interestrateripoff Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 I'm here to talk about the knowledge-based economy. The knowledge based economy which can't deliver jobs only off-shore them to cheaper workers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashedOutAndBurned Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Most of this rhetoric about stopping kids going to university is just that, ask that person to stop HIS kid going to university thus basically stopping them having a decent chance of becoming chartered professional. Instead they will becoming shop floor labour with no hope of middle management positions that are pushed around via spreadsheets as a variable cost by the professionals. Compete drivel. At several companies I've worked in 'middle management' was filled equally by people that had worked their way up, a few that had come through 'graduate schemes' and non-scheme graduates that had to start from the bottom anyway (ie. three years later than they would have). The only difference is that the graduates were, in general, more cultured, the non-graduates more Alan Sugar-ish. That's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Compete drivel. At several companies I've worked in 'middle management' was filled equally by people that had worked their way up, a few that had come through 'graduate schemes' and non-scheme graduates that had to start from the bottom anyway (ie. three years later than they would have). The only difference is that the graduates were, in general, more cultured, the non-graduates more Alan Sugar-ish. That's it. We do really need to fight this hogwash that no degree = no chance, it's for suckers. There is an issue with companies training their own staff properly, but most degrees simply do not address that, how can they? Each company is different, with different objectives and systems. I got my education off of the internet, innit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 In the real world (2012), advising the youth of today to forego higher education isn't going to improve their chances. Especially given the fact that most businesses aren't short of applicants with impressive qualifications. That's my feeling anyway. Bernanke, King et al all have impressive qualifications it doesn't stop them from doing a 5h1t job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albimac Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 It sounds like Zante has been on a course or two recently. I have to say that this subject has/is/does play on my mind. My eldest is due to leave school in the next 3 to 4 years. Would I encourage him to go into further education, with all the debt that entails. I guess I'm hoping for some major shift occurring in the education system, before the decision has to be made. Gosh, i hope it's not like waiting for house prices to lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erat_forte Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 This headline and story is nonsense isn't it? If half of the population graduates from University, and are no more or less thick than the ones who don't, then we would expect half of the graduates to earn below the average wage. That only 1/3 are below that level shows that a degree really does get you more cash than not having one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europbaron Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I can see the confusion. If you're unable to disseminate knowledge through more prevalent mediums, then you are of limited use. It's as simple as that. Most educational establishments have targets to reach regarding the amount of online learning students do. We're currently competing with publishers seeking rights to award degrees, to that end we need to maintain a very high standard. It's not enough to be be able to stand in front of people and give a presentation. Who are "we"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Sutton Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 It sounds like Zante has been on a course or two recently. She's just proactively thinking outside the envelope while picking low-lying blue-sky boxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zante Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 She's just proactively thinking outside the envelope while picking low-lying blue-sky boxes. 'He', actually! If my language appears too complex, then I have doubts regarding whether or not the denizens of this place are able to understand something as complex as the housing market. In fact, given the situations of many here, I'm certain of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albimac Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I'm always suspicious of individuals who use big words unnecessarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I can see the confusion. If you're unable to disseminate knowledge through more prevalent mediums, then you are of limited use. It's as simple as that. Most educational establishments have targets to reach regarding the amount of online learning students do. We're currently competing with publishers seeking rights to award degrees, to that end we need to maintain a very high standard. It's not enough to be be able to stand in front of people and give a presentation. Not a very effective communicator are you?! So much content, so little substance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zante Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Not a very effective communicator are you?! So much content, so little substance. The language I'm using isn't suitable for undergraduates. As I have previously stated, I think I may have overestimated a few people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albimac Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 1331057263[/url]' post='3278692']It's not enough to be be able to stand in front of people and give a presentation. But that's always been the hardest part, hasn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 But that's always been the hardest part, hasn't it? I have to give a presentation this afternoon and I am bricking it frankly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) The language I'm using isn't suitable for undergraduates. As I have previously stated, I think I may have overestimated a few people. Ha ha thanks for proving my point whilst simultaneously missing it. Your syntax serves only pomposity. Edited March 7, 2012 by PopGun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Bernanke, King et al all have impressive qualifications it doesn't stop them from doing a 5h1t job. Brown and Balls are major intellectuals or so they think, and handed over a disaster of an economy that was a poisoned chalice to whoever took over. Wasn't it the geezer with three 0 levels who took on the ruination of the Lawson/Thatcher boom (more f**king graduates) and handed over the Mother of all Dream economic scenarios to New Labour in 1997. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zante Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 But that's always been the hardest part, hasn't it? What makes lecturing so difficult is the required performance from the speaker. Without any sort of emotional investment, people won't listen. Having to do that again and again takes discipline and a willingness to make things dynamic. The 'issue' is that this mode of dissemination is being displaced by online content delivery. Granted, much remains the same but if people aren't willing to skill up to become more technically savvy, they're holding everyone back. In any case, the most difficult part of it is managing time. Preparation, teaching, marking, student support etc... Technology assists this process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 What makes lecturing so difficult is the required performance from the speaker. Without any sort of emotional investment, people won't listen. Having to do that again and again takes discipline and a willingness to make things dynamic. The 'issue' is that this mode of dissemination is being displaced by online content delivery. Granted, much remains the same but if people aren't willing to skill up to become more technically savvy, they're holding everyone back. In any case, the most difficult part of it is managing time. Preparation, teaching, marking, student support etc... Technology assists this process. Wouldn't have thought there was a lot of difference between a good teacher and a good sales person, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zante Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Wouldn't have thought there was a lot of difference between a good teacher and a good sales person, to be honest. You're completely correct. Insofar as the delivery aspect is concerned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 We interviewed a series of candidates for a position which, for all intents and purposes was simple data entry. We had PhDs hoping to fill the spot but, in the end, turned them all down due to the fact that they were overqualified. Turning someone down for a job because they are 'overqualified' quite frankly riles me. Let me get this straight.... you had a pool of people applying for a job. Some, by definition, were more than capable of doing it then others - and probably very well. But No! You deliberately wanted to take someone less qualified?!! SO by definition you employ only second best??!! Me? When I have been involved in recruiting/sat on recruitment panels I have ALWAYS voted for the best/most qualified person that sat before me - UNLESS it was fairly evident that the person would likley not intend to stay for too long/not long enough to make it worthwhile (and that can often be discovered without too much difficulty on th epart of the recruiters). I just for the life of me cannot understand why, as a manager, given two candidates and both willing to accept the same pay that one would accept second best. I have no problem with someone better educated/younger than me working for me and doing what I tell them. So long as they do as I instruct I can live more comfortably knowing that there will be a lower risk of failure. Moreover I can expect them to occassionally guide me and tell me the best way to do things! I mean what not to like when you have a qualified/knowledgeable person who, eager to shine, comes to me and tells me he has solved some of my problems? Who are you to question the reasons/motives for a PhD doing a simple data entry job? I have personally met two PhDs that chose to and still work as a Fireman and Hospital Porter!! And they are happy in what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 'He', actually! If my language appears too complex, then I have doubts regarding whether or not the denizens of this place are able to understand something as complex as the housing market. In fact, given the situations of many here, I'm certain of it. With 'arrogance' and smugness like that I am glad I dont work for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zante Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Turning someone down for a job because they are 'overqualified' quite frankly riles me. Let me get this straight.... you had a pool of people applying for a job. Some, by definition, were more than capable of doing it then others - and probably very well. But No! You deliberately wanted to take someone less qualified?!! SO by definition you employ only second best??!! Me? When I have been involved in recruiting/sat on recruitment panels I have ALWAYS voted for the best/most qualified person that sat before me - UNLESS it was fairly evident that the person would likley not intend to stay for too long/not long enough to make it worthwhile (and that can often be discovered without too much difficulty on th epart of the recruiters). I just for the life of me cannot understand why, as a manager, given two candidates and both willing to accept the same pay that one would accept second best. I have no problem with someone better educated/younger than me working for me and doing what I tell them. So long as they do as I instruct I can live more comfortably knowing that there will be a lower risk of failure. Moreover I can expect them to occassionally guide me and tell me the best way to do things! I mean what not to like when you have a qualified/knowledgeable person who, eager to shine, comes to me and tells me he has solved some of my problems? Who are you to question the reasons/motives for a PhD doing a simple data entry job? I have personally met two PhDs that chose to and still work as a Fireman and Hospital Porter!! And they are happy in what they do. I understand your anger and it's a deplorable situation to have to be in. The simple fact of the matter is that, for this position, we needed people with data entry skills - fast typing etc... We don't want someone who is poking away at the keyboard with their index fingers. The misconception you have is that because they have so many qualifications, they're fit for the task at hand. You wouldn't want someone with a PhD working as a road digger, he'd **** it up royally. Similarly, chances are if they're too ambitious they won't do what they were employed to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albimac Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 1331119809[/url]' post='3279294']What makes lecturing so difficult is the required performance from the speaker. Without any sort of emotional investment, people won't listen. Having to do that again and again takes discipline and a willingness to make things dynamic. The 'issue' is that this mode of dissemination is being displaced by online content delivery. Granted, much remains the same but if people aren't willing to skill up to become more technically savvy, they're holding everyone back. In any case, the most difficult part of it is managing time. Preparation, teaching, marking, student support etc... Technology assists this process. That was my next question. What's the alternative to a good ole fashioned PowerPoint presentation. I was personally looking at having to deliver a recurring presentation to the workforce on the subject of quality. However, company intranet makes perfect sense & saves on multiple presentation time. Thanks for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I understand your anger and it's a deplorable situation to have to be in. The simple fact of the matter is that, for this position, we needed people with data entry skills - fast typing etc... We don't want someone who is poking away at the keyboard with their index fingers. The misconception you have is that because they have so many qualifications, they're fit for the task at hand. You wouldn't want someone with a PhD working as a road digger, he'd **** it up royally. Similarly, chances are if they're too ambitious they won't do what they were employed to do. You stated it was 'simple data entry' not speed typing. Data entry is about attention to detail, something most PhDs can do pretty well (even history PhDs) given they have to produce a lengthy, detailed mistake free thesis. Someone who is capable of doing a PhD has, in my book, all the skills and more to reliably and efficiently do data entry - especially if they are from the sciences. As for the last comment, "if they're too ambitious they won't do what they were employed to do"....Really!!?? Failure to follow instructions to the letter is more prevalent amongst the better educated/more skilled?!! WHat utter b*ll*cks. In any organisation there will be problem staff at all ranks/levels. If someone does not do their job as instructed there is due process to deal with it pronto. and as for the 'ambition' bit.....I assume your organisation doesnt care for the future? Doesnt want to recruit up and coming talent for the future to lead, etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rented Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) I understand your anger and it's a deplorable situation to have to be in. The simple fact of the matter is that, for this position, we needed people with data entry skills - fast typing etc... We don't want someone who is poking away at the keyboard with their index fingers. The misconception you have is that because they have so many qualifications, they're fit for the task at hand. You wouldn't want someone with a PhD working as a road digger, he'd **** it up royally. Similarly, chances are if they're too ambitious they won't do what they were employed to do. Did the recruitment process include setting all the short-listed applicants (including the ones with PhDs) a typing test to assess their typing speed and accuracy? Edited March 7, 2012 by rented Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.