UK failing it's young as gulf grows between generations

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Modern apprenticeships are a bit of a farce, from my experience and having been involved in them.

It's more like work experience while doing a qualification.

Regardless of the role and sector the apprentice is in, they have to do specific coursework, so you end up creating a job that doesn't need doing all in order that they can please the assessor with a pointless spreadsheet.

The apprentices basically have certain educational targets to hit which in many cases have absolutely nothing to with with either their role, their sector or indeed their career.

All it has to do with anything is ticking boxes to show how well the systems are going.

Employers deal with this bit of extra paperwork and waste of apprentice time as they are cheap labour.

A member of my own family is doing an apprenticeship at the moment in "IT" (can't remember the specific name). His apprenticeship placement is with a building supplies company and his role is front of house (stacking shelves, advising customers, taking payment etc). Nothing at all to do with IT, but the apprentice company tick their boxes, the building merchants get cheap labour and all is good.

Other than the last paragraph, thats how my apprenticeship was 25yrs ago.
I completed an HNC whilst getting the work experience at the same time.

Graham_Devon

ess0two wrote: »

Other than the last paragraph, thats how my apprenticeship was 25yrs ago.
I completed an HNC whilst getting the work experience at the same time.

It probably was.

Though 25 years ago wasn't the 60's and 70's UkCarper mentioned and my post was in response to.

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It probably was.

Though 25 years ago wasn't the 60's and 70's UkCarper mentioned and my post was in response to.

Trouble is all 3 examples given, don't differ over the past 60 yrs, perhaps its just your perception of a 'modern apprenticeship'

Graham_Devon

ess0two wrote: »

Trouble is all 3 examples given, don't differ over the past 60 yrs, perhaps its just your perception of a 'modern apprenticeship'

Yes they do.

Carpers post describes the difference.

ukcarper wrote: »

The practical side being on the job and company owned training schools. The company funded my training up to degree level paying for courses and giving me day release. How many companies would be prepared to do that now?

Theres also an explanation of the differences (including the definition of a modern apprenticeship) direct on the parliament webpage here:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/education/youre-hired/

fussypensioner

“One of the things we’re doing is drawing to the attention of the older generation exactly what they are doing. Unfortunately human nature means people think ‘We did something to deserve our comfortable lives, we’re entitled’ – and the baby boomers are experts at that.

I don't understand this statement. The baby boomers always get a bashing, and the assumption is that we are all rich and comfortably off. If we are comfortable off we can be found helping to finance our children and grandchildren, but we do have the same problems as other social groups. Pensioner bashing causes a division between young and old, and sometimes we can be disrespected because of this. We are told we are a burden on the NHS, but so can some younger people who are taken to A & E after drinking too much and getting into fights. The cost to the police and NHS is huge - between 30,000 and 40,000 people are fined for being drunk and disorderly each year, meaning more than a third of million since 24 – hour drinking was introduced in 2005.

I know it is more difficult to get or keep a job these days and to get onto the property ladder so I truly sympathise with younger people. However when ever you read that "baby boomers" are selfish and entitled to our comfortable lifestyle remember we were the sixties generation that helped make great social changes.

thank you

ruggedtoast

Once more, boomers who have enjoyed a lifetime of handouts and unearned income rejoice when funding is cut from the young and the vulnerable. Meanwhile they delight at the prospect of bumper pensions , sky high housing prices, and a whole raft of non means tested state benefits.

The fact this is wrapped up as some kind of life lesson gift is very disappointing.

ukcarper

ess0two wrote: »

Trouble is all 3 examples given, don't differ over the past 60 yrs, perhaps its just your perception of a 'modern apprenticeship'

As you say most of my college work was not directly
relevant to physical work I was doing but when at work I was doing what I would be expected to do after apprenticeship.

ess0two

Talking of splitting hairs....


You've picked the most random examples possible.


I went here http://www.tte.co.uk/students-and-apprentices/apprenticeships.html


Place gets government funding, and apprentices are sponsored by local companies.


Back on topic,your original gripe was about the standard of training offered,not whether a company owns the school / college / etc.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes they do.

Carpers post describes the difference.



Theres also an explanation of the differences direct on the parliament webpage here:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/education/youre-hired/

I don't think company owned training schools were the norm most of the training was on the job which in my opinion is the best.

ess0two

ukcarper wrote: »

As you say most of my college work was not directly
relevant to physical work I was doing but when at work I was doing what I would be expected to do after apprenticeship.

I spent a week in the sales office of my employer, it taught me about customer service and the consequence of not getting products to customers.
At the time I thought what does this have to do with me as a budding chemical engineer, it taught me the consequence of plant downtime and outages and the consequence of mine and others actions.