I hoped you'd meant something like that, but those I know who employ or work with new graduates constantly express frustration that quite a lot of them come into companies unwilling to do the hard graft, expecting to be junior management straight out of the box, and considering quite a lot of the job to which they've been appointed to be beneath them.
Oh, and on the phone to mates/tweeting/facespacing/playing angry birds when they should be working.
I think you have quite a distorted view of graduates, but thanks for perpetuating a common caricature of young people today.
Hardware: Panasonic TX-P50VT65B (calibrated); Cambridge Audio Azur 651BD; Yamaha RX-A810; Teac PD-H600; PS3; B&W 601 & 600LCR (series 3); Q Acoustics QAV (rear)
Furniture and Accessories: BLOK Classix 3000 Oak AV Cabinet; Atacama Nexus 6 (atabite metal filled); 3D3 A1112
Not my 'distorted view': I am just reporting what mates tell me of the experience in their places of employment.
'And so on February 22nd 1966, at Luton airport...'
So their distorted view, then? You seem more than happy to concur. I'd argue that you're using anecdotal evidence to slur all recent graduates.
At no point have I said I concur with their view, having no experience in the matter myself, and neither is it my intention to slur anyone. As I have now said three times, I am just repeating what they tell me.
Can someone please explain to me why you would do a degree knowing that career is not well paid, is that not then called a hobby?
Well that counts [...] degrees you might do because you have a vocation!
Studying a subject because you have a passion for learning and accruing cultural (rather than material) capital isn't an efficient solution for a great many people. To study an arts subject, especially at postgraduate level, you either need wealthy parents or a full scholarship.
My point was there are plenty of vocational degrees - like the journalism, nursing and social work qualifications i mentioned - that don't lead to 'highly paid jobs'.
I worked a series of jobs all through university, and actually took a paycut when I got my first media job.
I could have earned a hell of a lot more in my career if I'd, say, chosen to study Law (which my school careers teacher told me was a much better option), but i'm sure i'd have had a lot less fun, and seen far less of the world (and its amazing technology).
Group Marketing & PR Manager - Computers Unlimited;
Former Group Editor of What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision and Whathifi.com
At no point have I said I concur with their view
Then why post that comment on an online forum if you don't agree? You certainly didn't state disagreement. Are you now saying you don't agree, or perhaps expressing neutrality?
I don't think the tone of your posts suggests either of these things. Perhaps you can state your view, for the sake of clarity.
The young - of whom many older folk are, and always have been, deeply jealous of - waste no more time at work than old farts like us on forums. Or doing their online grocery or Amazon shop. Or sorting childcare, checking out university info for their teenagers, booking holidays....
I got that, and I agree, though I fear such options are becoming increasingly unviable, at least with regard to Arts and Humanities subjects.
Your point about fun (or personal fulfilment) is entirely valid; I was merely arguing that's it's becoming increasingly impractical to think this way.
And when they were younger, some of these now older folk were gossiping around water coolers, or nipping to the pub for a few pints on their lunch hour, thereby writing off the best part of an afternoon's work. (Admittedly I'm relying on anecdotal evidence at best, but I'm only fighting fire with fire.)
The average number of hours worked in the UK has increased in the last three decades, while professional and private lives increasingly bleed into one another. Many jobs now require employees to effectively be on permanent call. The home is no longer a discrete space or sanctuary, but an extension of the workplace (thanks internet).
This is the working climate young people are entering, perhaps on zero hours contracts, while being priced out of the property market. Meanwhile politicians tell young people with advanced degrees that they should be grateful of opportunities to work for free and gain experience, often in menial and degrading jobs.
Not sure what you mean. In what way does the type of degree influence how long thirty years is to carry a debt?
I'm talking about a degree's earning potential. If your degree costs more, you're more likely to choose a subject that leads to a lucrative (and perhaps less fulfilling) career. (Again, I'm not suggesting that passion for a subject and earning potential are mutually exclusive, but there's already a general shrinking of the Humanities in UK universities, following trends in the US.)
In other words, the more you ultimately earn, the more easily you can pay back your student debt. You'll earn more as a legal executive than as an English Literature teacher.
Thirty years is always thirty years, but you'll likely be student debt-free well before then as a lawyer.
This is uncharacteristically broad brush of you, and is getting rather close to the 'all bankers and lawyers are fat cats' stereotype. As regards law, it depends amongst other things on what area the individual is practising in. A legal exec in publically funded work outside London is likely to start on £12-15k. Pretty sure that's less than an English teacher would start on.* A trainee barrister has a guaranteed award / income for the first year of only £12k, and a London based barrister in publically funded work in their first five years will frequently only earn £50 a day, on the days when they are actually working. Plus they have no job security, paid holiday, health benefits or pension. Most junior solicitors outside London in publically funded work will start on about £20k, and the progression from there is pretty slow. This is all before the current proposed cuts which is likely to see fees reductions of c20%.
This also rather bears on whether these peope are doing the work for the 'earning potential'. I'd suggest that if they aren't doing it because of some passion for the work (both its nature and the clients) then there isn't much other reason.
* It is: http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/starting-salary Minimum £21,804 outside London and £27,270 in inner London. Plus the 'second largest public sector pension scheme in the country'.
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
The holidays are quite good an' all...
Cambridge Audio StreamMagic 6 | 751BD | 651A | Diamond 9.1 | Minx Xi | Sonos Play:3
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com
For the fourth time, I am entirely neutral on the subject. But I agree with Clare about the ability of all ages to EDITED about in the workplace rather than actually doing what they're paid to do.
Though solicitors and judges are among the top ten salary earners in the UK, along with people working in the financial industries or occupying the often nepotistic upper rungs of the corporate ladder.
A career in education can lead to a pretty comfortable lifestyle, but there remains a relatively low ceiling to one's earnings, which isn't true of legal professions once you've established a career. Junior and trainee legal professionals may have to slum it initially, but this isn't how they spend most of their working lives, assuming they're at least moderately successful.
I'm not trying to construct an argument around a false binary (i.e. teachers good, lawyers bad). I'm mainly reporting what I see every day, which is the increasing marginalisation of the Humanities and the expansion of "professional" degrees. The HE sector is changing. Whether that's for better or worse is another debate.
This is the second time at best, though I'm glad you've clarified your position. Perhaps your original ROTFL posts could have been more equivocally phrased if that's how you feel.
© 2014 Haymarket Publishing