h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just a gut feeling...but what do others think?

Most countries' education systems seem to assume that people will mature and focus (and perform in exams) at around 16 years of age. If they don't, they can still catch up later, ostensibly. Only late developers never do quite seem to catch up in the career stakes.

But here's the part that makes me think. Work experience down the years is convincing me that the typical high-flier-at-16 comes out of Uni feckless and unfocussed thinking the world owes him/her a living, and tends to go into an economically-dysfunctional career, such as law, marketing, financial services - something with dubious return to society as a whole but plenty of lucre for its 'professional' elite.

The late developers tend to finish up in the jobs that the economy actually needs - manufacturing industry, public services etc.

Have we all got education wrong at this level? Are we just teaching kids to be exploitative by letting them loose on careers before their sense of social responsibility has evolved? Is this the best argument of all for National Service, even?

OK...a certain amount of deliberate controversy here, but what do you think of the underlying sentiments?

oh, you said " social responsibility". I wonder if any libertarians will turn up and consider that bad language.

Some that do well at the right ages enter the environmental sciences or engering etc. Social responsibility comes from the person and not the education.

I think you'll find that behind these people that enter the "dubious feilds" is a family or upbringing that that pushes them in that direction.

Which country are we in? I'll assume England for now.

I was doing well at 16 passed a lot of GCSEs and so fourth and did work experience in the city council economics department and webxpress. One private and one public sector experience neither of which were perfect so I got a decent view of what the world of work looks like. (Though you can't portray the sheer drudgery of the thing in just two weeks) I'm not sure there is a correlation between how well people are doing academically and which jobs they end up in.

So long as they get good help choosing the work experience they do it should all be fine. Wether people come out of uni thinking they are owed a job depends a lot on what you have studied. Professional degrees like Medicine or Law do tend to produce people who go into those proffessions, this shouldn't be a suprise since they have worked hard (?) to get there.

I don't think this can be seen as an argument for the national service. Showing that an alternative is bad does not necassarily make national serivce a good thing - it needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

All that being said I do think that there is a problem with the distribution of gifted people between usefull and redundant jobs. However I feel that this is due to the shortfallings of a capitalist society rather than because we allow people to experience work before fully developing a social concience.

i think some of it arises from the focus on money and material things as drivers for choosing jobs and thus study courses. i remember one guy i knew who was in 6th form and what he really wanted to do was be an architect, but he had decided that was a dumb idea because the course was longer and more expensive than doing a commerce degree, which he anticipated would allow him to walk straight out into a well paying job, whereas an architect has to apprentice and so on for a few years. of course the commerce jobs are not really there anymore over here, as so many people have taken this strategy, so people end up phaffing around doing stuff they don't like for poor pay.

here we have big shortages in teaching (particularly at secondary level and in the sciences), engineers, scientists in general, technicians (eg radiologists), nurses, doctors who are prepared to work in lower paying areas (eg rural practice, non-specialist hospital work), i could go on and on.

yet we are churning out heaps of graduates with low grades in commerce (and let me tell you some of the commerce papers i have seen are not very rigirous about their standards or methodology) and law (<puts own hand up&gt. commerce graduates now outnumber arts graduates in most NZ universities and the trend is growing. whereas an arts degree can prepare you for future study and often allows you the flexibility to find out what you really want to do, commerce degrees here are very very narrow (you can get away with only doing three or four different subjects) and largely focused on regurgetation (sp?) rather than thinking for yourself. putting forward your own thoughts in commerce is frowned upon, even in 3rd year papers or in masters.

I believe part of the problem starts in our schools - in regards to our education shortages, kids are not stupid and they can see how undervalued teachers are - lowly paid and schools are often poorly resourced. kids reflect and adopt, often, the values they see around them. with the importance placed on money, the equation that poorly paid = worthless job is not hard to make. why would you want to do a job society clearly doesn't value?

with the emphasis on money rather than knowledge or usefulness, why would you want to do science either? when i was at school i wanted to be a forensic scientist until i discovered i sucked at chemistry. then i wanted to be an archaeologist and dig up ancient rome. but at no point did anyone ever really seriously talk to me about what i wanted to do. even the careers "advisor" i saw once in my last two years of school for ten minutes - she decided, because she had just received some shiny new pamphlets on it, that i wanted to be an occupational therapist, a job i had never even heard of. For some reason schools and the curriculum in general, doesn't seem to place much importance on slowly, over a period of some years rather than in the last few months of high school, teasing out what students might be interested in doing/studying. or maybe that's just my experience.

when i was 16 i passed my gcse's and thought what now? so i took a-levels in law, english and drama. after a year i knew it wasn't for me, i took a year out and went fruit packing i ended up in quality control. my family were disappointed but i loved my job it was fast paced. what people don't realise is these 'crappy' jobs are the ones that provide the food they eat. young adults should have the opportunity to know what jobs are out there, lets face it not everyone wants to go to uni.

im 21 now and i know only just, that i want to be a teacher.

i think the last years of school should focus on end goal. instead they kick you out at 16 and don't care what happens next.

wow i took so ridiculously long to write that you people got in first!

it's interesting that we are talking about the, what 20 - 30% of high school leavers who go on to uni/tech. there is a huge unseen chunk of school leavers who go before the official end of school - here in NZ these kids are never really encouraged to further study, uni is just not an option.

I think it's really important that in having schools focus on the end goal it's not just about basically preparing (preferably docile) workers - it should be about giving kids the skills and especially the self-esteem to, for want of a less Hallmark phrase, realise their dreams - ie find out what they like doing and helping them join the dots to what the options are that allow them to do that, like the fact that you like fast paced work, which means fruit packing is an ideal option for you.

i too recently (late last year), and belatedly (i'm 26), came to the conclusion that i would like to be a teacher. i was doing office work after a hiatus from work and study due to illness, which i didn't mind, but i disliked my boss and his style of decision-making (or rather re-making every two days) so i quit and was going to temp until starting the teacher training next year. but then a friend told me there were some library jobs going, so i applied, was successful and absolutely love it! although i only have part time hours at the moment i'm keen to give this job at least 6 months to a year, to make sure i still like it, and i can always go back to the teacher thing if it doesn't work out.

often these things happen by accident rather than design, and the way that schools (and tertiary institutions) treat students needs to reflect this - i think encouraging a wide range of both working and non-working experiences is a good start to achieve this. There was this attitude when i was at school that each level's exams were life-making or -breaking events, and the same with the course you decided to do when you left school. this doesn't need to be the case - yes bad exam results and bad choices can be real barriers, but the pressure to make a decision doesn't help to make a good choice!

span, I know what you mean. I was in the 7th form and had no idea what I was going to go next year. There was a careers expo at my school and I signed up for a few pamphlets.

When I got information delivered to me near the end of the year I picked one and though ok that looks good, I'll do that. That was 1997 and the beginning of the second term of National, so the only valve being pushed was money.

Well the education system seems to have created my current year at medical school, all of whom are, before we've graduated, rather keen on performing a functioning role in society. I couldn't think of a job I'd rather do that medicine - honestly. It's the only useful job where I'd get to think scientifically, meet people, find it interesting all the time, actually help them. All of that and it's a guarenteed job with decent money.

Part of my weekend job is educational advising, and I routinely advise my high schoolers to consider taking a few years and working and exploring between HS graduation (age 18 here in the US) and starting off towards university. So few of the kids really have the motivation and drive and solid ideas for their future at age 18 that they might have a few years down the road after some "real world" time.

Of course, I'm also a big proponent of educational systems that aren't so closely tied to ages. Especially with boys, many kids just aren't ready for formal academics yet at age 6/7 (when 1st grade starts here), and many need a year or two beyond 18 to really have a grasp on the material covered in high school. On the other hand, I also think that some of the material pushed in high school is just developmentally inappropriate -- even among kids who get A grades in honors trigonometry/algebra/analysis, few are really developmentally ready for calculus. But the schools push them into it, and the kids come away with the false impression that they aren't smart enough for higher math, even though they may well have been able to excel at it a year or 2 (or 3) down the road. The experiences kids have in high school calculus have a *massive* impact on what university majors and career fields they choose, which I think is really unfortunate.

i totally agree on the taking some time off before uni etc - i kindof wish that i had, and i have a few friends who did and they are much happier and assured about things than most of those who didn't.

in nz we (predominantly white middle classers) all tend to aim to follow the following plan
- end high school
- study for three - four years, often with no real desire to succeed at what we are studying, but enjoying the student "lifestyle" (which is really only any good if you are able to stay at home, rent-free, and thus have the spare cash to drink etc - it also helps if you are a guy so that you are not still curfewed etc in the way that us gals are)
- do the OE for a year or two
- return to NZ and somehow miraculously find that we know exactly what we want to do and low! there is a job for us

of course the student loan scheme has resulted in many not returning from their OEs at all...

but the pressure to go on to uni etc is very high - ever since i was little people have always said "what do you want to be when you grow up?" - as you get older and people realise the "grow up" part grates it changes into "what are you going to do when you leave school" - to admit that you don't know tends to result in rants about how you're just another young layabout who is going to suck the tit of the nanny state dry by loafing around on the dole and how in-my-day-you-left-school-at-fourteen-and-went-straight-to-the-coal-mine etc. this is not an overly helpful attitude from "adults". (especially when in fact they faffed around for a year or two "working" for daddy before getting married and leaving work altogether for the last forty years, or maybe that's just my aunt)

quite apart from the fact that not having anything to do all day, as is often the case when you are on a benefit, is in fact not a very nice experience, as i've discovered over the last few years, and i was lucky not to have the additional stigma of actually being on a benefit and all that that entails. but perhaps i should leave that rant for another thread

to get back on topic - i really think there is nothing wrong with going straight to work from school, so that you can get a handle on real life - school, and living at home, are really not what you'll be experiencing for the rest of life, and uni is often just an extention of school, especially if you don't move out at some point (which is the trend here). of course getting an actual job when you have little or no work experience and don't have any job-related networks yet is much more difficult...

Apparition - urgh National! I was in my third year of what became a rather extended BA in 1997 and they were dark days indeed - not that the light has really dawned yet either

span

Not quite light but when National crumbled the curtains opened a crack

I think a lot of this depends on what era you come from. As someone from the pre-Thatcherite era I can still remember when schoolteachers were respected because of the job they did. Similarly other professions that contributed to the public good. For too many people now the idea of social worth means nothing, a big wage, an expensive car and a desirable house is all that matters. It never surprises me how young 'professionals' can go on quiz shows and know zilch whils't an older 'non-professional' can go on them and have an appreciation of a wide number of subjects. Education now is making people 'fit for work' and not fit for life.

things like the the Thatcherite, and in NZ's case National party era, also creats it's fair share of rebels. The National party era helped make me the hostile lefty I am today.

I actually cared more for money grubbing *before* a right wing government tried shoving the idea down our collective throats.

To enlarge on the original premise (and remember I said there was some deliberate provocation here - I'm going to say this a little more colourfully than I actually espouse it)

Developed nations have by definition gone beyond competition through efficiency of their general labour-force.
Their economic success depends critically on the engagement and exploitation of their intellectual top 5%.
Decadence in the West is a direct result in the poor economic engagement of this group.
Letting the brightest people pursue a career in, say, medicine is actually stupid from an economic point of view. The economic costs of care and recuperation would be no higher if we employed second-quartile minds as surgeons and consultants.
But at least medicine is rooted in an honourable ideal. Encouraging fine minds to become advocates is more than stupid, it's arguably profoundly immoral. Lawyers distort the truth, by definition. Their mendacity harms as many people as it helps. This is a criminal waste of intellect. But then so is advertising, journalism, politics etc.
Western economies will fail and flounder until we get a grip on our best minds, and oblige them to make an economic contribution rather than indulge themselves.

"This is a criminal waste of intellect. But then so is advertising, journalism, politics etc."

I have to dissagree with one from that statement. We need the best minds in politics. That feild has too many idiots already.

so basically you are talking about pretty full-on workforce planning for the top 5%? what kind of mechanisms do you think would work that would not lead to resentment??

also i would dispute that the economic "success" of the West rests on exploitation of the top 5%, intellectually - I would contend that in fact it rests on the exploitation of the labour of the bottom 80 - 90%, and not just in actual Western countries, but also in undeveloped nations, eg sweatshops, coffee crops in colonised areas of Africa where the whole country was rejigged by the colonial power to just produce coffee, which of course the actual people who live there can't survive on alone, etc (i could go on and on about this).

What professions would you see as suitable for these top 5%? Pure research perhaps?

span

I think they get arround the resentment by focusing the 80 - 90% "labour class" of someone elses country.
That however creates masses of unemployed in said western country.
The population of said same western country is placated by having their cost of living reduced.
This is done by exploiting more forign labour.
Back in the western country the gulf between wealthy and non-wealthy grows.
The government in a move they claim will help stabalise the economy reduces import taffifs and tries to sell the country on the fairy tale about tricle down and the need to reduce taxes for the wealthy.

I'm getting really off the origional but I tend to do that focusing on the previous post I'm replying to.

further, how would you pick/measure the top 5%? i suspect that class would play a big factor in a purely intellectual measure, which might not be the best result...

i think this is a very interesting discussion, so please don't think i am being nasty by being negative, i am just really curious about how you think this might work

also don't start me on tariff reductions - Apparition are you aware of the CTU campaign against the new reductions here that go well BELOW the actual level of the international instruments that demand tariff reductions - could result of the loss of 18,000 jobs and even more reliance on imports (not very ace for the ol' balance of payments)

I tend to think that countries should try to be more self-sufficient - obviously there are things that will always need to be imported and so on, but the most compelling (but not the only) argument for me is the sheer employment factor. If we are making our own food, clothing, machinery etc then we will find we have more employment, and also that people don't feel as alienated from the products of their labour (knew i could get that in somewhere) if they are keeping it local. that would be my hope anyway.

This does actually tie back to the original post, as it would be essential to make sure that we had an education system that encouraged people to stay in their country (within reason obviously) and give back.

span

I went to a rather expensive, but entirely state funded secondary school (i.e., it cost the taxpayers a lot of money, but not me or my folks). And the state is eternally peeved that we all haven't been eternally grateful enough to take jobs in our home state, thereby supporting the state with our work and income taxes.

I can see their point, but are 2 big problems:

1) The school went a bit overboard stressing a relatively small number of career paths. If you stay in those career paths, there just simply aren't enough jobs out there for all the alumni, especially once you're past the entry level.

2) The school also really pushed striving to climb up the ladder, being the best of the best, etc. Today in the US, at least, that means going where the jobs and opportunities are -- being ambitious can be a frustrating experience if you're tied down to one area with a pretty finite array of options.

The programs that seem to work the best at preventing brain drain are those that involve financial incentives -- i.e., will pay off your student loans if you work in X needed field helping Y underserved population for Z years. The problem with this is that it tends to be a temporary situation and seems to fuel high levels of burnout -- the people complete their Z years, and by Z-2 years, are already spending most of their time thinking about where they're going to go and what they're going to do as soon as Z is up.

Another thing that's a problem, at least here in the US, is that both secondary school and university students are often given a somewhat biased and narrow view of what their career options are. For honors/gifted students, the repeated message is often that the only acceptable (i.e., ones that are "worthy" of a good brain, and will provide adequate intellectual stimulation and prestige) career options are engineering, computer programming, medicine, bench science, and law. Of course, in reality, the options stretch far beyond that -- but for many students, they aren't encouraged to seriously consider those options (or even made aware of them) until they've finished school and consider their career paths already set.

And for the person who claimed that top brains are a waste in the medical field, I should point out that there's a *huge* variety of career paths within medicine, some (such as family medicine) in which excellent communication skills are really more important (and sometimes more rare...) than extreme intelligence, and others (such as some fields of medical research, some specialties) where people simply can't survive without considerable raw brain power.


Mikey