The Politics Thread

[Lord Kangana]

Going into uber-pedant mode (note the lack of umlaut there), correct syntax would be "in bold" I believe.

[Hoboh]

Are you on drugs?

Seriously.

Cos ya know. I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say!

I think he may be making a joke about popular computer game Grand Theft Auto.

His point is, however, as elusive as ever.

Yes I kinda got the first bit but like you, what this has to do with the previous discussion in this thread is beyond me.

Oh dear me!!
The nearest the vast majority of kids in state ed schools get to IT is games on X-Box, PS3, so making a statement about it being the most important lesson will serve as usufull to about 25% of pupils (hardly worth investing millions in if thats the case) most of the 25% would more than likely be at Grammer schools were this sort of cash investment would be far better spent and reap better rewards of performance in this field.
My sister is a teacher, my son in law is a teacher, his parents are a retired head master and a still working head mistress and they will all backup that the lowest folk in classes bring the others down to their level, very rarely the other way unless there is streaming.

Eh? Again Hoboh I have no idea what you're saying.
The point of education is to make sure we have an apporpriately skilled workforce for the future.

Surely given the increasing impact of IT in virtually all spheres of life, and the central role it plays in a wide variety of businesses, surely it is key to invest in IT teaching in schools to improve the standards?

Victim of state education then!!

[BWFC_Insane]

Hobinho, if you actually made some sense in your posts then this "victim of state education" might actually stand a chance.

[Hoboh]

Hobinho, if you actually made some sense in your posts then this "victim of state education" might actually stand a chance.

Even Stevie Wonder could see what I am saying!!!

Educating the masses ain't working, money is thrown at state education to improve the masses which contain a large number amongst them of folk that DON'T WANT TO LEARN ANYTHING.

These people due to a lack of enforcement of disipline hold back kids that want to progress, that want to play a part in your highly skilled Orwellian world and you my friend would deny them the opportunity to advance with others of similar skill and thoughts by killing off all private and Grammer schools so the state can lob shed loads of cash into state education and attempt to equalize everyone, Harriet Haperpersons wet dream!

[superjohnmcginlay]

Make everyone equally shit I think is her vision.

[BWFC_Insane]

Hobinho, if you actually made some sense in your posts then this "victim of state education" might actually stand a chance.

Even Stevie Wonder could see what I am saying!!!

Educating the masses ain't working, money is thrown at state education to improve the masses which contain a large number amongst them of folk that DON'T WANT TO LEARN ANYTHING.

These people due to a lack of enforcement of disipline hold back kids that want to progress, that want to play a part in your highly skilled Orwellian world and you my friend would deny them the opportunity to advance with others of similar skill and thoughts by killing off all private and Grammer schools so the state can lob shed loads of cash into state education and attempt to equalize everyone, Harriet Haperpersons wet dream!

Thats a load of words that don't actually bear any relation to the real world.

Why would we want a 25% elite? What are the rest going to do? Aren't we nearly at 50% getting degrees?

So what are you going to do with the rest who are getting an education now but you deem "not good enough"? What jobs are they going to be able to do.

The vast majority of jobs require some qualifications, and a level of knowledge and learning.

A surprisingly high % require a degree.

[Hoboh]

Hobinho, if you actually made some sense in your posts then this "victim of state education" might actually stand a chance.

Even Stevie Wonder could see what I am saying!!!

Educating the masses ain't working, money is thrown at state education to improve the masses which contain a large number amongst them of folk that DON'T WANT TO LEARN ANYTHING.

These people due to a lack of enforcement of disipline hold back kids that want to progress, that want to play a part in your highly skilled Orwellian world and you my friend would deny them the opportunity to advance with others of similar skill and thoughts by killing off all private and Grammer schools so the state can lob shed loads of cash into state education and attempt to equalize everyone, Harriet Haperpersons wet dream!

Thats a load of words that don't actually bear any relation to the real world.

Why would we want a 25% elite? What are the rest going to do? Aren't we nearly at 50% getting degrees?

So what are you going to do with the rest who are getting an education now but you deem "not good enough"? What jobs are they going to be able to do.

The vast majority of jobs require some qualifications, and a level of knowledge and learning.

A surprisingly high % require a degree.

To your world maybe, in my real world folk with degrees often need re-educating on such small matters as how to make this real world work.
I know that in my "real" world qualifications are viewed as someones willingness and ability to learn and you have to question the range of degrees on offer now that while still showing this aptitude in folk are plainly nonsense thus are not benefiting those who spend their time taking them.

[Lord Kangana]

Nobody is born to be an engineer, or even a bus conductor hobo, they aren't imbued with a sense of how to do a job. They need to learn. Its perfectly natural on day one of any job to not have a f*ckin clue. But if you have the requisite skills to marry up with practical application, you'll be far more useful to an employer than someone who has nothing.

[BWFC_Insane]

Nobody is born to be an engineer, or even a bus conductor hobo, they aren't imbued with a sense of how to do a job. They need to learn. Its perfectly natural on day one of any job to not have a f*ckin clue. But if you have the requisite skills to marry up with practical application, you'll be far more useful to an employer than someone who has nothing.

Yep.

And knowledge of how to learn is gained from an education as well.

[Worthy4England]

The vast majority of jobs require some qualifications, and a level of knowledge and learning.

A surprisingly high % require a degree.

This is where I begin to be "not sure" about the whole thing.

When we (and I mean specifically company's I've worked for) take on fresh out of school employees, I'm not convinced that they "require" a degree as we train them anyway. With the GCSE's and A levels being, generally, not a good indication of competence - certainly of general competence - but unfortunately, often, not even competence in the subject they're in, the degree has become the best guide out of a bad bunch of indicators.

What we appear to have created, with our national changes in the last 20/30 years, is much more of a lottery (and cost) for employers, as differentiating competence by results gained is becoming more and more difficult, as the standards drop. So we now have many more people with degrees, but it comes down to being able to weed out the "good" 2:1's and above from the bad ones. Before these things were given out with boxes of cereal (and I suspect mine came from one-such as I didn't attend for most of the last year) they were much more reflective of the competence of the person. Now? They're just a minimum entry requirement.

[BWFC_Insane]

The vast majority of jobs require some qualifications, and a level of knowledge and learning.

A surprisingly high % require a degree.

This is where I begin to be "not sure" about the whole thing.

When we (and I mean specifically company's I've worked for) take on fresh out of school employees, I'm not convinced that they "require" a degree as we train them anyway. With the GCSE's and A levels being, generally, not a good indication of competence - certainly of general competence - but unfortunately, often, not even competence in the subject they're in, the degree has become the best guide out of a bad bunch of indicators.

What we appear to have created, with our national changes in the last 20/30 years, is much more of a lottery (and cost) for employers, as differentiating competence by results gained is becoming more and more difficult, as the standards drop. So we now have many more people with degrees, but it comes down to being able to weed out the "good" 2:1's and above from the bad ones. Before these things were given out with boxes of cereal (and I suspect mine came from one-such as I didn't attend for most of the last year) they were much more reflective of the competence of the person. Now? They're just a minimum entry requirement.

Yes thats probably true. But equally what it does is drag up the average level. Degrees may not all be equal and some may not mean as much as others, but they all require a certain level of learning and ability to cope in different situations.

Now there has always been a case that a degree does not always directly prepare people for jobs and that the employers must train their employees but that doesn't mean those degrees have been worthless. There is quite a big initiative going on to try and match skills picked up in uni from the course and the personal development programmes that run alongside (and are compulsory now) to what employers need.

Another trend that has not been picked up on is that employers requirements are becoming more and more specialised!

[superjohnmcginlay]

The vast majority of jobs require some qualifications, and a level of knowledge and learning.

A surprisingly high % require a degree.

This is where I begin to be "not sure" about the whole thing.

When we (and I mean specifically company's I've worked for) take on fresh out of school employees, I'm not convinced that they "require" a degree as we train them anyway. With the GCSE's and A levels being, generally, not a good indication of competence - certainly of general competence - but unfortunately, often, not even competence in the subject they're in, the degree has become the best guide out of a bad bunch of indicators.

What we appear to have created, with our national changes in the last 20/30 years, is much more of a lottery (and cost) for employers, as differentiating competence by results gained is becoming more and more difficult, as the standards drop. So we now have many more people with degrees, but it comes down to being able to weed out the "good" 2:1's and above from the bad ones. Before these things were given out with boxes of cereal (and I suspect mine came from one-such as I didn't attend for most of the last year) they were much more reflective of the competence of the person. Now? They're just a minimum entry requirement.

Yes thats probably true. But equally what it does is drag up the average level. Degrees may not all be equal and some may not mean as much as others, but they all require a certain level of learning and ability to cope in different situations.

Now there has always been a case that a degree does not always directly prepare people for jobs and that the employers must train their employees but that doesn't mean those degrees have been worthless. There is quite a big initiative going on to try and match skills picked up in uni from the course and the personal development programmes that run alongside (and are compulsory now) to what employers need.

Another trend that has not been picked up on is that employers requirements are becoming more and more specialised!

Youre going to have to explain that one.

[BWFC_Insane]

The vast majority of jobs require some qualifications, and a level of knowledge and learning.

A surprisingly high % require a degree.

This is where I begin to be "not sure" about the whole thing.

When we (and I mean specifically company's I've worked for) take on fresh out of school employees, I'm not convinced that they "require" a degree as we train them anyway. With the GCSE's and A levels being, generally, not a good indication of competence - certainly of general competence - but unfortunately, often, not even competence in the subject they're in, the degree has become the best guide out of a bad bunch of indicators.

What we appear to have created, with our national changes in the last 20/30 years, is much more of a lottery (and cost) for employers, as differentiating competence by results gained is becoming more and more difficult, as the standards drop. So we now have many more people with degrees, but it comes down to being able to weed out the "good" 2:1's and above from the bad ones. Before these things were given out with boxes of cereal (and I suspect mine came from one-such as I didn't attend for most of the last year) they were much more reflective of the competence of the person. Now? They're just a minimum entry requirement.

Yes thats probably true. But equally what it does is drag up the average level. Degrees may not all be equal and some may not mean as much as others, but they all require a certain level of learning and ability to cope in different situations.

Now there has always been a case that a degree does not always directly prepare people for jobs and that the employers must train their employees but that doesn't mean those degrees have been worthless. There is quite a big initiative going on to try and match skills picked up in uni from the course and the personal development programmes that run alongside (and are compulsory now) to what employers need.

Another trend that has not been picked up on is that employers requirements are becoming more and more specialised!

Youre going to have to explain that one.

Ok yes it makes no sense strictly.

BUT more people get degrees now. The value of each degree may (and this is arguable) be less, BUT still more are actually qualified to that level. That has to be good for a whole host of reasons surely?

[Worthy4England]

The vast majority of jobs require some qualifications, and a level of knowledge and learning.

A surprisingly high % require a degree.

This is where I begin to be "not sure" about the whole thing.

When we (and I mean specifically company's I've worked for) take on fresh out of school employees, I'm not convinced that they "require" a degree as we train them anyway. With the GCSE's and A levels being, generally, not a good indication of competence - certainly of general competence - but unfortunately, often, not even competence in the subject they're in, the degree has become the best guide out of a bad bunch of indicators.

What we appear to have created, with our national changes in the last 20/30 years, is much more of a lottery (and cost) for employers, as differentiating competence by results gained is becoming more and more difficult, as the standards drop. So we now have many more people with degrees, but it comes down to being able to weed out the "good" 2:1's and above from the bad ones. Before these things were given out with boxes of cereal (and I suspect mine came from one-such as I didn't attend for most of the last year) they were much more reflective of the competence of the person. Now? They're just a minimum entry requirement.

Yes thats probably true. But equally what it does is drag up the average level. Degrees may not all be equal and some may not mean as much as others, but they all require a certain level of learning and ability to cope in different situations.

Now there has always been a case that a degree does not always directly prepare people for jobs and that the employers must train their employees but that doesn't mean those degrees have been worthless. There is quite a big initiative going on to try and match skills picked up in uni from the course and the personal development programmes that run alongside (and are compulsory now) to what employers need.

Another trend that has not been picked up on is that employers requirements are becoming more and more specialised!

Youre going to have to explain that one.

Ok yes it makes no sense strictly.

BUT more people get degrees now. The value of each degree may (and this is arguable) be less, BUT still more are actually qualified to that level. That has to be good for a whole host of reasons surely?

Unless the level that they're all now at is too low, in which case all it does is remove the differentiation that used to be there for someone who held a Degree...

[BWFC_Insane]

This is where I begin to be "not sure" about the whole thing.

When we (and I mean specifically company's I've worked for) take on fresh out of school employees, I'm not convinced that they "require" a degree as we train them anyway. With the GCSE's and A levels being, generally, not a good indication of competence - certainly of general competence - but unfortunately, often, not even competence in the subject they're in, the degree has become the best guide out of a bad bunch of indicators.

What we appear to have created, with our national changes in the last 20/30 years, is much more of a lottery (and cost) for employers, as differentiating competence by results gained is becoming more and more difficult, as the standards drop. So we now have many more people with degrees, but it comes down to being able to weed out the "good" 2:1's and above from the bad ones. Before these things were given out with boxes of cereal (and I suspect mine came from one-such as I didn't attend for most of the last year) they were much more reflective of the competence of the person. Now? They're just a minimum entry requirement.

Yes thats probably true. But equally what it does is drag up the average level. Degrees may not all be equal and some may not mean as much as others, but they all require a certain level of learning and ability to cope in different situations.

Now there has always been a case that a degree does not always directly prepare people for jobs and that the employers must train their employees but that doesn't mean those degrees have been worthless. There is quite a big initiative going on to try and match skills picked up in uni from the course and the personal development programmes that run alongside (and are compulsory now) to what employers need.

Another trend that has not been picked up on is that employers requirements are becoming more and more specialised!

Youre going to have to explain that one.

Ok yes it makes no sense strictly.

BUT more people get degrees now. The value of each degree may (and this is arguable) be less, BUT still more are actually qualified to that level. That has to be good for a whole host of reasons surely?

Unless the level that they're all now at is too low, in which case all it does is remove the differentiation that used to be there for someone who held a Degree...

In my experience though that is not the case. There will be always distinction. Some who get a 2:2 will be miles better as an employee than someone with a first. And visa versa.

Of course there will always be some differentiation. But whilst a degree probably doesn't reflect the "absolute cream" of academic achievement it once did (and we're going back a fair way to those days) it does represent something tangible still. Otherwise employers wouldn't use it as a determinant on their person specs.

As I said before some of the trouble now is that Employers are searching for more and more and more specialised employees in areas where specialisation was not required before. For example people no longer want an office junior. They want one with years of experience in the related field, with knowledge of a specific database system and a specific software group.

It means they are likely to ultimately be dissapointed with any graduate they employ!

[Worthy4England]

In my experience though that is not the case. There will be always distinction. Some who get a 2:2 will be miles better as an employee than someone with a first. And visa versa.

Of course there will always be some differentiation. But whilst a degree probably doesn't reflect the "absolute cream" of academic achievement it once did (and we're going back a fair way to those days) it does represent something tangible still. Otherwise employers wouldn't use it as a determinant on their person specs.

As I said before some of the trouble now is that Employers are searching for more and more and more specialised employees in areas where specialisation was not required before. For example people no longer want an office junior. They want one with years of experience in the related field, with knowledge of a specific database system and a specific software group.

It means they are likely to ultimately be dissapointed with any graduate they employ!

Employers only use it as a determinant, because they have no other yardstick to judge someone who has little practical experience because they've been in education all thier lives. Yes there is some differentiation between 2:2 and 2:1 and some who get a 2:2 will indeed be a better employee than someone with a first. Unfortunately for them, our company would never find out, because they wouldn't get an interview and this pattern is not unique to the business I work in, most of the FTSE top 100 with Grad programmes don't typically recruit people with lower than 2:1. The pool of 2:1's and above is sufficiently large (and that's my point - it's probably too large) that unfortunately the 2:2's and below don't get to state their case.

I also think there is a distinction between an employer looking for specific skill sets for a specific job role - such as knowledge of a particular database system - and general graduate recruitment. If I needed someone with Oracle 10g experience and that was my prime concern for a particular role, then typically, the experience is a much greater factor than whether the person has a degree or not - in fact if the person has no degree and three years working experience with the product set to be supported, then they're way more likely to get the job (all other things being equal) even without the degree.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm quite pleased with events in Brussels today... if we must have these two positions, they might as well be condemned to irrelevance... a Belgian and Baroness Who? Yep, that'll do nicely.

[bobo the clown]

The problem now is that so many institutions are now called universities which are barely better thsn the back room of the local Co-op. These places still award 1st's & 2:1's by the bucket load to people who have barely scored in their A levels to get there. Either these people have achieved incredible epiphanies while at "Uni"... or the place they've been to are cock-sheds and the candidates have completed useless degree subjects.

Their results are as pointless as their subjects and as their colleges.

So, these days an informal "Ivy League" of "good" universities is drawn p by quality employers of graduates and the candidates A levels grades are also taken into account like never before.

A kid with a 1st in American Film Studies from High Wycombe University is never, ever, ever going to get an interview, let alone a job, as a Management Trainee with a good quality employer.

These are facts. I've been doing this for 25 years.

[BWFC_Insane]

The problem now is that so many institutions are now called universities which are barely better thsn the back room of the local Co-op. These places still award 1st's & 2:1's by the bucket load to people who have barely scored in their A levels to get there. Either these people have achieved incredible epiphanies while at "Uni"... or the place they've been to are cock-sheds and the candidates have completed useless degree subjects.

Their results are as pointless as their subjects and as their colleges.

So, these days an informal "Ivy League" of "good" universities is drawn p by quality employers of graduates and the candidates A levels grades are also taken into account like never before.

A kid with a 1st in American Film Studies from High Wycombe University is never, ever, ever going to get an interview, let alone a job, as a Management Trainee with a good quality employer.
These are facts. I've been doing this for 25 years.

I love the way people decry these degrees.

Yes of course thats the case. But that kid may well get a job for a poorer quality employer or in a lesser position and he/she may do well enough in that job and may find their way through to a much better job in a higher quality employer and perhaps end up being the boss of some of those kids who got 1sts in History from Cambridge! It does happen.

In the past though before the higher education boom, what would this kid have been doing? A crappy office job at best, but more likely down the pit or in the factory.

Even with a relatively poor degree, the kids chances are enhanced.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I'm quite pleased with events in Brussels today... if we must have these two positions, they might as well be condemned to irrelevance... a Belgian and Baroness Who? Yep, that'll do nicely.

He's got a great name though.