Supply of graduates far outstrips demand

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


FT : England’s lost and indebted generation

.

The earnings of recent English graduates have deteriorated so rapidly since the financial crisis that the latest class is earning 12 per cent less than their pre-crash counterparts at the same stage in their careers. They also owe about 60 per cent more in student debt.

..

This real terms fall is three times as deep as the decline in average pay for all full-time workers over the same period.

..

As companies have cut back on hiring, graduates have found it much harder to land degree-level jobs. Last year, the Office for National Statistics said 36 per cent of recent graduates were employed in lower skilled jobs, up from 27 per cent in 2001. The ONS will update these figures on Tuesday in its latest annual report on graduates, which should give an indication of whether the recent recovery has started to improve the picture.

Young people without degrees have had an even harder time, especially those who left school at 16 without at least five good grades.

..

Corporate Britain has become risk averse since the crash, which has made it harder for graduates to find a way in. Real business investment – already weak in the boom years – fell by a quarter during the recession and another tenth after it ended. And while company accountants may not class young people as investments, managers certainly see them that way. Increasingly, the only graduates they are willing to take on are the ones they already know. More than a third of the jobs offered by the top employers this year went to graduates who had already worked at that company on internships or placements.

“It used to be you went to university and you got a good job; that was the deal, wasn’t it? But it’s not quite like that any more,” says Katerina Rudiger, head of skills and policy campaigns at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

With fewer graduate jobs on offer, there has been a rise in what economists call “cyclical downgrading”. In other words, graduates are taking jobs that people without degrees could do. Not only does this push down graduates’ average pay, it also pushes young people without degrees further down the labour market’s rungs – or off the ladder altogether. Youth unemployment in the UK has climbed from 12 per cent to almost 20 per cent since 2007.

Now that Britain’s economic glass is “half full”, as the Bank of England governor said last week, will young people clamber back up to where they would have been without the financial crisis?

..

Graduates with good degrees from decent universities tend to catch up within three to four years by switching frequently from employer to employer to increase their salaries. But graduates with humanities degrees from less prestigious universities find themselves stuck in those initial low-paid jobs at smaller companies. “The bottom graduates never recover and stay at these lower firms forever,” he says.

Japan sets the most worrying precedent. Many of the young people who were locked out of corporate Japan when its economy crashed in the 1990s are still trapped in part-time, precarious work.

.

.

[Ibrahim]

We're at the end of a 40-year process of pricing the average citizen out of education. Not only will most people have to stop attending university, all study without an immediate financial or technical application is openly derided. The student movements of the sixties, from the the Americas to Europe to East Asia, really spooked the power brokers and they are intent on eliminating that source of potential dissent.

[noddy]

i dont think their is any conspiracy to this and its just revealing the absurdity of the education being a pathway to middle class stable income mantra.

if their is a constantly growing system with a constantly increasing demand for new workers then this is at best "mostly true" but its been a few decades since that was the case and now its a declining pool of jobs so this belief system is completely meaningless for most folks.

i was reading that a good percentage of the bitter terrorist types in africa are the educated ones who were promised middle class if they completed school ingand then ended up in their little village with nothing to do just like everyone else.

the world just doesnt need more arts students or more lifestyle experts and they dont deserve more money than toilet cleaners or retail staff.

putting kids into debt for jobs that dont exist is repulsive, society shouldnt be only for the people with university degrees and its about time we started dealing with the fact that most of these degrees are useless and a goodly percentage of the population cant get them anyway.

[Ibrahim]

"Conspiracy" would be pushing it, but left with a budget to trim the first things to fall were education subsidies.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

"Conspiracy" would be pushing it, but left with a budget to trim the first things to fall were education subsidies.

.

Education, was historically for "higher CAST"


.

[noddy]

"Conspiracy" would be pushing it, but left with a budget to trim the first things to fall were education subsidies.

just why exactly should people who are barely making it week to week after slaving double jobs pay taxes for indulgent degrees ?

university education does provide a higher level of learning and access to expensive equipment for sciences (engineering,medicine) but im quite ambivalent about its self declared importance for other topics and don't think general society should be forced to pay for them at all.

[Ibrahim]

"Conspiracy" would be pushing it, but left with a budget to trim the first things to fall were education subsidies.

just why exactly should people who are barely making it week to week after slaving double jobs pay taxes for indulgent degrees ?

People needing to slave away at two jobs just to make ends meet is not a condition created by people majoring in the liberal arts. Moreover, it isn't a given that said degrees are "indulgent."

Consider that both education and taxes were remarkably cheap during the American postwar boom, and also that people could maintain a family with a single semi-skilled job. Somehow the decline and fall of this arrangement is blamed on trade unions and people who chose to major in English.

university education does provide a higher level of learning and access to expensive equipment for sciences (engineering,medicine) but im quite ambivalent about its self declared importance for other topics and don't think general society should be forced to pay for them at all.

It up to you whether you prefer a literate society or not. I'm equally skeptical of the notion that we should gear society to producing tech workers and middle managers for large corporations.

In any case you're going to get your wish because as soon as the education financing bubble pops it will be no school for anybody without rich parents.

[noddy]

People needing to slave away at two jobs just to make ends meet is not a condition created by people majoring in the liberal arts.

of course not but they don't really have much sympathy for the problems of liberal art students either.

Moreover, it isn't a given that said degrees are "indulgent."

they are to those who slave away at 2 jobs and still cant keep up with the endless demands of the culturally enhanced ones and their plans for other peoples resources.

Consider that both education and taxes were remarkably cheap during the American postwar boom, and also that people could maintain a family with a single semi-skilled job. Somehow the decline and fall of this arrangement is blamed on trade unions and people who chose to major in English.

university does cost far too much, they are overpaid and indulgent and you are going to have a tough sell as to convince me they deserve a better more comfy lifestyle than I do.

why does life cost so much nowdays ? why is it impossible for a low paid single income family to afford a house and basic services ?

I know what percentage of my payments each week are to things I want versus things Im forced to pay for by government and its true arts degrees are a small part, id add lots more to that list.

It up to you whether you prefer a literate society or not. I'm equally skeptical of the notion that we should gear society to producing tech workers and middle managers for large corporations.

I think universities are completely overated and most of it could be done with self training and in house training, they had a brief period in which they broke the old corrupt guild systems but they have since degraded into being guild systems themselves.

the internet is making them irrelevant, they are no longer the keeprs of the knowledge and its absurd to say that without them we will lose literacy, that's just mumbo jumbo with no basis in reality.

more kids have access to knowledge on the net than ever got enrolled into university and If your concerned about literacy then you should be focused on getting more free knowledge on the net, go Wikipedia(*), go Gutenberg, more things like that please.

In any case you're going to get your wish because as soon as the education financing bubble pops it will be no school for anybody without rich parents.

this will only be a concern if we keep up the despicable class based snobbery of government only employing graduates, I also fear this outcome but for different reasons.

(*) I know full well that wiki is a source of contempt for many university grads because of its lacking in expert peer review but this is only as true as the people with the knowledge wish it to be... versus how much they are prepared to break the guild secrecy which maintains their own importance.

on top of that, its only one example amongst many of sites on the net which bring knowledge to the masses for free due to voluntary effort from people that care, in my field of computing Linux and bsd are both incredible examples of the power in this new model that doesn't need universities.

[Ibrahim]

People needing to slave away at two jobs just to make ends meet is not a condition created by people majoring in the liberal arts.

of course not but they don't really have much sympathy for the problems of liberal art students either.

Moreover, it isn't a given that said degrees are "indulgent."

they are to those who slave away at 2 jobs and still cant keep up with the endless demands of the culturally enhanced ones and their plans for other peoples resources.

I feel for the plight of the working poor, and I'm all for improving their conditions. I'm not being sarcastic, I mean this sincerely. And I also understand that they don't see value in some snotty kids reading a bunch of old-ass, thick-ass books (or ebooks), and I can see their position on that as well. But I also don't mind saying that I'm not interested in their opinion on educational policy or the value of something they (in most cases) never experienced and never wanted to.

For that matter I'll throw in all the kids who scraped through their "communications" degree while partying and now work retail. It wasn't for them either, and they shouldn't have been there. But does society still need citizens who are truly literate, familiar with their own history, laws, government and the arts? Even if they do not employ that knowledge professionally? Yes.

Consider that both education and taxes were remarkably cheap during the American postwar boom, and also that people could maintain a family with a single semi-skilled job. Somehow the decline and fall of this arrangement is blamed on trade unions and people who chose to major in English.

university does cost far too much, they are overpaid and indulgent and you are going to have a tough sell as to convince me they deserve a better more comfy lifestyle than I do.

why does life cost so much nowdays ? why is it impossible for a low paid single income family to afford a house and basic services ?

I know what percentage of my payments each week are to things I want versus things Im forced to pay for by government and its true arts degrees are a small part, id add lots more to that list.

I can understand inflation in many things, but inflation in the cost of education seems both artificial and opportunistic. They seem to have realized that the student loan bubble allowed them to pretty much charge whatever and let the government or some bank suck it, and the government figured out a way to transfer some of the costs to banks and individuals, so they availed themselves of that opportunity as well.

It also seems to be the case that the quality and rigor of the education students receive in return for their ridiculous loans has declined. So there are many layers of the post-secondary education system that need a serious asskicking. But this is the kind of complaint we can make about every service provided publicly or privately. As always, I'm all for improvement but only insist on the need for this service to exist, and not to be restricted to the wealthy.

It up to you whether you prefer a literate society or not. I'm equally skeptical of the notion that we should gear society to producing tech workers and middle managers for large corporations.

I think universities are completely overated and most of it could be done with self training and in house training, they had a brief period in which they broke the old corrupt guild systems but they have since degraded into being guild systems themselves.

the internet is making them irrelevant, they are no longer the keeprs of the knowledge and its absurd to say that without them we will lose literacy, that's just mumbo jumbo with no basis in reality.

more kids have access to knowledge on the net than ever got enrolled into university and If your concerned about literacy then you should be focused on getting more free knowledge on the net, go Wikipedia(*), go Gutenberg, more things like that please.

A motivated person can learn a great deal independently, but a motivated person can do more at a university than they can with the Internet alone, and universities also have the Internet. A personal observation, and this is strictly anecdotal, is that academics who came up through the pre-Internet university system are much more intellectually formidable than those of the Internet/powerpoint era. And both tend to have a little more intellectual humility and depth than autodidacts. I see what you're saying about outdated medieval guilds, but sometimes that method turns out a Chartres Cathedral.

In any case you're going to get your wish because as soon as the education financing bubble pops it will be no school for anybody without rich parents.

this will only be a concern if we keep up the despicable class based snobbery of government only employing graduates, I also fear this outcome but for different reasons.

I would say it depends on the job in question. It makes no sense as a blanket requirement, and it makes no sense to disregard the combination of skills and experiences that come with (or should come with) a university degree.

(*) I know full well that wiki is a source of contempt for many university grads because of its lacking in expert peer review but this is only as true as the people with the knowledge wish it to be... versus how much they are prepared to break the guild secrecy which maintains their own importance.

I would say wiki is, on average, a fairly reliable introductory source of information, if only because obviously false or biased material will be corrected by someone else. But it remains introductory. People who spent their whole life studying some specific corner of a subject are sensitive about people who read the wiki entry thinking they know the score. Perhaps a little childish but understandable.

on top of that, its only one example amongst many of sites on the net which bring knowledge to the masses for free due to voluntary effort from people that care, in my field of computing Linux and bsd are both incredible examples of the power in this new model that doesn't need universities.

Actually some universities are setting up free-for-everyone online courses set up and run by some of their top faculty. I just recently heard a radio interview with one of the professors behind Harvard's version, the Harvard "extension," and it sounds like a great initiative. There is room to blend the old and new.
http://www.extension.harvard.edu/open-l ... initiative



I also think you missed a trick pointing out that nobody promised any of these graduates jobs to go with their arts degree and they should learn to lose their sense of entitlement.

[Nonc Hilaire]

It's not just the unjustified cost increases, but the lowering of quality to satisfy greedy trustees and attract dumber students. Many colleges have rampant grade inflation just to keep students paying and revenues up.

Tenured faculty are being replaced by adjuncts, TA's and on-line courses even at the doctoral level. Some on-line courses are more like a book club than a course of study. Money saved by cutting quality is spent in building revenue generating facilities instead.

[Ibrahim]

It's not just the unjustified cost increases, but the lowering of quality to satisfy greedy trustees and attract dumber students. Many colleges have rampant grade inflation just to keep students paying and revenues up.

True. But I'm not even worried about the grade inflation as much as the general rigor. There is certainly a slackening of standards in order to collect more tuition from more, sometimes dumber students. Its a cash grab at both ends.

Tenured faculty are being replaced by adjuncts, TA's and on-line courses even at the doctoral level. Some on-line courses are more like a book club than a course of study. Money saved by cutting quality is spent in building revenue generating facilities instead.

I was just reading about the value of "celebrity" professors to universities, and how you may no longer even meet the "professor" of your first year course, who might be out flogging a new book or hosting a documentary while you watch videos of his lectures from two years ago and have your papers graded by a third-year TA. Famous professors teach about as much as famous chefs cook.

[Nonc Hilaire]

It's not just the unjustified cost increases, but the lowering of quality to satisfy greedy trustees and attract dumber students. Many colleges have rampant grade inflation just to keep students paying and revenues up.

True. But I'm not even worried about the grade inflation as much as the general rigor. There is certainly a slackening of standards in order to collect more tuition from more, sometimes dumber students. Its a cash grab at both ends.

Tenured faculty are being replaced by adjuncts, TA's and on-line courses even at the doctoral level. Some on-line courses are more like a book club than a course of study. Money saved by cutting quality is spent in building revenue generating facilities instead.

I was just reading about the value of "celebrity" professors to universities, and how you may no longer even meet the "professor" of your first year course, who might be out flogging a new book or hosting a documentary while you watch videos of his lectures from two years ago and have your papers graded by a third-year TA. Famous professors teach about as much as famous chefs cook.

True enough, but not quite my point. Training Ph.D's when you are eliminating tenured Ph.D positions is fraud. Higher education is losing conviction in it's own importance. This is a fundamental lack of integrity.

[Ibrahim]

It's not just the unjustified cost increases, but the lowering of quality to satisfy greedy trustees and attract dumber students. Many colleges have rampant grade inflation just to keep students paying and revenues up.

True. But I'm not even worried about the grade inflation as much as the general rigor. There is certainly a slackening of standards in order to collect more tuition from more, sometimes dumber students. Its a cash grab at both ends.

Tenured faculty are being replaced by adjuncts, TA's and on-line courses even at the doctoral level. Some on-line courses are more like a book club than a course of study. Money saved by cutting quality is spent in building revenue generating facilities instead.

I was just reading about the value of "celebrity" professors to universities, and how you may no longer even meet the "professor" of your first year course, who might be out flogging a new book or hosting a documentary while you watch videos of his lectures from two years ago and have your papers graded by a third-year TA. Famous professors teach about as much as famous chefs cook.

True enough, but not quite my point. Training Ph.D's when you are eliminating tenured Ph.D positions is fraud. Higher education is losing conviction in it's own importance. This is a fundamental lack of integrity.

Graduate school is in more of a crisis than undergraduate programs. If you are training people ostensibly for the very positions you are eliminating then this is a major short-term problem that will sort itself out rather quickly. Koreans arbitrarily deciding to make PhDs a requirement for every salaryman job can only float the demand for advanced degrees so far.