- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 4249 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
500 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 430053
Shamelessly stealing the very excellent idea from >>/101/28964
Here is a place to post utterly inane observations about your current state of being.
I like birds but starlings are a massive noisy pain in the arse.
|>>|| No. 439630
>how long has it been since you had a real job, mate?
I have a real job.
Maybe your job is just shit. You will know better than me.
Not to sound confrontational, mind.
|>>|| No. 439634
I probably shouldn't have used the words "pushing pills" to describe job positions below an actual pharmacist.
What I meant was, I had a girlfriend once who was actually a pharmacy technician. She was unhappy working for mediocre pay, in a job and a profession that had no actual long-term career opportunities "out of the box". Yes, you can become the senior technician at your pharmacy and earn upwards of £25-28K a year, but you cannot get to the position of a pharmacist, or even start your own pharmacy. Not without additional qualifications, i.e. becoming an actual pharmacist.
So she decided she was going to try to get a degree somewhere in the medical field. We split up before she put her plans into action, but if I remember correctly, she was beginning to look at studying medical engineering. Which was going to be a bit of a do without A levels and without support from her parents who were essentially council estate paupers, but she was determined to attempt a career in drugs that wouldn't stop at being senior pharmacy technician.
And that's what I really meant. Even if you're from a working class upbringing and stuck in a job that doesn't satisfy you, there are always ways you can make something more of yourself. And to get back to capitalism vs. socialism, I doubt that socialist societies and economies actually gave you the freedom to just change up your career based on personal preference and ambition. The reality was that in most Communist Bloc countries, governments dictated a quite narrow band of career paths that you as a particular individual were allowed to follow. If there was a shortage of plumbers and machinists one year, then you were told to either become a plumber or a machinist, and that would have been the end of it.
|>>|| No. 439635
>Even if you're from a working class upbringing and stuck in a job that doesn't satisfy you, there are always ways you can make something more of yourself.
I couldn't agree more with what you're saying. In this regard, working for a large company is often better than working for a small company, as it's somewhat easier to progress and find other jobs in the organisation. There is a lot to be said for "working you way up from the shop floor" and there are plenty of examples of CEOs who actually did this. I think people give up on initially mundane jobs too easily.
|>>|| No. 439636
You're absolutely right.
I know somebody who was a geologist for an oil company (not Tony Hayward). He was an intern during uni there, but even within an oil company, job prospects are limited for geologists. He then got a full-time job after uni at the same company for some time as a research data manager, which was a fancy way of saying he spent every workday entering numbers into Excel and supervising interns who were doing the same. The pay was quite disappointing, and they never really knew what to do with him besides that. Oil companies really need engineers more than they need geologists. He didn't know enough about engineering to do the work of an engineer, while a drilling engineer knows enough about geology to make an actual geologist obsolete.
In a stroke of luck, he was then given funding from his employer for an MBA programme in corporate management. I think somebody else suddenly left the company who was going to do that MBA, and so it went to him. And with that MBA under his belt, things went swimmingly, and he became an important figure for their Southeast Asia operations.
|>>|| No. 439640
I was just starting to get somewhere with a woman but lockdown kicks in again. Well, lockdown is more the excuse because even before I was having to fight the fact that I've just become comfortable with myself now and in winter I prefer to just hibernate.
This has come up before even in prior relationships because I'm a lazybones and I suppose the solution is just to be aware of it. If not for myself then because a partner needs more than nights in with a cup of tea no matter how charming I am. Can't think of anything that you can do at the moment that doesn't involve freezing on some park bench - anything (legal) working for you lot?
>Any good corporate leadership recognises that people who show promise need to be given opportunities to rise up through the ranks in that company. Hence employee training schemes and career advancement programmes. Even somebody pushing pills in Boots has the chance to get a higher paying job if they put in the effort. I don't buy the image of the downtrodden lowly wage slave in a dead end job working for next to nothing. If you are stuck in that kind of job, then you're doing something wrong. There are ways to get ahead in nearly every line of work.
I'm going to echo broad agreement but I'm sceptical about in office training for a multitude of reasons. Mostly because even if you work somewhere with enough demand there's a hesitance attached to making you specialist because of risk and cost on one end but also the workplace will have to pay you a specialist wage out the other (or could even lose you). In organisation promotion also exists and new colleagues will help you out but unless you're willing to work somewhere bollocks to climb the ranks these opportunities will only come so-often and competition will be fierce. It's a long road to travel at best.
But you're right that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and it annoys me that whenever this is suggested some people will spit absolute bile. It is possible to do your own training part-time and go from zero and I know this because I did it having gone from someone working shitty call centre and data entry jobs. The problem I see is a host of interrelated issues to do with a lack of commitment and a whole societal perspective around mobility. Impostor syndrome is probably the worst part but there's also toxic attitudes from peers and a general feeling that these opportunities are locked out unless your parents went to a good school (I'd probably have been fucked without the internet to encourage me). It's probably something we're especially bad at as a country but I found that after about a year it does snowball as your confidence alone grows and some short courses at least single you out as someone with commitment.
|>>|| No. 439641
>But you're right that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and it annoys me that whenever this is suggested some people will spit absolute bile.
It may not be coincidence that this is happening just as some people here are declaring themselves socialists.
|>>|| No. 439642
Jesus when did this website become neoliberalfa.gs?
You all sound utterly disconnected from reality, and I say that as someone with a decent job in biomedical science.
The thing is, everything has too much gatekeeping nowadays. You are all talking about how you can "work your way up" but that simply hasn't been the case in any of the jobs I had before this one. It was a pain in the fucking arse to get a degree and get where I am as an adult; but I know from some of the older scientists where I work that in the old days, you COULD just be trained up from the bottom, without even having any qualifications.
Your attitude just sounds like the typical "blah blah blah spoilt millenials" baby boomer shite, where you don't appreciate at all the intensity of competition and pressure our younger generation faces. In principle, capitalism is a fine idea, but it needs a FUCKING LOT more intervention than we are currently giving it in our present system. It's barely fit for purpose right now.
|>>|| No. 439644
>It was a pain in the fucking arse to get a degree and get where I am as an adult; but I know from some of the older scientists where I work that in the old days, you COULD just be trained up from the bottom, without even having any qualifications.
That was the unintended consequence of Labour aiming to get just around half of all students to go to university. In many ways it has been extremely bad for social mobility; degrees are so ubiquitous and the value of them has been watered down so much that many companies have created a barrier to entry by listing a degree as a minimum requirement to apply when it wasn't necessary for the role whatsoever.
Many graduates, particularly those from working class backgrounds, were sold the lie that a degree, any degree, would set them up for life so if they didn't go to university they'd be a failure. The reality is I know a fair few people ~10 years after graduating who are still stuck working in a call centre or a dead-end admin job because they felt compelled into going to university but their 2:2 from a former Poly in a non-subject is just about worthless. They had it drummed into them to get a degree, but nobody drummed into them the importance of what you study and where. They won't retrain because another hangover from the Labour days is that they see vocational work as beneath them, even though some of the most minted people I know from school learned a trade.
|>>|| No. 439645
>Many graduates, particularly those from working class backgrounds, were sold the lie that a degree, any degree, would set them up for life so if they didn't go to university they'd be a failure.
Which made about as much sense as saying if more people get a driving licence, there will magically be more roads to drive on. New Labour's job market reforms as a whole were probably the biggest scam ever on the people that Blair ostensibly promised to put into work.
The only real difference is that the kind of people who didn't get a high paying job in the old days now have a degree that they still don't get a high paying job with. So it's almost a zero sum game. It sounds cynical, but you have to ask yourself what your career hopes actually were with a two-year degree in international politics.
It also has a lot to do with many degrees in recent years being shrunk down to two-year programmes. You simply cannot learn a university-level subject worth its salt in two years, it's impossible. Unless you're taking a complete Mickey Mouse degree, it will give you a passing grasp on the subject matter, but you are not going to become an expert in your field as such. Your degree will essentially be half baked. I think this devaluation is another big reason why people end up in call centres after uni. And of course sheer numbers. The fact that there are thousands of other candidates like you with a half baked Mickey Mouse degree doesn't improve your career chances.
>The reality is I know a fair few people ~10 years after graduating who are still stuck working in a call centre or a dead-end admin job because they felt compelled into going to university but their 2:2 from a former Poly in a non-subject is just about worthless.
I think this happens when you are from a working class background where nobody has any experience with higher education. If your dad is a doctor, a business owner/executive or a lawyer, then you will usually get plenty of encouragement from that direction to study the right thing, and at the right university. But if your parents are factory workers, then you will often have nobody to ask if becoming an archaeologist is really such a good idea. One of my friends is from a family where both parents spent much of their working lives as factory workers at Dagenham. She sort of got the idea of studying archaeology from watching films like Indiana Jones and The Mummy as a teenager. Her parents were out of their depth advising her in any way, and nobody in their extended family or even her friends had any way of knowing if that was a good choice or not. In all fairness, she studied her arse off to get into uni and finish the degree, but 15 years later, she works as a glorified tour guide at a museum and makes a whopping £35K a year.
I do have another friend who grew up on a council estate with a single parent, who went on to first become an insurance salesman and then got a law degree. Has a very solid career now working for a major insurance company, and makes absolute shedloads of money. But he seems to be the rarest of exceptions.
|>>|| No. 439646
I would've considered 35k a fairly comfortable salary, considering how low salaries generally are in the UK. It's decently above the median.
I'm also not sure where you're finding 2 year degrees and coming to the conclusion they're very common.
|>>|| No. 439647
>I would've considered 35k a fairly comfortable salary, considering how low salaries generally are in the UK
You're not going to make people turn white with envy though when you tell them that you make 35k with a university degree and 15 years of job experience. And to get there was a real struggle, she spent years temping in all kinds of jobs for much less than that.
I'm not saying you're a failure if you have a steady job for 35k. That's good money and allows you a living. But you could have had that after 15 years in a good number of professions without ever going through the trouble of getting a uni degree, let alone one in archaeology, and then spending years going from one temp job to another.
|>>|| No. 439648
>You're not going to make people turn white with envy though when you tell them that you make 35k with a university degree and 15 years of job experience.
Completely agree - you'd get about the same managing a medium-end retail shop, without needing the degree or anywhere near as much experience.
|>>|| No. 439649
>15 years later, she works as a glorified tour guide at a museum and makes a whopping £35K a year
Amongst me and my mates when we were growing up getting a job that paid more than £20k was seen as making it because so few of our parents earned above this amount.
|>>|| No. 439650
Apropos nothing, this Japanese police raid is hilarious.
|>>|| No. 439654
This line of reasoning never sat well with me. Why the hell would you not want people to get more education if they want it? I'd hazard to guess that most don't go into the career they start their degree looking at but that's a flexibility in itself and its just a good idea generally have to people who know obscure things or have a different perspective in the workforce. Better than being railroaded by an apprenticeship anyway, especially if the apprenticeship doesn't have a job at the other end.
Obviously there's a gap between what people learn and what the economy needs more of, and some people are twats who don't work hard, but I'm not sure how you fix that without serious top-down effort. The government forcing the character played by >>439642 into nuclear probably wouldn't sit well with people and winging about former polytechnics and subjects having less value sounds like gate-keeping.
>In all fairness, she studied her arse off to get into uni and finish the degree, but 15 years later, she works as a glorified tour guide at a museum and makes a whopping £35K a year.
That's not bad for a history career, I don't see why you're boiling it down to money when all of us strike some sort of bargain when it comes to wage v. everything else. I don't earn massive amounts more in my career but I could earn a lot more if I were willing to do a more stressful and less interesting area - I won't though because it's not worth it. Not when I could just marry a rich woman.
|>>|| No. 439656
>That's not bad for a history career, I don't see why you're boiling it down to money when all of us strike some sort of bargain when it comes to wage v. everything else.
As I said, getting there was a big struggle, with all kinds of temp and/or part time work, naturally often in areas that had nothing to do with that degree. She didn't spend all of the last 15 years at that museum with upwards of £30K. If I remember correctly, she started there some four or five years ago, and it's her first-ever job with what you could call mid-term job security.
My point is, there are ways you can earn money in relatively safe jobs continuously for 15 years with acceptable job security, and then after those 15 years make the same kind of money. Without the stigma of a largely worthless degree hanging over your head the whole time.
|>>|| No. 439657
>Why the hell would you not want people to get more education if they want it?
Most people I know from a similar background to me who went to university didn't go to learn. They went because they felt they had to as everyone else was doing it and it meant they could party for three years and put off having to get a job.
A lot of people went to university when they shouldn't have been anywhere near one and have ended up jaded after realising they were sold a lie.
|>>|| No. 439658
>and it meant they could party for three years and put off having to get a job
I knew a few people who were just along for the ride like that. A lot of them dropped out when they realised that being a borderline alcoholic and passing your exams didn't always mix.
It's usually the liberal arts that attract students like that, who think it's all just going to be a few years of pissing about in debating clubs, and forming snobby intellectual opinions about all the rest of the world.
>A lot of people went to university when they shouldn't have been anywhere near one and have ended up jaded after realising they were sold a lie
I don't see what kind of lie they were sold, besides the lying they did to themselves. If you do any kind of research at all before you take up archaeology or history, it's impossible to miss the fact that almost everybody will discourage you from it because of the limited job prospects.
You're not completely wrong though. I studied geography for about a semester and a half before I switched, which is a classic dead end degree with fuck all job prospects. Except that's not what you will hear any of the professors freely admitting. They'll tell you about all the interesting jobs that former students went on to do, from government work to starting a business. The bad and the ugly of it though is that you will be pretty much unqualified for most kinds of office jobs, and that many have to take additional courses or postgraduate degrees to be employable at all beyond the odd, poorly paid advertising or public relations job. My suspicion is that if they told students the actual truth, pretty soon there would be no more of them. Four out of five would jump ship and do something else, and that would be the end for geography at many universities. It's self interest really, at the expense of gullible students who don't know any better.
|>>|| No. 439659
>the character played by
Are you implying some part of that was inaccurate and therefore unbelievable? The NHS did indeed offer a route of what it called "natural progression" for people like healthcare scientists, nurses and other important-support-but-not-a-doctor kind of staff.
All that was scrapped under what is now called "Agenda for Change" and it's actually led to severe hiring shortages in some areas. Instead of training up promising existing staff, those staff either have to go off and get qualifications on their own, or otherwise go through an apprenticeship, which is unlikely to lead to a stable job because the apprenticeship system is mostly just abused in order to lower wage bills.
The idea of training up staff and developing them is obviously a perfectly good one, that just stands to reason. The trouble is so very few places actually do it, whatever the reason.
|>>|| No. 439660
> The idea of training up staff and developing them is obviously a perfectly good one, that just stands to reason. The trouble is so very few places actually do it, whatever the reason.
Which is why that isn't just a perfectly reasonable question to ask your possible new employer during a job interview, but it will also show them that you've got ambition and want to grow as an employee.
|>>|| No. 439661
We're probably going to have to look at statistics but that hasn't been my impression at all. Even the thespians I knew ended up either going into teaching or used the degree as a means to go into management at whatever part-time job they had.
At any rate, I'm sure we can agree that having access to higher education is fundamentally a good idea. If someone wants a mickey mouse degree then fine, they will still end up doing projects and practising time management by powering through all-nighters if they want to succeed which are skills applicable across sectors.
No, I'm suggesting you're playing a jaded character who it would be a bad idea to force into sectors in dire need of staff.
|>>|| No. 439662
An awful lot of professionals are misgraded under AfC, and the money just isn't there to support them. When I worked in the NHS in tech, moneywise everyone was a grade below what they should have been getting, available weightings weren't being used, and the annual training budget worked out to £150 per person.
Some in the organisation were genuinely surprised that they were never able to fix recurring problems that they had, unable to relate that to their persistent lack of new blood outside the very bottom. Apparently it didn't dawn on them that attracting new talent might be an issue if the top of their band is £5-10k below market, which they won't pay other than to match existing salary.
|>>|| No. 439663
>I'm suggesting you're playing a jaded character
I'd suggest anyone who works in the NHS is more than within their right to be jaded.
How do you feel about private healthcare?
|>>|| No. 439664
>At any rate, I'm sure we can agree that having access to higher education is fundamentally a good idea. If someone wants a mickey mouse degree then fine
It still needs to be in proportion to how many Mickey Mouse graduates the job market can take up. New Labour's stated goal was to get 50 percent of young people to go into university education. That was unrealistic from the word go, but it also goes without saying that not everybody of those 50 percent was going to go into STEM, or law, drugs, or business/economics. And not because kids weren't made aware of their true potential, but because those are by and large fucking hard subjects to study, with gruelling class loads and high dropout rates. There is always only a limited number of young people coming out of secondary education who actually have the brains for that kind of thing. Granted, there's still a portion of them who would have what it takes but come from working class upbringings without the means or encouragement, but on the whole, I think the limiting factor is still a young person's IQ, and there's no way around that.
So then of course many of those 50 percent will go into Mickey Mouse degrees that are a piece of piss, because that is all they are mentally capable of. But the question is if they're doing themselves, or society a favour. An archaeologist struggling ten years before they finally land a long-term permanent job worth £35K isn't just hurting his or her lifetime income and pays less income tax. But it also impacts your overall quality of life if you're getting passed back and forth on the temp circuit. Especially if at some point you want to start a family and need the right kind of financial stability for it.
Call me neoliberal or elitist or whatever, but I honestly think sending everybody to uni isn't the answer, and never was. What we really need is a strengthening of non-university professional training. There are still plenty of office or manual jobs that can be done with an apprenticeship or vocational training, and where you're both underqualified and overqualified with a degree in history or sociology.
|>>|| No. 439665
>Call me neoliberal or elitist or whatever, but I honestly think sending everybody to uni isn't the answer, and never was. What we really need is a strengthening of non-university professional training. There are still plenty of office or manual jobs that can be done with an apprenticeship or vocational training, and where you're both underqualified and overqualified with a degree in history or sociology.
That's hardly a neo-liberal sentiment, it's quite the opposite. The question is how do you make companies actually do those kinds of thing? Because right now, they're not doing nearly enough of it, and no amount of dismissive bootstraps rhetoric can change that.
We currently have the apprenticeship levy, which literally puts free money on the table to incentivise apprenticeships, and companies miss out on that money if they don't take apprentices, and they still don't go for it. Call me cynical but I think it's fair to say they'd rather just let the jobs market fester and then lobby the government to let immigrants in to do those jobs.
If we can't pay companies to invest in training, what can we do?
|>>|| No. 439666
>We currently have the apprenticeship levy, which literally puts free money on the table to incentivise apprenticeships, and companies miss out on that money if they don't take apprentices, and they still don't go for it.
Somebody who is a trained computer network administrator with qualifications will know their worth and won't necessarily stay with the company where they did their apprenticeship. It's an investment that has a risk of not paying off. Whereas if you hire somebody with a sociology degree who either dabbles in computer networking in his free time or who took a few classes after his degree when he realised that sociology alone wasn't going to put food on the table, then somebody like that will be eager to work the same job for less money, and he will know that he'll probably struggle to find the same kind of work elsewhere.
Which is yet another reason why we need to get away from sending everybody and their dog to university. Higher education for everybody is a nice socialist dream that isn't without its merits in theory, but we can't go on pretending that there is actually ever going to be university graduate-level work for half of all young people. And then if there are fewer liberal arts graduates desperate for work, it will also mean that companies will need to look at other ways of filling those types of positions.
|>>|| No. 439667
This thread has taken a really weird turn. It's like a deep learning AI trained on a junior Conservative MP's tweets started talking to itself.
>Higher education for everybody is a nice socialist dream that isn't without its merits in theory, but we can't go on pretending that there is actually ever going to be university graduate-level work for half of all young people.
In the truly Socialist ideal you'd go to university to study philosophy and literature, then still proudly work in the tractor factory stamping sheet metal because every job is equally rewarded. You'd then be a writer and philosopher in your spare time, for the love of the noble pursuit of knowledge itself.
That really doesn't have much to do with the weird marketised education system Blair saddled us with, though.
|>>|| No. 439668
>It's an investment that has a risk of not paying off.
You think training people who leave is a problem? Wait until you deal with not training people who stay.
|>>|| No. 439669
>In the truly Socialist ideal you'd go to university to study philosophy and literature, then still proudly work in the tractor factory stamping sheet metal because every job is equally rewarded. You'd then be a writer and philosopher in your spare time, for the love of the noble pursuit of knowledge itself.
The downfall of socialism was that it never got over its wet dreams of itself, and then had to resort to ever more repressive means to keep it up. If you think you can afford to have people with a degree in philosophy and literature working a metal press in a factory, then maybe you deserve to go tits up as a system of society.
|>>|| No. 439671
Yuri Gagarin wasn't just suddenly plucked off his tractor at his kolkhoz one day and stuck in a spacesuit. He was a fully trained Soviet Air Force pilot.
|>>|| No. 439672
That isn't really dissimilar to what would happen to an unimpressive philosophy grad here. Under no economic system would our theoretical graduate be happy with his profession, since pay aside it still implies that other academics didn't consider his work to be of value. Besides, all jobs have some level of esteem attached that doesn't scale with compensation. In a truly Socialist system people would still be happier to call themselves a doctor rather than a factory drone, even if they both trudge back to the same commieblock at the end of the working day. The moral of the story is don't study Philosophy.
|>>|| No. 439674
Which is why there should be a limit on how many people get to study Mickey Mouse degrees like philosophy. You could argue that for every degree, there is a certain number of graduates that will be able to get a job where what they learned at uni is needed and required. Even somebody who has studied baroque art history is potentially valuable to employers like museums or art galleries. But there are probably only about one or two dozen experts on baroque art really actually needed to do work in that field in Britain at any one time. The rest will end up in call centres or doing "marketing" or "public relations".
Marketing and advertising are actually full of people with Mickey Mouse degrees, but that isn't necessarily a good thing, because what many people don't realise is that you do need quite solid and profound academic knowledge to be able to call yourself a marketing expert. "Learning by doing" as somebody who didn't learn much about marketing at uni as such is one thing, but it can't replace years spent studying marketing as part of a business or economics degree. Which is one reason why there is plenty of scope in terms of salaries within the marketing and advertising profession. People with an actual degree in marketing or sales will almost invariably earn significantly more than somebody with a liberal arts degree who went into marketing due to a lack of alternatives.
|>>|| No. 439675
Why would there ever be a limit when there's money to be made getting students through the door to study any old shite?
What we're gradually getting down to brass tacks with here is that there are some things which work best and should be part of a market economy, and there are other things which are best taken care of without a profit motive. Education, along with things like healthcare, emergency services and general social infrastructure, is definitely the latter in my opinion.
Cheerleading for either capitalism or socialism is moronic, the most realistic proposal to run things better is a hybrid using the strengths of each. Too much of either and you're going to run into trouble.
|>>|| No. 439701
>Why would there ever be a limit when there's money to be made getting students through the door to study any old shite?
That's where a mixture of socialism and capitalism would really come in. Telling people what they can and can't study (and telling universities that they don't just get to let people study what they want as long as they pay for it) is socialist, but if it's with the idea in mind how many people with an M.A. in philosophy or art history will be employable in their field, then we're talking capitalism again because then you are understanding that a qualification needs to be of use in earning money with it. What is the point of somebody with a philosophy degree spending years at uni, when they end up doing a job in advertising or PR that really doesn't require any of the knowledge that they acquired for their degree.
|>>|| No. 439703
You can still get an MSc. in business management and spend your free time becoming an expert on Nietzsche.
Instead of the other way round, where you pretty much have to get additional qualifications after your philosophy degree to be employable at all for most lines of hands-on office or management work.
|>>|| No. 439707
You're not completely wrong, but what is the point of spending years at uni getting a degree that doesn't more or less directly qualify you for a job.
I have worked in advertising, which was actually an extensive part of my business/economics degree. Advertising and PR is a classic fallback for starving liberal arts graduates who don't find work elsewhere. I'm not saying somebody with a philosophy or history degree doesn't bring anything useful to the table. Sometimes they do in quite unexpected ways. But advertising is, or ideally should be about more than boshing together a flyer or a brochure half-heartedly telling people to buy a product. Good advertising has a whole host of strategic considerations to think about in the way you present a product, emphasize its selling points, work out who your customers will be, craft your message accordingly, and also what distribution channels your client uses for it and how they will do their pricing. And that's not even half of a complete advertising strategy. And then when your liberalartslad coworker tells you that somebody's company logo is their "corporate identity", it becomes apparent why there is so much bad advertising.
|>>|| No. 439715
I really like Molton Brown stuff, but I can't ever justify paying £20 for a bottle of soap.
|>>|| No. 439719
I'm torn with what you say, but I don't think we should be comparing vocational and non vocational education.
There's intrinsic value in pursuing specialist education at an institution under the tutelage of an expert, even if it doesn't directly feed into economic production or management.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that young people were sold a lie in that there aren't enough specialist jobs for people with non-vocational degrees, but I don't think we should underestimate the usefulness of said degrees in terms or the self management, critical thinking and analytical skills that pursuing a degree provides, in addition to the specialist knowledge already present in the degree itself.
|>>|| No. 439722
>but I don't think we should underestimate the usefulness of said degrees in terms or the self management, critical thinking and analytical skills that pursuing a degree provides
True enough. I think that apart from all the factual knowledge about economics that I got from studying it, which has been immensely useful, it's analytical thinking and the ability to put your thoughts to paper in a structured way that transcends the actual subject you studied. And that skill can probably be honed and developed both by composing a sales case study and by comparing the key tenets of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
The problem is that while those general skills are massively useful and set you apart from somebody who works an office job without a higher education degree, sometimes the rubber meets the road in that you need actual factual knowledge about the things you are doing, and you can't just "blag it". Yes, there's often going to be some form of on-the-job training once you've got a foot in the door, but many employers will want employees, and graduates, to have the right skills "out of the box" right when they are hired.
|>>|| No. 439741
There's lots of work to do at the moment after a month of relative ease. When does society collectively decide to fuck it all off for Christmas?
I'm just going to comment that funnily enough the professional economists I've spoken with all studied philosophy. Not the sort working in the City mind you but at a guess it comes down to the usual wisdom that ultimately your degree is what you make of it. Plus you can always do a Masters.
I did have a thought of studying philosophy when I was looking into what to study but decided to study a proper degree out of fear for my future. Funnily enough, as it turns out it really didn't matter for my career so long as I had a degree that showed general skills and could point to extra-curriculars. A degree I probably would not have gotten because philosophy looks really hard and I'd be continually told that I'm wasting my time.
They're hiding under a tray in the sink. They played that hilarious practical joke on me yesterday.
|>>|| No. 439742
Because I'm a bleeding heart social justice gaylord I first thought you meant spoons as in the metaphor for mental fatigue.
|>>|| No. 439746
That spoon thing really is the gayest of all the gay things that especially gay (in a literal sense) community has come up with.
Is there more to it than I realise, or is it really just an especially shit metaphor for the concept of people becoming more easily fatigued than others? What's the spoon metaphor for complete executive dysfunction?
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]