ago.

Reply 9033

Ethereal

19

Original post by wadhamite

QFA

Original post by Puck_1991

That's a tough one. For one thing, check your contract.

If it doesn't expressly allow it (and there isn't any HR guidance that expressly allows it) it is best to assume it doesn't. In employment law there are certain "implied terms" which bind you even though they aren't there - and one of those is that you will give all your time and skill to your employer.

Reply 9034

Original post by maskofsanity

I think this is a very narrow view of education. The Olympics is a competition - education is not. The Olympics is public entertainment which provides direct revenue - education is not. The Olympics is only about ability in your sport - university is more than just about academics. University is not just studying full-stop - do you know what the Ivy League is named after? Do you have any idea how important sport, societies and clubs are to personal and professional development of students?

Of course those students could have flourished but the stimuli wasn't there. Perhaps they grew up on a council estate as thousands do, perhaps they went to a poor school that didn't push them, perhaps they disliked the memorising and exam-technique that dominates pre-university studies, perhaps they came from an unstable family/environment... the list is endless.

It's not actually. It's just a narrow view of University education. I think that other forms of education should be available that weren't university and involved academics for people who aren't academically capable.

University may not be studying full stop, of course not! But this doesn't mean that University shouldn't be academic and geared towards academics. Other institutions can provide the same sports, societies, etc. without being geared towards academics but other types of education (e.g. vocational training).

Part of the problem I'm addressing is that thing such as vocational training are considered as a poorer choice than going to University and that has to stop.

Also, yes, I think there are jobs that require a degree:

-Medicine
-Law
-Consultancy on specific topics
-Banking (I think someone going into banking should know basic economics. And if this really isn't necessary, then requirements for degrees should be scrapped)
-Teaching (and I don't mean education degrees, I mean in order to teach A-level physics you need to have studied A-level physics yourself)
-Engineering
-Architecture

EDIT: just realised this list should have been quoted in reply to Smack rather than here. Sorry for the confusion.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 9035

Nynyflower

18

I'm a graduate environmental scientist (on a fixed term contact, boo) and you definitely need a related degree for my job. No way could anybody who hadn't spent 3 years studying an environmental subject do my job as they just wouldn't have the right knowledge. Mind you, the experience I gained on my internship counts as well.

Reply 9036

Original post by Smack

When an employer decides that they are going to create some "graduate jobs", it is primarily a way of them saying that they would like to recruit some people who were at least in the top half (likely in the top quarter if they require a 2:1 or above) of the ability distribution for entry level positions in the company, with a view to initially quick career progression, with the possibility of perhaps moving to other departments or lines of work in the company.

I think this is largely because the bright, sedulous 16-18 year olds that would have at one point been recruited into these entry level positions and trained up are no longer on the market: they all go to university now and are now recruited as part of the graduate intake.

It would be impossible to restrict graduate jobs to only jobs that genuinely require a degree because how is it defined whether the job genuinely requires a degree? Almost any example you can give likely had a non-graduate route 30 years ago.

The first two paragraphs exemplify what I'm saying. People go to University not because they want to learn but because it has now been established as the means to get a graduate job. The same people might not go to University if this wasn't the case. As to examples of jobs that require a degree see my earlier post replying to maskofsanity (I admit to making a mistake and listing it there... the perils of replying to quickly).

Reply 9037

Original post by Nynyflower

I'm a graduate environmental scientist (on a fixed term contact, boo) and you definitely need a related degree for my job. No way could anybody who hadn't spent 3 years studying an environmental subject do my job as they just wouldn't have the right knowledge. Mind you, the experience I gained on my internship counts as well.

Absolutely. I'm not saying there aren't jobs for which a degree isn't required. I'm just saying don't make jobs where a specific degree isn't required "graduate jobs" (maybe you're not referring to my post, not sure so I'm replying anyway, if not referring to me, please ignore me :smile:

)

Reply 9038