University fees about to increase

[Onemorestepintheworld]

An announcement is expected today. www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0qdgndz5wzt Any bets? I reckon £12k pa

Well none of us have crystal balls that good! Nursing at the moment is a job guaranteed for life if anyone wishes it to be. It’s not a h high risk job and is certainly not the lowest paid grad job. Many grads get less with worse salaries and job progression - never mind great pensions in comparison to many. I just don’t like the rhetoric that girls are uninformed air heads that cannot work out what career might suit them best. Of course they can research careers. My DDs both do jobs they had no contact with growing up. They did degrees that were not in the family. DH is an engineer. They knew what he did but it wasn’t for them. As intelligent people they looked at what they enjoyed and what made them tick.

Well none of us have crystal balls that good!

There are people working in the career development sector who do make predictions about the future labour market. We can work out what skills will be needed even if we can't say what the exact job titles will be.

Yes, young people should be able to research careers but not everyone is coming at this from an equal playing field. Some groups of people need additional support but unfortunately career guidance in schools in woefully underfunded and undervalued.

I think the majority make informed decisions about careers and degrees. It is not right to say girls are poorly informed and choose nursing over medicine. Of course they can research other roles. Are we saying nurses aren’t capable of that? I think a minority make poor choices and are not great at research or getting advice but I’m not sure it’s a majority.

I don’t think vocational careers are the issue really. Many of these degrees lead to a decent job for life with a great pension. Other degrees are much more precarious. Eg English and arts subjects. As English attracts far more girls, are they all poorly informed too?

It’s not just supply and demand, and there is a shortage of nurses. Previously high status, high pay careers have had pay levels eroded since women started joining those professions in high numbers. Once a woman shows she can do something, for some reason the respect for the skill level required goes down a notch or two over the years, and the pay along with it, except possibly for a minority of mostly men at the top. Also, the nation will never get the workers it needs if people continue to advise that all the jobs we need people to do should be avoided, because they are insufficiently STEM based, or too low status, or too female, or not sufficiently respected.

I think the majority make informed decisions about careers and degrees. It is not right to say girls are poorly informed and choose nursing over medicine. Of course they can research other roles. Are we saying nurses aren’t capable of that? I think a minority make poor choices and are not great at research or getting advice but I’m not sure it’s a majority.

I don’t think vocational careers are the issue really. Many of these degrees lead to a decent job for life with a great pension. Other degrees are much more precarious. Eg English and arts subjects. As English attracts far more girls, are they all poorly informed too?

You're spectacularly missing the point being made @TizerorFizz

I qualified as a careers adviser 20 years ago and I've worked in the area of career development ever since. My research focuses on the career decision making behaviour of young people, widening participation and women's career development.

I'm not saying that girls are poorly informed or that people are incapable of researching.I'm saying they don't do the research and are often poorly informed. Research (not just mine) shows that generally, young people don't engage in the career decision making process in a way that allows them to make a fully informed decision.

They are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information so become disengaged. They rely on informal sources of information such as family, friends, social media. This information is often incorrect or out of date. Parents in particular tend to refer to careers and career paths that were popular when they were making career decisions.

People make career decisions that are influenced by culture, background, sex, family ..... rather than a decision that is purely made on information and facts. This is particularly stark when looking at first generation students and university choice.

Sex/gender is particularly influential (albeit often subconsciously). This is why people are talking about the difference in male and female career decisions.

On your point about vocational degrees..... there is no such thing as a job for life any more. Interestingly, first gen students and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tend to favour vocational courses as they believe that you should study a course that leads directly to a job. However, the UK labour market doesn't work like that. Up to 80% of graduate jobs don't ask for a specific degree programme. It's the skills and attributes you learn while studying a degree which are important. This means students shouldn't be afraid of studying something they enjoy and are good at because if they engage well in the programme and make the most of the whole university experience (particularly engaging with careers and employability) then they will have the potential to get a good, well paid graduate job.

Just to be clear ..... I'm saying that young people in general are often poorly informed about career choices.
That disappeared from my post .....

Of course there a jobs for life! Doctors and nurses for a start! Many careers do ensure people are employed for 40 years if they want to be.

I think research has limitations. Who are you asking? Your selected few or a wide range of dc? I’m in a grammar LA and I would bet there’s a high level of informed choice.

I think research has far fewer limitations than your many speculative assertions about what you imagine other people think and do based on your personal prejudices.

Of course there a jobs for life! Doctors and nurses for a start! Many careers do ensure people are employed for 40 years if they want to be.

The concept of a 'job for life' is outdated. I'm not talking on a individual level, I'm talking about a societal level. The idea the you leave school or university, get a job and stay with that same company for your whole working life is a thing of the past.
We need to be preparing young people for a labour market that looks different to the one their parents and grandparents entered....because it is different.

I think research has limitations.
Why did I know you'd say that!!

Who are you asking? Your selected few or a wide range of dc? I’m in a grammar LA and I would bet there’s a high level of informed choice.

This is widely researched, not just by me and the findings have been used to inform government policy and strategy on careers education.

My research has included my PhD ( this was a specific focus) and subsequent research which means I've spoken to hundreds of young people from a wide range of backgrounds and geographical areas. You're right, Grammar school students do display higher levels of career readiness but they tend to be from higher income, professional families. They're also much less likely to to consider options such as apprenticeships. Not all young people live in a Grammar LA or go to a Grammar school.
I've also worked with approx.300 careers teachers/leaders from schools across the UK.
On any given year I have around 30 students on placement in schools, colleges and universities delivering career guidance. I observe their career guidance interviews and careers lessons.

There has also been research by the Careers and Enterprise Company, Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Career Development Institute....to name a few.

You seem to think that I'm saying ALL students are unprepared but you need to understand that research isn't looking at individuals, it's looking at trends and patterns. So yes, the young people you know might be very well informed. That doesn't mean all young people are.

The trouble with academic research is that it is narrow and tends to lead to false assumptions that it applies to everyone. However as long as you believe what you researched, I’m fine with that. Most people I know have had clearer ideas and acted on them.

I also would refute the idea that nursing has ever been anything other than a female dominated occupation or attracting average pay. My DM was a nurse in London in WW2 and was paid a pittance. Subsequently it’s barely been recognised as a war contribution. I would say her career choice stopped any of us considering nursing. Rightly so as we aren’t the right sort of people! We therefore took advice from a wider source of info. As do most people even now and that drives their uni course choices.

I found it interesting attending university and careers fairs / talks at slightly different schools that nominally served similar demographics.

One started from the point that parental drive was very much towards Oxbridge / STEM / medicine / engineering - and therefore the focus was on the value of wider and alternative directions depending on your child’s actual interests (including degree apprenticeships, a wider variety of subjects and a wider range of high status institutions).

One started from the point that parental drive was for ‘solid’, ‘certain’, ‘more local’ careers, including STEM and NHS careers but largely RG as aspiration. The focus was on stretching further, being more ambitious, thinking more widely, but also focusing on how to overcome barriers in terms of finance / access.

I found it interesting as it did illustrate how even similar, educated, largely MC parents did tend to mould their child ‘in their image’ and towards the ‘known’, and how such career advice as there was saw its role as being to challenge these preconceptions and introduce wider ideas - interestingly towards the ‘less conventional’ in one case and towards the ‘perhaps more conventionally high flying’ in the other.

The trouble with academic research is that it is narrow and tends to lead to false assumptions that it applies to everyone. However as long as you believe what you researched, I’m fine with that.

If I said the sky was blue you'd argue it was pink wouldn't you@TizerorFizz ?
You asked about the research but then seem to want to refute that research saying it's too narrow.

if we're basing our opinions on anecdotes then mine are based on carrying out thousands of career guidance interviews and observing thousands more over a 20 year period.

Most people I know have had clearer ideas and acted on them.

You seem to have misunderstood what I've been saying. I haven't said that young people don't have career ideas. Of course they do.
What I'm saying is that significant numbers of young people aren't aware of the full range of careers available to them and that their careers ideas are more likely to be influenced by family, culture, and society rather than fully informed plans from impartial, factual information.

We therefore took advice from a wider source of info. As do most people even now and that drives their uni course choices.

You're making assumptions here and assuming that everyone behaves like you and your family. They don't. That is really important to understand when discussing issues like this.
For some groups of students, location is the biggest influence. They will only consider a local university so will choose their course from what's on offer locally. That's what drives their university course choices.

The trouble with academic research is that it is narrow and tends to lead to false assumptions that it applies to everyone. However as long as you believe what you researched, I’m fine with that. Most people I know have had clearer ideas and acted on them

I do love the idea that personal anecdote must trump research, just because the research doesn’t match your personal anecdote. Why is research ‘narrow’ while ‘most people I know’ is regarded as a better and more representative sampling technique?

how such career advice as there was saw its role as being to challenge these preconceptions and introduce wider ideas

This is exactly what good careers advice should do!!
The parental influence is really interesting too...I've been doing some work with international schools in Asia and the staff there describe this as one of their biggest challenges. The cultural influence and the role of parents in decision making can be really strong and it can make introducing wider ideas and challenging preconceptions a challenge in itself!

Yes. It was really quite provocative to start the main careers’ / university talk for parents in an extremely high performing school with courses in conservatoires, and high level dance training! Certainly got everyone paying attention…

Fabulous!!

@cantkeepawayforever And what percentage ignored it? Most presumably.We are not allowed anecdotes on here remember! I do find it interesting that “trends” and research were spectacularly wrong in the USA recently. Ask the wrong people and you get the wrong answers. Ask a targeted disadvantaged group and it will confirm what you thought.

Neither do I agree high performing schools merely look at stem although it backs up the view on this thread that stem is pushed too much! It will also depend on the ethnic minorities in the schools. That definitely alters the aspiration of many students who aim to please their parents. There are many highly intelligent people who will still study politics, history and MFL and get great jobs afterwards and they know they don’t want stem but they make wise choices for them.

@TizerorFizz do you value any research? Or are you just being contrary on this thread becuase the (extensive) research doesn't fit your world view?

You're being very quick to dismiss research on this particularly topic and I'm wondering if you do this across all subjects?

I value some research but not necessarily research that seeks to prove something the researcher already believes. So very happy with medical research. Some other research is more about the researcher than ensuring everyone benefits in a wider sense. It’s somewhat self serving. Great if you get the gig though.

Also people who don’t want to listen to an alternative point of view and just put it down really bore me. No one can say for certain their research is 100.% foolproof. If DC don’t get decent careers advice, as you say, what difference did your research make? None
according to you.

And you've decided that ALL research done on career development has been done purely to prove what a set of individual researchers believe? And that somehow the hundreds of researchers in this area have all agreed to this?

Do you not think that research into education and career development has a wider societal benefit? Or even just benefits to professional practice and support we can offer young people? Or does only medical science count?

Also people who don’t want to listen to an alternative point of view and just put it down really bore me.
You're literally describing yourself here. You are completely unwilling to acknowledge any other perspective. Your lack of self awareness is staggering.

No one can say for certain their research is 100.% foolproof
Has anyone said that? I don't think so.

If DC don’t get decent careers advice, as you say, what difference did your research make? None
according to you.

We're onto personal insults now are we?
My research has contributed to government policy and strategy recommendations relating to careers education. We're seeing improvements across the sector but it's not an overnight process and is an area of education which needs significantly more funding.
It's informed how we train careers professionals - this is my main contribution to sector.
We're measured on the impact our research makes. It's not a hobby.

Some medical research - this is close to my own area of expertise - is poor, or poorly designed, or poorly communicated. In particular, the drive for ‘interesting results’ for publication means that ‘useful but not interesting’ null results or negatives often sit in drawers.

Equally, individual medics - faced with even very good research or guidance that goes against their personal opinions - often do not accept or implement this research, preferring to go with ‘I think’ or ‘I’ve always done’ or ‘In my opinion’

So I would argue that it is important to remember that all research is worth scrutinising and considering carefully - no area is ‘automatically perfect’, but nor does any area deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

@TizerorFizz - Who said nursing has ever been anything other than poorly paid and female dominated?? Certainly not me. I pointed out that previously male-dominated professions command less status and respect now many women have joined their ranks. I was thinking of the legal profession in particular, but also medicine (as in doctors, not nurses), for example - careers where we now have women than men starting out in those professions. Neither profession, imvho, commands the respect or, except at the higher echelons, security of pay that it used to. It’s still male-dominated attributes, found more often in those with higher levels of testosterone, which tend to be more profitable, whether gambling with someone else’s wealth in the City, or being an entrepreneur. Stability, reliability, compassion, care - far less profitable, despite being essential. What people are really arguing for is that women become more exploitative if they want a lucrative working life, but we can all see the downsides of that behaviour in climate change and wars - and in the way AI is being used by so many companies. Far from people being freed to do the more complicated and interesting stuff, it seems to me AI is too often being used to devalue as much of human endeavour as possible, and not enough time or effort is going into using AI to genuinely assist humankind and/or the planet rather than harmfully exploit.