Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Can you provide evidence for your first point? Presumably employers wouldn't request graduates if they could easily train the skills, after all.

    That may be so, but that doesn't mean a higher proportion of science graduates use their degree than arts students.
    I don't know if you're playing devil's advocate or whether you genuinely disagree with the thrust of my points.

    First of all, I am arguing that the increased number of people going to university has meant that if employers want the most intelligent persons in society, they will need to take graduates. I am arguing that the expansion of HE has caused the increased requirements of a degree in jobs not that the nature of jobs has now meant that the majority of individuals need a degree in order to do these kind of jobs well.

    This is a academic discussion, because we cannot reverse the past or stop large numbers of people going to university. I'm merely arguing from the point of view of the interests of the economy. Three years full-time is a very long period of time to gain these analytical skills etc. you mention, it is doubtful that they are really needed for the majority of graduate jobs. Also, it could be argued that you achieve many of these skills (albeit at a more shallow level) when studying A levels - also two years full-time education at great cost to the state.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    In that case, why educate anyone beyond the age of 14. By that point in time they should have picked up basic numeracy and literacy, which you seem to think is sufficient for most jobs. Then we could just have mathematics and science students progressing to GCSEs, A levels and degree, which is presumably what you want? After all, the Arts serve no purpose, right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    In that case, why educate anyone beyond the age of 14. By that point in time they should have picked up basic numeracy and literacy, which you seem to think is sufficient for most jobs. Then we could just have mathematics and science students progressing to GCSEs, A levels and degree, which is presumably what you want? After all, the Arts serve no purpose, right?
    You’re deliberately exaggeration what I said. I didn’t say Arts degrees have no useful purpose, just that, for most graduate jobs, they are not the most useful way to spend 3 years of time (5 years if you include the prerequisite A levels), with all the associated costs to the state.

    An English degree, for example, is a useful thing to undertake for those going into publishing, journalism etc. I’m really saying there is an excess of Arts graduates.

    However, I am only arguing from the point of view of what is beneficial to the economy, not offering a solution that I believe a government would ever implement.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    So it's not beneficial to the economy to teach anything other than maths and science? Honestly?
    And just because it's not the most efficient way doesn't mean it doesn't benefit the economy, an Arts degree still imparts useful skills valued by employers, and serves as a mark of labour quality. Economists are in favour of it, but I'm sure you know better.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    So it's not beneficial to the economy to teach anything other than maths and science? Honestly?
    And just because it's not the most efficient way doesn't mean it doesn't benefit the economy, an Arts degree still imparts useful skills valued by employers, and serves as a mark of labour quality. Economists are in favour of it, but I'm sure you know better.
    Why do you continue to misrepresent what I have said, when it is clearly visible above your distortions?

    I said there is an excess of Arts graduates, that would imply I do not think there should be none. The question I attended to was: what would be the most beneficial way to use that time and money for the economy - I concluded that in most instances it is not to send someone to university for three years to study an Arts degree.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It would be more beneficial for the economy for them to try and apply for a job for which they lack the qualifications? Because your idea that an increasing number of graduates has meant employers need to demand a degree doesn't fly. Britain is increasingly a service based economy, which necessitates an increase in the quality of the labour force. The effect you describe is probably minor, at most.
    It would be rather inefficient if employers had no way of distinguishing the more intelligent from less intelligent workers, leading to lower pay and lower labour participation, reduced productivity, output and income. Yay, economic success!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    It would be more beneficial for the economy for them to try and apply for a job for which they lack the qualifications? Because your idea that an increasing number of graduates has meant employers need to demand a degree doesn't fly. Britain is increasingly a service based economy, which necessitates an increase in the quality of the labour force. The effect you describe is probably minor, at most.
    It would be rather inefficient if employers had no way of distinguishing the more intelligent from less intelligent workers, leading to lower pay and lower labour participation, reduced productivity, output and income. Yay, economic success!
    I'm talking about an alternative situation before all the HE expansion, not an alteration now.

    As for your idea that my suggestion that employers have inevitably raised the bar due to there being more graduates not because of need. There have been many news stories about employers complaining that many graduates do not have useful skills that they need. Furthermore it is really not credible to suggest the labour market has strangely changed so much in a short period of time to need hundreds of thousands of people and 40% of school-leavers to now know the intricacies of Shakespeare's plays etc., in order to do any graduate job.

    GCSEs are a pretty good distinguisher of the intelligent from the less intelligent, as are A levels. So I don't see a problem there. As I say, my alternative would have individuals still studying part-time as required, for those many hundreds of thousands of students who would not be spending three years doing an Arts degree unnecessarily. As for improving the quality of the labour force, I’m referring to cutting off the excess of Arts students, other areas such as Computing students may need to continue to be expanded to support the expanding IT industry and so on.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoolSocks)
    I'm talking about an alternative situation before all the HE expansion, not an alteration now.

    As for your idea that my suggestion that employers have inevitably raised the bar due to there being more graduates not because of need. There have been many news stories about employers complaining that many graduates do not have useful skills that they need. Furthermore it is really not credible to suggest the labour market has strangely changed so much in a short period of time to need hundreds of thousands of people and 40% of school-leavers to now know the intricacies of Shakespeare's plays etc., in order to do any graduate job.

    GCSEs are a pretty good distinguisher of the intelligent from the less intelligent, as are A levels. So I don't see a problem there. As I say, my alternative would have individuals still studying part-time as required, for those many hundreds of thousands of students who would not be spending three years doing an Arts degree unnecessarily. As for improving the quality of the labour force, I’m referring to cutting off the excess of Arts students, other areas such as Computing students may need to continue to be expanded to support the expanding IT industry and so on.
    I didn't say they needed their exact course material, but the transferable skills required, and the labour market really can change that quickly, though it hasn't - the change has been underway for a century.

    GCSEs and A levels are far easier than degrees and so do not sufficiently distinguish between candidates. You are aware that unis complain that A levels fail in this regard?

    I'm interested as to why you think there's an excess of Arts students when they typically have higher professional employment rates than Science students.

    To me it sounds like you've been reading the Daily Mail and are basing your assertions on the blood boiling tripe that paper prints.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2nd2god)
    I definatley disagree with this
    First problem I have is for all 16 year old boys? seems abit sexist, there are plently of girls/chavettes who are disrespectful and commit street crime too.
    Also this is the idea of punishing the majority for the sins of the minority, which is never a good idea.
    It would also be bad from an academic point of view, the time from 16-18 is when academic boys are usually learning valuable skills which would be far more useful to them in a business world than beefing up with the mitary.
    Also one of the key values of this country is choice, nothing should be compulsory for 16 year olds, it just isn't right.
    Also due to the evolvement of war fare, these skills are likely to be pretty much useless if Britain goes to war because it will odds on be a nuclear war.
    The days of trenches and all that seem numbered.

    I think we should keep to how it is at the moment, people get to choose whether they want miltrary training or not, rather than forcing people with the "break them down, then rebuild them scheme" most people would rather not be broken down.
    Times have moved on since having to do time in the miltrary for good reasons, its like trying to bring back the cane and all that. Our culture has realised what a mistake it was.
    Ideally, NS would find a place for 'chavettes' as well as normal teenagers (be they 16 or 18) - I would argue it would make it easier for social groups to mingle as they're all made to work in an environment where they have to come to terms with each other. It would only create a greater rift should only a certain type be sent to NS (which is unfair). I agree about the majority being punished for the sins of the minority, though - it's just not realistic to segregate chavs from the rest.

    As for the evolvement of warfare - I think you base your idea of warfare on the Great War and are not up to date on how they are fought these days. "If Britain goes to war" just made me laugh - Britain is at war, and has been for a while. Trenches a la Passchendale are no longer the norm... :rolleyes:

    And of course people don't want to be broken down by the military - but why do you think all those people in the past want the NS brought back? They believe they honestly were bettered by it. Violence is a good deterrent and punishment, the cane enforced academic and social rigour - I wouldn't have minded it when I was doing my GCSEs. School pupils - especially chavs - have gotten an inflated sense of their own rights these days and disrespect their elders and betters; to be quite honest with you, school pupils serve pretty much no useful role to society as a whole, they might as well be useful in a NS. Then again, I have a particularly authoritarian world view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    I didn't say they needed their exact course material, but the transferable skills required, and the labour market really can change that quickly, though it hasn't - the change has been underway for a century.

    GCSEs and A levels are far easier than degrees and so do not sufficiently distinguish between candidates. You are aware that unis complain that A levels fail in this regard?

    I'm interested as to why you think there's an excess of Arts students when they typically have higher professional employment rates than Science students.

    To me it sounds like you've been reading the Daily Mail and are basing your assertions on the blood boiling tripe that paper prints.
    Actually, I am not merely a reader of the Daily Mail, I am a columnist for it. This is why I cannot allow you to disabuse me of my prejudices - no other employer in their right mind would employ such a useless, raving prejudiced fool (quite ironic given what we are discussing). So I must take my leave of you now, lest you rid me of my prejudices. Ta ta! :flybye:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crimson Black)
    Ideally, NS would find a place for 'chavettes' as well as normal teenagers (be they 16 or 18) - I would argue it would make it easier for social groups to mingle as they're all made to work in an environment where they have to come to terms with each other. It would only create a greater rift should only a certain type be sent to NS (which is unfair). I agree about the majority being punished for the sins of the minority, though - it's just not realistic to segregate chavs from the rest.

    As for the evolvement of warfare - I think you base your idea of warfare on the Great War and are not up to date on how they are fought these days. "If Britain goes to war" just made me laugh - Britain is at war, and has been for a while. Trenches a la Passchendale are no longer the norm... :rolleyes:

    And of course people don't want to be broken down by the military - but why do you think all those people in the past want the NS brought back? They believe they honestly were bettered by it. Violence is a good deterrent and punishment, the cane enforced academic and social rigour - I wouldn't have minded it when I was doing my GCSEs. School pupils - especially chavs - have gotten an inflated sense of their own rights these days and disrespect their elders and betters; to be quite honest with you, school pupils serve pretty much no useful role to society as a whole, they might as well be useful in a NS. Then again, I have a particularly authoritarian world view.
    Yeah you can say things now like I wouldn't of minded the cane when I was doing my GCSEs but at the time I bet you would of. I really don't think that teaching chavs how to fight and use violence more effectivley would be a good thing.
    Also the army has more than enough willing members at the moment to cope, infact they probably have more than enough, what could probably end up happening after this national service, is far more people would be joining the army which would end up costing the tax payer in the long run.
    Personally I believe the best way to get rid of the problem of chavs would be to remove benefits, that would be the best wake up call for them, they would be faced with the dilemma of either becoming a valuable member of society or become homeless.
    Or making prisons less luxurious as well why should the tax payer pay for them to have sky tv seems ludicrous, maybe im wrong but wasn't national service 6 months in the past, why has the thread starter suddenly exaggerated this to 2 years, it only takes a couple of months to break someone then remake them, whats the point of the rest of the time, just seems like a waste.
    And these people in the past are old men, you know what they are like, they will give a good word to anything that happened in the "good old days", doesn't mean that it would do any good in this modern society. For example they brag about how they enjoyed being rationed and stuff like that, its what old men do.
    To be honest I personally cant think of anything worse than national service, fair enough if its used as a punishment for chavs, but only chavs who are commiting street crime should be sent there, not the majority of 16-18 year olds who aren't doing anything wrong.
    Thats why bad lads army works, because they need breaking and remaking but most people don't
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    Same situation with my Dad - being forced to write right-handed. He still does so, and his writing is now slanted and near-impossible to read.
    Was this in Britain? I find it hard to believe that teaching institutions here would do such a thing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ToysRUs)
    Was this in Britain? I find it hard to believe that teaching institutions here would do such a thing.
    Oh they did. One of my primary school teachers was forced to write right handed when she was at school, but then reverted back to writing left handed when she grew up.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoolSocks)
    Actually, I am not merely a reader of the Daily Mail, I am a columnist for it. This is why I cannot allow you to disabuse me of my prejudices - no other employer in their right mind would employ such a useless, raving prejudiced fool (quite ironic given what we are discussing). So I must take my leave of you now, lest you rid me of my prejudices. Ta ta! :flybye:
    Well, good evasion of the arguments and good riddance, I suppose.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ToysRUs)
    Was this in Britain? I find it hard to believe that teaching institutions here would do such a thing.
    Yeah it was. And only in the 70's. Apparently they told him writing with his left hand was rude.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    Yeah it was. And only in the 70's. Apparently they told him writing with his left hand was rude.
    This happened to me too, I was left handed, but was told to write with my right hand in primary school. This would have been in the early 1990's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Well, good evasion of the arguments...
    Well, your posts distinctly showed that I was upsetting you by continuing to deprecate Arts students and that latest one descended into ad hominem remarks, so I couldn't be arsed to continue. Furthermore, you were being rude, the good riddance remark below is another example of it, I expect debating opponents to be polite.

    (Original post by Apagg)
    ...and good riddance, I suppose.
    That's not very nice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yep I'm also against the issue of '16 year old boys'. Isn't that sexual discrimination? To have civil service only for males and not females?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoolSocks)
    Well, your posts distinctly showed that I was upsetting you by continuing to deprecate Arts students and that latest one descended into ad hominem remarks, so I couldn't be arsed to continue. Furthermore, you were being rude, the good riddance remark below is another example of it, I expect debating opponents to be polite.



    That's not very nice.
    I generally get irritated when people parade prejudice as fact, especially with the kind of idiocy which claims the arts to be inferior to the sciences
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    I generally get irritated when people parade prejudice as fact, especially with the kind of idiocy which claims the arts to be inferior to the sciences
    With respect, I don't think I ever claimed that Arts subjects were inferior to the sciences or that my opinions were fact.
 
 
 
Poll
The new Gillette ad. Is it:
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.