1.5m Unemployed with 1.2m Vacancies..?

[Ozzy]

There is a reported 1.5million unemployed at the moment, which we all know is highly likely to increase higher during this month and next now furlough has ended.
There is also a reported 1.2million job vacancies available, with employers most commonly referenced reason for the posts being hard to fill is lack of skills.

Simply math says there are enough people out of work to fill all the current vacancies, so why aren't they?

 

[fisicx]

Because they want to be influencers or youtubers.

 

[IanSuth]

Put simply there are not 1.2m job vacancies. If ABC ltd puts a a job on Indeed and also gives it to 3 agencies who also advertise it on Indeed, TotalJobs, Monster and / or CVLibrary, there are now 9 or 10 ads but still just 1 actual job (Check what they actually mean by 1.2 job vacancies, where are they measured)


Additionally

If that job demands 2 years experience of something and yet no one took on any trainees in that area in 2019 then it doesn't matter how much they advertise they can't magic expertise out of thin air

 

[IanSuth]

From the linked ONS page on the 1.2m estimated vacancies from the BBC story

The headline vacancy estimates are based on three-month averages, which naturally involve some time lag. Two experimental sources, single-month vacancy estimates (see Strengths and limitations), in Dataset x06, and Adzuna Online job advert estimates provide insight into trends in September 2021. The single-month vacancy estimates recorded almost 1.2 million in September 2021, which is a record high.

Adzuna is simply a web crawler which looks at job sites, it doesnt even begin to filter out duplicates and the harder it gets to find applicants the more likely a company (or agency) is to advertise in multiple places so there is a multiplier tied to the tightness of the employment market automatically built in. IN addition compared to a decade ago advertising for staff is incredibly cheap

Go back 20 years and you had to put an ad in your local paper that would cost you £500 and take a week to get you a response, now you can have an ad running on Indeed for free with 20 minutes, even a small recruitment agency can have a contract with a site like Totaljobs that gives them 50 adverts a month plus cv database access for £500 pcm, if you have 50 a month to use you will use them even if you write the same ad 3 different ways, rather than waste that slot

Using an example from another thread a sample search of telesales and Epsom in adzuna gives this (spot the duplicates) https://www.adzuna.co.uk/jobs/search?q=telesales&w=epsom

 

[gpietersz]

@IanSuth The numbers come from the ONS who use surveys of employers as well as counting online jobs.

High vacancies are consistent with unemployment having fallen (which it has).

A lot of employers are saying they are finding it hard to recruit.

Its mostly structural unemployment: skills do not match vacancies. I bet there are not many unemployed HGV drivers right now!

 

[Ozzy]

Because they want to be influencers or youtubers.

These people are not (or shouldn't be) unemployed though, they are just doing that as their chosen career. No different from being an theatre or TV actor, just the medium is YouTube rather than TV or a West End theatre. They "should" register self employed and start investing into their business just like any other business, but that is indeed a different conversation.

I interviewed a YouTuber for a careers video for education and he runs his business as a proper and legally registered sole trader with a marketing budget he spends on social media promotions, he also invests in his own merchandise, does promotional events and activities around the country, and does his accounts in Xero and has an accountant and tax adviser for his year ends. Just like anyone in the creatives industry, he has to dedicate a lot of time to his marketing and branding to keep himself current and relevant to his audience. The sort of thing you would expect any business owner to do.

A lot of employers are saying they are finding it hard to recruit.

That's the thing I've seen when sitting in discussions with Chambers and our LEP. Generally everyone is saying the same thing, need jobs but there are no skilled people available.
I have the complete opposite problem, we have jobs for programmers and there are plenty of them but all working for London FinTech's on eye watering salaries. So I guess, actually, there aren't any skilled available...

 

[Newchodge]

There is a reported 1.5million unemployed at the moment, which we all know is highly likely to increase higher during this month and next now furlough has ended.
There is also a reported 1.2million job vacancies available, with employers most commonly referenced reason for the posts being hard to fill is lack of skills.

Simply math says there are enough people out of work to fill all the current vacancies, so why aren't they?

You said it. lack of skills. There are vacancies for GP's. I did a first aid course in 1974. Should I apply?

 

[Mark T Jones]

There are of course any number of reasons why vacancies and unemployed are out of kilter - along with skills, I suspect there is a significant geographical element.

It would be interesting to see why individuals are unemployed and what definitions are being used.

When I worked on the NEA scheme (in sunny Surrey), a fair portion of clients were ex senior management, not claiming benefits but had registered themselves with Job Centres to see what resources and assistance was available. Whilst technically unemployed, they were neither a burden to the State nor desperate for a job.

 

[IanSuth]

@IanSuth The numbers come from the ONS who use surveys of employers as well as counting online jobs.

High vacancies are consistent with unemployment having fallen (which it has).

A lot of employers are saying they are finding it hard to recruit.

Its mostly structural unemployment: skills do not match vacancies. I bet there are not many unemployed HGV drivers right now!

I linked to exactly where the ONS get their figures (off their site) and it specifically states adzuna. The other big survey REC/KPMG i used to be a contributor to and know it is more about changes in feel about demand than about actual figures

As i said a lot of the issue is employers want people able to hit the ground running but not too experienced and yet no one took on trainees 2 years ago (not least as everyone was worrying about what might happen with Brexit so delayed investment decisions)

 

[MBE2017]

You also have to allow for the dubious job adverts. Some jobs can work for some people, not others. A near neighbour now currently out of work was sent to a job interview doing a nightly delivery round. The agency told him 20 odd drops, all light stuff to convenience stores, £11 hr.

He turned up to find the actual job was 120 drops, after speaking to a few of the drivers loading their vehicles into his interview, he realised he would be running in and out of the vehicle all night, actually running to complete the round. He was also going to be doing 9hrs solid, not the 5/6 he was led to believe, at 50 years of age the job was not for him. The company mentioned the agencies keep lying regarding the job, presumably because few are prepared to work like a dog.

The company concerned keep running the same time wasting advert every week on the web.

 

[Paul Norman]

I suspect the Maths are not terribly accurate. I suspect that neither the unemployed numbers, nor the job vacancies, are even close to those numbers.

However, I also suspect that your point stands.

But there are a number of issues, and they remain largely unchanged after decades.

1. The mechanisms for bringing jobs and those needing them together are clunky.

2. Employers are often very picky when recruiting.

3. Employees are often very picky when job hunting.

4. Re-skilling is not something businesses like. If I am a redundant glazier, and wanting to learn plumbing, I have to take an apprenticeship on 3 shillings a decade and sell my children.

5. Employees are wierd about people moving streams. If I am a redundant Ops Manager, previously earning £75k, and am willing and able to drive a van for £15k, the van company get all sniffy about the fact I used to earn more than their manager did.

6. Geography. Typically, not all unemployed live within commuting distance of the opportunities, and relocating is expensive. Very, very expensive.

You will be able to add your own. But just blaming people for being idle is naive, and frankly part of the problem. Some people are. Most probably are not.

Let me dig into all those fruit picking vacancies we heard about. First, there were less than you were told. Secondly, I can't just sell my house in Durham and move to Suffolk for a 6 month fruit picking job. It is never as simple as that.

What it could be, of course, is made simpler. But that would require more lateral thinking by all parties, including, and perhaps especially, employers.

I did, once, in a previous life, need 250 admin staff quickly for a centralised service centre.

About 50 came from people leaving similar jobs. The others required more lateral thinking. We did get them, because we put in place a detailed and comprehensive re-training program aimed at long term unemployed, 'back to work mums', and people from other types of employment.

 

[IanSuth]

The company concerned keep running the same time wasting advert every week on the web.

Except they aren't - you need to understand the economics. When you sign up with most of the big internet advertisers you get a contract for x ads per month and each ad when written can be set for 7 days or 28 (at the same price), leave an ad running for 28 days costs no more and if it is not pushing you over contract into the next bracket you might as well.

General lowest markup for agencies is pay rate + 50%, that actually makes you about 20% after NI, holiday and pension. So on £11ph call it £2.20, if he did 1 9hr shift that was over £20 for just telling him to go somewhere and providing what was likely an electronic timesheet

 

[MBE2017]

Except they aren't - you need to understand the economics.

I was referring to the time wasted for the applicant, the recruiter at the company and the company itself. Anyone who misleads about the role has to expect a huge time wasting element since many people end up applying for a job they have no wish or ability to do.

Having recruited myself, I was very straight regarding the jobs, requirements etc before even inviting someone to apply, my time was too valuable to myself to waste it.

 

[Fagin2021]

Ah - Government statistics. Don't you just luv em. My favourite was when Gordon Brown stood up in parliament and declared "under the new road tax rates, most drivers will be the same or better off". Technically he was right. 49% of drivers would see no change to their tax, 2% would see a lower rate and 49% would be charged a higher rate. A more accurate statement would have read "98% of drivers will be the same or worse off".

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Somewhere there are 100.000 HGV lorries parked up waiting for drivers, must be well hidden and depreciating nicely

 

[Mark T Jones]

Let me dig into all those fruit picking vacancies we heard about. First, there were less than you were told. Secondly, I can't just sell my house in Durham and move to Suffolk for a 6 month fruit picking job. It is never as simple as that.

I applied for one of those jobs. The recruiter in question knew that I wouldn't be taking it, so he outlined their (non-negotiable) terms:

• Mediocre pay (almost certainly below minimum wage if calculated to the letter). No problem, it wasn't about the money.
• Hard work. No problem - I was up for that.
• Long hours - no problem (see next)
• 7 days a week. Hmmm, I like my weekends to be sacred.
• Have to live on site - non negotiable. Problem.
• Have to live on site in a sh!tty caravan/hut.
• You have to pay - most of your wages - to live in said sh!tty caravan/hut.
• Have to share said sh!tty caravan/hut with 4 or 5 others.
• No social distancing measures whatsoever.

If you've read Two Caravans by Marina Lewycka you'll have the picture.

 

[IanSuth]

I applied for one of those jobs. The recruiter in question knew that I wouldn't be taking it, so he outlined their (non-negotiable) terms:

• Mediocre pay (almost certainly below minimum wage if calculated to the letter). No problem, it wasn't about the money.
• Hard work. No problem - I was up for that.
• Long hours - no problem (see next)
• 7 days a week. Hmmm, I like my weekends to be sacred.
• Have to live on site - non negotiable. Problem.
• Have to live on site in a sh!tty caravan/hut.
• You have to pay - most of your wages - to live in said sh!tty caravan/hut.
• Have to share said sh!tty caravan/hut with 4 or 5 others.
• No social distancing measures whatsoever.

If you've read Two Caravans by Marina Lewycka you'll have the picture.

We used to bump into the local lot at Lidl after sunday afternoon rugby - they would be shipped in by minibus after finishing Sunday lunchtime and do their weekly shop there before going back to the site, it was there only time off in the week. Basically you are paid min wage but get your accommodation deducted at source

 

[IanSuth]

Having recruited myself, I was very straight regarding the jobs, requirements etc before even inviting someone to apply, my time was too valuable to myself to waste it.

Same here - which is why i am now selling a tool that allows people to qualify peoples skills for call centre roles on a payg basis remotely before you even need to interview them. If they can't accurately and quickly pick out relevant info they hear and record it, why waste time/money interviewing. And if they can it does it matter what their prior experience was ?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

One only has to visit my local Tesco during working hours to see the pool of unemployed. I'd be pushed to spot any I could ask to run down to the post office before last collection.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Back in the late seventies I knew a couple in Cornwall who bought a plot of land and built a house on it from the money they earnt picking daffodils, broccoli and potatoes. Try doing that now.

 

[DavidWH]

A friends son left school, and got a job in construction after passing his CSCS exam.

He left the job, as the team he was on with, were a bunch of bone idle gits. He wanted to learn his trade, not sit in van sleeping, or smoking, talking about their conquests over the weekend. (Fair enough)

He actually got the job back, working with another team. He got commended from the owner when an accident occurred on site, but again sacked it off as he didn't like the work.

As a school leaver, if getting picked up and dropped off each day, and taking home £1600 a month isn't an incentive to work, I really don't know what is. I'd give me left bollock to be 16 again with that job. Rather than catching 2 busses each day for a whopping £3.00 an hour surrounded by death each day.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Simply math says there are enough people out of work to fill all the current vacancies, so why aren't they?

Because they might a bunch idiots that are a total liability and it is better for the British economy if they just draw the dole !

 

[japancool]

Education, education, education.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Education, education, education.

That was what got us into this mess in the first place

 

[Bob Morgan]

Because they want to be influencers or youtubers.

I believe that the University of Orbiston Parva offers a 4 year Honours Degree!

 

[fisicx]

Young lad near us got a job in a supermarket. Pay was ok and as he was living at home his quality of life was good. He lasted just over a month. His reason for leaving was he didn’t like getting up early.

He reckons he can make money doing tiktok dances.

 

[John Hemming]

Reading the ONS analysis they use the web sites for trend analysis. I assume that means that they use the absolute figures they have and adjust them by the variations from the trend source rather than rely on the absolute figures on the trend sources.

 

[Mark T Jones]

As an agency driver, I was informed that I was in their top 10% of drivers.

Of course, that's the type of thing they can say to all of their drivers - but after some good long chats (we still chat now even though I'm not on their books), qualifying criteria for top 10% were basically:

Turn up- ideally on time, but not ridiculously late.

Do the job - not just pull into a lay-by and sleep

Keep people informed if there us a problem

Don't steal stuff

Don't abuse/hit customers

Any 2 of those would out you in top 50%

 

[IanSuth]

Reading the ONS analysis they use the web sites for trend analysis. I assume that means that they use the absolute figures they have and adjust them by the variations from the trend source rather than rely on the absolute figures on the trend sources.

Sorry long one here but relevant info people not in the industry may not of thought of - this is to do with the methodology of how the figures quotes are derived not the mismatch in the jobs market


Nearly but not quite - assuming they use the same methodology as i know was used in the report i was involved in and as is used by the local LEP from JCP, what they do is use the meta websites as a trend indicator by means of a index, so they compare the number of job adverts measured by site X and compare it with the same sites figures in the past to get a trend

What I am saying is that my 27 years in the industry tells me that there is a multiplier in the market that in indices dont measure. It there are lots of people and few jobs the ABC ltd know they can advertise in 1 or 2 places to find the person they want and only run the ad for a short period

If the labour market tightens they have to invest more by advertising in more places for longer and also they may look at agency help, if they go to agencies they likely go to more than 1 (if things get really tight in a sector they let anyone who says they can help have a go as it is payment upon successful start), agencies pay less per advert (they always have done back to when it was all print adverts in local papers), if they know that for finding that £25k sales order processor they are going to get £3750 then using up some of their already contracted ad slots (which actually cost less than £10 a month each) is a no brainer. Additionally, I know I used to recruit for a finance software house whose support staff could either come from an end user finance background or an IT Helpdesk background (they used to like a mix on the team) so often when they didnt mind who came next I would run 2 adverts simultaneously written for the different routes - still only 1 job. Job websites are very specific by nature of their tech, I used to give a training course on how to optimise ads on them to find the right people and it often makes sense to write more than 1 ad for the same job as several targeted ads will be more successful in the ad rankings than a more generic ad which will be so far down the good candidates don't get to it.

Additionally again there has recently been a proliferation in write once/ post many tools like Idibu. These tools allow a recruiter to add in their logins for different sites, write the ad once and have it posted to all their subscribes sites PLUS multiple free sites. As a concept they have been around for years (in my course i used to point out the pitfalls as you end up with an ad not optimised for the particular site you are targeting) but they now seem to be much cheaper or free to use and allow agencies recovering from Covid who have trimmed down their staff to post more ads quicker

So in conclusion - as the market tightens each new real job generates an increasing number of web adverts per job, the indices are all base don an arithmetic progression not geometric and comparing the number of unemployed which is a more precise figure with a figure derived from an index which is actually geometric rather than arithmetic leads to false conclusions - especially when the market is changing swiftly

 

[Newchodge]

Sorry long one here but relevant info people not in the industry may not of thought of - this is to do with the methodology of how the figures quotes are derived not the mismatch in the jobs market


Nearly but not quite - assuming they use the same methodology as i know was used in the report i was involved in and as is used by the local LEP from JCP, what they do is use the meta websites as a trend indicator by means of a index, so they compare the number of job adverts measured by site X and compare it with the same sites figures in the past to get a trend

What I am saying is that my 27 years in the industry tells me that there is a multiplier in the market that in indices dont measure. It there are lots of people and few jobs the ABC ltd know they can advertise in 1 or 2 places to find the person they want and only run the ad for a short period

If the labour market tightens they have to invest more by advertising in more places for longer and also they may look at agency help, if they go to agencies they likely go to more than 1 (if things get really tight in a sector they let anyone who says they can help have a go as it is payment upon successful start), agencies pay less per advert (they always have done back to when it was all print adverts in local papers), if they know that for finding that £25k sales order processor they are going to get £3750 then using up some of their already contracted ad slots (which actually cost less than £10 a month each) is a no brainer. Additionally, I know I used to recruit for a finance software house whose support staff could either come from an end user finance background or an IT Helpdesk background (they used to like a mix on the team) so often when they didnt mind who came next I would run 2 adverts simultaneously written for the different routes - still only 1 job. Job websites are very specific by nature of their tech, I used to give a training course on how to optimise ads on them to find the right people and it often makes sense to write more than 1 ad for the same job as several targeted ads will be more successful in the ad rankings than a more generic ad which will be so far down the good candidates don't get to it.

Additionally again there has recently been a proliferation in write once/ post many tools like Idibu. These tools allow a recruiter to add in their logins for different sites, write the ad once and have it posted to all their subscribes sites PLUS multiple free sites. As a concept they have been around for years (in my course i used to point out the pitfalls as you end up with an ad not optimised for the particular site you are targeting) but they now seem to be much cheaper or free to use and allow agencies recovering from Covid who have trimmed down their staff to post more ads quicker

So in conclusion - as the market tightens each new real job generates an increasing number of web adverts per job, the indices are all base don an arithmetic progression not geometric and comparing the number of unemployed which is a more precise figure with a figure derived from an index which is actually geometric rather than arithmetic leads to false conclusions - especially when the market is changing swiftly

Thanks. The only point I would argue with is

the number of unemployed which is a more precise figure

Governments have been fiddling with that figure forever, from the notorious 'anyone employed for 1 hour [er fortnight is considered employed' to 'the only unemployed are those entitled to job-seeking benefits and actively seeking a job'. Different issue to the multiplier effect you describe for job vacancies, but still not accurate.

 

[Clinton]

These people are not (or shouldn't be) unemployed though, they are just doing that as their chosen career. No different from being an theatre or TV actor, just the medium is YouTube rather than TV or a West End theatre.

I think you and @fisicx are talking about different things.

There are a lot of hard working, intelligent, talented young people out there who've had a bum deal over the last few years. I have great respect for them and, like you, I do my bit for young people. But it seems to me that @fisicx is talking about the wannabe influencers, the bone-idle, work-shy kids who fancy themselves as too good to stack shelves as Tesco because they're cut out to be reality TV stars.

This is compounded by the mickey mouse courses at university that many of them take.

(Women disproportionately go for these mickey mouse courses. I believe they account for about 70% of students on these courses. When people moan about how women, on average, earn less than men ...tell them that part of it is because of their choice of degrees. )

Education, education, education.

Yes. And what do we give our kids instead of an education? We give them state schools with extremist lefty, woke teachers who see their role primarily as social workers (and this has been cultivated by successive governments who've encouraged parents handing more and more of their parental responsibilities to the state).

We need to start by scrapping state schools and scrapping "free" education for all. If you can't afford to feed, clothe and educate kids, don't have them! The state should step in for exceptional cases only, not every frigging body.

Then let education be guided by the skills and qualifications that markets need. That won't happen overnight and it will take political will that is sadly lacking.

I don't believe Boris Johnson has any immediate plans to make me Secretary of State for Education.

 

[IanSuth]

Thanks. The only point I would argue with is

the number of unemployed which is a more precise figure

Governments have been fiddling with that figure forever, from the notorious 'anyone employed for 1 hour [er fortnight is considered employed' to 'the only unemployed are those entitled to job-seeking benefits and actively seeking a job'. Different issue to the multiplier effect you describe for job vacancies, but still not accurate.

Totally agree with you it is an imprecise but at least it is generally self consistent - other than every now and again when a new politician (or all flavours) changes the measure to make their govt look less bad

 

[MBE2017]

I think it is a very tough time for youngsters. It was bad enough when I was at school, mass unemployment, 400 to 500 applicants per job, awful negative teachers, huge changes in manufacturing to a service type economy. I was told that within 20 years the big new industry would be tourism and leisure, since most would be working part time, and we would have to learn what to do in our spare time.

Today, youngsters face an even harder future, lower living standards IMO, less certainty with the Internet revolution truly underway, and new as yet unknown industries to replace many old type jobs, reduced by automation and AI.

What is the education course to follow? I certainly don’t have an answer for the masses, so a broad initial education such as we have now is probably the best we can offer atm, with youngsters then specialising from 13/14 years onwards.

 

[IanSuth]

I think you and @fisicx are talking about different things.



(Women disproportionately go for these mickey mouse courses. I believe they account for about 70% of students on these courses. When people moan about how women, on average, earn less than men ...tell them that part of it is because of their choice of degrees. )


.

Part of that is the education they get below that - my daughter did 3 sciences and maths at ALevel originally with a view to medical then decide don physiotherapy. She was one of 2 girls doing physics, the other stopped and she only carried on as pig headed, the previous year only 1 girl survived to take their ALevel. The sole alevel physics teacher has made it clear from his attitude and words he does not feel girls are cut out for physics (yes really) but here is such a shortage the school can not replace him and he knows it. This is a school that up to 6th form has a brilliant science exam record.

My wife did an integrated engineering degree in the 90's (now stopped by the uni) and works in technical support so our daughter got the support at home but if the parents don't have that knowledge what do you propose OR should everyone be a slave to the circumstances of their birth ?

PS I went to a boarding school on a 100% bursary and son went to a private school on a special maths scheme with large discount but it wouldnt have suited daughter and her other activities (but there too very few girls did Alevel physics or chemistry)

 

[Financial-Modeller]

There is a reported 1.5million unemployed at the moment, which we all know is highly likely to increase higher during this month and next now furlough has ended.
There is also a reported 1.2million job vacancies available, with employers most commonly referenced reason for the posts being hard to fill is lack of skills.

Simply math says there are enough people out of work to fill all the current vacancies, so why aren't they?

Some of those unemployed don't want to work. The benefits system provides them with a lifestyle sufficient that there is no motivation to work for a living.

 

[gpietersz]

I linked to exactly where the ONS get their figures (off their site) and it specifically states adzuna.

Yes, but:

1. its one of multiple sources
2. if you download the ONS dataset for online job ads it has deduplicated numbers.

 

[Ozzy]

Any 2 of those would out you in top 50%

That is a sorry state of affairs when a bar is set so low, it becomes normalised.

about the wannabe influencers

In my day (a 70's/80's school kid) all the boys wanted to be professional footballers and the girls wanted to be fashion models. The evolution of media has made it so accessible and perceivably easy to make "millions" by playing games on a computer and streaming it, or doing some silly dances on social media and becoming famous.
The issue is...

Then let education be guided by the skills and qualifications that markets need. That won't happen overnight and it will take political will that is sadly lacking.

...this.
The DfE is influenced by political agenda and it shouldn't be. Your average child will see their education policy and delivery change 7 times during their education, meaning the way they are taught and the lessons they are taught will change that many times.
Curriculum is set years in advance meaning by the time it reaches the classroom it is out of date. My son started college last month studying programming and the tools and methodology he is using is out of date for business.

DfE should be broken away from political influence so that it can set long term agenda's that aren't simply done to win votes.

The sole alevel physics teacher has made it clear from his attitude and words he does not feel girls are cut out for physics

This is appalling, but I see it in my own business. We actually try proactively to ensure a fair M/F split in the business, but it is practically impossible to find let alone recruit female technical staff.

The benefits system provides them with a lifestyle sufficient that there is no motivation to work for a living.

I was waiting for this comment, and it's true. I know first hand people who have decided it's in their interests not to work.
Don't get me wrong, so many people need and rely on their benefits to keep their heads above water and survive, but it is also so open to abuse and it shouldn't be. People should be in a position to want to work and be a valued contribution to society.

 

[gpietersz]

Part of that is the education they get below that - my daughter did 3 sciences and maths at ALevel originally with a view to medical then decide don physiotherapy. She was one of 2 girls doing physics, the other stopped and she only carried on as pig headed, the previous year only 1 girl survived to take their ALevel. The sole alevel physics teacher has made it clear from his attitude and words he does not feel girls are cut out for physics (yes really) but here is such a shortage the school can not replace him and he knows it.

I think its clear what (or rather, who) is the problem is at that school! I think/hope my daughter's experience at her sixth form college is more typical. There were quite a few girls (I think 30%) doing physics and close parity in other sciences, maths and further maths - but she was the only girl doing electronics A level. They clearly want to make it welcoming to girls, but to no effect.

I think the problems starts much earlier than A levels, and I blame parents, schools, peers and society at large. If you look at the birthday presents little girls get compared to little boys, or who is more likely to help daddy fix things there is a pervasive expectation they will have different interests. Girls are encouraged to be like their mothers, and as the mothers are usually not interested in science and technology they are not either.

I worked from home from when my (older) daughter was a toddler, and she was home educated (for several years), so she spent a lot of time with me. Your daughter stuck with physics with the unusual example of a mother with an engineering degree and a technical job. The only girl from my daughter's A level physics class whose parent's jobs I know had a mother who was a biologist.

if the parents don't have that knowledge what do you propose OR should everyone be a slave to the circumstances of their birth

"Should be" no, inevitable, yes - atleast not without doing things that are even worse. Having more affluent or more educated parents is a huge advantage. Culture affects career choices, and on more than sex lines, because aspirations vary.

 

[gpietersz]

Some of those unemployed don't want to work. The benefits system provides them with a lifestyle sufficient that there is no motivation to work for a living.

I think the commonest problem there is that they are not much better off if they do work because benefits are withdrawn as earnings rise, and they may have costs such as travel as a result of working.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

I think you and @fisicx are talking about different things.

There are a lot of hard working, intelligent, talented young people out there who've had a bum deal over the last few years. I have great respect for them and, like you, I do my bit for young people. But it seems to me that @fisicx is talking about the wannabe influencers, the bone-idle, work-shy kids who fancy themselves as too good to stack shelves as Tesco because they're cut out to be reality TV stars.

This is compounded by the mickey mouse courses at university that many of them take.

(Women disproportionately go for these mickey mouse courses. I believe they account for about 70% of students on these courses. When people moan about how women, on average, earn less than men ...tell them that part of it is because of their choice of degrees. )


Yes. And what do we give our kids instead of an education? We give them state schools with extremist lefty, woke teachers who see their role primarily as social workers (and this has been cultivated by successive governments who've encouraged parents handing more and more of their parental responsibilities to the state).

We need to start by scrapping state schools and scrapping "free" education for all. If you can't afford to feed, clothe and educate kids, don't have them! The state should step in for exceptional cases only, not every frigging body.

Then let education be guided by the skills and qualifications that markets need. That won't happen overnight and it will take political will that is sadly lacking.

I don't believe Boris Johnson has any immediate plans to make me Secretary of State for Education.

Sorry cannot agree with the post in red, there are good and bad teachers regardless of their political persuasion's

Don't forget that schools are only a part of Academia and academia is a industry that glorifies in itself; and does not see any relevance in training for business, just in producing a new level of people to continue academia's aims. Luckily a few manage to break free and use their skills in industry