Turn on thread page Beta

The truth behind the new jobless generation watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phantom_X)
    I have worked in the graduate recruitment field for a bit of time- to realise at least, that what you and countless others are proposing is extremely short sighted. You must realise that the arts is beneficial because it provides countless benefits for the public;

    1. The public are more atuned to access contemporary art subjects- much more so than they are technical sciences and mathematics, which the latter is essentially an extremely restricted universe.

    2.We are peddled with the idea that science and math are good because they produce nice material things that humans can use like computers. Yet they also forget that normal people need to acess these technical things, which is why things like art, design and media are important to the daily world- they are means of engagement, which facilitate individuals into using the materiality derived from science.

    3. In a world where skills and ideas are important, the times of industry specific things are basically irellevant, as the most important thing atm is transferrable skills.

    4.If you beleive that only tangible material things are important, do you believe that schools should eradicate art, music, history, english etc from the cirriculum ? After all, why teach a higher % of 16-18 year olds these subjects if it wont give them a chance at a job, right ?
    All i'm saying, is that this country lacks graduates in fields like engineering, because your average joe decides that he'd rather learn about the romans and hope to find an administrative role or a vocation in the media which someone who didn't even go uni could do just as well, probably better, because in those three years that the graduate studied classics, he actually had a related job for 3 years and hence has obtained the skills necessary anyway.

    I am in no way saying that we should eradicate history, politics, etc. It is vital for our heritage and culture, but more people should be turning to the sciences and such. Ofc you learn skills at uni, but you could do the same by working in those three years. Talk to people who have actually had a job and a graduate and you will see that the man who has worked is more skillful in what he does. Subjects like history only provide transferrable skills, but not knowledge that can actually help them. However, a person who has worked has the skills and has already obtained knowledge in the field that he's working in.

    People go to uni without thinking of what they want to do, but what they want when at university, so that they can have a "rockin" time
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunately nowadays it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know.

    It's really very sad and disheartening.
    Offline

    15
    I have no social skills. I am a worthless human being.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frastgouy)
    All i'm saying, is that this country lacks graduates in fields like engineering, because your average joe decides that he'd rather learn about the romans and hope to find an administrative role or a vocation in the media which someone who didn't even go uni could do just as well, probably better, because in those three years that the graduate studied classics, he actually had a related job for 3 years and hence has obtained the skills necessary anyway.
    No, here you are being an idiot. The 'average joe' does not study classics, because anyone who actually does study classics should know that translating endless amounts of greek, arabic, hebrew etc is not an easy task, particularly at top universities. An average joe can also be found in other fields, even more in the workplace, where they 'work' to get by. And the reality is that the reason why this country does not produce the skilled engineers that say is produced in asia or even America is because departments lack funds needed to give actual research engineers funding to carry out innovative projects, as well as beaurocratic systems of patenting that stifle innovation compared to less legallyt dominated countries in the East. Further, undergrad engineers are also likely to be attracted to other fields- fields in banking and finance, where there is more money to be made, which also takes away the best engineers. The reality is that the jobs crisis is much to do with the private sector than your ridiculous daily mail esque claim.
    I am in no way saying that we should eradicate history, politics, etc. It is vital for our heritage and culture, but more people should be turning to the sciences and such.
    Why though ? We have plenty of scientists who get paid measly wages for carrying out public research- and the best ones realise this and leave to go to the states or wherever scientists are nurtured more. Further, as long as a dogmatic top-down cirricula exists in the school system, science will always be a chore that noone wants to really pursue.
    Ofc you learn skills at uni, but you could do the same by working in those three years.
    If you get a job. I left school without a job and ended up borrowing my parent's money to start a business, which, thanks to me living in London, i was able to successfully pay back. Most people don't have this opportunity straight out of school.
    Talk to people who have actually had a job and a graduate and you will see that the man who has worked is more skillful in what he does.
    Of the wide number of skilled people I have met, the more successful people have had degrees and professional jobs.
    Subjects like history only provide transferrable skills, but not knowledge that can actually help them.
    Wrong again. History involves a great deal of analytical ability, the ability to articulate yourself well in writing, to engage in a wide range of disciplines like politics, sociology and even economics, as well as the ability to think in abstract ways- which differ dramatically to the more process orientated means of mathematics and pure sciences.
    However, a person who has worked has the skills and has already obtained knowledge in the field that he's working in.

    People go to uni without thinking of what they want to do, but what they want when at university, so that they can have a "rockin" time
    Do you enjoy being an idiot ? Most young people out of school have no idea what they want to do. A lot of my friends left school wanting to avoid uni debt, and now have full time jobs stacking shelves in tescos or working as office assistants doing the same thing every day and living for the weekend or their 4 week annual holiday- im sure none of them wanted that when they left school. University is supposed to be a time where you realise what you are good at and then attempt to market yourself toward that speciallism. yes, it CAN be attained outside of university, but it rarely ever is.

    I also suggest you get off your high horse.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    When choosing my degree options I had to think of what I enjoyed/was good at, and how I could make a career out of it. It needs to be a combination of the two... If you really don't enjoy it, you're either not going to do well or you're going to despise your life working in that field. But you still need to be practical and choose something that you can make a decent career out of.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phantom_X)
    I also suggest you get off your high horse.
    I gradually lost interest in this as you continuously and childishly insulted me more and more as i read your post. Learn to put forth your comments and ideas in a respectable and considerate manner, prick. Who do you think you are?

    A point to make though, look at how many engineering graduates there have been in the last 10 years compared to other departments. Your ideology that we don't have enough engineers because they all go into financing is really eye-raising. We as a nation provide some of the world's best engineering technology i'll have you know and the uk is actually the most research productive country in the world in the field. A lot people don't opportunities when out of uni either. For humanities and arts for example according to the independant, only 27% find a job after 6 months. Life is what you make it, and if you decide not to go university but pursue your ambitions you will acheive. A lot of ppl dont go to uni, because they cant be asked or they cant. It is those who fail. Those who still pursue and have good working ethics will still do well, it's all subjective to the individual. Yes, it is more likely that those who graduated will succeed more, because a massive majority of those who don't go uni have such terrible working ethics, smoke weed all day, etc, etc. If you put two people of the same mentality, but one who went uni and the other worked, i'm confident their prospects after 3 years will be more or less similar. You have in fact stated the "skills" acquired from history in your post...i doubt you'll need to know the causes and aftermath of the kennedy assassination as an Administrator or as someone who works in the media. Most people who come out of uni also have no idea what they want to do, ESPECIALLY arts and humanities students.

    All in all, what im saying is that those who go to uni for the sake of it are better off to the country doing an apprenticeship or developing your skills at a job. Most of the jobs you seek are available fully to non-graduates and if you put the effort in you will have the same prospects, but will earn in the time given rather than burn.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    when I was in school we were always told to enjoy ourselves and find something you enjoy doing


    that message seems to be changing to now. it's find something that has a good chance of a paying job at the end
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    " Of the 29.17 million people aged 16 and over in employment in the United Kingdom, 2.56 million are non-British nationals. At the same time there are 2.62 million in this country unemployed"

    And this is exactly why I feel politicians should be held accountable for the current unemployment crisis. It's criminal allowing such high immigration to take over jobs from perfectly capable British nationals. If those 2.56 million had not entered the country we'd have a lovely unemployment figure of around 0.06 million, and the billions saved from welfare could be used to lower taxes or improve public services.
    Haha, are you serious?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frastgouy)
    I gradually lost interest in this as you continuously and childishly insulted me more and more as i read your post. Learn to put forth your comments and ideas in a respectable and considerate manner, prick. Who do you think you are?
    Awseome, of course. Don't hate the player homie
    A point to make though, look at how many engineering graduates there have been in the last 10 years compared to other departments. Your ideology that we don't have enough engineers because they all go into financing is really eye-raising. We as a nation provide some of the world's best engineering technology i'll have you know and the uk is actually the most research productive country in the world in the field. A lot people don't opportunities when out of uni either. For humanities and arts for example according to the independant, only 27% find a job after 6 months. Life is what you make it, and if you decide not to go university but pursue your ambitions you will acheive. A lot of ppl dont go to uni, because they cant be asked or they cant. It is those who fail. Those who still pursue and have good working ethics will still do well, it's all subjective to the individual. Yes, it is more likely that those who graduated will succeed more, because a massive majority of those who don't go uni have such terrible working ethics, smoke weed all day, etc, etc. If you put two people of the same mentality, but one who went uni and the other worked, i'm confident their prospects after 3 years will be more or less similar. You have in fact stated the "skills" acquired from history in your post...i doubt you'll need to know the causes and aftermath of the kennedy assassination as an Administrator or as someone who works in the media. Most people who come out of uni also have no idea what they want to do, ESPECIALLY arts and humanities students.

    All in all, what im saying is that those who go to uni for the sake of it are better off to the country doing an apprenticeship or developing your skills at a job. Most of the jobs you seek are available fully to non-graduates and if you put the effort in you will have the same prospects, but will earn in the time given rather than burn.
    The country may have good research facilities, but they will be overtaken in the next few years by Asia, and will be outperformed by American research departments as well as other institutions with more speciallised research institutions. My dad is an engineering grad with an Msc in mechanical engineering; he worked as a research student before quitting and starting a business that had nothing to do with engineering. He went into the field because of the same sentiments you are proposing- a guaranteed job. Which is why it is diheartening to see people actively proposing that education should be comprimised so that essentially trained workers can be cultivated to produce material products without any thought of what benefit education actually brings. And the second reality is that many top engineering grads go into fields that have little to do with engineering, or at least speciallised engineering with no real public benefit. This is what lacks when people talk about how wonderful STEM is; they don't realise that much of what STEM produces will rarely be accessible for public consumption or utilisation. As well as this- the second truth is that academic research in engineering and sciences is poorly paid- which disincentivises innovation compared to other countries.

    and yes, it is how hard you work- I can attest to that, considering that I did form a successful small business in one year compared to my friends who still work at Tescos. But with the arts and humanities, you have to look beyond the statistics. Arts and humanities dont lead to a direct field- that dosent meant they are useless. Many arts grads go on to do post grad work, which is beneficial in many ways for the public, particularly as a lot of that work is accessible to the public. Some go on to do professional courses- I am hoping to do the law conversion after I graduate, which means I also wont be officially 'employed' after I graduate, even if I have a guaranteed job in 2 years. Some go overseas and work in NGOs, and others dont even reply to the surveys sent out that determine these stats. essentially, the stats are poor recordings of the actual successes of such universities and institutions. Finally, the arts does teach a great deal about human nature- clacissists were the main field of study for a lot of agents in MI5 and MI6, and the civil service still widely consists of people with arts degrees. Law firms have a number of employees without law degrees in the arts, the second most popular degree being in History- and speaking to a lot of law firm representatives- they do like this. History and its ability to cultivate very abstract, quirky ideas, moulds intelligent people which are necessary for complex jobs. It's not what you learn in your degree, its the skills and the abilities you attain from it- which is just like science. You may never use organic chemistry in your life, but it can teach you how to recognise sequences and patterns.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phantom_X)
    The country may have good research facilities, but they will be overtaken in the next few years by Asia, and will be outperformed by American research departments as well as other institutions with more speciallised research institutions.
    That doesn't mean that the research won't any good. What point are you trying to make when stating this anyway?
    My dad is an engineering grad with an Msc in mechanical engineering; he worked as a research student before quitting and starting a business that had nothing to do with engineering. He went into the field because of the same sentiments you are proposing- a guaranteed job.
    Msc is more to do with research in technologies as opposed to an Meng which is ACTUAL engineering. Anyway, just because your dad did this it doesn't mean that most engineers do :rolleyes:. Engineers earn a very decent wage, sure SOME decide to go to financing, but the greater majority don't. We lack engineers, because not enough are applying for engineering courses
    Which is why it is diheartening to see people actively proposing that education should be comprimised so that essentially trained workers can be cultivated to produce material products without any thought of what benefit education actually brings.
    I'm not denying education is good. Knowledge is power, always. But those who want to go to uni for the sake of it and then choose arts and humanities, because they can't think of doing anything else and then end up thinking that theres a wonderful and generous job waiting for them at the end of it are just burning tax payers money, because what they provide isn't worth the money the government payed for them. Especially when you think of how many people there are who flunk their way to scrape 2.1 and gain next to nothing out of it. These are the people i'm having a go at. And a massive majority of them go into humanities and arts, because they are the easier courses which they dont mind doing
    And the second reality is that many top engineering grads go into fields that have little to do with engineering, or at least speciallised engineering with no real public benefit.
    I'd love to know where you got this from. Certainly most top grads i know end up specialising in fields where they eventually earn well over 100,000
    This is what lacks when people talk about how wonderful STEM is; they don't realise that much of what STEM produces will rarely be accessible for public consumption or utilisation.
    Only if you fail to get a 2.1
    As well as this- the second truth is that academic research in engineering and sciences is poorly paid- which disincentivises innovation compared to other countries.
    again, how does this mean that they can't provide expertise to society. They may not be as funded as other sectors, but they certainly make use of it

    and yes, it is how hard you work- I can attest to that, considering that I did form a successful small business in one year compared to my friends who still work at Tescos. But with the arts and humanities, you have to look beyond the statistics. Arts and humanities dont lead to a direct field- that dosent meant they are useless. Many arts grads go on to do post grad work, which is beneficial in many ways for the public,
    not really to the public, but themselves. Someone who is commited enough to do a post-grad will massively benefit, but to himself mainly
    particularly as a lot of that work is accessible to the public. Some go on to do professional courses- I am hoping to do the law conversion after I graduate, which means I also wont be officially 'employed' after I graduate, even if I have a guaranteed job in 2 years. Some go overseas and work in NGOs, and others dont even reply to the surveys sent out that determine these stats.
    this is the case for every course and equally the amount of ppl who succeed, the amount who fail don't respond either. Probably more, to increase the value of their degree
    essentially, the stats are poor recordings of the actual successes of such universities and institutions. Finally, the arts does teach a great deal about human nature- clacissists were the main field of study for a lot of agents in MI5 and MI6, and the civil service still widely consists of people with arts degrees. Law firms have a number of employees without law degrees in the arts, the second most popular degree being in History- and speaking to a lot of law firm representatives- they do like this. History and its ability to cultivate very abstract, quirky ideas, moulds intelligent people which are necessary for complex jobs. It's not what you learn in your degree, its the skills and the abilities you attain from it- which is just like science. You may never use organic chemistry in your life, but it can teach you how to recognise sequences and patterns.
    no doubt about this, but only the commited ones get sth out of it. Many scrape a 2.1, learn nothing transferrable and expect a job with a nice salary. Fortunately more employers than you think see through this. At many places, a degree itself provides a limited advantage in the application process which can be made up for with experience and i know this from first hand experiece
    FYI, awesome is something you are, not someone you are
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by extom)
    when I was in school we were always told to enjoy ourselves and find something you enjoy doing

    that message seems to be changing to now. it's find something that has a good chance of a paying job at the end
    As it should be
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Phantom_X)
    This is what lacks when people talk about how wonderful STEM is; they don't realise that much of what STEM produces will rarely be accessible for public consumption or utilisation.
    So?

    STEM isn't always about creating little consumer goods that your average Joe can play about it for a few hours. STEM is often about creating solutions to industrial problems, and it should be pretty clear that these solutions do benefit everyone (in the developed world at least), even if they don't personally get to play with them or see them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frastgouy)
    People go to uni without thinking of what they want to do, but what they want when at university, so that they can have a "rockin" time
    It's frankly a myth that we have a shortage of engineers and scientists in this country. We may have a shortage of experienced and qualified ones in emerging fields, but that is universally true. We have an abundance of science graduates.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham22)
    I have no social skills. I am a worthless human being.
    What you want, pity? To be patronised? Sort it out.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    It's frankly a myth that we have a shortage of engineers and scientists in this country. We may have a shortage of experienced and qualified ones in emerging fields, but that is universally true. We have an abundance of science graduates.
    The real issue is that many of them decide to go to other industries where they can earn a lot more money.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Chillaxer)
    What you want, pity? To be patronised? Sort it out.
    It was more a comment on the attitudes in the article than a cry for help.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Far too many people think that many jobs are beneath them. You'll find that many people on his site that complain about not having a job have not tried handing out flyers, raising money for charity or being a shelf filler at Tesco. People seem to be under the impression that jobs will be handed to them after school or university or that it'll be a simple life when they have a job and they can just kick back and earn some easy money.

    People in this country are quick to blame others or the government for their own misfortune, whilst the Government and companies aren't exactly angels, they're not the reason that Mike can't find a job to fuel his drinking binge at Uni or that Sarah can't find a job after leaving school at 16. There are an abundance of jobs, especially in city centers for young people, the myth that jobs are hotly contested is only true for higher ends jobs, where there is fierce competition from other graduates with gleaming CV's.

    A simple job as a person handing out flyers in the street can net between £20-£60 a day and usually has a quick turn over, you'll generally see new people working with you every day or every other day. You can also get paid to collect money for charity or work at a call center, though these are based on how much you earn the company, even the simplest Luddite can earn a minimum of £10 a day.


    People are quick to say that it's all about who you know and such, but this is slowly phasing out, with the current economic crisis this is happening less and less and it mostly happens once again, in the high end jobs rather than a simple "I need money to live off" job. It's human nature to complain and be lazy, but please don't start blaming others for your laziness and lack of motivation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Derfel)
    . There are an abundance of jobs, especially in city centers for young people, the myth that jobs are hotly contested is only true for higher ends jobs, where there is fierce competition from other graduates with gleaming CV's..
    Evidence? I mean, apart from the rising unemployment and slower/declining job growth.

    And no, it's not only true for higher jobs? What a ridiculous statement to make.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Derfel)
    Far too many people think that many jobs are beneath them. You'll find that many people on his site that complain about not having a job have not tried handing out flyers, raising money for charity or being a shelf filler at Tesco
    And many people have tried those things, but still not got anywhere.

    (Original post by Derfel)
    There are an abundance of jobs
    False.
    Certainly many less jobs than there are people looking for jobs.

    (Original post by Derfel)
    the myth that jobs are hotly contested is only true for higher ends jobs
    False.
    Its a simple fact that you can easily get a hundred or more people applying for a simple supermarket job.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    So?

    STEM isn't always about creating little consumer goods that your average Joe can play about it for a few hours. STEM is often about creating solutions to industrial problems, and it should be pretty clear that these solutions do benefit everyone (in the developed world at least), even if they don't personally get to play with them or see them.
    which then leads back to the materiality arguement, ie. STEM is good because it produces material things which deliver results; except if you think about it, that isnt so clear in fields beyond engineering. For example, mathematics, in its pure form, is relatively useless compared to engineering etc because it inhabits its own universe and really provides little beyond solving problems that exist within that particular universe, yet it is seen as influential. Biology dosent really produce utilitarian material goods either, as many sponsored PhDs do not directly result in things that ultimately benefit the taxpayer as a whole, for example the study of insect populations and the such. Physics can also be argued that its tangible benefits are relatively minimal, considering that a lot of pure physics research- as my housemate is currently undertaking, only really benefits other physicists into understanding the god particle and the nature of the universe. Its immediate benefit is relatively small compared to what was argued at first.

    Im not saying science has no benefit- the contrary rather- it has a lot to benefit from in terms of its academic and educational value, and understanding ourselves is an important part of progress- indeed that is what the enlightenment period has shown. However, we must also acknowledge that the pure arts do play a role in this, and this includes literature, history, classics, economics and philosophy among others. The argument at hand is that there is no point doing a degree unless there is a specific job route after, and if you don't have one, theres no point going as all you are doing is financing your hobby through a taxpayer- the reality however, is that the importance of the arts, in delivering not only acessible forms of culture and indentity, as well as harnessing abstract thought, makes the arts important and timeless. To measure it against science is a fallacy because the notion of 'progress' is often identitified with science and thus science is seen as holding a specific value that is above other subjects. We forget for example, that in the 20th century, cognitive sciences and even material sciences were proven to be fallacious, a significant waste of money as other scientific ideas superceded them, and often led to destruction rather than peace- perhaps thats too abstract a view, but the point still stands that science, while important, should not be placed on a pedastil, particularly noting that while some scientific research does benefit humanity, a significant amount does not.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.