To think young women should consider future income and career prospects when choosing their degree?

[strengthandhonor]

I post on a student forum and I see the same discussions again and again : boys talk about how much income and prospects a certain career will provide them with or what is the future of that industry while girls are all about following their passion and treat ''uni'' as a life experience with little or nothing to do with future employment prospects. No wonder the gender wage gap is still here and shows no sign of going away.

Countries like India, China and even Iran have far better results in getting girls into science, engineering and other lucrative degrees than say places like Sweden or Norway . So how can countries that year after year are trumpeted as the most gender equal societies on the planet have such awful outcomes especially when compared to medieval type patriarchies ? Why does reducing the social factors cause such imbalance in outcomes instead of equalizing them? What are we doing wrong as parents and as a society?

Women studying STEM degrees does not translate into women entering the STEM workplace. I studied STEM but every interview was in a male-dominated workplace and I was rejected dozens of times. Employers frequently made woolly excuses about "not fitting with the team" or preferring to work with someone who would be "one of the lads". Only a few employers had the balls to openly admit that they didn't feel a woman would fit into their male-dominated workplace. In every single case they chose to hire a man instead of me.

I come from a family where everyone studies useless subjects they love at university (english, history, classics etc.) and then we all sort out our careers later. No-one earns less than six figures

Dh comes from a family where (with the exception of DH) they all study useful subjects at university (maths, medicine etc.) and they all earn six figures too.

Well bully for you, you and your DH are in the 2% of people in the UK who earn such vast sums. Meanwhile, for the majority income is a big issue especially for STHP (typically women) who will not get to such heights.

the OPs question was about why so many young women do not realise that HE will affect their career and the choices they may have after graduating, along with a huge debt (in England)

Part time staff rarely perform as well as full time equivalents. It just doesn't work.

Massive generalisation, zero evidence= worthless claim.

I mean honestly, there are so many jobs in so many sectors and such diversity. How can you possibly think a generalisation like this is going to be able to apply to all of them? That's just silly.

(I should probably let you know at this point that I'm my company's top biller... and I'm part time. Rather than write me off as an exception, let's hear why you think this couldn't be replicated elsewhere).

It also doesn't pay staff enough to work part time and support their families. Who should pay the difference between income and outgoings because some people think working fewer hours is 'fairer'?

This rather depends on where you live. DH and I have managed fine with two part time jobs and nothing other than SMP and CB, both of which we'd still get/have got even if FT. It's achievable for professional couples in most (not all) regional cities. Now granted, we live in a cheaper area. I can see that this isn't realistic in the south east for anyone other than very high earners/people who have unusually cheap housing.

But it doesn't actually have to be this way. There's no unwritten law that made shoeboxes in shitholes cost 400k if they're in London. The reason our living costs as a society are so massive is mostly because of housing, and the reason for that is continual artificial inflation of the bubble. There are things we could do to at least stop propping it up. There are ways we could make cheaper living costs achievable, especially as it becomes more possible to do more jobs remotely.

I don't agree that women think about their future careers less when choosing degree subjects than men do at all; in fact I have often found the opposite. Not thinking about it can be an issue for both genders; I think that's a separate issue from the issue of there being less women in STEM jobs.

You'll note that I pre-empted the argument you're trying to make here in my post.

Meanwhile, you made a broad generalisation, because saying that PT rarely works most definitely is that, and still haven't attempted to back it up. So go on, let's hear it.

Good points IsaSchmisa I would argue that plenty of workers would be just as productive working 4 days instead of 5.

A lot is down to the parenting. So many households still model the old fashioned dads work and mums don't that boys know they have to get a decent job hence the girls don't give much thought other than the social side and meeting a man to keep them as they don't really want to work or just do a token few hours.

Schools and colleges encourage both sexes to aim for the sky but in reality it's the main role models that children tend to follow.

We waste an awful lot of money on student loans that will never be repaid because the person has no intention of using the degree or working enough hours to start paying it back. It should be PAYG.

Part-time staff rarely perform as well as full-time equivalents.

Where is your evidence for this? A quick google search suggests the majority of studies show that working part-time makes you more productive.

Four days instead of five often costs people less than they think too, especially if they have high costs of working that increase with each day they do. Such as paid childcare, or non season ticket covered commuting.

I have a stem degree. Pretty pointless all the jobs are shit if you have a family.

...but there are clear cons to employing part time staff such as lack of loyalty, longer time taken to understand the workings of a business and more difficult dissemination of information and policies.

Again, where's your evidence for this? You will also need to prove that any disadvantages outweigh any advantages sufficiently to mean the arrangement 'doesn't work' on, at the very least, a clear majority of occasions. That's quite a task you've set yourself there.

Once you've defined what 'working' and 'not working' look like, roughly how often PT being disadvantageous would have to happen in order to constitute it generally 'not working' and given some actual evidence for your claim, I might then answer your questions. However, me answering questions before you do that might assist you in wriggling out of proving your claim. So for now it will have to wait.

backformor I would of stayed with my original company forever if pt hours or a job share was an option & I’m sure many of my colleagues would say the same.

I think employers encourage loyalty by valuing their staff.

I agree popcorn Both my parents worked PT when I was growing up and they were both experienced professionals. They were public sector so not the same kinds of roles pp above are on about but I don't know why the same point wouldn't apply to all jobs. It can work, it just takes employers to think more flexibly.

Paradoxically, the employers who offer part time and/or flexibility in sectors where there's not as much of it might well see more loyalty benefit. Simply because staff who have those arrangements know there's less chance of getting it elsewhere. If you're an employer who does offer part time roles, it isn't necessarily in your interests for others to do it too- they might nick your talent!

My ex dp is an engineer. Many of his friends have humanities degrees and work in sales, advertising, business development etc. They all earn more than he does and he wishes he hadn't completed an engineering degree.

STEM is no guarantee of a well paid job. Lots of manufacturing is being moved to Asia where labour is cheaper and more efficient. British engineering is not a growth industry and especially not outside of London.

To continue his career he had to complete another degree in project management and now works in this side of engineering but has still had to move abroad to further his career.

The whole scope of the workplace as well as individual behaviour and economy is changing and emerging jobs such as Ecommerce, digital, IT are potentially more solid career options going forward.

I’m actually bored of this idea that graduates/people in jobs have to make as much money as possible, be in a really high-paying career. Even if you’re not enjoying it, so what, you’re earning loads of money.
It’s why we have a significant mental health crisis in this country. Japan and Hong Kong etc actually have terrible problems with mental health, the suicide rate in Japan is huge.
Personally I value my mental health much more than making loads of money as soon as possible after graduation. I’d far rather do a less well-paid job in an area I love rather than a highly-paid job in an area I don’t love.

Personally I value my mental health much more than making loads of money as soon as possible after graduation

Completely agree.

Absolutely agree about the mental health thing. If you are qualified in a well paid profession, that is worth sweet FA if you are not mentally well enough to actually work in that field.

Although not directly relevant, this article emphasises how important it is to feel purposeful and valued and socially connected in life - which for a lot of people means in work.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/07/is-everything-you-think-you-know-about-depression-wrong-johann-hari-lost-connections

But backformoor, you said part time per se didn't work, not part time in your specific sector. Thus, you can prove that without saying anything too outing. One hopes you haven't based your assertion on one small and apparently sufficiently narrow as to be outing area. Though your use of 'specific examples' is rather interesting here: surely you don't think that's what would be needed to prove such a broad claim? When you say things like part time doesn't work, you set the task for yourself and it's not one that can be discharged simply by telling us what you've seen.

Still though, I note with interest that you're wriggling out. You bullshitted, then backed down when asked for the receipts. That says everything.

Hmm the OPs name is ‘Strengthandhonor’ which sounds very similar to the white power phrase ‘blood and honor’ and uses the alt-right buzzword ‘cultural Marxism’. Then starts a thread blaming women for their inequality. Hmmm indeed.

Nah, I don't work on Mondays. The joys of part time.

Meanwhile, you made a massive claim that you continue to provide zero evidence for and backtrack on. And yes, your repeated failure does indeed mean everything and people calling you out isn't getting carried away. Pretending to be above the discussion you've previously engaged in is the last refuge of a scoundrel.