BoxRec

DavidPayne wrote:

Loftgroov wrote:DavidPayne - Blair hasn't reduced unemployment. He has fiddled the figures, wake up!

Haven't you noticed how anyone unemployed is now suddenly "in further education" ..or "in jobseekers training" etc etc. Thereby striking them of the list of REGISTERED UNEMPLOYED. It is the REGISTERED UNEMPLOYED figure that has gone down, not the actual 'on the street number of unemployed people". It's just how you choose to creatively count.

So more people in further education is a bad thing.

More people being trained is a bad thing.

And if you want to discuss changes to methods of counting - the tories introduce 26 [fact] and couldn't get it under 2 million.

There are so many people going to university now, a degree is devalued.

Half of the people studying for them are thick. They should be doing a menial job. But under Labour people are studing with no real purpose, but it keeps them out of the job queue.

And Labours unemployment figures low. Particiularly when they have created out of nowhere 700,000 civil service jobs. These civil servants have the gall to go on strike when the government refused to top up their pensions.

In the end Labour caved in and put up council tax in oder to top up Local Authoroty pensions.

No private companies enjoyed the same treatment, their pensions are worth fornicate all.

And these local authority workiers have the gall to go on strike. They are just a bunch of lazy clockwatching good for nothing bastards.

I would sack em all.

They are just a bunch of ponces.

The problem is that the education system is horribly outdated. It's changing now, in that there will be more of a vocational slant to degrees. I did an English Lit degree, mainly because I did well at English in A level, and was good at writing, but there was no real purpose to it, and nobody really explained to me how University worked, and the options I had. Had I know that I could have studied any number of more useful subjects, I would have done, rather than leave with a degree which is useless for most jobs.

I ended up designing computer games for a living, hardly related, but left that because it's such an unstable job where companies go bust all the time.

If I had known what the world of work had in store for me, I would have done a vocational degree, in art, design or the like.

I think something like a 3rd of all people are employed in the public sector nowadays.

However, the rewards in the private sector are much greater, you can make hundreds of thousands of pounds selling things, the public sector pays poorly comparitavely with the private sector, but there's more job security and a better pension, so it's swings and roundabouts.

A lot of the extra jobs created though, are management, who come from the private sector for a lesser salary with more seniority, and then go back to the private sector.

All this stuff about Asian this Black that... you can slice it another way too.
The census 2001 webite is good.
It has a section on Religion.

Sikhs are most likely to be home owners
Muslims most likely to be un-educated
Jews are most likely to be self employed

It also explains the proportions of ethnic backround of each religion.
e.g. Budhists: 25% chinese, 38% white!

Have that.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The problem is that the education system is horribly outdated. It's changing now, in that there will be more of a vocational slant to degrees. I did an English Lit degree, mainly because I did well at English in A level, and was good at writing, but there was no real purpose to it, and nobody really explained to me how University worked, and the options I had. Had I know that I could have studied any number of more useful subjects, I would have done, rather than leave with a degree which is useless for most jobs.

I ended up designing computer games for a living, hardly related, but left that because it's such an unstable job where companies go bust all the time.

If I had known what the world of work had in store for me, I would have done a vocational degree, in art, design or the like.

I think something like a 3rd of all people are employed in the public sector nowadays.

However, the rewards in the private sector are much greater, you can make hundreds of thousands of pounds selling things, the public sector pays poorly comparitavely with the private sector, but there's more job security and a better pension, so it's swings and roundabouts.

A lot of the extra jobs created though, are management, who come from the private sector for a lesser salary with more seniority, and then go back to the private sector.

My degree was English lit. I went to work in consultancy (just left after five years) and although most of the work is numbers / analysis-based, being able to write is a skill which amazingly few intelligent people have.

In respect of the fact that I enjoyed my degree subject it was a good choice, and for me that overrides the uselessness of much of the subject matter. Most employers choose on just having a degree anyway. The messed up thing is when you get a 2:2 from a good uni and get passed over in favour of someone with a 2:1 from the back of a cornflakes packet. Happened to a couple of mates of mine when they came out of college and it put them back a rung or two on the career path and it took them a while to get to where they should have been.

That said, I do think business degrees are overrated. Degrees are increasingly about the ability to learn and think in different ways. If you teach people the ABC of business then they're going into the workplace with quite strong preconceptions. In some cases that's useful but in plenty of others it's not. That said, I'm toying with the idea of an MBA. I don't rate them as qualifications but it'd be a damn useful bit of paper and would stick a few bob on my salary in the long run.

This talk of politics on a boxing forum made me think that we should try fool Blair into thinking there is a 'boxing vote' to be won.

They target every other minority so we march through Westminister shouting 'free boxing on tv for the masses, ra ra ra' and we'll get our own little section on the manifesto!

What ya'll think?

bugs wrote: I am not a fan of labour, in large part due to the Iraq invasion, but I think the tories would be worse.

Conservatives would have invaded too.

bugs wrote: Neither side seems to remember that they are public servants and not the other way round anyway. They work for me!

Too right and I think everyone should remember this.

Nothing wrong with a business degree.

Its like anything else, it measures you're capability and provides a foundation in the area and template for HOW to learn, interact and deliver in a business environment.

But then I'd say that I got a 2:1 from Staffordshire University.

And 2:2 were usually a drinkers grade.

Coconut wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The problem is that the education system is horribly outdated. It's changing now, in that there will be more of a vocational slant to degrees. I did an English Lit degree, mainly because I did well at English in A level, and was good at writing, but there was no real purpose to it, and nobody really explained to me how University worked, and the options I had. Had I know that I could have studied any number of more useful subjects, I would have done, rather than leave with a degree which is useless for most jobs.

I ended up designing computer games for a living, hardly related, but left that because it's such an unstable job where companies go bust all the time.

If I had known what the world of work had in store for me, I would have done a vocational degree, in art, design or the like.

I think something like a 3rd of all people are employed in the public sector nowadays.

However, the rewards in the private sector are much greater, you can make hundreds of thousands of pounds selling things, the public sector pays poorly comparitavely with the private sector, but there's more job security and a better pension, so it's swings and roundabouts.

A lot of the extra jobs created though, are management, who come from the private sector for a lesser salary with more seniority, and then go back to the private sector.

My degree was English lit. I went to work in consultancy (just left after five years) and although most of the work is numbers / analysis-based, being able to write is a skill which amazingly few intelligent people have.

In respect of the fact that I enjoyed my degree subject it was a good choice, and for me that overrides the uselessness of much of the subject matter. Most employers choose on just having a degree anyway. The messed up thing is when you get a 2:2 from a good uni and get passed over in favour of someone with a 2:1 from the back of a cornflakes packet. Happened to a couple of mates of mine when they came out of college and it put them back a rung or two on the career path and it took them a while to get to where they should have been.

That said, I do think business degrees are overrated. Degrees are increasingly about the ability to learn and think in different ways. If you teach people the ABC of business then they're going into the workplace with quite strong preconceptions. In some cases that's useful but in plenty of others it's not. That said, I'm toying with the idea of an MBA. I don't rate them as qualifications but it'd be a damn useful bit of paper and would stick a few bob on my salary in the long run.

Coconut, this may just be a huge coincidence, and tell me to mind my own business, but did you write to the Sunday Times about this?

Did the tax man take overhand away in a paddy?

First of all... big hello to James McDonnell who
knows me as 'Liv' David Payne has shown me this
forum and here is my take on it...

The General Belgrano was a WW2 cruiser that was full
of conscripts and out of the 350 mile zone that was set
by the British... the sinking was either right or wrong...
in this case it was wrong.

The falklands war... a colonial war for a land that has no connection
with the UK apart from 2000 bennies. An absurd war to win an election
The Argentines must have thought 'hey what the hell is a nation
on a diferent continent 6000 miles away doing with a part of our land
thats 200 miles away' fact is to support this war is to support the relic
that is British colonialism, face facts. The Argentines claim is far more
stronger than Britiains on a moral and geographical aspect.

Immigration. Blair BEGGED Spain for nurses and made them sign
a treaty, Blair BEGGED the Phillipennes for their nurses and now
they are here they must be laughing at the tory posters 'is it
racist to blah blah blah immigration' they must be laughing their
heads off...

We wouldn't have an army or an NHS if it was for immigration. I hear
about Bosnian dolescroungers but what about Pte Johnson Beharry
VC? War hero and IMMIGRANT!

jomothepure wrote:Coconut, this may just be a huge coincidence, and tell me to mind my own business, but did you write to the Sunday Times about this?

No. But this must mean that someone agrees with me, which is a strange feeling...


ST letters? When? I'd be interested to see it.

so David says he will shut up biut gets his friends on the case....
typical buck passing politcian

just joshin dave.

Coconut wrote:

jomothepure wrote:Coconut, this may just be a huge coincidence, and tell me to mind my own business, but did you write to the Sunday Times about this?

No. But this must mean that someone agrees with me, which is a strange feeling...


ST letters? When? I'd be interested to see it.

Here we go (nick of time, the bird was just about to condemn it to the litter tray) Also, reading now, it wasn't you, but a huge coincidence, and I for one will be sleeping with the light on tonight.

News Review (section 6 P10 - a Q&A column about education)

"My daughter graduated last summer with a 2:2 degree in finance from a top university. However, she is now finding difficulty securing a [job] because most employers want a 2:1 degree...she feels she might have been better off studying at a less prestigious university, where she may have found it easier to obtain a 2:1. Please advise as to the best way forward."

In his answer the guy basically agrees and says anyone putting a 2:1 from shit uni b4 2:2 from a good uni is a nut.

And hows this for an analogy...who's better... Audley Harrison, ranked #2 by the IBU, or Samuel Peter, ranked #9 by the IBF

And if you think it's Audley keep quiet or your spoil the dramatic effect!

Why is it harder to obtain a 2:1 at a more prestigious univ....thats just bollacks perpetuated by the leather elbowed toffs who couldn't stay away from the gin and rowing long enough to study and instead of entering a workplace where the old tie and hyphen in their name was enough, they're facing competition from hungry, working class graduates with a better grade.

Fanciful thinking I know......but the 'establishment' uni's had it their way for too long....

jomothepure wrote:["My daughter graduated last summer with a 2:2 degree in finance from a top university. However, she is now finding difficulty securing a [job] because most employers want a 2:1 degree...she feels she might have been better off studying at a less prestigious university, where she may have found it easier to obtain a 2:1. Please advise as to the best way forward."

In his answer the guy basically agrees and says anyone putting a 2:1 from shit uni b4 2:2 from a good uni is a nut.

And hows this for an analogy...who's better... Audley Harrison, ranked #2 by the IBU, or Samuel Peter, ranked #9 by the IBF

Well bugger me. However currently my daughter is only a figment of my wife's imagination.

As an aside, I don't know any 'top' universities which have degrees in 'finance'.

Which bring us neatly on to...

DavidPayne wrote:[Why is it harder to obtain a 2:1 at a more prestigious univ....thats just bollacks perpetuated by the leather elbowed toffs who couldn't stay away from the gin and rowing long enough to study and instead of entering a workplace where the old tie and hyphen in their name was enough, they're facing competition from hungry, working class graduates with a better grade.

Fanciful thinking I know......but the 'establishment' uni's had it their way for too long....

Dave, you talk a lot of sense but I do have to disagree with you here. On two fronts.

Firstly as someone who went to a 'prestigious' university I am a fully-paid-up gravy-drinking northern bloke with a far from toff upbringing. Granted there are those with seventeen surnames and whose back gardens are essentially Scotland who swan about in rowing kit before getting pissed by throwing their Pimms on the floor, but they aren't the norm. They're just loud. Academically they manage, few of them are really sharp, but they've effectively been coached in by their schools. It happens, it's a flaw in the system. The majority end up in second tier universities anyway.

However, I do think that the standard of a university has to have more bearing. You're over-simplifying things if you claim that only working class kids go to polyversities. I got a good education via tutorials with some incredibly sharp people (didn't go to any lectures other than for interest after third week there...) but I worked my tits off independently as well - was basically either training or working from 6am until 10pm five days a week with a few hours of work squeezed in after a Sunday morning spar as well.

A lot was asked and a lot was given: basically the level of thinking was higher than at a lot of other places. I know I sound like a twat when I write this but I also know, from looking at the stuff other people elsewhere did, that it's true.

not at all coconut, good post, you cant stereotype that way, its exactly the type of thing David is railing against.
sort it out payne!

The problem isn't the standard of the university's, thats a red-herring - the problem is the course content...nobody should be allowed to get a degree in the Spice Girls.

The thousands doing Media Studies and the like are deluding themselves, but what do you expect when the opposition mock Labours attempts to beef up and add kudos to vocational qualifications?

And yes, I know I was generalising.

in some ways it refelcts the change in modern society, theres fornicate all traditional secondary industry in this country now, its all service industry under which the media would give a percentage of jobs.

dont be so narrow minded, the world industry and education is constantly evolving, just because it isnt the same as when we were kids doesnt mean it is wrong.

I remember the school's first computer and you could "book" 20 min slots to use it. Now they are a necessity for any school. Me being more traditional sacked that off and went and played football!

Theres no reason why the make up of courses cant change and evolve to meet the needs of the job market and industry in general.

Just cos it might be IT instead of mining doesnt make it any worse. Thise days are gone in this country Dave.

DavidPayne wrote:The problem isn't the standard of the university's, thats a red-herring - the problem is the course content...nobody should be allowed to get a degree in the Spice Girls.

The thousands doing Media Studies and the like are deluding themselves, but what do you expect when the opposition mock Labours attempts to beef up and add kudos to vocational qualifications?

And yes, I know I was generalising.

Decent universities don't do Spice Girl studies (although I think Cambridge do a diploma in Boyzone...).

I agree with you that media studies is by and large pointless as a subject but no more so than English lit - it just shows the ability to study.

The problem from an employer's perspective is the range in quality of courses within a single university. Too much to cope with, especially for those without huge HR depts.

I do think that vocational qualifications should be more widespread. But it isn't solely the opposition that's holding these back. Labour are the ones with the majority, after all...

J wrote:not at all coconut, good post, you cant stereotype that way, its exactly the type of thing David is railing against.
sort it out payne!

Thanks, BTW

DavidPayne wrote:Why is it harder to obtain a 2:1 at a more prestigious univ....thats just bollacks perpetuated by the leather elbowed toffs who couldn't stay away from the gin and rowing long enough to study and instead of entering a workplace where the old tie and hyphen in their name was enough, they're facing competition from hungry, working class graduates with a better grade.

Fanciful thinking I know......but the 'establishment' uni's had it their way for too long....

A friend of mine who went to cambridge studied English literature, the same as me. He basically had a one hour head to head tutorial a week, and that was about it, there was the odd lecture, for which attendance was totally up to you, and everything was on the final year exams. He said it was an incredibly easy life of leisure.

Can someone also explain to me why degrees take 3 years? A levels are a damned sight harder, and you don't get 3 years. I think I could have done my degree in 18 months at a push.

I agree about vocational degrees. The emphasis needs to be placed on degrees which actually train you to do something in the real world, and people need to be better advised. The standard of careers advice at my school was appalling, I was advised to get a job in a bank!

I wanted to go to art college personally, but got diddled out of doing art by some cardigan wearing pudendum who talked me into doing 'communication studies' after lying and telling me my grades in art weren't good enough. Why? Because it turned out he was undersubscribed to keep his course open, what a disgrace!

It is unfortunate just how much going to the right school/university still carries clout, there are companies which still recruit the majority of their staff from the 'oxbridge' candidates.

I've got quite a few public school mates, and the thing about them is this. Academically, most of them did pretty badly, most of them a lot worse than I did. They aren't all rich, some of them had families who were once rich but aren't any longer. What they do have however, is a network of friends who are filthy rich, from rich and influential families, and THAT is what ultimately makes the difference. It's not what you know, but whom.

If I sound bitter, I am. Not one person in my sodding family has made any real money, and my mum's from a family of 10, you'd think there would be just ONE bloody overachiever. Bastards!

J wrote:in some ways it refelcts the change in modern society, theres fornicate all traditional secondary industry in this country now, its all service industry under which the media would give a percentage of jobs.

dont be so narrow minded, the world industry and education is constantly evolving, just because it isnt the same as when we were kids doesnt mean it is wrong.

I remember the school's first computer and you could "book" 20 min slots to use it. Now they are a necessity for any school. Me being more traditional sacked that off and went and played football!

Theres no reason why the make up of courses cant change and evolve to meet the needs of the job market and industry in general.

Just cos it might be IT instead of mining doesnt make it any worse. Thise days are gone in this country Dave.

I'm all for addressing the economic work-place with the qualifications that we promote and facilitate, however we've created too many spurious subjects to accomodate all and whilst I concede that its as much about the discipline of learning as it is subject matter wouldn't it be better to encourage and embrace vocational blue collar qualifications as the equal of academic subjects and address our REAL shortage of plumbers, sparkies etc rather than create a generation of deluded, depressed and discarded TV wannabees?

In that sense we're on the same page J, qualifications that match the market - allowing 150,000 18 year olds to believe there is a job in television or print for them because they've done an ill-conceived degree in Media Studies whether it be at Swindon H.E. or Oxford University.

...doesn't help.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:A friend of mine who went to cambridge studied English literature, the same as me. He basically had a one hour head to head tutorial a week, and that was about it, there was the odd lecture, for which attendance was totally up to you, and everything was on the final year exams. He said it was an incredibly easy life of leisure.

Did your mate do nothing for the rest of the week? We had two tutorials a week, one on either Anglo Saxon or Middle English (admittedly I did as little as possible for these) but for the rest of the time it wasn't like we turned up to the tutorial, chatted for an hour then went back down the boozer. Second year was a bit easier but still almost everyone worked hard and most got the grades they deserved. Couple of essays a week together with all the associated reading. A term trying to read three or four Victorian novels a week was rough.

Jeez, we had it tough when I were a lad...

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The standard of careers advice at my school was appalling, I was advised to get a job in a bank!

I wanted to go to art college personally, but got diddled out of doing art by some cardigan wearing pudendum who talked me into doing 'communication studies' after lying and telling me my grades in art weren't good enough. Why? Because it turned out he was undersubscribed to keep his course open, what a disgrace!

Very fair points

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I've got quite a few public school mates, and the thing about them is this. Academically, most of them did pretty badly, most of them a lot worse than I did. They aren't all rich, some of them had families who were once rich but aren't any longer. What they do have however, is a network of friends who are filthy rich, from rich and influential families, and THAT is what ultimately makes the difference. It's not what you know, but whom.

Too fckin right. Sooner or later the boat comes in. In my case it's looking later, and I seem to have carelessly lost touch with a lot of the old Etonians / etc that I knew. But basically getting a foot on the ladder means you can start climbing.