![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aniccaThe government has decided that 1.7 million more youngsters need to be taking degrees and apprenticeships.
Obviously this ignores the fact that thousands of students are still without their student loans but that's hardly the government's fault because student loans were semiquangoed 20 years ago and most people don't realise the student loans company is a non-departmental public body. The People Who Own You would be obliged if you also ignore the Thatcheresque unemployment we're currently enjoying and in return I won't emphasise the obvious asymmetric class war manifest in this nonsensica.
Rather than shepherding more students into higher education to improve their skills, perhaps we could instead concentrate on ensuring that every child can read, write and do sums by the time they leave school. Obviously critical thinking and problem solving skills would be a bonus but then they'd stop buying consumer electronics on credit and would grow up to be freethinking anarchists. Uncivilization would crumble and the human race would begin to evolve. This is clearly not going to get Peter Mandelson on the board of a multinational banking conglomerate.
How does a 3 year bachelor of media studies degree add value to the recipient, or the economy at large? With very few exceptions, virtually nobody uses their degree, because their degree has virtually no utility. So why is it essential that more people have them?
These are not idle questions, they require answers, answers which cannot be supplied. We are therefore required to restate as fact. The vast majority of degrees do not add value to their recipients or the economy. Quite the opposite, since around 6.5 to 8% of the working life is wasted in lecture theatres, tutorials and bed.
More and more people are being funnelled into higher education, many studying useless subjects simply to have a degree in something, anything, on the understanding that it will ensure them a better paid job in the end. As a consequence of this, either (i) more graduate jobs need to be created as a percentage of all jobs or (ii) graduates must fill nongraduate jobs.
Were we to pursue the former alternative, creating more graduate jobs as a percentage of all jobs, the economy would crash into the sea almost overnight. Every white shirt means one less blue shirt doing actual work. The value of a commodity is the value of the raw materials plus the value of the work necessary to transform the raw materials into the commodity. The carpenter takes the wood and turns it into a table.
But instead of having six carpenters we have five carpenters and one manager. Instead of having five carpenters and one manager we have four carpenters, one manager and one director of sales. Then three carpenters one manager, one assistant manager and one director of sales. Two carpenters, one manager, one assistant manager, one director of sales and one product development analyst. One carpenter, one manager, one assistant manager, one director of sales, one product development analyst, one media events coordinator, one strategy consultant and no carpenters.
At the end of the day, all we've done is turn wood into tables. Except we haven't, because we have no carpenters.
Since there is obviously a graduate saturation point, graduates will have to occupy nongraduate jobs. As this has been happening for some time, it appears we reached the saturation point long ago and the last thing we need is more graduates. Many jobs that clearly do not require a bachelor of media studies to discharge them have been rebranded. Because we have an excess of graduates, employers now seek graduates for increasingly minor roles. The same calibre of employee is taken on as would always have been taken on, except now he has a degree. He does the same work he would always have done, except now he has a degree. If we pay him more for the same work because he has a degree, then we are losing money because we are paying more for the work than it is worth. If we pay him the same as we would have done anyway his degree is wasted, and we are again losing money because 3 manyears of potential productivity has been squandered.
So why does the government, every government, want more people to go to university?
Debt.
In part 2, professor mikey will examine the dichotomy of students being required to pay for their education when their education is supposed to benefit everyone; why student debt is essential to ensuring young people are invested in the capitalist system; and where money actually comes from.
Obviously this ignores the fact that thousands of students are still without their student loans but that's hardly the government's fault because student loans were semiquangoed 20 years ago and most people don't realise the student loans company is a non-departmental public body. The People Who Own You would be obliged if you also ignore the Thatcheresque unemployment we're currently enjoying and in return I won't emphasise the obvious asymmetric class war manifest in this nonsensica.
Rather than shepherding more students into higher education to improve their skills, perhaps we could instead concentrate on ensuring that every child can read, write and do sums by the time they leave school. Obviously critical thinking and problem solving skills would be a bonus but then they'd stop buying consumer electronics on credit and would grow up to be freethinking anarchists. Uncivilization would crumble and the human race would begin to evolve. This is clearly not going to get Peter Mandelson on the board of a multinational banking conglomerate.
How does a 3 year bachelor of media studies degree add value to the recipient, or the economy at large? With very few exceptions, virtually nobody uses their degree, because their degree has virtually no utility. So why is it essential that more people have them?
These are not idle questions, they require answers, answers which cannot be supplied. We are therefore required to restate as fact. The vast majority of degrees do not add value to their recipients or the economy. Quite the opposite, since around 6.5 to 8% of the working life is wasted in lecture theatres, tutorials and bed.
More and more people are being funnelled into higher education, many studying useless subjects simply to have a degree in something, anything, on the understanding that it will ensure them a better paid job in the end. As a consequence of this, either (i) more graduate jobs need to be created as a percentage of all jobs or (ii) graduates must fill nongraduate jobs.
Were we to pursue the former alternative, creating more graduate jobs as a percentage of all jobs, the economy would crash into the sea almost overnight. Every white shirt means one less blue shirt doing actual work. The value of a commodity is the value of the raw materials plus the value of the work necessary to transform the raw materials into the commodity. The carpenter takes the wood and turns it into a table.
But instead of having six carpenters we have five carpenters and one manager. Instead of having five carpenters and one manager we have four carpenters, one manager and one director of sales. Then three carpenters one manager, one assistant manager and one director of sales. Two carpenters, one manager, one assistant manager, one director of sales and one product development analyst. One carpenter, one manager, one assistant manager, one director of sales, one product development analyst, one media events coordinator, one strategy consultant and no carpenters.
At the end of the day, all we've done is turn wood into tables. Except we haven't, because we have no carpenters.
Since there is obviously a graduate saturation point, graduates will have to occupy nongraduate jobs. As this has been happening for some time, it appears we reached the saturation point long ago and the last thing we need is more graduates. Many jobs that clearly do not require a bachelor of media studies to discharge them have been rebranded. Because we have an excess of graduates, employers now seek graduates for increasingly minor roles. The same calibre of employee is taken on as would always have been taken on, except now he has a degree. He does the same work he would always have done, except now he has a degree. If we pay him more for the same work because he has a degree, then we are losing money because we are paying more for the work than it is worth. If we pay him the same as we would have done anyway his degree is wasted, and we are again losing money because 3 manyears of potential productivity has been squandered.
So why does the government, every government, want more people to go to university?
Debt.
In part 2, professor mikey will examine the dichotomy of students being required to pay for their education when their education is supposed to benefit everyone; why student debt is essential to ensuring young people are invested in the capitalist system; and where money actually comes from.
