Hold on! Degrees for all doesn't mean great jobs for all, say profs Over-qualified grads are being forced into unsatisfying jobs which don't suit their skills, a report has found. In an article published in the journal Human Relations, Belgin Okay-Somerville (PhD, Human Resource Management) from the University of Aberdeen and Professor (of Human Resource Management) Dora Scholarios from the …
This post has been deleted by its author
"Or my nephews advanced degree in Irish History...in the US...for which he has absolutely no job prospects...but plans to go on for his PhD in the discipline anyway."
Heaven forfend that people should get degrees simply to expand their own knowledge. When did learning things simply for the sake of expanding one's own mind become such a terrible thing?
If all you want is a piece of paper that will help get you a better job, surely a vocational qualification is the better route?
@VaalDonkie
"If he's an officer, then surely he would have had to take many courses related to his work?"
Not a one. Because he got the degree long before enlisting in the Marines. He joined the Marines to save the world. That's not working out too well so far.
He is also a "90 day wonder"...meaning that the ONLY reason he is an officer is because he had a college degree when he signed up...and he came out of boot camp as a Lt. Never spent a nano-second as a "ground-pounder".
@ Fibbles
He wasn't taking the degree "for the sake of expanding one's own mind"...he really thinks there are jobs for people with that degree. There are not...that is why he joined the Marines.
After graduating from college, and before joining the Marines, he had also applied to be a fireman, policeman, Secret Service agent, and on and on with similar positions. His degree has not exactly helped him out in these job applications. And let's not forget his going to college originally with the plan of becoming a professional basketball player. That lasted about one year. He was a lousy basketball player, and his college told him so. Didn't go over well.
And finally, his father was a senior official in a major trade union in New York City, and got him a job in the union doing what he had been doing. His father made a serious good living as a Master Mechanic for 40+ years. The kid turned his back on it shortly after getting in.
"learning things simply for the sake of expanding one's own mind become such a terrible thing?"
When they ask me to pay for them to do it.
You have a point, the world has room for a few people studying Irish history, I don't mind funding the brightest and most dedicated with my taxes. When idiot politicians aspire to sending everyone to university the majority better be study something more useful. The world doesn't need every 3rd person to be either a psychologist or lawyer FFS.
Its been that way in the US(at least where I live)...
When I graduated college it was about 1 year after the tech burst. Out of 30 people I knew who I kept in touch with after graduation (for about 2 years) only 2 got jobs in the tech sector... One of which already had his job, and just stayed the other only got a job cause he was already employed and had 5 years exp in which allowed him to jump. Went to a wedding for one guy I graduated with I think it was 2-3 years after we graduated, and there were a pile of people I went to school with there all but the groom was unemployed, and in the same situation as me working a dead end job just to pay student loans.
I still remember graduation day when before we did the graduation walk our dean pulled us all over an told us literally how we were all fucked(he actually used that phrase, and that he prayed we would find any kind of work.
After that I worked temp tech support(probably one of the worst things you can do as you are treated worst than a piece of trash) for a few months before just dropping out of the IT field and accepted a menial dead end job for a little above minimum wage to stay alive, and pay off those insane student loans. Flash forward 9 years still at same menial job barely making ends meet, had a few temp IT gigs in between, again treated worst than a piece of trash.
All the barely decent jobs also require 5 years experience for the entry level where I live, funny thing most people I told that to online in guild chat in a popular MMO I used to play were telling me I was full of it till one member said that is the exact issue her husband hit when they moved for her work (she seems to have made more then him, and had to move for work), and funny enough she moved to my city...
My sister graduated college recently(4 months ago) with a degree in a different field(even after I told her not to waste the money, and time), and hit the same exact issue no jobs at all for entry level that don't require 3-5 years exp already.
AC for various reasons
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
90,000 opt to study Law and there are only on average 3,500 vacancies a year in the profession, if that.
When I graduated with my Law Degree in 1994 these statistics where pretty much the same,
In the last 19 years 1,710,000 students studied Law though in the same period there were only ever 66,500 job vacancies ever available.
Maybe each university course should publish the statistics of the availability of jobs in any given field. This would put things into perspective and not leave the student with a false expectation.
> n the last 19 years 1,710,000 students studied Law though in the same period there were only ever 66,500 job vacancies ever available.
And the rest are to found polluting the internet with their own personal views of what's legal or illegal (or worse: right and wrong, though the two have no connection whatsoever). Based on no experience at all.
It's probably a good thing, though. This country really doesn't need 90,000 new lawyers every year - though with so many excessively legal-jargon qualified, even if not all of them graduate, is it really any wonder that this country is becoming so litigious?
To be fair to layers (not something I do on a regular basis) a law degree will be seen as useful and work related in many jobs which are not actually being a layer. Essentially you will be seen as having studied something serious and potentially useful.
One part of this that doesn't get mentioned enough is this. The cry that "everyone must go to uni" was based on the idea that they is no industry in this country so everyone needs to get a white collar job. Ironically, there are very large numbers of "blue collar" jobs in the UK and many are now paid far better than crappy white collar jobs.
These "blue collar" jobs require skills and training. A degree from a second rate university in something bland isn't much help.
We are being trapped by a pre 1950 view that getting on in life means getting into an office. Otherwise you end up shoveling coal or something.
"We are being trapped by a pre 1950 view that getting on in life means getting into an office. Otherwise you end up shoveling coal or something."
The pre-50s view was actually quite balanced. Before 1944 it was recognised that the output of Junior Technical Schools was quickly recruited into various skilled industries and services. The output of Grammar Schools was either unemployed or mostly in menial clerical jobs - only a few went on to university.
The 1944 Education Act reformed secondary education to create Secondary Technical Schools with an equal 11+ examination standing to Grammar Schools. However in the 1960s the extra costs of equipment and industry-trained teachers were a major reason for Technical Schools being merged into either Grammar Schools or Comprehensives. The purveyor of the "White Heat of Technology" rhetoric was also destroying the schools that had the focus to deliver on that objective.
I think there is a lot of truth in many views expressed in the comments to the "Hold on! Degrees for all doesn't mean great jobs for all, say profs" article.
I agree with this post that guiding not just under-grads but school pupils to understand there are a finite amount of jobs and it may be best to to choose one where the probability of employment will be low is less than ideal. There happens to be a utter and total lack of career guidance in schools so how you expect and poor child to understand how to map what they are good at to a job that will satisfy them is beyond me. Some people still have that problem at the end of their career.
I agree with latter posts about the HR departments who have no clue how to choose who to employ and/or give answers to why a person was rejected that are nonsensical.
I am no lover of the last Labor gov. but the goal of a better educated workforce in and environment where knowledge is power is to be lauded. As a product of an apprenticeship and a degree myself, it is obvious that just going to university is not the answer for everyone. This is a case in point of a politician coming up with an idea and its implementation not being thought through. Is it the politicians fault, yes and no. They have others to do some of the checking things work properly hmmm I think they are civil servants? If the politician does not concentrate beyond the sound byte to ensure things are happening correctly then ... well they do not always end up with what they want.
CS degrees are good for those who are interested in them, as long as relevance to real industry practice is incorporated into those degrees. Oops that's why we had polytechnic's, wasn't it? You will find well educated smart people from any/many backgrounds understanding and being able to teach IT topics very well. Why shouldn't you all that is required to learn is an interest in something and facilities to satisfy that interest.
As ever the answer is not to fix an isolated attribute but to address many things at the same time. I am amazed someone pays people to produce papers/articles such as this one that are blindingly obvious to anyone with an ounce of smarts.
YES you have to have an educated workforce, NO there is not one path to that goal, Yes if you fail to make students aware of market forces and statistics in the job market, as well as a host of other things, or they are likely to be disappointed.
You have to work in the society in which we live the art is to find something that doesn't bore you to death everyday and if you are like me like 90% of the time.
Politicians and industry need to work to an end goal, the present problem is so much of industry has been decimated you have to a job to find industry and then have to dis-entangle their comment from their self-interest when they put their view forward. This is not limited to Electronics it covers performing arts, medicine, IT, etc. All the countless other I could name. Its up to everyone to address this issue or to stop moaning and reap the result. Society has to be balanced it takes a lot of ingredients to make the recipe.
Asbolutely. No typo.
Expectations need to be managed to engage students in the gritty realities before, during and after their learning. A Roman philosopher (Seneca) said that expectations caused anger and sadness; if a learning institution can't engage with the environment beyond its walls, then why are people paying..?
Stats like this are why places like Vet schools viciously weed out as many as they can in first year.
Not quite so good ones end up as biochemists, etc (Along wih the really good ones who discover they're simply not cut out for a career where half their time is spent euthenasing animals)
It's also why there are "elitist" law schools - those are the ones who only let people who are likely to GET jobs, graduate. (Same applies to various "elitist" instiutions, though at least the rejects form those places can usually find jobs fairly easily as paralegals, assistants, etc)
Funnily enough even the Army has standards. A lot of recruits get weeded out because they're not intelligent enough - and that requirement gets higher every year because they can't afford to have Johnny Hobnail breaking everything in sight.
I have been told by a friend who is a nurse, that many of the new recruits are in it only for the degree. To quality as a nurse these days, you get a degree in nursing and apparently the number who leave nursing after getting their degree is much higher than it used to be and getting higher. They don't want to nurse, they want a degree. Presumably, this is why the scandals in nursing are happening as well. Some nurses simply don't give a s**t and are in it only for the money, career (get out of hands on nursing and become a manager as soon as possible) and the degree. So, why do they care about actually taking care of people and treating them reasonably?
Girlfriend is a nurse and it would appear what you are saying is right on the money.
Also as a recent graduate I can confirm that most of these people wont get degree's, they will drop out, be kicked out or just disappear before the end of 2nd year. When your marks actually matter in 3rd. People go to university now because its the social norm. And the first 2 years are a total waste of time (im not moaning I very much enjoyed myself) but those years are really there to wade through the crap that applies. The best courses now are the ones where you get a years work placement. I did then manage to get an internship before my finishing year. So I had 2 relevant jobs once I was let loose on the job market.
@ Bill the Sys Admin
Actually, the retention rate (i.e. how many complete their course) for student nurses is fairly high. Although it's not uncommon for such students to intermit from their programme, it's often for a period of time and will resume at a later date.
The NHS pays for the course fees and institutions are under natural pressure to try and retain students. If someone doesn't qualify, the institution won't receive a penny.
Also, marks matter on a nursing degree right off the bat - students need to achieve (and maintain) a certain standard both academically and in practice in order to remain and progess on the course. Bear in mind that 50% of their course will be inpractice.
Que? What on earth does "intermit" mean? Think we need a few more graduates in English, as gets plainer by the day reading such sites as this one. Communication in a clear, widely spoken and consistently used standard language is one of the most critical skills for all jobs and even more so for "technical" work. If you can not use your own language properly (I assume most here are English speakers), how can you be trusted with the even more limiting and strict rules of, for example, a computer programming language or shell script? How can we be sure you understand a user's requirements or write a specification intelligible to someone else?
"Intermit is a perfectly valid word having it's origins from the latin intermittere, of course it has only been in use for a few centuries so not every english speaking person should be expected to know it exists."
"it's" is a perfectly valid word having its origins from the English "it is", of course it has only been in use for a few centuries so not every Latin speaking person should be expected to know it exists.
@Mad Mike
Actually, I would say that used to happen more often – often, the students wanted to getting into pharmaceutical sales, where a science degree was needed, and a nursing degree was financially easier. It was possible to do the diploma course for two years (which had an automatic bursary) and then switch to the degree programme in the last year. (For quite a few years, until it was scrapped, there was very little difference between the diploma and degree course, incidentally).
Since the move to all degree courses, the competition for student nursing places has rocketed and it’s a lot harder to get accepted. Interviewing is often part of the application process and consequently, it’s harder for people to get accepted if they don’t have a realistic view of nursing and/or have no interest in it as career – that’s not to say it doesn’t happen. Today, personally, I would say the bigger problems are a lack of jobs after students qualify (trusts are going after cheaper options) and students growing disillusioned by constant healthcare provision changes, rather than students trying to gain a degree sneakily.
Completely agree with you there! I'm currently on a course to get into a degree for nursing, and some of the students I have the pleasure of studying with have absolutely no care experience. They simply want to get onto a nursing degree for the "crack of it", not because they have an interest in actually looking after people. One of the best comments I've heard so far from one young lady when talking about the fun and shenanigans of dealing with bodily fluids (and semi solids for that matter!) was "ewwww, I don't want to clean up poo, that not a nurse's job, the carers do that. I just want to do the management stuff!".
To be honest, a lot of students DO drop out in the first / second year when they realise that cleaning up poop and washing old mens feet that haven't seen the light of day outside of the socks they have been wearing for n weeks isn't quite for them, but hey, rough with the smooth right?
And... if the 'guvmint do bring in their policy of all nursing students having had to have had upto a year of care experience or having to complete a year of care experience before even being allowed anywhere near a university then that can only be a good thing, but, vacancies schmakeancies. Where are all these people going to work? Private care homes? Community carers? Maybe get lucky and actually get a job in a NHS hospital?
All I have seen so far is the majority of private healthcare providers are interested in profits, and not 110% patient care. National minimum wage for carers doing a handsome, rewarding job when the shareholders / management get silly money for simply getting more bums in beds is madness.
The issue with scandals is that there are people, whilst knowing their job or being able to provide care correctly are under mammoth stress and strain from managers etc, and therefore they become entangled in not treating their staff or fellow workers with respect, or cutting the care so far down to the knuckle, they themselves become seen as the enemy, when really, it is the people at the top who need to have to suffer some illness, some disorder where they receive care directly from the hands of the carers at the bottom, with no special treatment whatsoever. They MIGHT just stop and think then.
But, they won't.
Just my 2p worth.... and yes, I worked in IT before giving it all up for a change of career. Funny how working part time as a carer for a few years makes you realise what life is really all about.....!
Anon for very good reasons...
I recall that when I went to university, I got in to the course I wanted but my friend didn't (same course). When I turned up there were at least 10 students who had got onto the course through clearing. The course was a CAD/CAE course and these clearing students were arts and humanities dropouts who had no interest in either computers or engineering/design. They were there to avoid getting a job and not because they had a vocation. I was lucky and got a relevant and well paid job after university (it did take a while to secure). Degrees are now so devalued that I sometimes interview people with degrees who are astoundingly stupid and seemingly incapable. It does seem that the degree is now just a certificate of attendance.
@SuperTim.
I too have interviewed people with degrees and what egos some have. They seem to think you should offer the job just because of the degree!! After interviewing a good few, I soon found out that having or not having a degree means almost nothing. The degree candidates weren't really any better than the ones without and quite often having a decent bit of work history said far more than the educational qualifications.
So, to me, the degree became a complete nonsense and got ignored. It told me nothing about the holder.
Both Mad Mike and SuperTim explain what irritates me about uni. I wanted to get into IT and was pretty flexible because I wanted to learn most of it. I was good at it at school and went to college to follow up on the subject. However no employer would look at my CV without the degree being there.
So I went to uni with a load of kids who just didnt want a job and had no interest in IT. While at uni I saw another problem with job hunting, they all wanted experience too!!! I had left school with an interest, followed up on that interest, went to uni as a requirement to get a job then find I need experience as well.
I was lucky. I worked for free as a software developer and that got me employed pretty quick (50ish applications, 3 interviews). Everyone else competed for the graduate jobs which were far less than the graduates. Few of my friends got them.
I did work with a lad who didnt go to college or uni but was a far better developer than anyone I had met to that point.
@AC.
The 'requirement' for a degree generally means you're working for a company/manager who doesn't really understand what they need. They put out a whole load of requirements off the top of their heads and then take the 10 closest CVs and employ one of them. Maybe i'm out of touch, but the job profiles we put out had no real pre-requisites and even said that trainees would be considered if they showed 'aptitude' and 'willingness'. To me, someone with little experience, but obviously suited (through interview) and a drive to do well, is worth far more than someone with a lot of experience and qualifications who thinks the world owes them a living!!
So, all this means you have to read every CV and interview a lot more people. However, I personally found the interview to be the most eye opening and important part and generally you learnt far more from that, than anything else. Employers should not be afraid to interview a lot of people and also not be afraid of not employing for some time. You're looking for the 'right' person, not the 'right now' person.
@Tom 38.
indeed so. However, this also means the manager is willing to let the HR department dictate what he needs for the job. This either indicates the HR department has too much power (poor company) or the manager is useless and just accepts it rather than fighting for what is actually required.
To be fair, a lot of job adverts now have a degree or suitable equivalent experience, whatever that means. Guess it's simply a get out of jail for anything else if they think the candidate is suitable.
There is a change in the University system that is not mentioned in the article or the comments so far: The great inflation in University degrees. Can you realistically expect that some 50% of pupils with a degree will find the same type of interesting jobs that some elite 5% did some 50 years ago (statistics purely invented, but I am sure there is a place where they might match).
Also, it used to be that University graduates would be expected to be thinking on the job, not just applying learned knowledge. Especially in the hard sciences, your acquired knowledge from the University days will age very fast. So, points 1 and 2 in the job satisfaction survey kind of miss the point ("1) The extent to which the skills learned at university are used. 2) How closely a graduate's other skills match those required in the job).
Sorry, the study missed the point and someone should not graduate.
Well, not according to one HR droid who interviewed me three years ago. She went on and on grilling me why I'd left school at 15 (those were the days) and didn't go to University.
I did indeed leave school at 15. I did a 4yr apprenticeship as a toolmaker. Then I went to Polytechnic and did a degree in Engineering (got a 1st). I've since done an MSC (Open University) and MBA. None of these counted for anything.
A few weeks after the interview, I got a letter from the company stating that they would not be offering me a job as I was not sufficiently qualified. Being a bit peeved, I called them up and asked what was missing from my qualifications.
They replied that because I didn't have 'A' level English I wasn't offered the job. They were a bit put out when I reminded them that I had (At that time) three books in print and two more in preparation.
I'm now 61yrs old and hopefully in my last job before I retire.
I was asked the same question, why when I left school at 18 I didn't go to University. 'Probably because I joined the Army,' I replied.
I did go to University when I was 26 years old to finish off my education, needless to say I didn't get that one. I got the next one though.
Indeed. I was recently bounced from consideration from a job because I couldn't recall/prove the grades and subjects I got for O and A level - thirty-five years ago. The BSc and the MSc (and a couple of other pointless post-grad certificates and diplomas) I hold didn't seem to impress them at all.
On the other hand, for my MSc - computing for commerce and industry - the amount of code assessed in my dissertation was exactly zero...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
