Oxbridge graduates who can’t get a job

[AquaLeader]

Interesting article in The Times this morning.

Meet the Oxbridge graduates who can’t get a (good) job -
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/oxbridge-graduates-cant-get-good-job-d9ddj9dff

It is unlikely to be a coincidence that the graduates highlighted all appear to hold degrees in the humanities.

Entitled much? They’ll be the same people who’ll be posting on here to bemoan the fact that their Plumber/Electrician/Joiner ‘only’ did an apprenticeship and earns more than they do ‘after all their hard work’ at ‘Uni’. Not realising, that hard work comes in many forms and having a degree doesn’t and shouldn’t guarantee anything.

@Juja Hope you don’t fly, have petrol cars or use gas to heat your house then. Hope you put your money where your morals lie.

My DH employed 120 people and, whether anyone sits on the high ground or not, it’s private enterprise that ensures the state has tax income by employing people. They, in turn, spend money and the economy turns round.

When people run charities they don’t give a fig where the money comes from, do they? If they only took money from the most ethical of people one thinks they would not get very much money. Mostly it’s the rich who can afford to virtue signal though! The average plumber still has the petrol van, believes gas boilers are better than air source heat pumps and likes their foreign holidays every year.

All that said, if everyone were that cynical, then nobody would even bother to virtue signal any more. Why bother, after all, when humans are all such a bunch of selfish, self-serving wankers? Why not all just be as greedy as possible?

@Walkaround The rich virtue signal. The ones who give the most and have the most . The ordinary person scraping a living together cannot afford the grand gestures. It’s just what it is. Look around. People employing others is what helps change. Charities rely on gifts. The public sector relies on taxes. They don’t generate wealth unless they are primed by money from elsewhere. Just how it is.

@TizerorFizz - it’s not really “virtue signalling” unless you believe you don’t have a guilty conscience when it comes to the environmental harms, social harms and extreme tax avoidance strategies. Otherwise it’s more hush money, guilt money, exceptional arrogance, or an attempt at whitewashing.

I mean, what exactly is “virtue” if everyone is a grubby little human being, after all?

And looking at the state of the world at the moment, it is not a good advert for the virtues of capitalism or the claim that the wealthy can or do provide the means for ensuring health, stability, security and a habitable planet. The wealthy atm seem more intent on denying or ignoring climate change and encouraging harmful behaviours, because those behaviours are the most profitable (to them). There is little profit in thoughtfulness, kindness or self-sacrifice, after all. So we are really all being advised to be selfish and self-centred on the basis of a false promise that this is better for us in the long run, rather than a different way of suffering.

@TizerorFizz As it happens I haven’t flown for 6 years, have an electric car and don’t use gas or oil to heat my home.

These choices unfortunately aren’t available to all as they are often pricey upfront even if they have reduced running costs. Again society can choose how to support transition to a green economy. And I’ve met plenty of plumbers and builders working on installing green technology.

I’m not any more perfect than anyone else but do believe that society as a whole has choices as to how wealth is generated and distributed. Many Individuals can also make choices about who they work for and how they generate and spend their wealth but overall the regulatory frameworks society & government sets are critical.

As to charities - yes they are often dependent on philanthropic giving. The charities I’m involved with do consider carefully who they accept funds from. It’s tough and complex and there are few binary choices.

Life is complex - but getting back to the thread being a teacher in my view remains a highly good use of a good university degree. Doesn’t mean being in finance is bad, nor is being a lawyer but let’s not put bright graduates off public service roles.

If you can bring in a sporting analogy, if you had the abolition Messi, would you join a non league club for £10K a year or a sporting giant for £400K per week? I understand you can't immediately compare academics to sport but here must be some parallels. A fantastic player with huge ability knows their own worth and aims for the according sporting status and salary. To some extent it's human nature.

This brings me to Oxbridge grads and let's say more altruistic career choices. It may seem the the virtuous choice at the time, and let's face it going people are more idealistic and less cynical than their elderly counterparts, but does that sense of virtue last as the financial realities of life but in a capitalist society?

I

I recall an Oxbridge educated elderly tutor of mine at university who held the rank of senior lecturer (not professor) back in the 90s who would moan about his pay during tutorials and advised our group to go for the money and gave examples of his illustrious and wealthy Oxbridge peers who did just that. Obviously his behaviour wasnt entirely professional but the words did stick.

Sorry for the typos

@JujaI think we agreed that teaching is definitely something grads can consider. The ones in the article didn’t have subjects that immediately transferred to teaching. From what I see, only the weakthyish have the funds to be green. We are not stopping flying but are pretty green otherwise but the cost was huge!

@mids2019 people with money can afford to be virtuous and don’t need to worry about housing and costs of raising dc. Others do. It also depends where you choose to live and what you want out of life. It’s much easier to live on a teachers wage in some parts of the North. London areas it’s much more of a challenge. I agree with you about sports professionals. They negotiate for the highest wage. They aren’t thinking about helping Oxford United!

I know two new teachers in London and their salaries are good. One is a chem teacher and with London weighting is on 39k already. I am sure she will move through the ranks pretty quickly too. Currently in a house share and paying under 1k a month so seems fine.

@Newgirls - that's fine until she wants to get on the housing ladder and or start a family. Her options then will be a) marry a banker, b) change career or c) move out of London. Unless she is independently wealthy of course.

A) or become a head teacher and live her own life?

Or do a Dr Frost (ex Oxbridge, left investment banking to teach instead), do something unique with it & become a millionnaire. There are many ex-teachers who have become ed-tech entrepreneurs, and many more who make a tidy packet from tutoring alongside or instead of a teaching day job.

Or just love the day to day job of sharing the excitement of knowledge and the love of learning with (usually) inquisitive young minds.

Oxbridge students tend to love learning. It's not remotely odd that many of them stay in education for ever, like a comfort blanket.

Yep, one of the ex-Oxbridge teachers at my DC's (selective) sixth form is the UCAS Coordinator and clearly loves the challenge of competing with the private sector on getting as many students into Oxbridge as possible. He is also a very enthusiastic Head of House, as well as a well regarded teacher of his subject. He's clearly in it for the love of the job.

There are a few oxbridge teachers at my dd outstanding state school - all brilliant and very well regarded by parents and students

@CautiousLurker01 can you expand on the political comment re Cambridge .

@Newgirls Even a head teacher in London will struggle to buy a house in some areas without a high earning partner! They might earn more in London but they often cannot afford to live there.

I think there is something strange about a society where influencers earn millions and yet we expect the most intelligent young people in society to accept jobs where your only hope of earning any where near 100K per year is to become a head of a joint academy trust perhaps in their mid 40s.

is there a socialist theme of Oxbridge and other RG grads 'seeking their souls' if they have the grubby expectation of lots of cash? Do we expect intelligent people to be less materialistic due to the breadth and depth of their education?

I think this question does have a beating in the initial post as obviously all the graduates can find jobs; it's whether the right jobs are there.

@mids2019 but they are not "the most intelligent young people in society". They are academically intelligent, and they were fortunate to be selected for highly selective universities where they have been very well educated, but that doesn't automatically make them more employable than other highly academically and/or emotionally intelligent young people who have followed different paths.

I'm not sure why you're having a pop at academies. Given that 80% of English state secondaries are now academies, most British Oxbridge grads will have been educated at either academies or private schools, so are unlikely to have political biases against them. Even if they do, then headteachers at large LA maintained schools can also earn £100k+ and/or go into LA-level education leadership if they wish.

@truztyI didn’t read it as a pop. I read it as an employment possibility. Heads of the grammar academies here earn in excess of £100,000 and have done for years. Working for a MAT will provide far in excess of that if CEO for example. However it’s few that rise to this level. Again though, if you live in low cost housing areas teaching can be very attractive.

I agree though that being academic doesn’t necessarily make you good at paid employment.

I can understand what he was saying but I don't think you need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We want and need divergent thinkers in the country. I'm not sure it is necessarily the teaching method that is the problem. More the ego that can arise by promoting the idea students at Oxbridge have the best brains in the country (not dissimilar to medics and the doctors who develop a god complex)

I'm sure there are plenty of Oxbridge graduates who are capable of working out when and where it is appropriate to be agreeable and when to defend their position. Plus there are plenty of graduates with egos from other universities who use an overly arrogant and defensive approach in job interviews. Sometimes it gets them the job! I had a civil service interview in the 90s when I was grilled and needed to defend my position.

Getting Oxbridge graduates into teaching is important for Oxbridge as then they promote it to the next generation. However, plenty of really very bright youngsters do not necessarily like the courses offered at Oxford or Cambridge and prefer courses at other unis, especially internationally now. If you are a 4 A star student then the world is your oyster and there are scholarships available in other countries too, often with excellent job prospects. So I do not think Oxbridge are just competing with UK unis, even for British students. That ship has sailed. Especially on the tech front.