XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: anw@cuboid.co.uk 
  
 On 21/10/2019 09:41, tim... wrote: 
 [...] 
 >> It's clearly better to have a better-educated work-force 
 >> than a worse-educated one, 
 > well obviously 
 > but not an overly-educated one 
  
  We're a long way from being over-educated, as a society. 
 As a whole, we're little ahead of where middle-class males were 
 50-odd years ago;  parts of our society have still to reach that 
 level;  and we're well behind other countries such as Finland, 
 South Korea and even the USA. 
  
 >> translating to a skilled economy rather than 
 >> an unskilled one; 
 > what transferable skills does one obtain having a degree in History, 
 > or even Physics for that matter 
 > Most degrees don't teach useful commercial skills, the idea that they 
 > do is daft 
  
  Commercial skills aren't the only ones useful either for 
 society as a whole or for individuals;  and learning such skills is 
 merely one of the reasons for going to university.  Almost every 
 university course includes elements of problem-solving, handling 
 data, writing reports, legal/ethical/"green"/social/historical 
 aspects of the subject, working in groups, and so on, as well as 
 detailed subject knowledge -- and those that don't get slated by 
 external assessments.  Note that this is a big change from a few 
 decades back [which is when most people here had any university 
 experience];  and it's still a "work in progress" -- before I 
 retired I was on committees that tried to drag departments kicking 
 and screaming into the modern world, and it was not easy. 
  
 [...] 
 >>> Not artificially make all jobs degree requiring. 
 >> That is beyond your control, my control, even the Government's 
 >> control 
 > Of course it's within government control 
 > they hold the purse strings here.  Most people can only study for a 
 > degree if government provides the funds for the colleges to exists. 
 > That they have foolishly taken this sum off of the current account 
 > and put it into a loan book doesn't mean that they aren't funding it 
  
  That is control over the supply of graduates, not over the 
 requirements of employers. 
  
 >>    except for its own employees and except where standards are 
 >> set by particular professions [sometimes with the force of law, as eg 
 >> in the cases of solicitors and architects].€€ Jobs require degrees 
 >> because employers have decided that degrees are required for particular 
 >> jobs. 
 > only because there's an over supply of graduates in the market 
  
  There may be oversupply of graduates in some disciplines;  not 
 in STEM subjects, where there is a severe shortage.  That's the sort 
 of imbalance that ought to be solved by market forces.  Sadly, largely 
 for historical reasons, there are also [mostly UK-specific] counter- 
 forces, which result in us importing [eg] engineers and exporting 
 [name your favourite Mickey-Mouse subject]. 
  
 > the are just using degrees as a proxy for intelligence/aptitude 
 > during the recruitment process 
  
  If they choose to do exactly that, it's their privilege.  But 
 that's not what employers told us. 
  
 > It's daft spending billion of pounds of (your and mine) taxes 
 > providing them with that tiny benefit 
  
  We don't.  We provide millions of people [home and overseas] 
 with an education.  You may not see the value of education, but many 
 other people -- esp in under-developed parts of the world and ethnic 
 minorities in the UK -- do. 
  
 >> There are many possible reasons for that decision, inc the law 
 >> of supply and demand.€€ But employers, broadly, cannot stray too far 
 >> from what their competitors [inc overseas] are doing, whether they and 
 >> you like it or not. 
 > people in, for example, the UK distribution chain aren't competing 
 > with competitor overseas.  Demanding a degree qualification for your 
 > dispatcher is just unnecessary. 
  
  I don't claim enough knowledge of the UK distribution chain 
 to be able to argue the necessity or otherwise of a degree therein. 
 That's a matter for the employers.  I merely point out that there are 
 pressures on employers to conform to industry standards, both within 
 the UK and world-wide.  Young people are a lot more mobile than they 
 used to be;  they will seek out the best careers. 
  
 >>> That forces everybody to make a career choice at 18 and stick with it 
 >>> for the rest of their life [...] 
 >> No, it doesn't.€€ For all sorts of reasons.€€ One is that all 
 >> decent universities are perfectly ready to allow students to change 
 >> courses mid-stream. 
 > oh so the choice is made at 20 instead> it's still a choice that they have 
 to live with for the rest of their 
 > working life, that's the point 
  
  Everything you do is a choice.  In many cases, even a bad 
 choice is better than dithering and trying to keep all options open. 
 But you have not explained why choosing a degree subject is any more 
 of a life-time decision than starting full-time employment at 18. 
  
 >> For another, many degree courses are 
 >> flexible enough to allow you access to a range of careers. 
 > some are, many are not. 
 >> For 
 >> another, it is quite normal, tho' admittedly it depends to quite 
 >> a large extent on your personal circumstances, to switch during a 
 >> career 
 > The point is that happened in the past when degrees weren't 
 > necessary 
  
  It happens a lot more these days.  A degree gives you that 
 flexibility;  after all, you were the one claiming that employers 
 simply use degrees as a "proxy for intelligence/aptitude", which 
 suggests, to the extent to which it is true, that ... 
  
 > now that they are, once you have made your choice it is very much 
 > harder - you simply don't have the required qualifications for the 
 > other role 
  
  ... it's the degree rather than specific knowledge that is 
 the required qualification for the other role. 
  
 >> -- often from a "bread and butter" job to setting up your 
 >> own business. 
 > that's someone taking a risk 
 > it isn't someone changing career 
  
  ???  It is exactly that, esp if the business has little or 
 no relation to the previous job. 
  
 >> Finally, as mentioned by others, many employees see 
 >> a degree [quite reasonably] more as a filter on applicants, 
 > yes they do 
 > but IMHO it's NOT a REASONABLE use of degrees 
 > It's very very very expensive way of obtaining that benefit 
  
  But it isn't, even if you take a purely mercenary attitude to 
 education.  But that attitude was debunked more than 2000 years ago. 
  
 >> showing 
 >> that you have a decent education, perhaps also showing that you can 
 >> work in teams, 
 > really 
 > Most university education is all about individual work 
 > very very few people come out of uni with experience of team work 
  
  If a course in a STEM subject doesn't give you experience of 
 team work, then it's a bad course, and will get seriously marked down 
 when inspected.  [This is partly a change from a few decades back.] 
  
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)