This first appeared in the University of Sussex student newspaper The Badger, under a pseudonym. I wrote it back in early March, but most of the points still apply! :-)
With the Opening ceremony for the London 2012 games now only a mere 15 months away, the time is coming for everyone to decide what tickets to apply for. With thirty three sports to choose from, spread out over seventeen days and across venues up and down the country, the choice is overwhelming. However, with this guide, I’m going to try and lend a little helping hand. First off, I’ll run through the ins and outs of tickets, and then I’ll run through some of my recommendations for sports you might not otherwise choose…
In terms of tickets, there are a couple of factors on your side. First off, you’ve got time to plan; ticket applications open on March 15th (via http://www.tickets.london2012.com), and close on April 26th, and there will be no bias towards those applying early; giving you well over a month to decide what you want to see. The tickets are distributed in a ballot, so you can’t be assured of seeing exactly what you want to see, but there are no limits to the amount you can apply for, you will be expected to pay for them though if they’re allocated to you, so don’t over-stretch yourself! In terms of pricing, it obviously varies depending on the session you’re watching; a front-row seat for the men’s 100m is going to cost a fair whack more than the first session of the boxing! But tickets range from £20 upwards, and you don’t want to rule out the early sessions as having no less drama; you’ll be able to catch many of the star names for much cheaper than if you attended the evening sessions, and whatever happens you’ll be guaranteed to see some top class sport. So, with these factors strongly on our side, here are some of my suggestions for sports and sessions to keep an eye-out for; the events that might just have flown under your radar…
If you’re looking for fast-paced, frenetic, heart-in-your-mouth type sport, look no further than Badminton and Table-Tennis. I’m sure at some point you’ve played these games casually, but witnessed live and at the highest level they are very different prospects than those you’d find in your back garden. Badminton is regarded as the world’s fastest ball sport (that a shuttlecock is not really a ball is a moot point!), the record for the speed of a shuttlecock is 206mph, faster than Eurostar. But because the shuttle slows down so much in the air, all the power that goes into striking it creates a contradiction in terms; you will see both power and delicacy of touch, as each player tries to manoeuvre their opponent around the court. The pace at which it is played would strike fear into the hearts of casual players! In much the same way, Table-Tennis is a very different prospect to the game you know; until you have witnessed a Chinese-Swedish doubles match, with the Chinese 10 metres back behind the table (I’m not making that up) and the Swedish hammering the ball back at them faster than the eye can see, you have not experienced table tennis at its finest. I urge you to go along to either of these events, almost all the sessions barring the medal matches have seats for £20, and every point will justify the meagre investment!
I have two other recommendations for sports which you may miss, gymnastics and diving. These two sports are similar and different, different in that one takes place in a pool and jumping backwards off a 10m board, while the other takes place in what is effectively a giant school hall; and the same in that they are both about the pursuit of beauty and physical perfection. Watching Daniel Keatings perform on the Pommel Horse is similar to watching Tom Daley execute a back two-and-a-half somersault with a two-and-a-half twist; both are striving for physical perfection, using muscles and athleticism which we can only imagine, and using all of these skills to (hopefully) become Olympic champions. These kinds of sport are different to the others; they are about beauty. In many of the other sports at the Olympics the goal is to defeat the other competitors through any which way; here the only way to win is through being better than perfect, through being purely aesthetically better than your opponents, and this provides a very different kind of drama to gymnastics and diving. Not one of cut-throat, never-say-die attitude. But overwhelming tension where one mistake will ruin an athlete’s career, and one routine can fulfil the athlete’s quest for perfection. I urge you to see this remarkable spectacle for yourself.
I’ve only scratched the surface of the sport which will be on display at the XXX Olympiad. I haven’t covered the sheer power and ferocity of cycling, the iron will and abs of steel needed for canoeing and kayaking, the physical strength and the willingness to give every last fibre of your being in rowing, or the many varied sports of Athletics, where you will see a cross-section of great athlete’s ranging for Usain Bolt in the 100m to Jess Ennis in the Heptathlon. This is Britain’s first Olympics since 1948, it may well be the only one in our lifetime. Even for those of you who don’t enjoy sport, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to witness sporting brilliance in our own backyard, don’t let that chance slip through your fingers.
Wednesday 6 April 2011
Thursday 9 December 2010
Tuition Free?
The big day is here; despite student protests unseen in this country for nigh on four decades, Government (and in particular Lib Dem) fears of a revolt by backbenchers and cabinet ministers alike, Parliament votes today on a motion to triple the cap on tuition fees from £3,000 to £9,000 (give or take a few pounds), and the bill is almost certain to be passed. The issues surrounding tuition fees have been covered far better in other places by more intelligent people than I, but I’m going to give you my take on this, a graduate with little else to do.
So what does the tuition fees row boil down to? It comes down, as ultimately all things do, to money, and where it is going to come from. Even at the current system of £3,000, the government heavily subsidises each university course, especially in the sciences where equipment in labs (for example) drives up the actual cost of the degree, and ensures the government has to pay a lot more than the £3,000 each student contributes. The actual cost of a degree is more closely related to the fees a foreign student would pay, which is a substantial amount more than the £3,000. Therefore, the government has taken the decision, at a time of huge austerity cuts, to channel more money into earlier-years education, and to provide less of a subsidy to higher education. To make up for the shortfall the government is giving universities the ability to charge substantially higher fees. The logic makes sense, given the huge financial rewards that can be offer from a university degree; surely the student should make a greater contribution towards the cost of his/her education? While this is a particularly bitter pill to swallow; £9,000 worth of debt is paltry compared to a potential £27,000 worth of debt, realistically this had to happen at some point; the cycle began when Tony Blair ended the huge government subsidies in 2004 and introduced tuition fees, it was accepted then that they would have to go up, it just so happens he left it to his coalition successors. There are some advantages to this system, as I will outline at the end, but here I will look at the student protests, and my take on what they are doing wrong.
It is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight these protests would be inevitable; having been at Sussex University for the past three years, the student protest culture has been festering, and all it needed was something like this for it to explode into an even more extensive nationwide movement. What does irritate me about these protests however is twofold, that many of the protestors central argument is that “these Tory ministers got into Oxbridge free; all we’re asking for is our god-given right to go to University for free and enjoy everything that you all had,” This frustrates me because it not only ignores simple political realities; not only do cuts HAVE to be made, this has been in the pipeline for years and for the good of the country university funding needs to move more into the hands of the students. Additionally, the two situations are not comparable, the fundamental structure of the country has changed, it is like comparing apples and oranges, Xbox’s and Playstation’s, while they share common characteristics, they are very different beasts. The protestors provide no alternatives to where the money will come from, apart from the government, which cannot afford it.
I would also like to point out I have no issues with peaceful protest, even if I do disagree with the motives behind the protest. Everyone has a right to express their opinions in a calm and measured way, and especially in this issue reasoned debate can only help. What I will not condone is the way students behaved both at Millbank and their attack on a police riot van. I also refuse to condone the kettling of students at the subsequent protests. The problem was that because of the way students behaved at Millbank that the police had to be aggressive in subsequent protests in order to prove that something like that could not happen again. It is easy to forget that if that fire extinguisher had been a foot to the left or right we would have lost the life of a police officer. And then we would be dealing with a hugely different set of circumstances. As bizarre as it may sound, I would recommend watching the final episode of the Channel 4 Documentary, Coppers (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/coppers/4od), which deals well with the pressures police are under during riots.
My other major issue is with the President of the NUS, Aaron Porter. Forgive me if I have a personal vent here. I have fundamental issues with the NUS to begin with, at no point in my three years at University did I consider it to have considered my viewpoints and to have represented me, apart from the numerous times I used it to go and see films and to get an extra quid off going into clubs, I might as well have not known it existed. But I have a peculiar grievance with Aaron Porter, he is effectively being groomed to become a Labour MP at the next election; he is a paid up member of the Labour party and makes no bones about this, that he is proclaiming to represent the views of all students angers me. He does not represent me. He is a career politician attempting to claim credit for something he did not organise. The career politician thing frustrates me equally, in an interview in the Times today he proclaimed that after he leaves the NUS, he wants to get a “proper job,” on asked on what his definition of a proper job is, he replied, “I would love to head a think-tank.” THAT ISN’T A PROPER JOB! THAT IS A POLITICIANS IN WAITING’S JOB! That he proclaims to represent all students is a fallacy/ That he now considers himself head of the movement against tuition fees, despite that he did not do any of the initial organisation, or indeed organise today’s protest (organised by The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts) smacks to me of a man trying to make a name for himself, not as someone who is fighting in students best interests.
Finally, let me point out the possible positive points of increasing the cap, if implemented correctly. If all universities charge a blanket £9,000, then obviously this will not work. What the cap should be encouraged to provide is a market for degrees, each course should be charged at the rate it is worth. Let me give an example, Oxford is currently top of the The Complete University Guide’s ranking for politics, therefore the cost of its course would be justified in being at the top of the cap, you are paying for a truly work-class education which will put you at the top of recruitment lists when you leave university. If however you go down the table to Greenwich at the bottom, the value of the course is significantly less, therefore the cost should be significantly less. (http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=8727). By creating this market it should solve the issue of over-saturation in the university marketplace; the Labour government’s target of 50% of the population was both unrealistic and foolish, not only has it increased the amount of subsidy going to universities, it has also increased the number of “Mickey-Mouse,” courses which do not provide any real benefit to society. The extra money which students will be paying should also enable students to be able to demand more value for money, as in the American system. They will now be able to demand more contact hours, better email contact (a frequent problem at Sussex!), a better quality of lectures and more extensive feedback on coursework. When lecturers have to justify the larger fees being paid by students, the quality of education must improve.
This is my take on the tuition fees row. Obviously, feel free to agree or disagree; everyone I know feels strongly about this one way or another. I’ve also written this incredibly quickly this morning to get it out before the vote (1,400 words in an hour and a half, who said writing dissertations was hard!), so any errors let me know and I’ll correct them. Also, the flow isn’t brilliant by time pressures don’t help! Thanks for reading.
So what does the tuition fees row boil down to? It comes down, as ultimately all things do, to money, and where it is going to come from. Even at the current system of £3,000, the government heavily subsidises each university course, especially in the sciences where equipment in labs (for example) drives up the actual cost of the degree, and ensures the government has to pay a lot more than the £3,000 each student contributes. The actual cost of a degree is more closely related to the fees a foreign student would pay, which is a substantial amount more than the £3,000. Therefore, the government has taken the decision, at a time of huge austerity cuts, to channel more money into earlier-years education, and to provide less of a subsidy to higher education. To make up for the shortfall the government is giving universities the ability to charge substantially higher fees. The logic makes sense, given the huge financial rewards that can be offer from a university degree; surely the student should make a greater contribution towards the cost of his/her education? While this is a particularly bitter pill to swallow; £9,000 worth of debt is paltry compared to a potential £27,000 worth of debt, realistically this had to happen at some point; the cycle began when Tony Blair ended the huge government subsidies in 2004 and introduced tuition fees, it was accepted then that they would have to go up, it just so happens he left it to his coalition successors. There are some advantages to this system, as I will outline at the end, but here I will look at the student protests, and my take on what they are doing wrong.
It is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight these protests would be inevitable; having been at Sussex University for the past three years, the student protest culture has been festering, and all it needed was something like this for it to explode into an even more extensive nationwide movement. What does irritate me about these protests however is twofold, that many of the protestors central argument is that “these Tory ministers got into Oxbridge free; all we’re asking for is our god-given right to go to University for free and enjoy everything that you all had,” This frustrates me because it not only ignores simple political realities; not only do cuts HAVE to be made, this has been in the pipeline for years and for the good of the country university funding needs to move more into the hands of the students. Additionally, the two situations are not comparable, the fundamental structure of the country has changed, it is like comparing apples and oranges, Xbox’s and Playstation’s, while they share common characteristics, they are very different beasts. The protestors provide no alternatives to where the money will come from, apart from the government, which cannot afford it.
I would also like to point out I have no issues with peaceful protest, even if I do disagree with the motives behind the protest. Everyone has a right to express their opinions in a calm and measured way, and especially in this issue reasoned debate can only help. What I will not condone is the way students behaved both at Millbank and their attack on a police riot van. I also refuse to condone the kettling of students at the subsequent protests. The problem was that because of the way students behaved at Millbank that the police had to be aggressive in subsequent protests in order to prove that something like that could not happen again. It is easy to forget that if that fire extinguisher had been a foot to the left or right we would have lost the life of a police officer. And then we would be dealing with a hugely different set of circumstances. As bizarre as it may sound, I would recommend watching the final episode of the Channel 4 Documentary, Coppers (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/coppers/4od), which deals well with the pressures police are under during riots.
My other major issue is with the President of the NUS, Aaron Porter. Forgive me if I have a personal vent here. I have fundamental issues with the NUS to begin with, at no point in my three years at University did I consider it to have considered my viewpoints and to have represented me, apart from the numerous times I used it to go and see films and to get an extra quid off going into clubs, I might as well have not known it existed. But I have a peculiar grievance with Aaron Porter, he is effectively being groomed to become a Labour MP at the next election; he is a paid up member of the Labour party and makes no bones about this, that he is proclaiming to represent the views of all students angers me. He does not represent me. He is a career politician attempting to claim credit for something he did not organise. The career politician thing frustrates me equally, in an interview in the Times today he proclaimed that after he leaves the NUS, he wants to get a “proper job,” on asked on what his definition of a proper job is, he replied, “I would love to head a think-tank.” THAT ISN’T A PROPER JOB! THAT IS A POLITICIANS IN WAITING’S JOB! That he proclaims to represent all students is a fallacy/ That he now considers himself head of the movement against tuition fees, despite that he did not do any of the initial organisation, or indeed organise today’s protest (organised by The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts) smacks to me of a man trying to make a name for himself, not as someone who is fighting in students best interests.
Finally, let me point out the possible positive points of increasing the cap, if implemented correctly. If all universities charge a blanket £9,000, then obviously this will not work. What the cap should be encouraged to provide is a market for degrees, each course should be charged at the rate it is worth. Let me give an example, Oxford is currently top of the The Complete University Guide’s ranking for politics, therefore the cost of its course would be justified in being at the top of the cap, you are paying for a truly work-class education which will put you at the top of recruitment lists when you leave university. If however you go down the table to Greenwich at the bottom, the value of the course is significantly less, therefore the cost should be significantly less. (http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=8727). By creating this market it should solve the issue of over-saturation in the university marketplace; the Labour government’s target of 50% of the population was both unrealistic and foolish, not only has it increased the amount of subsidy going to universities, it has also increased the number of “Mickey-Mouse,” courses which do not provide any real benefit to society. The extra money which students will be paying should also enable students to be able to demand more value for money, as in the American system. They will now be able to demand more contact hours, better email contact (a frequent problem at Sussex!), a better quality of lectures and more extensive feedback on coursework. When lecturers have to justify the larger fees being paid by students, the quality of education must improve.
This is my take on the tuition fees row. Obviously, feel free to agree or disagree; everyone I know feels strongly about this one way or another. I’ve also written this incredibly quickly this morning to get it out before the vote (1,400 words in an hour and a half, who said writing dissertations was hard!), so any errors let me know and I’ll correct them. Also, the flow isn’t brilliant by time pressures don’t help! Thanks for reading.
Wednesday 13 October 2010
Once a Bachelor, soon to be a Master?
You’ve just finished the best three years of your life, and the oncoming spectre of the real world and the job market begins to loom into view. Who wouldn’t take the opportunity to prolong those three years, and to put off the rest of your life for a little longer? What would appear to be the best way to do this is to do a master’s degree; spend an extra year at university, keep getting drunk pretty much when you feel like it, eating Doritos with that slightly spicy dip so you feel like you’ve achieved, and watching crappy movies. What could be better? Well, actually, a lot of things. The downsides, while not immediately obvious, are significant; namely the huge cost of the additional degree, and whether they actually improve your job prospects long term. Not to mention that they are not an extra year at University in the Undergraduate sense; they are more like a first year at work, with the added pressures of homework and no money coming into the bank.
On first glance, the advantages seem obvious; a slightly harder version of 3rd year, a touch more work, an extra year out of the job market, an extra year living with friends from University, and an extra two or three letters at the end of your name which, should, dramatically increase your job prospects. The first hurdle which will immediately hit you however is the cost of the course. They can range anywhere from £4,700 (at my old University, Sussex) to over £20,000 for some courses at LSE and you are expected to fund these yourself. There are some funding options which can make these more palatable, but these are few and far between; some Masters can be funded by companies on the condition of a job and a minimum contract, and there are a certain number of grants which are available, but, as you can imagine, these are both incredibly competitive and few and far between. Therefore, the most likely option is to get a bank loan at a normal rate of interest, far from ideal. Add in living costs, as there is no longer a maintenance grant safety net, then the whole idea begins to look less rosy. I know of one example who works a 20 hour week on top of their studies to earn enough money for rent and living costs. It would appear a part-time job is an absolute necessity for anyone studying a Master’s programme.
Whether a Master’s improves one’s job prospects is another issue. This often depends on the type of career you intend to go into, and whether work experience would be more valued higher than a Master’s degree in the relevant subject. I hate to use the example of my brothers again, but they for once provide a vaguely interesting case study. Both are in marketing (in admittedly different roles); one has a Master’s degree in it, the other does not, having instead opted to try a different career path before ultimately deciding on marketing. The one who does (and apologies to him if I’m misquoting, he’s abroad and I can’t check) has said that although his degree probably helped him get his foot in the door, in reality he’d have much preferred to have an extra years direct marketing experience, and be that one year higher in the company. My other brother, who does not have the Master’s degree in the subject, has not been adversely disadvantaged by his lack of marketing theory, if anything he has had to learn it more on the job and had to constantly keep on his toes to keep up with his more experienced colleagues.
The point I’m trying to make clear here is that a Master’s degree is not the proverbial yellow brick road to fulfil your job ambitions; Master’s degrees primary purpose is to prepare a student for PhD work, not to get them a job at the end of it. In some cases this does not apply, look for example at science courses; if you wish to be a scientist, postgraduate education is a necessity, while this also applies other sectors, such as teaching and law. However, for a number of sectors, such as journalism, marketing, activism, politics, accountancy; it is almost certainly better to get a job and learn from the ground up while obtaining the real world knowledge which cannot be learnt in a seminar room.
Master’s degrees do have a purpose. I’m not saying they don’t. However in many cases the logic which seems to be used as reasons for doing them is flawed. A Master’s degree can be a perfect way to broaden your knowledge of a subject and to increase your job prospects; but they are not for everyone. Take into account of the cost and whether it will actually help you in the long term. Who knows. You might save yourself £20,000 worth of debt.
On first glance, the advantages seem obvious; a slightly harder version of 3rd year, a touch more work, an extra year out of the job market, an extra year living with friends from University, and an extra two or three letters at the end of your name which, should, dramatically increase your job prospects. The first hurdle which will immediately hit you however is the cost of the course. They can range anywhere from £4,700 (at my old University, Sussex) to over £20,000 for some courses at LSE and you are expected to fund these yourself. There are some funding options which can make these more palatable, but these are few and far between; some Masters can be funded by companies on the condition of a job and a minimum contract, and there are a certain number of grants which are available, but, as you can imagine, these are both incredibly competitive and few and far between. Therefore, the most likely option is to get a bank loan at a normal rate of interest, far from ideal. Add in living costs, as there is no longer a maintenance grant safety net, then the whole idea begins to look less rosy. I know of one example who works a 20 hour week on top of their studies to earn enough money for rent and living costs. It would appear a part-time job is an absolute necessity for anyone studying a Master’s programme.
Whether a Master’s improves one’s job prospects is another issue. This often depends on the type of career you intend to go into, and whether work experience would be more valued higher than a Master’s degree in the relevant subject. I hate to use the example of my brothers again, but they for once provide a vaguely interesting case study. Both are in marketing (in admittedly different roles); one has a Master’s degree in it, the other does not, having instead opted to try a different career path before ultimately deciding on marketing. The one who does (and apologies to him if I’m misquoting, he’s abroad and I can’t check) has said that although his degree probably helped him get his foot in the door, in reality he’d have much preferred to have an extra years direct marketing experience, and be that one year higher in the company. My other brother, who does not have the Master’s degree in the subject, has not been adversely disadvantaged by his lack of marketing theory, if anything he has had to learn it more on the job and had to constantly keep on his toes to keep up with his more experienced colleagues.
The point I’m trying to make clear here is that a Master’s degree is not the proverbial yellow brick road to fulfil your job ambitions; Master’s degrees primary purpose is to prepare a student for PhD work, not to get them a job at the end of it. In some cases this does not apply, look for example at science courses; if you wish to be a scientist, postgraduate education is a necessity, while this also applies other sectors, such as teaching and law. However, for a number of sectors, such as journalism, marketing, activism, politics, accountancy; it is almost certainly better to get a job and learn from the ground up while obtaining the real world knowledge which cannot be learnt in a seminar room.
Master’s degrees do have a purpose. I’m not saying they don’t. However in many cases the logic which seems to be used as reasons for doing them is flawed. A Master’s degree can be a perfect way to broaden your knowledge of a subject and to increase your job prospects; but they are not for everyone. Take into account of the cost and whether it will actually help you in the long term. Who knows. You might save yourself £20,000 worth of debt.
Monday 20 September 2010
Interns, Sminterns
I’m lucky.
One of my mother’s best friends happens to be the editor of a national magazine, so, primarily down to begging I am currently in the middle of a two-week stint as an intern. In fact, it was only meant to last a week, but they’ve asked me to come back and do some stuff for their Christmas section online, so a week’s “helping out the son of a friend,” has suddenly turned into a two week placement, something which is far more useful on a CV.
However, I’m lucky.
This is definitely not the norm in the world of work. Sure, there are unpaid internships advertised, which should, in theory, lead to you getting the experience which will enable you to obtain a paid job in your chosen area of expertise. Getting one of these however is rather more difficult. Not only is there the huge element of competition, but also those crucial six letters “unpaid,” which immediately throws the proverbial spanner into the works. Graduates simply cannot work for free.
You can split graduates roughly into two categories, those who have moved back to the family home, and those who are living independently. For those living at home, unpaid internships can be doable given parental support (that’s how I’m surviving); no rent, bills, or high living costs, but for those who are not living at home, a lack of money entering the bank is simply impossible. On top of rent, bills and living costs some internships do not provide for travel costs; which, depending on where you live (London commuters know what I’m talking about), can make an internship financially impossible. My peak-time all zone travel card cost me £48 last week, a huge chunk of money for a graduate working for free. Luckily (I’m lucky after all) my travel costs are covered by my company. For those that aren’t as lucky as me however, this is a horrible situation. For a lot of graduates, there is financially no way that they can take on an internship, leading them into the perpetual catch-22 situation; I don’t have any experience to get a job, but I can’t get a job to get the experience.
The length and type of internship can also be an issue. I currently have a friend who is on a year-long unpaid internship (with travel expenses) at a major Opera company, and hopefully, by the end of that year they will have obtained enough experience to be able to apply for a paying job within that company. However, the reason that they are able to survive on this internship, is through the support of their parent’s; by helping out with rent and bills. Even working an extra job on a freelance basis is not enough to allow a graduate to survive unaided, as this person is doing, on top of parental support.
As well as the financial impact long unpaid internships can have on an individual, there is also no guarantee of a job at the end of it. My parents tell the story of a friend of the family who, having left university, started a nine-month internship at a recording studio, unpaid, with no expenses. At the end of that nine-month period he was not offered a job, and was simply sent on his way. He had worked for nine months, completely free of charge, and were able to get rid of him because they were well aware that there were plenty of other people who would happily work for free, as opposed to someone who had the experience and now needed a financial incentive to both stay with the business, and survive.
Some would argue that the blame can be shifted on us (graduates); that we should have been gathering this work experience during our summer holidays. However to that argument I would immediately counter it that many graduates had to spend their summers earning money to pay their bills for their student houses, negating the “golden,” opportunity they have supposedly missed. Students are just like anyone else who don’t work; terminally short of cash.
Internships can be an immensely useful tool. However, the financial issues which plague them make them impossible for many graduates, especially those who do not live at home and are having to provide their own living expenses. As for me, I’m actually not sure how to describe them. I want to call them a necessary evil. But I’m not sure about the necessary bit.
P.S. A big thanks to Emma Black for showing me this viedo, it sums up my last post rather well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2TbQrkk-wk
One of my mother’s best friends happens to be the editor of a national magazine, so, primarily down to begging I am currently in the middle of a two-week stint as an intern. In fact, it was only meant to last a week, but they’ve asked me to come back and do some stuff for their Christmas section online, so a week’s “helping out the son of a friend,” has suddenly turned into a two week placement, something which is far more useful on a CV.
However, I’m lucky.
This is definitely not the norm in the world of work. Sure, there are unpaid internships advertised, which should, in theory, lead to you getting the experience which will enable you to obtain a paid job in your chosen area of expertise. Getting one of these however is rather more difficult. Not only is there the huge element of competition, but also those crucial six letters “unpaid,” which immediately throws the proverbial spanner into the works. Graduates simply cannot work for free.
You can split graduates roughly into two categories, those who have moved back to the family home, and those who are living independently. For those living at home, unpaid internships can be doable given parental support (that’s how I’m surviving); no rent, bills, or high living costs, but for those who are not living at home, a lack of money entering the bank is simply impossible. On top of rent, bills and living costs some internships do not provide for travel costs; which, depending on where you live (London commuters know what I’m talking about), can make an internship financially impossible. My peak-time all zone travel card cost me £48 last week, a huge chunk of money for a graduate working for free. Luckily (I’m lucky after all) my travel costs are covered by my company. For those that aren’t as lucky as me however, this is a horrible situation. For a lot of graduates, there is financially no way that they can take on an internship, leading them into the perpetual catch-22 situation; I don’t have any experience to get a job, but I can’t get a job to get the experience.
The length and type of internship can also be an issue. I currently have a friend who is on a year-long unpaid internship (with travel expenses) at a major Opera company, and hopefully, by the end of that year they will have obtained enough experience to be able to apply for a paying job within that company. However, the reason that they are able to survive on this internship, is through the support of their parent’s; by helping out with rent and bills. Even working an extra job on a freelance basis is not enough to allow a graduate to survive unaided, as this person is doing, on top of parental support.
As well as the financial impact long unpaid internships can have on an individual, there is also no guarantee of a job at the end of it. My parents tell the story of a friend of the family who, having left university, started a nine-month internship at a recording studio, unpaid, with no expenses. At the end of that nine-month period he was not offered a job, and was simply sent on his way. He had worked for nine months, completely free of charge, and were able to get rid of him because they were well aware that there were plenty of other people who would happily work for free, as opposed to someone who had the experience and now needed a financial incentive to both stay with the business, and survive.
Some would argue that the blame can be shifted on us (graduates); that we should have been gathering this work experience during our summer holidays. However to that argument I would immediately counter it that many graduates had to spend their summers earning money to pay their bills for their student houses, negating the “golden,” opportunity they have supposedly missed. Students are just like anyone else who don’t work; terminally short of cash.
Internships can be an immensely useful tool. However, the financial issues which plague them make them impossible for many graduates, especially those who do not live at home and are having to provide their own living expenses. As for me, I’m actually not sure how to describe them. I want to call them a necessary evil. But I’m not sure about the necessary bit.
P.S. A big thanks to Emma Black for showing me this viedo, it sums up my last post rather well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2TbQrkk-wk
Thursday 9 September 2010
The End of Crisp Choice
Graduation is one of those bitter-sweet moments in life. Bitter, because it’s the end of three years of drunken debauchery, lie in’s, next to no accountability, lie-in’s, and the only big decision that needs to be made is whether to go for McCoys or Walkers Cheese and Onion crisps. It’s sweet because it’s the end of university; this is the time when we finally get handed the keys to the real world, where we’re expected to go out and start changing the world, one day at a time. Of course, this is what is meant to happen. In September 2010, this no longer applies. No more was this drilled home to me than later that graduation night, where, as I like to think (hope?), all great decisions are made, the pub. I suppose a tiny amount of background is in order, because what’s an opening blog without it? I’m a 21 year old Politics graduate of Sussex university. Having left Sussex (and the broader city of Brighton), I now live back at home with my Mum and Dad in South-West London. I have two older brother (seven and nine years older respectively), both of whom are graduates of the University of Southampton, and who both work in marketing up in town. I’d like to think I was a fairly conventional student. I did my work around a schedule of parties, booze and telly. My house and I had a cat against the wishes of our tenants agreement. I went home every third or fourth weekend to have washing done and to eat decent food. In my three years I had barely mastered the art of scrambled eggs. Like I said, fairly typical student.
There were two events which took place that have truly informed my opinion of what it means to be a graduate in today’s day and age, the second being that graduation pub trip. The first occurred on results day, that tradition of arriving onto campus to find your degree result pinned to a notice board, for the rest of your classmates to see. See the photo in the top left of the page...
As you can see the majority are “Upper Seconds,” i.e. the magic 2:1. As the day developed, and I went to various other courses results parties, the other boards showed a broadly similar picture. As, later on, our extended group of friends sat outside the bar on campus with a jug of Pimm’s and a smile on our faces, it became obvious very quickly that everyone there had achieved a 2:1. Everyone. Out of a cross-section of about 15 people, spread over courses the range of the university, everyone had achieved the same result. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was the same. In fact, looking over all of my University acquaintances, I only would consider myself friends with one person who achieved a first. I only knew one person who had been awarded a 2:2. This struck me as odd.
The second event which shaped my thinking on graduates and their futures was that fateful graduation pub trip. What made it different from all the others, apart from that I wasn’t a student anymore, was that my brothers were there. It being a trip made immediately after graduation, and that my brothers like to mention I have no idea what I want to do with my life and am therefore a massive twat, the conversation turned to graduate jobs. My brothers, having graduated from their initial degrees in 2003 and 2004, were telling us how almost all of their friends had had jobs lined up for the immediate aftermath of University, ranging from Sky TV, to management consultancy, and, in my brothers case a year later after his Masters, accountancy. What they were shocked to find, and which I had not even realised, was that not one of my friends had a job lined up post-graduation. I should qualify that distinction; by that I mean a job in which you could expect to spend a number of years advancing slowly up the ladder, as opposed to, for example, working in a retail environment. Sure, I know several people who have lined up post-grad education, several are about to begin training for their PGCE, several are beginning Masters courses, and the individual who achieved a first is going onto Cambridge. But in terms of real-world jobs, there are very few out there.
Those are my initial thoughts on the fate of graduates from the class of 2010, and, if you hadn’t guessed from the title, that’s pretty much will be what this blog is going to be about. Those issues that face all of those who are entering the big, scary, world of work. And it’s not all going to be about jobs and what-not; it’s going to look issues such as moving back in with your parents, an event a lot of us are going to have to put up with as, especially in London, it becomes increasingly difficult to afford rent/ deposits (eventually!), and the sudden loss of independence, the trials of unpaid internships, and maybe even a bit of stuff about planning gap years as I try to run away from the job market we’ve entered into. And hopefully I’ll make it vaguely interesting. Hopefully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)