Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[tikay]

On "Sky Arts" last night (OK, OK), there was a lovely little show featuring Mark Knopfler, in which he described his 6 favourite guitars of all time.

He played each one, briefly, completely ad-lib, & told the story behind each of them. Thoroughly splendid viewing.

Knopfler has aged so gracefully, he's like an Elder Statesman now. I do love to see Tyler (66) or Richards (71) in all their cool gear, but Knopfler (65) just shades the Cool Badge for me.

Incidentally, the pretty young lady with Richards is his daughter, Theodora. Tyler has a very pretty daughter too, of course. 

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

[DaveShoelace]

You're 18 just finished school, good at poker, good student. It's 2015, do you go to university, get a job, play poker, get an apprenticeship or travel?

1) Go to Uni.

When I was young, I never knerw ONE person who got to Uni. These days so many more get the chance. They should take it.

Top notch question Pads.

Problem with Uni now is that everyone goes, and what's more, all the information they consume when they are there is readily available online. If I ever have kids, I'll be talking them out of going to Uni and instead spending a year or so working for free in an industry they want to work in. They'll learn more, progress faster and it will cost them much much less.

Remarkable how many young uns detest the idea of working for free, but happily pay for three years at Uni which guarantees very little in the workforce.

I think I was probably one of the first generations of people to go to Uni when degrees started getting worthless. I learned nothing there. I managed to learn to be self reliant and to budget, but that was in my student house, not the lecture hall. It's horribly cynical but the whole Uni thing today is a lie we are selling our young people.

[tikay]

Not all of the 80's music icons from the Stadium Band era have aged quite so gracefully or cool, though.

[tikay]

You're 18 just finished school, good at poker, good student. It's 2015, do you go to university, get a job, play poker, get an apprenticeship or travel?

1) Go to Uni.

When I was young, I never knerw ONE person who got to Uni. These days so many more get the chance. They should take it.

Top notch question Pads.

Problem with Uni now is that everyone goes, and what's more, all the information they consume when they are there is readily available online. If I ever have kids, I'll be talking them out of going to Uni and instead spending a year or so working for free in an industry they want to work in. They'll learn more, progress faster and it will cost them much much less.

Remarkable how many young uns detest the idea of working for free, but happily pay for three years at Uni which guarantees very little in the workforce.

I think I was probably one of the first generations of people to go to Uni when degrees started getting worthless. I learned nothing there. I managed to learn to be self reliant and to budget, but that was in my student house, not the lecture hall. It's horribly cynical but the whole Uni thing today is a lie we are selling our young people.

That's an interesting angle, Barry. I suppose like all things, "excess" is bad, & eventually some balance is restored.

However we learn though, be it Uni, working for free, or a regular job, "learning" is the greatest thing ever. If I had my time again, I hope I'd realise that. I went through my early & mid liife not needing to learn, as I knew it all. Think I was the wrong side of 50 before it dawned on me I knew bugger all.

With the internet, of course, there is no excuse these days not to learn. In a weird way, I still go to school, except I do so via Wiki & the like, where I must spend at least 20% of my free time. What an amazing resource Wiki is.

[vegaslover]

You're 18 just finished school, good at poker, good student. It's 2015, do you go to university, get a job, play poker, get an apprenticeship or travel?

Awesome question, so many variables to it to.

Finance, or access to it going to be a consideration. Uni, travel, apprenticeship all need funding.

From an ease point of view apprenticeship probably no 1 as companies only want very young apprentices (who are both cheap and sub'd by the gov't). Also only really viable if you still live with folks.

Thinks Barry sums up uni pretty well.

[RED-DOG]

You're 18 just finished school, good at poker, good student. It's 2015, do you go to university, get a job, play poker, get an apprenticeship or travel?

1) Go to Uni.

When I was young, I never knerw ONE person who got to Uni. These days so many more get the chance. They should take it.

Top notch question Pads.

Problem with Uni now is that everyone goes, and what's more, all the information they consume when they are there is readily available online. If I ever have kids, I'll be talking them out of going to Uni and instead spending a year or so working for free in an industry they want to work in. They'll learn more, progress faster and it will cost them much much less.

Remarkable how many young uns detest the idea of working for free, but happily pay for three years at Uni which guarantees very little in the workforce.

I think I was probably one of the first generations of people to go to Uni when degrees started getting worthless. I learned nothing there. I managed to learn to be self reliant and to budget, but that was in my student house, not the lecture hall. It's horribly cynical but the whole Uni thing today is a lie we are selling our young people.

I hate replying +1 because it seems so lazy not to contribute a line or two of text to a great post, but still, +1.

[doubleup]

You're 18 just finished school, good at poker, good student. It's 2015, do you go to university, get a job, play poker, get an apprenticeship or travel?

1) Go to Uni.

When I was young, I never knerw ONE person who got to Uni. These days so many more get the chance. They should take it.

Top notch question Pads.

Problem with Uni now is that everyone goes, and what's more, all the information they consume when they are there is readily available online. If I ever have kids, I'll be talking them out of going to Uni and instead spending a year or so working for free in an industry they want to work in. They'll learn more, progress faster and it will cost them much much less.

Remarkable how many young uns detest the idea of working for free, but happily pay for three years at Uni which guarantees very little in the workforce.

I think I was probably one of the first generations of people to go to Uni when degrees started getting worthless. I learned nothing there. I managed to learn to be self reliant and to budget, but that was in my student house, not the lecture hall. It's horribly cynical but the whole Uni thing today is a lie we are selling our young people.

You make a reasonable case, but I will stick with going to a doctor who has a degree rather than a guy who worked for free in a hospital for a couple of years.

Which brings us to the point of a university degree.  It is to prove you have reached a required standard in some field of expertise.  If the "required standard" is very low or the knowledge acquired is irrelevant to a chosen career then the degree might not be the best route, but that isn't true of all degrees.

[DaveShoelace]

You're 18 just finished school, good at poker, good student. It's 2015, do you go to university, get a job, play poker, get an apprenticeship or travel?

1) Go to Uni.

When I was young, I never knerw ONE person who got to Uni. These days so many more get the chance. They should take it.

Top notch question Pads.

Problem with Uni now is that everyone goes, and what's more, all the information they consume when they are there is readily available online. If I ever have kids, I'll be talking them out of going to Uni and instead spending a year or so working for free in an industry they want to work in. They'll learn more, progress faster and it will cost them much much less.

Remarkable how many young uns detest the idea of working for free, but happily pay for three years at Uni which guarantees very little in the workforce.

I think I was probably one of the first generations of people to go to Uni when degrees started getting worthless. I learned nothing there. I managed to learn to be self reliant and to budget, but that was in my student house, not the lecture hall. It's horribly cynical but the whole Uni thing today is a lie we are selling our young people.

You make a reasonable case, but I will stick with going to a doctor who has a degree rather than a guy who worked for free in a hospital for a couple of years.

Which brings us to the point of a university degree.  It is to prove you have reached a required standard in some field of expertise.  If the "required standard" is very low or the knowledge acquired is irrelevant to a chosen career then the degree might not be the best route, but that isn't true of all degrees.

You've picked one of the exceptons that proves my point IMO. There are a handful of professions where a university education should be mandatory, because they teach a very specific skillset. Of course a doctor or a lawyer should go to Uni. These are careers where good information is still not easy to come by, and where throwing yourself in the deep end with no prior experience is not the ideal way of starting the job. 

The vast majority of other professions you are much better off starting at the bottom of the career ladder than doing the degree for the 18-21 years.

[doubleup]

You're 18 just finished school, good at poker, good student. It's 2015, do you go to university, get a job, play poker, get an apprenticeship or travel?

1) Go to Uni.

When I was young, I never knerw ONE person who got to Uni. These days so many more get the chance. They should take it.

Top notch question Pads.

Problem with Uni now is that everyone goes, and what's more, all the information they consume when they are there is readily available online. If I ever have kids, I'll be talking them out of going to Uni and instead spending a year or so working for free in an industry they want to work in. They'll learn more, progress faster and it will cost them much much less.

Remarkable how many young uns detest the idea of working for free, but happily pay for three years at Uni which guarantees very little in the workforce.

I think I was probably one of the first generations of people to go to Uni when degrees started getting worthless. I learned nothing there. I managed to learn to be self reliant and to budget, but that was in my student house, not the lecture hall. It's horribly cynical but the whole Uni thing today is a lie we are selling our young people.

You make a reasonable case, but I will stick with going to a doctor who has a degree rather than a guy who worked for free in a hospital for a couple of years.

Which brings us to the point of a university degree.  It is to prove you have reached a required standard in some field of expertise.  If the "required standard" is very low or the knowledge acquired is irrelevant to a chosen career then the degree might not be the best route, but that isn't true of all degrees.

You've picked one of the exceptons that proves my point IMO. There are a handful of professions where a university education should be mandatory, because they teach a very specific skillset. Of course a doctor or a lawyer should go to Uni. These are careers where good information is still not easy to come by, and where throwing yourself in the deep end with no prior experience is not the ideal way of starting the job. 

The vast majority of other professions you are much better off starting at the bottom of the career ladder than doing the degree for the 18-21 years.

So how about school qualifications?  Wouldn't it be better to leave school at 14 with no qualifications and start an apprenticeship?

Well obviously no, because the employer wants some proof that the potential employee has learned *something*.

I agree with your point to the extent that some degrees aren't very helpful for some careers or, at least, unless the grading attained is very high, they aren't very helpful.  But that isn't anything inherently flawed in the degree, it just means that the student should give some serious thought to why they are studying and the likely outcomes.

[DaveShoelace]

You're 18 just finished school, good at poker, good student. It's 2015, do you go to university, get a job, play poker, get an apprenticeship or travel?

1) Go to Uni.

When I was young, I never knerw ONE person who got to Uni. These days so many more get the chance. They should take it.

Top notch question Pads.

Problem with Uni now is that everyone goes, and what's more, all the information they consume when they are there is readily available online. If I ever have kids, I'll be talking them out of going to Uni and instead spending a year or so working for free in an industry they want to work in. They'll learn more, progress faster and it will cost them much much less.

Remarkable how many young uns detest the idea of working for free, but happily pay for three years at Uni which guarantees very little in the workforce.

I think I was probably one of the first generations of people to go to Uni when degrees started getting worthless. I learned nothing there. I managed to learn to be self reliant and to budget, but that was in my student house, not the lecture hall. It's horribly cynical but the whole Uni thing today is a lie we are selling our young people.

You make a reasonable case, but I will stick with going to a doctor who has a degree rather than a guy who worked for free in a hospital for a couple of years.

Which brings us to the point of a university degree.  It is to prove you have reached a required standard in some field of expertise.  If the "required standard" is very low or the knowledge acquired is irrelevant to a chosen career then the degree might not be the best route, but that isn't true of all degrees.

You've picked one of the exceptons that proves my point IMO. There are a handful of professions where a university education should be mandatory, because they teach a very specific skillset. Of course a doctor or a lawyer should go to Uni. These are careers where good information is still not easy to come by, and where throwing yourself in the deep end with no prior experience is not the ideal way of starting the job. 

The vast majority of other professions you are much better off starting at the bottom of the career ladder than doing the degree for the 18-21 years.

So how about school qualifications?  Wouldn't it be better to leave school at 14 with no qualifications and start an apprenticeship?

Well obviously no, because the employer wants some proof that the potential employee has learned *something*.

I agree with your point to the extent that some degrees aren't very helpful for some careers or, at least, unless the grading attained is very high, they aren't very helpful.  But that isn't anything inherently flawed in the degree, it just means that the student should give some serious thought to why they are studying and the likely outcomes.

Yes they certainly should, you are right. That was mine, and I'd say most uni students issue today, I went to Uni with no idea what I wanted to happen at the end of it.

As to your point about school, that's different, there is a very actual benefit of going to school and getting grades there. A lot more jobs will refuse entry to someone who comes out of school with something to show for it than will do the same for not having a degree.

Anyway I think we are pretty much on the same page, more or less.

[Jon MW]

You're 18 just finished school, good at poker, good student. It's 2015, do you go to university, get a job, play poker, get an apprenticeship or travel?

1) Go to Uni.

When I was young, I never knerw ONE person who got to Uni. These days so many more get the chance. They should take it.

Top notch question Pads.

Problem with Uni now is that everyone goes, and what's more, all the information they consume when they are there is readily available online. If I ever have kids, I'll be talking them out of going to Uni and instead spending a year or so working for free in an industry they want to work in. They'll learn more, progress faster and it will cost them much much less.

Remarkable how many young uns detest the idea of working for free, but happily pay for three years at Uni which guarantees very little in the workforce.

I think I was probably one of the first generations of people to go to Uni when degrees started getting worthless. I learned nothing there. I managed to learn to be self reliant and to budget, but that was in my student house, not the lecture hall. It's horribly cynical but the whole Uni thing today is a lie we are selling our young people.

You make a reasonable case, but I will stick with going to a doctor who has a degree rather than a guy who worked for free in a hospital for a couple of years.

Which brings us to the point of a university degree.  It is to prove you have reached a required standard in some field of expertise.  If the "required standard" is very low or the knowledge acquired is irrelevant to a chosen career then the degree might not be the best route, but that isn't true of all degrees.

You've picked one of the exceptons that proves my point IMO. There are a handful of professions where a university education should be mandatory, because they teach a very specific skillset. Of course a doctor or a lawyer should go to Uni. These are careers where good information is still not easy to come by, and where throwing yourself in the deep end with no prior experience is not the ideal way of starting the job. 

The vast majority of other professions you are much better off starting at the bottom of the career ladder than doing the degree for the 18-21 years.

So how about school qualifications?  Wouldn't it be better to leave school at 14 with no qualifications and start an apprenticeship?

Well obviously no, because the employer wants some proof that the potential employee has learned *something*.

I agree with your point to the extent that some degrees aren't very helpful for some careers or, at least, unless the grading attained is very high, they aren't very helpful.  But that isn't anything inherently flawed in the degree, it just means that the student should give some serious thought to why they are studying and the likely outcomes.

I think Tikay covered it with saying "excess" in everything is bad.

The government (of the day but continuously over successive governments) have decided that everyone going to uni is a "good thing" therefore they've aimed to manipulate to get that result. It all ignored the reason that a university education is only a "good thing" because it provides added value to the countries economy by having a more highly educated workforce.

If you make all the polytechnics universities and let higher education colleges call themselves universities - then agree they can keep all their lower requirements (and subsequent higher dropout rates) so that more and more people can go there - it doesn't provide the same added value.

Higher education used to primarily be for the financial elite - if it was changed so that it was for the educational elite (with apprenticeships etc covering the needs of the less academically inclined) then we'd have that extra benefit for all the potential doctors, lawyers, scientists etc. but still have the provision for all the more 'hands on' professions.

I'm assuming you'd also be paying your child to work for free in an industry then? As that's probably going to be a hard sell without

[Simon Galloway]

Rather than seeing a degree as proof that someone knows a certain level of things in a certain field, how about the view that a degree proves that someone is capable of learning something (anything) to a certain level.

So as a recruiter, I might not care if your degree was in 15th Century Art or in Physiotherapy ~ your 2:1+ from a decent University should tell me that you are capable of grasping new material and interpreting a few things for yourself.  That's not to say that the guy that left school at 16 isn't equally capable of learning a new skill, just that he hasn't yet proved to anyone that they can.

[DaveShoelace]

I'm assuming you'd also be paying your child to work for free in an industry then? As that's probably going to be a hard sell without

Well I put myself through Uni and even though it sucked, I think it stood me in good stead for the future, so I'm not sure if I'd pay for my kid to live it up at Uni, so nor would I pay for them to intern. That said, I'm quite the pushover, so maybe I would.

I don't think it's a hard sell though. Three years at Uni accuring debt, way more than that which you would accrue in a year of working for free. The only way it would be a hard sell is because Uni is a great place to get pissed and get laid.

[DaveShoelace]

Rather than seeing a degree as proof that someone knows a certain level of things in a certain field, how about the view that a degree proves that someone is capable of learning something (anything) to a certain level.

So as a recruiter, I might not care if your degree was in 15th Century Art or in Physiotherapy ~ your 2:1+ from a decent University should tell me that you are capable of grasping new material and interpreting a few things for yourself.  That's not to say that the guy that left school at 16 isn't equally capable of learning a new skill, just that he hasn't yet proved to anyone that they can.

I think most graduates and graduate recruitment programmes know this. Again, except for the highly specialised fields. Several of my mates got on the (very good at the time, probably still is) HSBC graduate recruitment programme and they had very different degrees.

The specifics/difficulty of the degree I don't think is the issue, it's a sheer numbers thing. The stats vary, but it seems a consensus that there is only one graduate type job for every six or more graduates. Getting in a shit load of debt, not to mention the opportunity cost of not getting work experience in those three years, seems a very minus EV proposition when you factor in what is waiting for most graduates.

[Jon MW]

I'm assuming you'd also be paying your child to work for free in an industry then? As that's probably going to be a hard sell without

Well I put myself through Uni and even though it sucked, I think it stood me in good stead for the future, so I'm not sure if I'd pay for my kid to live it up at Uni, so nor would I pay for them to intern. That said, I'm quite the pushover, so maybe I would.

I don't think it's a hard sell though. Three years at Uni accuring debt, way more than that which you would accrue in a year of working for free. The only way it would be a hard sell is because Uni is a great place to get pissed and get laid.

Where would an 18 year old straight from school get the financial credit to enable them to work for a year for nothing? Apart from credit cards which would leave them totally screwed if their free work didn't result in a job at the end of it?

A lot of people are trying to get free internships banned because - in practice - they tend to restrict the careers that use them to those families who can afford to subsidise them.

University debt is accrued on the basis that you will acquire something that improves your expected salary at the end of it - and if if you don't, you don't have to pay it back.

In practice the loans and finance available now are enough for students to live on, and not much more (not quite enough in London - but that would restrict your choice is all if your parents wouldn't help). Like I said I think the problem is too much emphasis in general on universities at the moment - if they had a system of degrees, practical courses and apprenticeships in appropriate balance with each other then it would solve most of the problems people have with any individual path in the current system.