Innocents affected by this

lostinrates

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

. In a lifetime, the average graduate can expect to earn about £160,000 more than the typical non-graduate.

This really stands out to me. I know we are taking about averages, but really, is it worth it for ONLY £160,000 more for most people? I'm not saying £160k is insignificant, but over a lifetime. I'm thinking of how much our interest payment on a mortage would add up to during the term from last offer and its LOTs more than that.

When you look at obs open to non grads and grads than in some instances missing ut university might be a prudent option, ok, you might over all learn less, and start on a lower salary but you are startng not in debt, 3-4 years earlier than if you went to university for a simple Bachelor's degree, and therefore are on a 3rd or 4th year salary by the time you would have been starting.

Also, a non-relevant degree is meant to show your intellectual ability and ability to learn. Pre-no-type-correctly-illness I went to univeristy . I had five a-levels gained in one year and sat next to people who had come a different route in, with GCSEs but no alevels rather a nd, HND, then final year conversion. They ad the same final year as us but the HND 'first part' or their degree WAS easier and there HND no less useful for the particular career. Perosnally I felt it made a bit of a mockery of the nature of the course. I'm not saying the nd/hnd route is less valid or useful, but that it WAS different and for them to end up with the same qualification as the other route was not an accuarate guage of our respective gained skills and abilities to future employers. (In many, many ways the HND was more useful and valid and practical for entry level work).

As regards job competition. DH employers offered 10 places for applications the year he started. The employers took only 6 in the end but they had THOUSANDS, thousands and thousand of aplicants. Lots of people he did his law conversion aside are still applying for places as trainees, 3 years after their courses finished, it seems to me there are far too many people qualifying than there are mandatory graduate/prof qualification jobs for and people who are obviously fighting an uphill battle would be better placed to start work wthiut outlaying thousands in education.

neverdespairgirl

lostinrates wrote: »

As regards job competition. DH employers offered 10 places for applications the year he started. The employers took only 6 in the end but they had THOUSANDS, thousands and thousand of aplicants. Lots of people he did his law conversion aside are still applying for places as trainees, 3 years after their courses finished,

Don't forget, though, that the applicants will also have applied for loads of jobs.

Pupillage is very tricky to get. I think people are often poorly advised before taking the Bar Vocational Course, or are just unduly optimistic about their chances. If you went to one of the top 5 or 6 Unis for law, and got a good 2.i, and did lots of mooting / debating etc, you have a decent (not definite) chance of getting pupillage. If you went to a second-rank Uni, odds are certainly against you. If you went to Thames Valley / Greenwich / etc place, it isn't impossible, but it's pretty unlikely.

I went to University College London (UCL) which has a great Faculty of Laws. I got pupillage the first year I applied, but OH, with an almost identical spread of marks in his options, and the same BVC grade, got pupillage on his third yearly application, and then hit the top of the tree with one of the best common law sets. You have to have the qualifications, AND a lot of luck.

I've been lumbered with reviewing pupillage applications in Chambers this year, together with two other junior tenants. We split the applications into 3 lots, and and had 130 each to look at. If you didn't go to a top Uni, and get a 2.i or better, you won't get interviewed unless there is something else amazing on your CV.

lostinrates

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Don't forget, though, that the applicants will also have applied for loads of jobs.
.

Absolutely and pretty much everyone with ambition applied to this one , lol dh had a first at one of the well known Oxbridge colleges, two post grad quals, plus the law bits (all at highest grades)and it was still hard. In fact he hard a last minute change of heart and decided to ditch his offer from a firm and reapllyto this firm (first choice) having been overlooked by them, and was successful, but it was very last minute and thats how we ended up in Italy....:o

(In fact it turns out DH's original application was shortlisted and ended up on a worng pile, but hey, looking at leterally thousands of applications on paper I don't think its surprising things happen.)

PasturesNew

lostinrates wrote: »

This really stands out to me. I know we are taking about averages, but really, is it worth it for ONLY £160,000 more for most people? I'm not saying £160k is insignificant, but over a lifetime. I'm thinking of how much our interest payment on a mortage would add up to during the term from last offer and its LOTs more than that.

Averages are misleading. I bet a lot never use their degree. Half will be women who then take X years out of working because they want to and married well enough.

£160k over a lifetime is just £4k/year. So the figures are very obviously wrong.

lostinrates wrote: »

When you look at obs open to non grads and grads than in some instances missing ut university might be a prudent option, ok, you might over all learn less, and start on a lower salary but you are startng not in debt, 3-4 years earlier than if you went to university for a simple Bachelor's degree, and therefore are on a 3rd or 4th year salary by the time you would have been starting.

I believed this, I thought the sooner you went to work, the further you'd be. The fact is there are 2 basic jobs markets.
1] Those with a degree, average starting salary is about £20k and after 5 years they are on £35k
2] Other people, smash their head against a wall for their entire lives never earning more than £15-20k ever.

Now, while some people from either group will not conform with that, I am in group [2].

I'd say if you have two people living in the same street in a normal area (not London or a big city), then the one with the degree will be earning at least double what the other one is by the time they're both 30. Say that's an extra £15k/year. So for 30 years (aged 30-60) the degree one will earn the extra £15k (neither of these are high-flyers, just going out, doing a job). 30 x £15k = £450k

lostinrates

My father has no degree, no a levels in fact, civil servant for 35 years, headhunted by private sector, now earning LOTS more than that in (infact, earn't more than that in previous job too, progressing at each oppertunity for training and interview - alongside graduates) and in advisory role elsewhere. Inteligent man yes, but above all seriously, seriously hard working, modest and commited to job. I think people who get ahead might be lucky, might have good quals or might just work rally, really hard.

But yes, I agree about averages in general I admit.

PasturesNew

lostinrates wrote: »

My father has no degree, no a levels in fact, civil servant for 35 years, headhunted by private sector, now earning LOTS more than that in (infact, earn't more than that in previous job too, progressing at each oppertunity for training and interview - alongside graduates) and in advisory role elsewhere. Inteligent man yes, but above all seriously, seriously hard working, modest and commited to job. I think people who get ahead might be lucky, might have good quals or might just work rally, really hard.

But yes, I agree about averages in general I admit.

Civil servants can get on because there's structure.

But first you have to get in. And that can be an issue, depending on where you are/what jobs are available still.

And after the first few years of work, my experience has been that at any interview for those type of organisations they pick up "you've never worked for a Govt/NHS/Council/similar department before have you" and it seems to really work against you. If you want into those type of organisations and don't already have family there to help you in later (being related is a big boon) then you can't get in most of the time.

I've only ever worked for small companies - and finding myself needing a job suddenly/urgently/NOW!; applying for jobs in smaller companies you find they tend to interview/hire much quicker. Larger organisations have a very long interview wait/process time which you can't get into because you need money now to pay your bills. A first job offer from a smaller company often comes before the closing date has even been reached for a civil servant job. (Actually, I don't even know what a civil servant is or does, which bits of the Govt that is). As a single income household, I've always had to try, by whatever means, to keep working ASAP, so the first/anybody company to offer me any job I could do, I'd accept.

Jobs in those type of places most often also state in the adverts that you should have experience and a good working knowledge of .... and then they list internal systems/standards/bodies etc. Thus keeping the jobs on the inside.

neverdespairgirl

lostinrates wrote: »

I think people who get ahead might be lucky, might have good quals or might just work rally, really hard.

Lucky, qualified, intelligent and hard-working means off to a good start!

PasturesNew

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Lucky, qualified, intelligent and hard-working means off to a good start!

I'm intelligent and have been exceedingly hard-working. I've religiously worked all excess hours, for no payment, building up jobs/companies for people. Only for things to never work out right.

I've got as qualified as I could ever be without any spare funds and without access to education. I've spent quite a few £000s on my own training in all sorts of things. None of it ever lead to earning more or any benefit (even though that was the primary purpose). People sat looking at the world of work can't work out what qualification they need to get on quite often. And having done it doesn't guarantee there will be jobs wanting it, or that you'd get any advertised job. I've never had an employer pay a bean for any training for me.

Lucky .... ah, that's the bit where I seriously, seriously failed. Every time. I am even known in the work world as the Black Widow. It seems anybody I work for is doomed... and nothing to do with what I do for them. I got a nice safe job at an Assurance Company. Been in business 150 years. Finally, sorted.... one year to the day that I started they announced the take over.

I can laugh about it all ... but some people think everybody's had the same chances/opportunities they have. And it's just not the case. There are thousands of people out there now, trying.

I need to have one of those makeover companies do a job on me: go through the CV, identify a career, find out the qualifications needed, get me through them, find me a suit, get my haircut, help me apply for jobs and wheel me into interviews, having coached me so I don't say something stupid (known for that!)

steadysaver

I think there seems to be a lot of people at uni who really shouldn't be there, other than to make the government statistics look good. Some really worthless degrees out there. But also some very worthwhile ones.

I am fortunate to have studied chemical engineering. Only about 10-15 uni's in the UK run the course, and generally each intake has about 50-70 students. Some courses have 150+. This generally makes us a rare breed and certainly one of my reasons for selecting such a degree,as the market is very buoyant, by no means recession proof, but work should be easier to come by in my chosen profession. Oh and the pay ain't half bad either

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

Jobs in those type of places most often also state in the adverts that you should have experience and a good working knowledge of .... and then they list internal systems/standards/bodies etc. Thus keeping the jobs on the inside.

I agree the civil service has a good structure, and anything with a rank involved is more easily navigatable too.

I genuinely believe for those with ablity and the desire to 'make something of themselves' a big organisation offers a good chance. Becuase there ARE entry level jobs in them, and if you commit you can steadily progress upwards basing your progress on your known abilty. It seems the same with my generation too: those who are in bigger, more 'mudane' structured places seem to be quietly plodding on but plodding upwards. The rest of us, well.......

but of course it doesn't suit all....but then, neither does university, lol. PN I think a lot of new grads are saying the same as you if they don't want that sort of job.

You and I might not at, at our different, but nevertheless not fresh faced from school or hungover from university, feel as comfortable (or be as suited) to those entry level jobs and therein lies the problems you hear from interviwers. And yes, the long process is an issue for adults with commitments. Many kids I suppose apply before the end of the school/university year. Others I think can either afford to loaf around or temp in the meantime.