It's kicking off in London...

[mikee]

I think what it is we are all educated into the fact that no one will believe us if we dont have that bit of paper to waft around saying we are competant if not skilled.

But as with my own dreams, I know full well it can't happen all the time, market forces and such so other streams of income are required, although just being skilled as a specialist metals welder would be a good alternative to frame building when there is no work to be had. Just think specialist metals, oil, aerospace or medical industries, all paying the right wage for such skills.

But to be practical in an uncertain world it pays to be skilled in a more common practice than a specialist practice, an industry required practice as opposed to a minority desire, the latter maybe ending up as a part time or as a customer comes forward type of job, for not many of us can live our dream in the work enviroment.

they stopped producing "skilled " workers in about 1995
anyone after that seems clueless

 

[Easy_Rider]

I studied Mechanical Engineering, at the time the University had a 50% drop out rate for first year students and a further 50% failed second year. That was a big waste of taxpayers money, but the University was complicit because it brought cash in.

I remember quite clearly in the first week of lectures, one lecturer telling us only 25% of you will make it to the 3rd year, of course we didn't believe it at the time.

I think a lot of people didn’t realise just what Mechanical Engineering is, and units like Fluid Dynamics, Aerodynamics, Finite Element Analysis, Thermodynamics and the higher Maths involved just stumped some.

 

[silverclaws]

Pure math I never could do, but apply it to something useful then it seems I have an interest, so my qualificatiuons I always flunked maths, but excelled in subjects requiring advanced maths, even got accused of cheating once because they could not work out why I failed maths but passed in a maths based subject.

But with engineering I have found if it looks like it will fit, it usually does if it looks right it usually is and if one can see the problem in diagramatic form it can be worked out first by sight and then maths applied to confirm if one wishes.

I suppose I employ natural skills, the old rule of thumb and half split by sight.

 

[cyfa2809]

as silverclaws says, you need the paper to prove your not a numpty in chosen field
i undertsand frame building isnt massively complicated but to get my foot in the door is slightly harder
especially at my age and being skint!! :cry:

 

[JohnH]

A 17-year-old is in a much better position to influence the national economy by choosing a productive degree course than by throwing placards at policemen -- something that seems to be lost on the demonstrators.

Caricature aside, I don't think that's necessarily true. Relatively small numbers of protestors can sometimes have a disproportionately large influence on public opinion.

Jim, the country isn't short of public opinion, the country's short of money. That's why the demonstrations took place. The country can't afford to carry the cost of the massive number of young people who now study at a university. And the demonstrators don't like having the cost of their own education handed to them when they graduate. Public opinion can do what it likes -- the country will still be short of money. If those youngsters genuinely want to improve that situation, they should do something that makes money for the country. Throwing placards at policemen and ransacking office blocks doesn't make money -- in fact, clearing up the mess costs money.

So I'm arguing that an increase in the number of maths, science and engineering graduates will improve the country's chances of making money and repairing our economic situation.

If the result of choosing a "productive" degree course is that the graduate finds work overseas (like my physicist friends, and as is increasingly the case for science and engineering graduates) the net benefit to the UK economy isn't likely to be great.

Good point. The British taxpayer would have spent money on the student, but got no "payback" in return.

It doesn't have to be directly related to their course. I'm not arguing that the country only benefits when physics graduates get physics jobs. I'm saying that in the 21st century, people with an understanding of maths/science/technology stand a greater chance of making a financial contribution to the country (and its dwindling universities budget) than someone who chooses to study some self-indulgent arts/humanities course.

That's quite a narrow view of the situation. Britain's economy is service-dominated, and service industries need all kinds of skills, not just technical ones.

Yes, Britain's economy is service-dominated. And yes, service industries need all kinds of skills. There's just one problem: we can't export services.

The girl who cuts my hair or the neighbour who drives a taxi can't bring foreign revenue into this country because they can't offer their services to customers in Canberra or Calgary. Now before anyone loses their rag with me; yes, I know that we need hairdressers and taxi drivers. But the fact that our economy is service-dominated is one of the reasons why our country is slipping down the economic league table.

When I graduated in mechanical engineering, my first job was not as an engineer, but as a technical author for a small electric motor company. But, I couldn't have got the job if I hadn't known how to read & create engineering drawings, been comfortable with numbers and formulae and had a good grasp of how to use computers to create technical literature. My engineering qualifications gave me those skills.

One of the main justifications for preferring graduate employees is for their supposed transferable skills - in research, self-education, general literacy etc. You found your technical skills useful in a technical field, but most graduate jobs aren't technical in nature. A service-dominated economy needs linguists, writers, organisers, and any number of versatile, educated dogsbodies just as much as it needs mathematicians, scientists and engineers. It also needs to feed, house, clothe, entertain and educate its population.

Again, everything you've said is perfectly true, Jim. But here's the thrust of my argument: We shouldn't have a service-dominated economy. The service-dominated economy has got us where we are today; horrendously in debt with an appalling trade deficit. As James Dyson said: "Only one in seven British jobs is in manufacturing, yet they generate nearly two-thirds of exports."

I believe that if we produced more people who knew how to invent, design and manufacture, our universities wouldn't be churning out "transferrable skilled" employees for the service sector -- it would be mass-producing enterprising and innovative employers for the manufacturing sector.

New companies would appear that could sell energy production technology, energy efficiency technology, computer technology, biotechnology and alternative-fuel automotive technology to the rest of the world. We would export our products and make money again! We would employ more people and reduce the dole queues....

Oh, I'm getting all excited now. I'd better go and take my Sanatogen...

 

[silverclaws]

This is beginning to sound like the Artilleryman and his Brave New World in War of the Worlds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cBp6gi_G2Y


But when you have had a government that has systematicaly destroyed british engineering over the years in favour of a service economy, how are we going to get it back. Especially so when we have a problem in this country, a city that sells everything, there is no point rekindling engineering when as soon as something appears successful or makes a profit, it is sold to the highest bidder, usually foreign concerns.

And how much of that technology was bought out to be sunk without trace to negate the competition.

To illustrate, just how much of our once proud technology is now in the hands of foreign companies and corporations, as there really is no point in creating anything useful if it is going to be taken away as soon as it becomes useful.

The problem as I see it is this sell it mentality, the city and the speculators who buy and sell peoples lives and futures, the fear of many an engineering crafts man, get too successful and it might be the end of their employment.

Hmmm, the city, aren't they the ones that went on doing their thing unregulated that contributed to this mess ?

Nope, no point building if as soon as it becomes useful it is sold to the highest bidder and the originators never see the fruit of their dream or reap the satisfaction of their skills let alone the rewards.

If we fail to adopt an investment mentality how can we expect to have any faith in British Industry ?

I believe hope died with industry.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I don't think things are nearly as bad as you are making out.

 

[silverclaws]

Really, so why the opposition to non maths, science and engineering career choices if things are ok for surely that corner is sorted.

Unless it is the desire to have a pool of suitably qualified personnel to force down the pay award and maximise the profit.

No point any field of expertise if one is not going to work in that field of expertise unless the higher education discipline choice is purely because it interests the applicant in which case it is not a sure route to employment.

But then, people cannot help their interests, they go where they feel their interest lies, if that is the touchy feely subjects, so what.

At the end of the day, higher education is what it is in any subject, just showing a person has attained a certain level in education, therefore should have some nouse, perhaps a bit more nouse than a person who does not have a higher qualification certificate, but then an educational certificate means very little other than one can respond to instruction as to out and out intelligence, that is something other.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I believe hope died with industry.

Quote added for clarity.

I really don't think things are as bad as you insist.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

If those youngsters genuinely want to improve that situation, they should do something that makes money for the country.

A typical undergraduate of today has grown up during a period where making "money for the country" might mean working in banking, finance, insurance, tourism, possibly in weapons research, but apart from a few notable exceptions, probably not in manufacturing. Do you really think a twenty-year-old two years into a French literature degree should put down her Petit Robert and turn to tensor calculus and FEA?

So I'm arguing that an increase in the number of maths, science and engineering graduates will improve the country's chances of making money and repairing our economic situation.

In the medium term, it might. But how many undergraduates do you think you might need to pump through mathematics, physics and engineering courses (at their own cost) to make a difference, particularly when the jobs are elsewhere?

The Institute of Physics report I posted previously specifically identifies rising levels of student debt as a factor influencing the exodus of brighter students from postgraduate study when far better salaries are available in other sectors of the economy (notably in finance). In the light of that report, it makes no sense at all to burden students with rising levels of debt in the hope of encouraging them to enter a sector that has fewer and fewer opportunities.

Yes, Britain's economy is service-dominated. And yes, service industries need all kinds of skills. There's just one problem: we can't export services.

Of course we can.

Whenever a service transaction has an international counterparty, a service is exported. That can include banking, finance, insurance, advertising, translating, publishing, entertainment, but also education and tourism (when an international client is imported). The education sector is an important source of overseas funds.

We shouldn't have a service-dominated economy. The service-dominated economy has got us where we are today; horrendously in debt with an appalling trade deficit.

It would be nice to have a more balanced economy, but we don't have the advantages of many of our competitors. We have few natural resources, a very high cost of living, and a sixty-year history of failure to invest. None of those things are the fault of the students protesting in Westminster.

I believe that if we produced more people who knew how to invent, design and manufacture, our universities wouldn't be churning out "transferrable skilled" employees for the service sector -- it would be mass-producing enterprising and innovative employers for the manufacturing sector.

How many employers do you know from among your graduating class?

Of the classmates I listed previously, the film editor has a part-time assistant, and the campsite owner has a cleaner for her holiday cottages. Many of the rest work in large organisations that are increasingly multinational. It's a nice thought that funneling more and more students into technical subjects at increasing levels of debt might lead to a rise in entrepreneurship, but it's far from certain, and if my classmates are anything to go by, many of those who graduate will become small parts of big, multinational organisations, gaining their experience (and spending their salaries) in other countries.