Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Malthusian

Arklight wrote: »

Apart from some hairdresser vacancies, one early years company, and a couple of firms wanting man fridays there is nothing that would have any chance of leading to an actual career. They are all catering or retail wanting slave labour or pot washers they don't have to pay and pretending they are offering a career.

And of course a 16 year old with no qualifications beyond some bog-standard GCSEs is clearly far too good for pot washing, hairdressing or looking after toddlers.

He should stay on benefits until his work adviser can find him a career as a social media influencer on £30k a year.

westernpromise

economic wrote: »

this is spot on. a lot of people think they have a career when in fact its only a job. a career if something you do for the love of it irrespective of the money. a job you do for the money as a primary goal. 98% of the working population have jobs not careers.

probably a reason why i quit on my "career", the marginal benefit of staying (additional money didn't increase wealth in % terms that much) on was more then outweighed by the lack of fulfillment of the job.

Generally speaking, people do not understand this very, very simple point.

The wife and her sister are excellent cases in point. They both went into media jobs from pretty good universities. They had a wonderful time in their twenties. They were young, they were pretty, they worked in TV and met lots of slebs. Every day was different and more exciting, they went on location, and they met lots of really interesting famousish people who were very approachable and friendly, something they connected not at all with their three advantages of being in their twenties, young, and pretty. They were having such a great time they didn't mind the rubbish money nor did they reflect on their prospects.

Thirty years later, the first two of those three advantages at least no longer apply to either. Media is a sexist, ageist industry - we're only now starting to scratch the surface of how sexist - which has little to no use for 50ish women. So they're invisible. Dame Judi Dench, to 99% of the media just an unprepossessing old woman, is hailed by luvvies as an incredible genius exactly because she's managed to keep working despite being just an unprepossessing old woman.

In my 20s I thought I had better go to work learning and understanding something that would keep me gainfully occupied for ever. There was no way I was going to get to pack in my (stalled anyway) career at 35 to have a baby. I had to expect to be at work paying for it all until 65 so I figured it was nose down and acquire some skills. So I was looking at bills of lading versus letters of indemnity, and what does the latter do that the former does not; and at Q and Q certs and documentary letters of credit and later at CSOs and how do you calculate cetane and why does it blend linearly and why does flashpoint not.

**** me, it was dull, but now it's easy, it's not very hard work any more, and just off what I know from 30 years in the biz, I make 10x what the wife's sister does after 30 years in hers.

The money is my payoff for the drudgery I put up with. It's what I get instead of fun or a feeling of satisfaction. The fun she had then is the payoff (in advance) for being as poor as a church mouse now. This is why I take such a dim view of people like her wanting higher taxes on people like me. She's forgotten the fun and ignored the hard work but wants a piece of the money anyway. Well, I'd like to have had some of the fun, but we must not repine. If you're badly paid but in a job you like, that's your money. That's what you get in lieu of money.

Equally, if you're a nurse for the money, you're in the wrong job. You should stick out for as much money as possible but if that's what you're after do something else. What you can't do is expect banker money for a job you love.

westernpromise

GreatApe wrote: »

There is one important additional bonus to jobs other than the pay and that is routine and for introverts it is also some social interaction which tends to keep people more stable and grounded. So generally I would not advise leaving work if it leads to people just sitting at home because that can have negative consequences which can mount up.

I come to work because my colleagues are amusing, intelligent, attractive or all three and thus agreeable to be around. It's also somewhere to go during the day. If I stopped work I'd definitely need a dog.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

There is one important additional bonus to jobs other than the pay and that is routine and for introverts it is also some social interaction which tends to keep people more stable and grounded. So generally I would not advise leaving work if it leads to people just sitting at home because that can have negative consequences which can mount up

I know someone that took early retirement at age 50 and did pretty much that, just sat at home did nothing else. Last I heard he become an alcoholic and his life spiraled down quite badly.

The routine is a good reason for many to continue to work.
Of course this does not mean continue to work in the same job a person can get a different job that suits them better.

This is one of the risks of AI.
We will become immensely rich and most the population wont need to work anymore
That sounds fantastic but if we end up spending 16 hours a day browsing the internet in our underwear that wont be a good outcome. Extroverts wont have any problems they will party and holiday all day every day. The introverts might struggle in a world of immense wealth and no work.

im not sure i completely agree with this. if you are an introvert (as i am) you would probably feel out of place in a work environment (depends what kind of work of course). seeing as most people are extroverted, the introvert would feel out of place, less likely to suck up to bosses, make friends with colleagues (possibly hated by extroverts) and could result in lack of promotion and self worth. this in itself could trigger depression.

I would know as i think a similar thing happened to me. not because i was a quiet nerd sitting in the corner, but i just felt out of place and "different" to everyone else. possibly at least partly the reason why i quit work. it was also in banking which tends to be more cut throat.

i think the real issue which you pointed out is routine. every one needs a routine to remain mentally healthy. and that doesnt have to mean work. if you are retired then you need to simply do more of your hobbies and interests (and it does not necessarily have to include social interaction) then someone who is working. also being retired usually means you would have grandchildren to look after and this in itself could be at least a part time job.

i do agree that even for introverts that some level of social interaction is good for you, even though they actually need it less then extroverts (by definition).

and remember everyone is on a spectrum, no two people are the same.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

No one can predict accurately what happens when General AI is invented.

If the outcome is peaceful everyone will have everything and anything you can imagine.

If the outcome is not peaceful it does not bear thinking about, not only could it wipe out the human species but it could be even worse than that.

if we live in a pure capitalist world, those who produce and marketed the AI that is widely used will be the rulers of the world.

under a socialist world, AI would never be implemented on a wide scale.

Cakeguts

People shouldn't judge which jobs are worth training for and which aren't. I am going to take hairdressing as an example of this. My local hairdresser/barber shop's owner owns a whole block of shops and upper parts in a north London borough. He also owns two houses round the corner from the block. He started his working life as a hairdresser. Several years ago another hair dresser bought a house in Belsize Park. This was probably about 15 years ago now and the house then was sold for over £1million. So that is two multi millionaire hairdressers. People think that hairdressing is a rubbish job. However running a hairdressing salon makes you into a business owner. A corner shop is a business. You can't tell how well a job is going to work out in the future.

Cakeguts

Arklight wrote: »

And I say again, try and get one.


https://www.findapprenticeship.service.gov.uk/


This is the government site for finding apprenticeships. I put in a 10 mile radius from my densely populated part of the affluent south east.


Apart from some hairdresser vacancies, one early years company, and a couple of firms wanting man fridays there is nothing that would have any chance of leading to an actual career. They are all catering or retail wanting slave labour or pot washers they don't have to pay and pretending they are offering a career.


What would 16 year old Cakeguts have access to? I am willing to bet about the same and a UCAS application to a university he considers himself too good for.

https://www.notgoingtouni.co.uk/apprenticeships-223 This is a much better website for apprenticeships.

I went to one of the top Polytechnics in the UK. It had a good reputation for vocational courses that led to real jobs. It is now a dud university offering watered down university courses that lead nowhere.

chucknorris

GreatApe wrote: »

There is one important additional bonus to jobs other than the pay and that is routine and for introverts it is also some social interaction which tends to keep people more stable and grounded. So generally I would not advise leaving work if it leads to people just sitting at home because that can have negative consequences which can mount up

I know someone that took early retirement at age 50 and did pretty much that, just sat at home did nothing else. Last I heard he become an alcoholic and his life spiraled down quite badly.

The routine is a good reason for many to continue to work.
Of course this does not mean continue to work in the same job a person can get a different job that suits them better.

This is one of the risks of AI.
We will become immensely rich and most the population wont need to work anymore
That sounds fantastic but if we end up spending 16 hours a day browsing the internet in our underwear that wont be a good outcome. Extroverts wont have any problems they will party and holiday all day every day. The introverts might struggle in a world of immense wealth and no work.

Planning for retirement shouldn't just be about finances, as I only work one day a week, I am obviously much closer to retirement than being a 'worker'. But actually I am finding that the 6 free days per week need careful planning to fit everything in, as the one working day can get in the way of doing things. I think that I probably had enough things to do anyway in retirement. When I was working there was no chance of doing a triathlon because I just couldn't find the time to train in all 3 disciplines. In addition to that, since I dropped down to one day per week, I have started doing gym classes, wow, what a find, I love them. I did intend to start playing indoor bowls again (I had to stop a few years ago because work was getting in the way), but to be honest I don't think that I can find the time to fit that in. I actually stopped playing chess too this year, so that created time, as I used to captain two (sometimes 3) different chess teams, that is a decision that I have definitely not regretted, I use the free time created from that very well.

zagubov

I’ve said before they should never have “repurposed” the polytechnics, but expanded the OU instead. Back in the 70s when I went to uni, only 10% went to uni in England. In Scotland it was 16% as teachers there had to be graduates, but even then they produced more than the economy needed and many went elsewhere afterwards.

The two countries have switched places somewhat. In England we’re sending 40% to uni, and there’s not much other HE to speak of. The biggest HE colleges are restyled as universities. It’s anybody’s guess what these people all need degrees for.

In Scotland they’ve also repurposed their polytechnic-equivalents to be universities but they’ve capped the number of people on degree courses at 32%, double the previous intake.

More interestingly, they’ve repurposed the FE colleges into replacement polytechnics, opening the HE sector to a further 18% of school-leavers, offering HNCs and HNDs as one-or two-year courses, giving a sizeable chunk of the student population enough HE to get on the job market but without wasting time completing degrees nobody needs.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

There is no one answer to that and it depends on your temperament

If a child is very high IQ and can get into one of the top 10 universities then probably go to university

If they are just average IQ but high conscientious then they would probably be better off going into a medium/large company and working their way up

There is also of course self employment and businesses so its not just about someone giving you a job.

But most importantly work and jobs should not be the highest goal in a persons life.
Relationships marriage and children are probably more important.
Put more effort into getting that right than getting a slightly better paying job

what happens if one has an iq of 70?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU