ChatterBank0 min ago
Has Our Education System Failed Young People?
26 Answers
Interesting article on things not to say to a young unemployed person:
http:// www.the guardia n.com/c ommenti sfree/2 014/mar /17/tel ling-yo ung-per son-get -job-ed ucation -employ ment
In particular, I thought this part has been true for huge numbers of people I know:
//Today's youth has spent years chasing qualifications no one ever asks us about. The notion that algebra would ever be useful seemed fishy, but the grownups insisted: education, no matter how apparently arbitrary, leads to jobs.
But the minute we graduated, something switched in employers' heads. The same generation who had us sit Sats and the 11-plus and the 12-plus and Sats again and mock GCSEs and real GCSEs and AS-levels and A-levels and BAs and MAs and MScs and PhDs decided education is an afterthought. Experience is what's really important. Which none of us had, because we'd been busy pretending Romeo and Juliet weren't just horny teenagers and Pythagoras wasn't the most tedious bastard that ever existed.
We were told that education was a ticket to employment, when really it's more like vague directions to the station.//
Have young people been let down by the previous generation?
http://
In particular, I thought this part has been true for huge numbers of people I know:
//Today's youth has spent years chasing qualifications no one ever asks us about. The notion that algebra would ever be useful seemed fishy, but the grownups insisted: education, no matter how apparently arbitrary, leads to jobs.
But the minute we graduated, something switched in employers' heads. The same generation who had us sit Sats and the 11-plus and the 12-plus and Sats again and mock GCSEs and real GCSEs and AS-levels and A-levels and BAs and MAs and MScs and PhDs decided education is an afterthought. Experience is what's really important. Which none of us had, because we'd been busy pretending Romeo and Juliet weren't just horny teenagers and Pythagoras wasn't the most tedious bastard that ever existed.
We were told that education was a ticket to employment, when really it's more like vague directions to the station.//
Have young people been let down by the previous generation?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I don't think this applies to just young people. The jobs market is very difficult at the moment. Often there are 300 applicants for every job, and employers can be ultra choosy. Idealy, they want someone who already can do the job rather than have to train them, or wait for them to get up to speed.
Other entry criteria can be set high as well. I have been a graphic designer for over 30 years. I learned my trade on a two year college course and the an apprenticeship in an advertising agency. I have worked in the industry all my working life. Before christmas I applied for a job which I didn't get. The reason given was that I didn't meet the education criteria.
Other entry criteria can be set high as well. I have been a graphic designer for over 30 years. I learned my trade on a two year college course and the an apprenticeship in an advertising agency. I have worked in the industry all my working life. Before christmas I applied for a job which I didn't get. The reason given was that I didn't meet the education criteria.
Education IS a ticket to employment - but not every single type of education is necessarily going to guarantee a job. As ever, getting a job depends on you as an individual too. Blaming previous generations is just a way of avoiding your own shortcomings.
I must be missing something here - where was it ever written down that the previous generation were offering guarantees to subsequent generations over getting jobs?
I must be missing something here - where was it ever written down that the previous generation were offering guarantees to subsequent generations over getting jobs?
Experience is and always has been important. This generation is no different there. But getting on the ladder to gain experience means having the basic education to do the job and prove you are capable. Again no difference there from previous generations.
I suspect education has been deteriorating over the years, bit confess I'm not close enough to know for sure, I just need to know younger folk are mainly incapable of mental arithmetic, for example, and lost without the calculator. And would look at past generations exam papers in horror.
But returning to the main point, little has changed. One is either sharp enough to live on one's wits and carve out one's own fortune, or, like the majority, one gets educates to get the basic tools to progress to get the experience. One thing has changed though, these days experience in a lot of things is a fleeting advantage as new tech and skills replace old at an ever growing rate. It's only in the slowly/unchanging careers such as general management where re-education is less critical, and even there things change.
I suspect education has been deteriorating over the years, bit confess I'm not close enough to know for sure, I just need to know younger folk are mainly incapable of mental arithmetic, for example, and lost without the calculator. And would look at past generations exam papers in horror.
But returning to the main point, little has changed. One is either sharp enough to live on one's wits and carve out one's own fortune, or, like the majority, one gets educates to get the basic tools to progress to get the experience. One thing has changed though, these days experience in a lot of things is a fleeting advantage as new tech and skills replace old at an ever growing rate. It's only in the slowly/unchanging careers such as general management where re-education is less critical, and even there things change.
"where was it ever written down that the previous generation were offering guarantees to subsequent generations over getting jobs?"
It wasn't. But myself and just about everyone I know who's been through the school system in the past decade or so remember being hounded to go to university by our teachers and (sometimes) parents, because we were told our job prospects would dramatically improve.
And I'm not convinced that's happened. Just about the only degree areas I know of that has particularly high employment after graduating is engineering or medicine. In (say) the 70s, the time when my father was graduating and my mother was just getting into work, there were huge numbers of jobs available, even for people without degrees.
Gromit: it's true that the jobs market is bad for everyone, but it's a pretty well-established fact that it affects young people disproportionately.
It wasn't. But myself and just about everyone I know who's been through the school system in the past decade or so remember being hounded to go to university by our teachers and (sometimes) parents, because we were told our job prospects would dramatically improve.
And I'm not convinced that's happened. Just about the only degree areas I know of that has particularly high employment after graduating is engineering or medicine. In (say) the 70s, the time when my father was graduating and my mother was just getting into work, there were huge numbers of jobs available, even for people without degrees.
Gromit: it's true that the jobs market is bad for everyone, but it's a pretty well-established fact that it affects young people disproportionately.
"But you need the qualifications before you get your first bit of experience."
This is exactly the problem. Our youth were told to get qualifications - so they got them. They don't have experience because they've been busy getting the qualifications - and now when they go to find a job, it's experience everyone wants.
The solution normally posed for this is (often unpaid) internships. Which aren't very convenient if you need to eat, or pay bills etc.. This is why many young people end up living with their parents again.
This is exactly the problem. Our youth were told to get qualifications - so they got them. They don't have experience because they've been busy getting the qualifications - and now when they go to find a job, it's experience everyone wants.
The solution normally posed for this is (often unpaid) internships. Which aren't very convenient if you need to eat, or pay bills etc.. This is why many young people end up living with their parents again.
Surely they are hounded because it has become the norm and one will be at a disadvantage not to go, rather than being seen as for the educationally gifted and an advantage going ? And anyway it's a rite of passage these days to get out of the parents' house and go wild enjoying a few years for those who in past generations wouldn't have gone at all.
That has ALWAYS been the problem. It's the permanent "Catch 22" situation. You have to find your own way into a job: qualifications help since employers, especially larger ones, tend to take a share of young folk to train, and need to discover the 'pick of the crop'. Alternatively one starts in a job one would rather not have in the expectation of moving up or across ASAP.
"Surely they are hounded because it has become the norm and one will be at a disadvantage not to go, rather than being seen as for the educationally gifted and an advantage going ?"
The way it was usually explained to me was that university made it easier to get a job, which I suppose is roughly the same thing re: disadvantage.
The "rite of passage" thing was, I suppose, something we were aware of anyway.
"And anyway it's a rite of passage these days to get out of the parents' house and go wild enjoying a few years for those who in past generations wouldn't have gone at all."
I'm open to being corrected on this, 'cause I don't actually know, but my impression has always been that people in past generations had much better employment prospects (i.e. because employment generally was higher) than young people do now.
The way it was usually explained to me was that university made it easier to get a job, which I suppose is roughly the same thing re: disadvantage.
The "rite of passage" thing was, I suppose, something we were aware of anyway.
"And anyway it's a rite of passage these days to get out of the parents' house and go wild enjoying a few years for those who in past generations wouldn't have gone at all."
I'm open to being corrected on this, 'cause I don't actually know, but my impression has always been that people in past generations had much better employment prospects (i.e. because employment generally was higher) than young people do now.
Yes. Unfortunately, the numbers involved aren't huge, they are very short, and they don't seem very effective:
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/ed ucation -245535 69
Essentially apprenticeships just seem to be there so that politicians can gloat about how many apprenticeships there are.
http://
Essentially apprenticeships just seem to be there so that politicians can gloat about how many apprenticeships there are.
Job market is always up and down, up and down, with the economy. Back it the fifties it'd be easy to find employment but I don't think one can take a blanket view on past good today bad. It wasn't so hot when I was first looking. More employment today, but more unemployment too. Many more people. Personally my concern these days is being written off as too old :-)
Employ an inexperienced youngster, that will cost you for some time, or take on an experienced person from abroad(cheaper and more willing to work)
As an employer I know who I would take.
The problem was New labours obsession with degrees, probably to reduce the unemployment stats for a while. The result, we have many people with 'useless' degrees or degrees that are unnecessary and would have been far better as apprentices.
The problem is apprenticeships cost employers money, their 'wages' are only a very small part of the cost. People seem to be willing to spend 10's of thousands chasing a degree that will do them no good but wont spend a penny for an apprenticeship instead for some strange reason expecting employers to train for free.
Another issue I see is the appalling soft skills degree candidates have. I am part of an interview team for an IT graduate course in one of the biggest banks in the world. Spelling, grammar - wots that? Clearly they don't know how to turn on a spell checker yet want a career in IT Turn up in an ill fitting suit with white socks or a weird hairstyle, yep that too often fits the bill. By far the best candidates come from overseas; and they are the ones I have to recommend.
Have we let them down, maybe to a degree (pardon the pun) but lets face it if someone really is good enough for a degree then they should have sense to analyse the prospective jobs market.
I think what would help is people, like me, teaching and helping them into the real world, most teachers simply cannot do it as they have never done it themselves. But I'm not allowed - I have no degree, I am considered stupid by the right-on liberal brigade despite the fact I been relatively successful, earnt an awful lot of money and paid an awful lot of tax into our country.
As an employer I know who I would take.
The problem was New labours obsession with degrees, probably to reduce the unemployment stats for a while. The result, we have many people with 'useless' degrees or degrees that are unnecessary and would have been far better as apprentices.
The problem is apprenticeships cost employers money, their 'wages' are only a very small part of the cost. People seem to be willing to spend 10's of thousands chasing a degree that will do them no good but wont spend a penny for an apprenticeship instead for some strange reason expecting employers to train for free.
Another issue I see is the appalling soft skills degree candidates have. I am part of an interview team for an IT graduate course in one of the biggest banks in the world. Spelling, grammar - wots that? Clearly they don't know how to turn on a spell checker yet want a career in IT Turn up in an ill fitting suit with white socks or a weird hairstyle, yep that too often fits the bill. By far the best candidates come from overseas; and they are the ones I have to recommend.
Have we let them down, maybe to a degree (pardon the pun) but lets face it if someone really is good enough for a degree then they should have sense to analyse the prospective jobs market.
I think what would help is people, like me, teaching and helping them into the real world, most teachers simply cannot do it as they have never done it themselves. But I'm not allowed - I have no degree, I am considered stupid by the right-on liberal brigade despite the fact I been relatively successful, earnt an awful lot of money and paid an awful lot of tax into our country.
“Telling a young person to 'Just get a job' is like going to the Sahara and yelling 'Just rain!'“
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with your statement, Kromo:
“But myself and just about everyone I know who's been through the school system in the past decade or so remember being hounded to go to university by our teachers and (sometimes) parents, because we were told our job prospects would dramatically improve.”
This is a legacy of the Blair administration and a clear example of younger people today having been let down. As part of his “Education, Education, Education” mantra it was the avowed intention of his government to aim for 50% of people to go to university. This was ridiculous in one respect because only about 10% of jobs in the UK require a degree level education. But I believe it was deemed necessary because the State education system had been dumbed down by about two years so that a degree was worth what a couple of good ‘A’ levels once were and those ‘A’ Levels were worth what 5 good ‘O’ Levels once were. In this respect.
Yes, the State education system has let young people down. It does not do what it says on the tin and young people are now being forced to spend three years more studying to bring their competences up to just a half decent standard. Further than that the ridiculous range of “degree” courses available (I saw mention of somebody the other day who had a degree in “Tourism and Travel”) means that youngsters go to university to study subjects which have no right being available at degree level and, unsurprisingly, would have been better off spending that time earning a living..
The headline “Telling a young person to 'Just get a job' is like going to the Sahara and yelling 'Just rain!'“ comes as no surprise bearing in mind its author and the fact that it was published in the Grauniad. It may come as a surprise to Ms Bust but plenty of people arrive on these shores and “Just get a job” within a short space of time. This phenomenon is not restricted to the recent arrivals from eastern Europe. For decades young Australians and New Zealanders have travelled half way round the world and in a few days of arrival have a job (often in a bar) and a room (usually above the bar). Many people do “just get a job””. The difficulty for some young natives is that their expectations have been falsely raised by an education system that is suggesting there are graduate jobs for half the population. The true figure is about 20% of that number and, with the deskilling of much of the UK's industry and commerce that number is falling. Little wonder then that young people feel they have been let down.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with your statement, Kromo:
“But myself and just about everyone I know who's been through the school system in the past decade or so remember being hounded to go to university by our teachers and (sometimes) parents, because we were told our job prospects would dramatically improve.”
This is a legacy of the Blair administration and a clear example of younger people today having been let down. As part of his “Education, Education, Education” mantra it was the avowed intention of his government to aim for 50% of people to go to university. This was ridiculous in one respect because only about 10% of jobs in the UK require a degree level education. But I believe it was deemed necessary because the State education system had been dumbed down by about two years so that a degree was worth what a couple of good ‘A’ levels once were and those ‘A’ Levels were worth what 5 good ‘O’ Levels once were. In this respect.
Yes, the State education system has let young people down. It does not do what it says on the tin and young people are now being forced to spend three years more studying to bring their competences up to just a half decent standard. Further than that the ridiculous range of “degree” courses available (I saw mention of somebody the other day who had a degree in “Tourism and Travel”) means that youngsters go to university to study subjects which have no right being available at degree level and, unsurprisingly, would have been better off spending that time earning a living..
The headline “Telling a young person to 'Just get a job' is like going to the Sahara and yelling 'Just rain!'“ comes as no surprise bearing in mind its author and the fact that it was published in the Grauniad. It may come as a surprise to Ms Bust but plenty of people arrive on these shores and “Just get a job” within a short space of time. This phenomenon is not restricted to the recent arrivals from eastern Europe. For decades young Australians and New Zealanders have travelled half way round the world and in a few days of arrival have a job (often in a bar) and a room (usually above the bar). Many people do “just get a job””. The difficulty for some young natives is that their expectations have been falsely raised by an education system that is suggesting there are graduate jobs for half the population. The true figure is about 20% of that number and, with the deskilling of much of the UK's industry and commerce that number is falling. Little wonder then that young people feel they have been let down.
this has been going on for centuries not just the last generation. The classic dichotomy has always been there, "no experience = no job = no experience". I remember the difficulty I had early on trying to get an employer take me on initially. It is more dificult now though with all the mickey mouse degrees out there.
its always been difficult - the expectations of many are to get their qualifications and land a well paid job, most don't, no surprise, some of these Uni degrees are just ludicrous, and having sat in on interview panels i can back up your points about candidates who arrive late, wearing inappropriate clothing, all right if you are going to work in a clothes shop perhaps, but not an office, organisation,
CV's with illegible handwriting, bad spelling and Grammar.
CV's with illegible handwriting, bad spelling and Grammar.
In our local Senior School, they have 2 weeks work experience each year and there are courses which involve one day a week in an (unpaid) workplace, so there are at least a few things to add on a CV plus references at 16/18. I think they are trying to help with practical experience. Voluntary work is a good idea for the same reasons. But i agree. I went to a Grammar school obsessed with academic qualifications. I've not needed mine- never even been asked for proof. It's mostly down to character in the end.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.