Businesses Must Provide Justification for Hiring School Leavers Over Graduates
Further to Monday's announcement that one in three retailers are now considering school leavers for positions that previously were reserved for graduates, it has today been identified that businesses must now be able to provide logical business reasons for opening graduate-specific schemes up to a wider calibre of candidates, namely, school leavers.
This decision was the foremost conclusion reached by industry experts who attended the Association of Graduate Recruiters' (AGR) discussion panel on Monday. It is their belief that for such a critical change to be made to the way that companies fill places allocated for graduate-specific schemes, justification is needed. Though the general consensus is, as stated, that businesses must now explain their motivation behind altering the type of candidates they are accepting, this by no means silences the ongoing debate around this issue.
The belief that it would be unfair to vary the graduate recruitment process for graduate schemes, without providing the public with valid justification, was echoed by the AGR's President, Anne-Marie Martin. She said: "In an age when we realised that we cannot afford higher education and we cannot afford to fund
from the public purse, organisations need to make sure they are entering school leavers' programmes for business reasons". She continued, voicing the concerns of
those who oppose such a change, by questioning whether school leavers are suitable and ready to enrol on graduate schemes.
Martin, speaking on behalf of graduates amass, suggested that by accepting school leavers in place of graduates for such positions, employers could be disadvantaging
themselves. She noted that employers would be denying themselves the "creativity and analytical skills" that graduates have spent their university career's developing in addition to the maturity that graduates are more likely to bring to any role, being four years older than school leavers. Martin furthermore commented that, in her opinion, the different "thinking styles" that graduates have, surpass those of school leavers.
However, not everyone shared in the thinking of the AGR's president. Sonja Stockton, an employee of PriceWaterHouseCoopers, said that while she agreed that businesses should be cautious when making such wide-reaching changes, they should be equally cautious about discounting the abilities of school leavers.
Stockton said that her firm had "benefited immeasurably" from accepting recent school leavers, in place of graduates. While such changes are a wonderful opportunity for school leavers to earn more money and gain the employment security that such companies will bring, earlier in life, as a recent graduate it is difficult not to question the readiness of school leavers for positions that some graduates spend four years at university preparing for. For now however, the debate continues.
Elise, GRB Journalist
This decision was the foremost conclusion reached by industry experts who attended the Association of Graduate Recruiters' (AGR) discussion panel on Monday. It is their belief that for such a critical change to be made to the way that companies fill places allocated for graduate-specific schemes, justification is needed. Though the general consensus is, as stated, that businesses must now explain their motivation behind altering the type of candidates they are accepting, this by no means silences the ongoing debate around this issue.
The belief that it would be unfair to vary the graduate recruitment process for graduate schemes, without providing the public with valid justification, was echoed by the AGR's President, Anne-Marie Martin. She said: "In an age when we realised that we cannot afford higher education and we cannot afford to fund
from the public purse, organisations need to make sure they are entering school leavers' programmes for business reasons". She continued, voicing the concerns of
those who oppose such a change, by questioning whether school leavers are suitable and ready to enrol on graduate schemes.
Martin, speaking on behalf of graduates amass, suggested that by accepting school leavers in place of graduates for such positions, employers could be disadvantaging
themselves. She noted that employers would be denying themselves the "creativity and analytical skills" that graduates have spent their university career's developing in addition to the maturity that graduates are more likely to bring to any role, being four years older than school leavers. Martin furthermore commented that, in her opinion, the different "thinking styles" that graduates have, surpass those of school leavers.
However, not everyone shared in the thinking of the AGR's president. Sonja Stockton, an employee of PriceWaterHouseCoopers, said that while she agreed that businesses should be cautious when making such wide-reaching changes, they should be equally cautious about discounting the abilities of school leavers.
Stockton said that her firm had "benefited immeasurably" from accepting recent school leavers, in place of graduates. While such changes are a wonderful opportunity for school leavers to earn more money and gain the employment security that such companies will bring, earlier in life, as a recent graduate it is difficult not to question the readiness of school leavers for positions that some graduates spend four years at university preparing for. For now however, the debate continues.
Elise, GRB Journalist
These positions that were previously reserved for graduates were previously taken by school leavers. Due to the mass expansion of higher education, jobs that were previously being taken by school leavers became graduate jobs, quite simply because there was enough graduates in the market looking for work for companies to be able to only select graduates for interviews. But now, with all the fear over the new fees, companies are anticipating the amount of graduates to drop, meaning that they may not be able to fill their positions only with graduates.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the quality of employees will decrease, either. These jobs were previously taken by school leavers, who did the job just fine. Obviously, graduates and the AGR have an interest in promoting the skills of graduates over non-graduates, and that should be kept in mind. Most graduates have degrees that are not relevant to their future line of work. Whilst people talk about skills such as "analytical" ones and "creativity" (which are extremely vague) that graduates supposedly have, do people not realise that such skills can also be gained outside of a univeresity? In fact, would such skills not actually be best gained in a real-world setting, where they would have been gained before?
This would leave university for the people who want to learn about a subject they enjoy, which is the way it should be; not a job factory.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the quality of employees will decrease, either. These jobs were previously taken by school leavers, who did the job just fine. Obviously, graduates and the AGR have an interest in promoting the skills of graduates over non-graduates, and that should be kept in mind. Most graduates have degrees that are not relevant to their future line of work. Whilst people talk about skills such as "analytical" ones and "creativity" (which are extremely vague) that graduates supposedly have, do people not realise that such skills can also be gained outside of a univeresity? In fact, would such skills not actually be best gained in a real-world setting, where they would have been gained before?
This would leave university for the people who want to learn about a subject they enjoy, which is the way it should be; not a job factory.
Its makes sense to hire school leavers that cost less than graduates that can do similar work.
I think if school leavers are competing with graduates for jobs on a large scale, graduates would be at a distinct disadvantage because they have big debts that would limit their flexibility.
I think if school leavers are competing with graduates for jobs on a large scale, graduates would be at a distinct disadvantage because they have big debts that would limit their flexibility.
Original post by Smack
These positions that were previously reserved for graduates were previously taken by school leavers. Due to the mass expansion of higher education, jobs that were previously being taken by school leavers became graduate jobs, quite simply because there was enough graduates in the market looking for work for companies to be able to only select graduates for interviews. But now, with all the fear over the new fees, companies are anticipating the amount of graduates to drop, meaning that they may not be able to fill their positions only with graduates.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the quality of employees will decrease, either. These jobs were previously taken by school leavers, who did the job just fine. Obviously, graduates and the AGR have an interest in promoting the skills of graduates over non-graduates, and that should be kept in mind. Most graduates have degrees that are not relevant to their future line of work. Whilst people talk about skills such as "analytical" ones and "creativity" (which are extremely vague) that graduates supposedly have, do people not realise that such skills can also be gained outside of a univeresity? In fact, would such skills not actually be best gained in a real-world setting, where they would have been gained before?
This would leave university for the people who want to learn about a subject they enjoy, which is the way it should be; not a job factory.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the quality of employees will decrease, either. These jobs were previously taken by school leavers, who did the job just fine. Obviously, graduates and the AGR have an interest in promoting the skills of graduates over non-graduates, and that should be kept in mind. Most graduates have degrees that are not relevant to their future line of work. Whilst people talk about skills such as "analytical" ones and "creativity" (which are extremely vague) that graduates supposedly have, do people not realise that such skills can also be gained outside of a univeresity? In fact, would such skills not actually be best gained in a real-world setting, where they would have been gained before?
This would leave university for the people who want to learn about a subject they enjoy, which is the way it should be; not a job factory.
This.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- 23, dropped out of uni, looking for career in accounting
- I feel that this country actively disadvantages older apprenticeship applicants
- Student Services at Kingston: KU Cares
- How to get a job?
- Mazars Assessment Centre
- What would I need to work in Management consulting
- My favourite experiences at Kingston University.
- What Uni to pick for Mech Eng
- Mazars Offer Holders 2023
- BTEC- Business Level 3 Revision help for finals
- RSM graduate scheme 2024
- Exeter or Warwick for a Finance BSc degree ?
- HR
- Can I go into banking with my BA Politics and Economics?
- Jobs for people with A levels but no degree?
- Graduated with BEng Mechanical Engineering and cant find a job
- Becoming an astronaut with Cambridge degree
- What to expect at your CCCU Canterbury Cathedral graduation
- Reputation of Richmond American Uni
- Applying to foreign universities
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 1 week ago
So I made the worst decision of my life. I chose Biochemistry as my degree.Last reply 1 week ago
Issues with jobs because I cannot driveTrending
Last reply 2 days ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 1 week ago
So I made the worst decision of my life. I chose Biochemistry as my degree.Last reply 1 week ago
Issues with jobs because I cannot drive
