Education is about real world use not grades?

Do you agree with this statement?

If so, would you agree that some types of education are less valuable?

Background: My Archaeologist graduate friend got a first class degree and is working in a café at the National Trust. My Engineering graduate friend got a 3rd class and is working for a chemical producer for £38,000 per year. The former always worked hard and achieved better grades, the latter slated the arts, partied often, failed year 1 of university but put in a moderate amount of effort.

Maybe the engineer had a better aptitude and his skills are more in demand? Who knows?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

revron77

It really just depends on the job market. Your friend picked a degree that had low employment compared to the engineer.

Example: Psychology is a good field, but too many grads results in not enough jobs. Making it irrational to study.

Reply 2

Mr Student

Original post by revron77

Precisely my thinking. Why are people not informed of this at high school though? My teachers told me to study what I enjoyed most.

Reply 3

revron77

Original post by Mr Student

Precisely my thinking. Why are people not informed of this at high school though? My teachers told me to study what I enjoyed most.

People need to just weigh up thier options from the practical to the things they like.

I mean there are degrees we all love to study, but we need to think about the future. I would love to study philosophy, but Im becoming a paramedic. I still love the degree and its practical. But philosophy would be great to study.

Personally, I feel schools should have careers advisors who can inform students what degrees they shouldnt be doing.

Reply 4

Smack

Volunteer Team

The engineering graduate had a set of skills that the chemical producer was seeking, a set of skills that were in short supply, and the chemical producer was able to, or had to, pay a high price for that set of skills.

The archaeologist's skills were in much lower demand relative to their supply, hence why they were not able to secure a job related to archaeology.

Employers are not there to reward you for choosing to study something you're passionate about or good at; they're there to make money, and they do this by providing a service/product, and the provision of this service/product requires various sets of skills.

Some people may not be informed of this during their secondary education, because it may not be politically correct to do so. Or, the people who are meant to be providing this information may not be aware of it. I am not sure, though.

Reply 5

shorty.loves.angels

I think students should be looking at both sides of things; what skills do I have/ enjoy AND will I be able to follow these up into a job.

We still need Psychology students, but could some of the candidates with similar skills be introduced to other career paths, which may be in higher demand?

I don't think schools are necessarily very good at helping students to choose suitable career paths, and think it can be incredibly difficult for students to get a broad experience and understanding of their options.

Reply 6

Mr Student

These reponses are great. Some of you may have seen Ken Robinson's TED video on schools killing creativity. It may be a little harsh to say this but Ken's theories about education and studying what you're good and passionate about work great for the gifted and fortunate but could cause others a lot of disappointment.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7

txo

This is a really poor comparison, of course the engineer is going to find a better job than the archaeology graduate!
This about their job, not their education. Of course when it comes to careers, real world application is far more important.

Reply 8

Mr Student

Original post by txo

I don't see why it is a poor comparison when it is an actual observation.

Sure there are many factors at play here but I think this example underscores the supply/demand for skills in maths/science/engineering vs arts.

Reply 9

llys

It's a bit odd tbh. Everything 16+ is career-focused. (I agree with you - unless someone is exceptional, that is currently the best option for them.) But of course we all acknowledge that education for education's sake is also important. So we waste that on 11-16 year-olds, who don't have the motivation or intellect to really grasp it...

I would almost reverse the current system - I would make 11-16 very practical (and mathsy), and 16+ dual (general education + career-focused education side-by-side).

Reply 10

yo radical one

Original post by Mr Student

Holy...

Explain, university, company, type of engineering?

Reply 11

yo radical one

Original post by Smack

I don't mean this in a rude way, but if the guy had a third, what skills really was he going to offer?

Reply 12

Smack

Volunteer Team

Original post by yo radical one

I don't mean this in a rude way, but if the guy had a third, what skills really was he going to offer?

Engineering ones.

Reply 13

yo radical one

Original post by Smack

Engineering ones.

My point was, with the greatest of respect, how does getting a third demonstrate a knowledge of engineering?

Reply 14

TurboCretin

There's a difference between education and schooling.

Get good grades in subjects which employers value, and take it upon yourself to develop your intellect and interests on your own time. God knows your teachers won't achieve that.

Reply 15

Mr Student

Original post by llys

While this could isolate some students I do agree. There's no point telling students any subject will give them the means to aquiring a good career only for them to find out their skills command no premium, are in great supply and there is little demand for them, meaning they can only access jobs which they didn't need that education for. It's utterly wrong. Why not tell them how it is. Tell them the skills that are needed and then let them make an informed choice about their education.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Reply 16

Smack

Volunteer Team

Original post by yo radical one

My point was, with the greatest of respect, how does getting a third demonstrate a knowledge of engineering?

It doesn't. And neither does a first. You don't really start to learn engineering until your first job.

Also, we seem to be confusing knowledge with skills. A third demonstrates that you were not as adept at the required skills than if you achieved a higher grade, but it does not demonstrate that you could not go on to improve them, or obtain the required knowledge throughout your career.

Reply 17

Mr Student

Original post by yo radical one

Holy...

Explain, university, company, type of engineering?

The engineer went to a mid tier uni. The archeologist went to Manchester.

It was mechatronic engineering but he said he did a chemical module????

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Reply 18

yo radical one

Original post by Mr Student

The engineer went to a mid tier uni. The archeologist went to Manchester.

It was mechatronic engineering but he said he did a chemical module????

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Maybe he has other skills which he demonstrated in the interview session

(if you know what I mean :sexface:

)

Original post by Smack

I guess it really is about experience too

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 19

Mr Student

Original post by yo radical one

I don't mean this in a rude way, but if the guy had a third, what skills really was he going to offer?

He was always pretty practical but kind of lazy. He's just the type who always could land on his feet I think. He picked up concepts quickly but never pushed himself. I believe the term is gifted/talented. I wish I could sail through like that.

But in summary he was technically competent, great communication, good personality, bright and just did what he needed to to get by.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk