De-skilling of the Workforce

[Trevanion]

During one of my rare visits, I noticed there's an interesting discussion going on elsewhere about British manufacturing and labour.

One of the diverging conversation topics has been about colleges, specifically engineering colleges, and how the majority don't teach manual machining anymore.

CNC machining is certainly a big thing now for companies that produce parts as it's the obvious option, but I think manual will always be relevant in the workshops that actually repair equipment, that's why most big factories have a technical department with manual machines in the event of a break-down and they need a part made to replace one quickly. A comment that bugged me a bit and prompted this post more than anything was "Someone who is a wizard at a manual 3-axis but can’t programme a CNC is going to have a hard time getting a position these days.", I'd almost argue that someone who is a wizard on the manual gear is worth their weight in gold just as much as a highly-skilled button pusher, especially around here in a highly agricultural area as there are plenty of metalworking workshops that don't have CNC machines as they're not applicable to the work they do, which is working on already existing parts for various agricultural and industrial equipment. It's all about relevance.

The local college that I went to apparently has sold off some of their woodworking gear, namely a Weinig 4-sided planer moulder, a Wadkin MA morticer, Wadkin Overhead router, and a Wadkin ECA tenoning machine and from what I was told they replaced those with an SCM computerised 4-sided planing machine (despite the Weinig being in like-new condition, and only used by the technician anyhow), some form of small CNC machine (I think it's a 4x4" size) and a new Sedgwick morticer and Sedgwick tenoner. I'm not sure whos clever idea this was but they essentially traded out near-indestructible, run on forever, industrial-grade machinery which was perfectly adequate, for machinery that isn't even half as good really. The person who told me this was visiting the college and had asked one of the lecturers whether they actually taught any basic hand tool joinery anymore and they got quite offended with the statement :lol:

The unfortunate truth, I think, is that it's largely down to very watered-down educational establishments focused on accepting and passing as many pupils as possible to get their government grants rather than trying to teach their pupils to the highest standard as it was more than fourty years ago. There are very few craftsmen worth their salt anymore and even fewer educators as the bar is set so low to become a college lecturer, you can effectively be being taught the one year and be teaching the curriculum the next, with no actual industry experience to back yourself up. That being said, I would imagine very few skilled workers would want to teach as while the pay is OK, the bureaucracy of the system and the fact that you practically have to pass each student regardless of actual ability is enough to put anyone off. If you compare the City and Guilds exams from before 1980 and what is given now, you would be absolutely flabbergasted at how simple it is now comparatively. I think another problem is the school system itself is pushing everyone, no matter if you were dull as rusted iron, to university to do whatever course you could, even if it could never result in meaningful employment. So there's a considerable lack of people with a bit of grey matter in the trades because of that, and it gets looked down upon as the "idiot's route" to life when really you can do VERY well if you're smart and can effectively run a business.

I was told in school by the D&T teacher (who was a rather miserable person looking back, he was one of those that didn't appreciate practical work, if it couldn't be done on the CNC what was the point kind of attitude) when I was leaving to go to college, "You'll never get anywhere with woodworking". Fast forward a few years, the kids he spent more time on from when I was there (I left at 16) and through 6th form ended up going to design universities and so on, gaining a lot of debt in the process, I see most of them time to time locally, none of them work in design with the majority being in low paying hospitality jobs. I went to a technical college, got a paid apprenticeship (the pay wasn't great but it was better than debt) in the joinery trade, learned a lot of relevant skills and even irrelevant ones like brick and block laying just because why not. I had a mostly good time doing it with very little mental stress, money in my pocket, as well as training the most important skill which is being able to put your mind into your hands, it's all well and going being able to design the Forth bridge but you've still got to build the bloody thing.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this rant to be honest, it's all over the place so I think I'll stop here :lol:

 

[sunnybob]

You havent only got to be able to build the forth bridge, you need someone to paint it afterwards!
I left school at 15, despite being in the "staying on class" that would have kept me another year.
Reason being, I wanted money and saw no benefit in staying on (any kind of further education was unheard of from my school and background) .
1 year into a gas board apprenticeship, another lad from my class started. I had a whole years wages on him (only 4 quid a week back then, but hey). A cnc cant fix something thats broken, it needs a person with understanding .

 

[clogs]

all my engineering stuff is all manual....mills lathes etc.....
CNC scares the life out of me....hate electronics.......
I dont need some dreamer smoking dope and wet behind the ears telling me what to do....just give me the metal and off we go......
mostley my swarf making is for one off's anyway where CNC is of no use.......

I can tell you that manual engineering machines are getting very hard to find now...and people that can use them.....
what few are left that are in good condition are worth a mint and will increase in value.....
I learnt by the seat of my pants....had some training but you get a feel for what acceptable.....

Before I went abroad again I knew a local eng collage lecturer and said if anyone of your students wants to learn just send them down for a part time PAID job and we'll see how we get on.....
after 6 months gave up.....
Then the wife died of cancer and I left the UK with all my kit, never to return.....that was over 30 years ago.....still got the kit.......

all the young'uns I know only want to test drive vidio games and are not interested in anything else....
just want to sponge of mum n dad.....
best bring back conscription for all the woke loving snowflakes......

god knows who'll fix their $rap when it breaks as they'll have no money to fix it and no idea how too anyway.....

sorry my rant is over as well......hahaha.....

 

[droogs]

I shall remain silent henceforth, no need to repeat my opinion of certain people with an over inflated sense of their own importance compared to others.

 

[AJB Temple]

It's an interesting debate. My brother took an apprenticeship and trade route and trod an academic path. One of the common things is that people who do the former (or who skipped even an apprenticeship) tend to denigrate the latter, despite having little knowledge of what they do. There is in any case no mutual exclusivity: highly academically qualified people can be very handy, and extremely good tradesmen and women may be intellectually very able even if this is not demonstrated on paper. There is no need for put downs in any circumstances.

My gut feel is based on no knowledge whatsoever of CNC processing and almost no knowledge of 3 axis machining with manual dexterity. What I do have some knowledge of is artificial intelligence coding and specifying (in trading and finance, not manufacturing). The direction of travel is without any doubt to de-skill the ability to programme machines and simplify human processes such that training is minimised. AI will mean simple descriptive language will be all that is required and the computers will interpret what is likely to be required. Teaching people to programme CNC machines is likely to lead to them having a redundant skill soon perhaps.

The real human skill IMO is actually visualisation and creativity - both of which tend to be needed for efficient problem solving. This is very difficult to teach in AI. If you want a job with longevity, learn how to develop AI software.

 

[HappyHacker]

I know FE college lecturers with craft experience and knowledge who got out as their salary was going down while the Principals salary was going up. Schools employ Design Tech (or what ever it is called these days) teachers who have no experience at all depending on their tech assistants to supply the craft knowledge.

There is then the promise of degrees for everyone with the FE colleges becoming universities giving degrees in surfing etc.

The son of a friend was offed an apprenticeship with an aircraft manufacturer, he asked about the qualifications he would be getting. They said he would be taught what they wanted him do do without qualifications. he turned it down.

Our politicians say we need to develop as a knowledge economy while we work our way downwards in the international educational charts.

Pupils have more rights than the teachers and that includes the right not to be educated if they want.

To put it in perspective though: in the 70's I had to explain to a friend with a degree in electronics why when he connected his new car radio the wrong way around why it stopped working.

My rant stopping before I get warmed up.

 

[Alf]

The unfortunate truth, I think, is that it's largely down to very watered-down educational establishments focused on accepting and passing as many pupils as possible to get their government grants rather than trying to teach their pupils to the highest standard as it was more than fourty years ago.

<snippage>

I think another problem is the school system itself is pushing everyone, no matter if you were dull as rusted iron, to university to do whatever course you could, even if it could never result in meaningful employment. So there's a considerable lack of people with a bit of grey matter in the trades because of that, and it gets looked down upon as the "idiot's route" to life when really you can do VERY well if you're smart and can effectively run a business.

Sorry for the heavy cutting of your post there, Trevanion, but I went for the two bits that I think got to the heart of the problems.

Firstly, education has ceased to educate for the future, and apparently become nothing but an exam-passing exercise. Doesn't matter what the qualification, academic or vocational, that's all that matters to the education world. Which is, as anyone with a brain cell to call their own can understand, a fat lot of good for the individual, the nation, or the species.

Secondly, until society as a whole can get its collective head out of its collective posterior and value practical trades and craftsmanship as highly as it values someone who creates nothing but paperwork and three figure hourly rates, nothing is going to change.

I dunno, maybe we need the practically inept to go back to having to do compulsory wood/metal work like the practically able have to endure Eng. Lit and such, thus everyone has a grasp of the skill, and talent, involved in the work of others. But we probably also need to shift the idea that manual work means physical suffering and short lives. Given how a sedentary life is now viewed as the shortcut to an early demise, that shouldn't be difficult. As to the education system, like so much else that needs a root and branch overhaul and a simple decision as to what it's for. The last year suggests a lot of parents just view it primarily as day care.

 

[Gill]

I completely agree about the modern education system being an exercise in passing exams. A friend's son has just completed his GCSEs and despite there being no exams as such this year, he's undertaken an incredible number of assessments, many more than would normally be expected. To my mind, C-19 has highlighted how trepidatious the education establishment has become - education is now about holding the educators to account as much as it is about teaching youngsters.

Veering away from the education system, a self-taught electrician I knew formed a business with an electronics engineering graduate. He explained the difference in their approach to work by saying that if a television wasn't working, his partner would first get a circuit diagram and use that to work out the problem. The self-taught electrician would first check the fuse in the plug, which experience had taght him was at the root of 80% of faults.

 

[Trevanion]

Thinking of that college technician I mentioned in my first post, he had gone to college straight out of school, went through the course, got a job as a technician in the college with no more experience than being in the college, and has been there for ~15 years now.

I remember watching him spend a good twenty minutes with an adjustable spanner trying to get a router bit out of a router, I didn't have the heart to tell him he needed to use the spanner on the hexagonal portion of the collet nut, not the round part of the router shaft :eusa-doh:

Another fond story was being instructed on how to use the Wadkin ECA tenoner, which was a bit of a monster. "So you turn these handwheels to adjust the heads, it's a bit of a pain to get right" and I proceed to watch the lecturer turn each handwheel independently to adjust the cut, fiddling and fiddling to get both heads in the right spot. "Stand aside puny mortal" I said, I adjusted the top head until the width of the tenon was correct, and pulled the lever down on top, which locked both heads in adjustment together and adjusted both heads in twin to the correct height with very little effort.

"Now I know what that lever is for..."

 

[Lurker]

For the last five years at work, one of my tasks was to mentor engineering graduates.
Our graduate scheme was highly regarded and over subscribed.
Traditionally the older engineers were responsible for the final selections and most grads went on to a good career.
Then the new training director took over the lot and older engineers were not involved in the selection.
The drop out rate was horrendous and it took three years before we reverted back to the old system.

I remember one wasn’t a very good performer at the interview but I got talking to him at a tea break and it turned out he was renovating an old land rover from our chat he clearly knew about hands on.
So.... I fought his corner in the final cut, he turned out to be the best all rounder on that year’s intake.

 

[Lurker]

When my kids were small (+5) if we came across a busted appliance, printer, iron, kettle old bike, etc they were given the “job “ of stripping it down, ostensibly for the nuts and bolts and metal.
But mainly to try to develop hand skills and an interest in how things work.
Both are handy chaps and one is chief design engineer for a well known multinational.

 

[AJB Temple]

It's worth bearing in mind that the education system is set up to try to give opportunities for all. It is inevitable that abilities vary and if IQ tends to 100, then it is equally inevitable that a lot of people will be close to average on the bell curve.

In some places university courses have massive failure rates. This though is a feature of equality. My eldest is doing a masters at Delft university. Aerospace engineering. A lot of it is advanced mathematics and having seen the papers I know they are not easy. The Netherlands system allows pretty much anyone onto university courses, and as a calvinistic country it is heavily state subsidised.

However, the system still has a filter. Exams start at the end of the first term in engineering and by the end of the first year of a 4 years Bachelors degree (with industry placement) 50% will have failed or dropped out through pressure of work. There is about 40% fail rate for the remainder for year two, and if you get through that then you will probably pass.

Is this fair or wasteful? You can argue either way, but the rationale is that everyone has equal opportunity: you will not be discriminated against to get onto a top course as long as you meet basic entrance requirements, and it is then up to you to work your socks off.

Lots of people talk about silly degrees (surfing was mentioned above, presumably in jest) and no doubt there are some degrees that are not career oriented. But maybe we are simply narrow minded and blinkered about the purpose and value of higher education. Not everything has to be vocational.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I read some twenty years ago that there more Media studies degrees awarded per annum than there were jobs in the entire media industry. I also read that when a degree in golf club management was mentioned, a spokesman said that every one of their graduates was employed in the that industry within six months of graduating. Which one makes more sense?
My mother used to say many years ago that she didn't understand why the Country shouldn't be run as a business, and the training and qualifications for professions and industries the Country needs be subsidised or paid for and rest should be paid by the student. It would I suppose be difficult to ascertain which was which at any given time.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

... He explained the difference in their approach to work by saying that if a television wasn't working, his partner would first get a circuit diagram and use that to work out the problem. The self-taught electrician would first check the fuse in the plug, which experience had taught him was at the root of 80% of faults.

I spoke to an acquaintance one day who spent his working life repairing white goods and domestic electricals.
I said that at work every time we had a breakdown, the first thing I always did before calling someone or sending the item somewhere was the check the fuse and the continuity of the lead - eight or nine times out of ten that would be all that was wrong. He laughed and said half of his income came from that.

 

[Trevanion]

It's worth bearing in mind that the education system is set up to try to give opportunities for all. It is inevitable that abilities vary and if IQ tends to 100, then it is equally inevitable that a lot of people will be close to average on the bell curve.

In some places university courses have massive failure rates. This though is a feature of equality. My eldest is doing a masters at Delft university. Aerospace engineering. A lot of it is advanced mathematics and having seen the papers I know they are not easy. The Netherlands system allows pretty much anyone onto university courses, and as a calvinistic country it is heavily state subsidised.

However, the system still has a filter. Exams start at the end of the first term in engineering and by the end of the first year of a 4 years Bachelors degree (with industry placement) 50% will have failed or dropped out through pressure of work. There is about 40% fail rate for the remainder for year two, and if you get through that then you will probably pass.

Is this fair or wasteful? You can argue either way, but the rationale is that everyone has equal opportunity: you will not be discriminated against to get onto a top course as long as you meet basic entrance requirements, and it is then up to you to work your socks off.

I agree with this idea of having to actually work towards your qualification, and if you spend your whole time just being hungover with no interest in what's actually happening in the course, you fail, simple. I'll be the first to admit, I did barely any work to achieve a level three qualification in Joinery as there was no real point in over-doing it more than anyone else, everyone passes anyway. I think it should be a level one qualification should cover the very basics (which it does) and almost everyone should pass this with no issue, with some passing with merit or distinction. Level two moves onto harder practical and theoretical tasks, which will weed out the ones that cannot work with both their mind and their hands, perhaps 75% of level one entrants would pass the second level, fewer with merit and distinction. Level three would move onto even harder practical and theoretical tasks which required a good amount of understanding in geometry, mathematics, and very advanced joinery techniques, maybe 50% of students would pass this course, and fewer with merit and rarely with distinction, which would be an achievement to be proud of. As I mentioned in my first post, most educators can't teach to such a high standard themselves so it's not really possible to do that sort of system unless you had very good quality lecturers with decades of experience, as it used to be.

If everyone has a level three qualification, it doesn't really count for much at all when applying for a job, it's not proof that you've actually worked for it as it was fourty years ago. If I was looking to employ someone, I couldn't really do it through a Curriculum Vitae system like most conventional employers as the qualifications really mean nothing when it comes down to actually doing the work. The best joiner I've seen was a qualified farmer with no education in joinery whatsoever, totally self-taught and on paper would be the worst possible applicant. I myself, have very little in the way of formal qualifications because when I got to the GCSE level, I decided I wasn't going to stress out about getting good grades in everything such as chemistry, physics, biology, English, history etc... when I knew the occupation I was aiming for didn't require them, all that was required was a C or above in mathematics to pass the construction courses, and even if that wasn't achieved in school it was simple enough to do an essential skills equivalent qualification while in college. Even the GCSE mathematics though, had very little relevance to the course I planned on doing, it was more of a "your brain can compute to this level" sort of qualification and had very little actual use.

It annoys me that the employers get very little in the way of grant money to cover apprenticeships, despite educating the student the most. An employer will get about £2000-3000 after the apprentice has passed their course depending on the level, has the apprentice for about four days of the week and pays the day they are in college also, a lot of time has to be spent with an apprentice to get them working to a reasonable level that they understand what they're doing and you can leave them unattended. The grant money helps, certainly, but if the apprentice decides they don't want to do it anymore it's a total dead loss of time and money and it makes employers even warier about taking young people on. The college gets around £10,000 off the government per student passed, despite having them in only for one day a week.

Not everything has to be vocational.

But then what's the point of it? If you're going to college/university to study a subject (at an early age anyway, people in retirement can go study whatever they like) you know full well isn't going to result in a job surely you're just wasting your money for many years to come and most importantly, time, in more ways than one.

(surfing was mentioned above, presumably in jest)

I wish it was in jest...

https://www.cornwall.ac.uk/courses/fdsc-surf-science-technology/

 

[AJB Temple]

Level 5 is not a degree, but I take your point. I reckon I could make a surfboard without doing the course. I do think that when Labour started this ball rolling, they did not think it through properly. It is a great pity that as a country we allowed technical colleges, apprentice schemes and so on to fall by the wayside.

Although I confess to being quite cynical, I will take the counter argument which is that non vocational degrees can increase intellectual capacity and help people grow up. An example: when I was running a business recently, we hired (about 6 years ago) a young Scottish woman. She had a degree in modern art from the University of Glasgow. She was in fact an excellent artist. Her passion was actually dance and she moved to London to be a dancer in the West End. This did not work out - she got work but was not able to earn enough to live off. She applied with us to be an HR assistant - with no background in it at all - and embarked on an HR qualification which we paid for. We took a punt on her and she proved to be very tenacious (something you need if you are constantly auditioning).

Four years later she was HR director and had everyone's respect. She also had our graphic designers reporting to her. She was excellent at handling people, has a brilliant work ethic, handled recruitment, payroll etc expertly, and was soon supervising training and so on. Art had no actual vocational relevance and many people would look down on it as a degree, but she was a superb hire and has a creative mind that she applies laterally to problem solving. Eventually returned to Scotland to marry but has stayed in the finance industry.

Forcing people into vocational degrees is unwise. In my own life I was pushed at school and went to university a year early. Therefore I had to make this choice aged 16 when I was doing university entrance interviews a year prior to going up. At 16 I was still dreaming of being a pilot, quite fancied architecture, and had almost no idea what doing a law degree entailed. Could also have done maths (and later did). Kids make these choices far too young very often, and a non-vocational degree may provide intellectual challenge or stimulus without determining a fixed career path. Gaining knowledge is or can be useful and fulfilling on its own. It's just three or four years prior to a lifetime of work (with pension age coming ever later).

Our future as a country will depend on educating our population. It should be among our very top priorities. We have fallen behind other countries.

 

[Chris152]

(surfing was mentioned above, presumably in jest)

I wish it was in jest...

https://www.cornwall.ac.uk/courses/fdsc-surf-science-technology/

Well, it's not a degree in surfing, is it?! The opening para on their web reads:
'During the programme you will study: the sport of surfing as well as surfing businesses; business planning relating to the surfing industry; event management; environmental science; human exercise science; principles of psychology and coaching; design and manufacture of surf boards; the environment and human impacts on it; the development of surfing culture and history; sport-related media and politics; the geographical and climatic influences on surfing.'
Plenty to work with there, in an industry that seems to be growing rapidly (to my regret) and it seems to tap into issues that have applications in a broad range of upcoming industries. Not that fitness for industry is the only criterion in education - some people are happy to earn less money but have a good understanding of things that matter to them, to have their minds opened.

eta - I wonder what the balance is between engineering-type jobs that require traditional, hands-on skills, and those that require a knowledge of technology. Numbers of jobs, I mean. Someone close to me is good at the former, no interest in the latter but I worry for their prospects in that, so a genuine question.

ps Adrian, I've no doubt you could build a beautiful surfboard, but could you build one that works well?!

 

[AJB Temple]

Ha! No idea. I was always terrible at surfing. Haven't a clue what makes a good board shape, but like anything, I would research it. Some of them look very cool.

As it happens I am somewhat fascinated by the remarkable aerofoil and hydrofoil technology being applied with big racing yachts these days. Fabulous performance.

 

[spb]

Not everything has to be vocational.

But then what's the point of it? If you're going to college/university to study a subject (at an early age anyway, people in retirement can go study whatever they like) you know full well isn't going to result in a job surely you're just wasting your money for many years to come and most importantly, time, in more ways than one.

My degree is in maths. For that to lead directly to a job I'd have to either work as an actuary or for GCHQ, neither of which I do, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've directly used anything that I learned during it.

What I do use every day, though, is the rigorous analytical approach to problem solving that was required through the whole process. That's the case with most purely academic degree subjects; the most useful thing they teach is generally a way of thinking more than specific knowledge, and that's transferrable to pretty much any knowledge-based job field you feel like.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

My cousin always maintained the only thing he learned doing his degree was to how use other people's research properly.

 

[novocaine]

My degree was mech eng. By all accounts I'm one of a few on that year that went on to do a job in the field. Most others became accountants or similar.

 

[RogerS]

.....Fabulous performance.

Until the wind drops a tad ! Isn't there some concern about Ainslie's boat in low wind ?

 

[Dr.Al]

My degree was mech eng. By all accounts I'm one of a few on that year that went on to do a job in the field. Most others became accountants or similar.

Mine was electronic engineering and it was similar. Apparently 40% of the people on my course went on to do "something related to electronic engineering"; the rest went into the city to earn megabucks. No doubt a lot of those 40% weren't actually designing electronics but were just in the right industry.

Probably partly explains why it tends to take us years (literally) to fill a single electronics engineer vacancy. I generally work on the premise that if I advertise for a graduate role it can be filled in a year; if it's for someone with 5 years experience it'll take two years to find someone and if it's for a senior role, well, who knows?

 

[Chris152]

I wonder what the balance is between engineering-type jobs that require traditional, hands-on skills, and those that require a knowledge of technology. Numbers of jobs, I mean.

Sorry to repeat this one - does anyone have any idea of what the chances are these days of creating a good career (not just a job, if that makes sense?) from using traditional engineering skills as compared to ones based in new technologies? What's the balance of likelihood there? It's not just important to me personally, but seems to be a key question in relation to what Trevanion's written.
Without much knowledge and no experience, it seems to me that if you want good career prospects, good salary and t&cs of employment you're much more likely to succeed in engineering with a degree in engineering, and that if you don't have that you're far less likely to get such opportunities and quite likely to end up repairing farmers' machinery (etc), to work with Trevanion's example?

 

[MattS]

Interesting thread, and I think this would be of interest and is related. My wife's a member of the Heritage Crafts Association, and they have some coverage today on the back of their endangered crafts list which they have on their website.

The article makes some really interesting points though relevant to this in how bad the UK is at keeping skills and knowledge alive.

 

[Malc2098]

My son, back in the 90s didn't want to work at school. Don't ask me how many times we were called in.

H left at 16, so we got him a place in one of the Blair 'colleges' doing hands on engineering. His tutor was a retired RAF engineer. Through him he took a shine to welding. He eventually got a job with a fabrication company which he didn't like because he had to use grey cells to work out measurements etc.

He found himself another job on a production line welding parts for ride on mowers. He then went for another interview with Mini at Cowley. I made sure he had a tie on and his CV and portfolio were up to date. He told me there were only two people in there with ties and portfolios, him and a German chap. They were the only two who got the job in Body in White making the manual welds in the bodies on the line. He liked the job because of the money, the shifts and he didn't have to think.

I, like many dads I suppose, told him to keep his nose clean and look for any opportunities that come up on the notice board. He did an ultrasound course which took him out of the monotony of production line work from time to time. Then, before Mini brought a new version out, they wanted welders to go to Munich so they could work out how to design the body and programme the robots so no manual welding was required. He reckons that was the best holiday he's ever had.

When came back, there were quality problems in the USA when the boat arrived with the finished vehicles on them. So he had to go out to California for six weeks and establish if the faults were transit damage, QA issues back at factory, or what. Another of those holidays.

When he came back supervisor vacancies became available. He was recommended and took the role, then his supervisor moved, so he took that role. He then had to prepare his part of the plant for the change to the new model. It's now that part that he manages.

He reckons that an engineering graduate couldn't have successfully handled any of those roles without the experience of starting at the bottom.

And don't get me started on the College of Policing’s CEO saying the implementation of the degree programme is needed to prepare officers for policing a digital world. That's all recruits!

 

[AJB Temple]

Police have a point though: on-line fraud is at epidemic levels, along with ID theft etc, and it is very hard to catch the criminals and equally hard to prove to a criminal standard. I've been an expert witness in big fraud trials and the work involved for barristers and supporting solicitors in getting a case to trial - even when guilt is quite plain to any reasonable person - is immense. I think we need a specialised police branch to deal with this stuff.

 

[Malc2098]

Police have a point though: on-line fraud is at epidemic levels, along with ID theft etc, and it is very hard to catch the criminals and equally hard to prove to a criminal standard. I've been an expert witness in big fraud trials and the work involved for barristers and supporting solicitors in getting a case to trial - even when guilt is quite plain to any reasonable person - is immense. I think we need a specialised police branch to deal with this stuff.

I quite agree, Adrian, a specialised branch. The CPS could do with some specialised lawyers to deal with this stuff, too. The CPS even struggles with Traffic law at times.

But the new recruitment policy excludes anyone else. Some of these grads have walked out when they found out they had to work weekends and nights. Some walked out from the self defence classes when exposed to man handling. Many will not be equipped to deal with public order, violence, domestic violence etc, which are now everyday occurrences, because most of those offenders assess the risk of getting arrested and prosecuted pretty low.

These graduate entries will be sadly lacking in life experience, having gone from school, maybe a gap year to 3 or more years at university and having been in education from the age of 5 to at least 21.

 

[Just4fun]

I've been an expert witness in big fraud trials and the work involved for barristers and supporting solicitors in getting a case to trial - even when guilt is quite plain to any reasonable person - is immense. I think we need a specialised police branch to deal with this stuff.

I have worked for a UK constabulary and also for a semi-official detective agency that worked alongside the police, regional crime squad, fraud squad etc. I know first hand the work that goes into preparing evidence for court, and I agree it is an awful lot of work. I never had to give evidence in court though. The only time that looked like happening I kicked my heels at the court all day waiting to be called and then in the late afternoon the accused changed his plea to guilty and I was told I could go home.

 

[AJB Temple]

It is largely pointless recruiting graduates as beat policemen and women perhaps. There must logically be different layers of policing requiring radically different skills. Being a policeman or policewoman does not automatically qualify them to deal with shoplifting, traffic offences, murder and complex fraud.

In fact, the police could ditch their retirement age and recruit smart silver surfers to deal with on-line crime. Requires no fitness at all.

I don't really know how the CPS is structured. But a lot of it (quite reasonably) seems to be analysis of whether the evidence presented is likely to secure a conviction. That's really a cost benefit analysis taking account of scarce court time and the public cost of employing prosecution barristers.

Probably, were we to start again, we would not set up the police, CPS, legal professions or courts anything like this. Luckily technology will come to the rescue if only we will accept Big Brother. Auto surveillance, lie detectors to determine degree of guilt, and abandonment of prisons in favour of ankle bracelets capable of securing people and issue reprimands via a sharp poke somewhere sensitive :lol:

 

[Lurker]

When I was a schoolboy, I think the police generally needed o levels as entry level.
Excluding proper subjects like sciences and engineering, today's degrees don't seem far off equivalent.


I know I am an old git!

 

[RogerS]

I'm a smart silver-surfer. Can I join ?

 

[AJB Temple]

Smart as in still wears a suit and tie? :lol: No chance mate. You need to have a cool and street cred post lockdown outfit. Maybe a tad drill.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

When I was a schoolboy, I think the police generally needed o levels as entry level.
Excluding proper subjects like sciences and engineering, today's degrees don't seem far off equivalent.
I know I am an old git!

There was a letter in The Times some years ago. Someone made the point that when O levels were introduced in the early '1950s they were deemed suitable for the top 20% of the population and now degrees are deemed suitable for the top 50%. Human intelligence has changed little in those years, so therefore something else has.

 

[MattS]

When I was a schoolboy, I think the police generally needed o levels as entry level.
Excluding proper subjects like sciences and engineering, today's degrees don't seem far off equivalent.
I know I am an old git!

There was a letter in The Times some years ago. Someone made the point that when O levels were introduced in the early '1950s they were deemed suitable for the top 20% of the population and now degrees are deemed suitable for the top 50%. Human intelligence has changed little in those years, so therefore something else has.

As a counter to the dumbing down argument... I don’t consider myself old but I’m amazed by what my eleven year old is doing at primary school. Her knowledge of English language and grammar is amazing and the books she’s reading, some of which I have never read!

 

[AJB Temple]

Deeming 50% of the population suitable to achieve degree level education is policy and reasonable.

If we believe IQ correlates with ability to learn (not necessarily) and believe in a symmetrical bell curve of IQ across a large population (symmetry - not necessarily) and that the mean is 100, then 50% are below average and 50% above. It would seem reasonable for 50% to have some higher eduction capacity.

The real issue is comparability for employers, and inflated expectations for graduates. A first class degree from any of the top 5 in mathematics (say), is a world apart from a 1st class degree from a lower tier university. The value in self esteem though may well be equivalent.

Personally I don't see any evidence that schools are failing in terms of educational standards. Our modern world requires different things to those accepted 50 years ago.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

As a counter to the dumbing down argument... I don’t consider myself old but I’m amazed by what my eleven year old is doing at primary school. Her knowledge of English language and grammar is amazing and the books she’s reading, some of which I have never read!

Conversely my twenty year old at university didn't know who wrote The Planets or The 1812 Overture and had never heard of Enola gay, Little Boy or Fat Man. My daughter got As in GCSE physics and maths without knowing how a logarithmic scale worked - which we were taught in junior school.

 

[droogs]

But Phil, those things are merely cultural awareness information not skills or knowledge that is applied. There is no need for logarithmic table books or slide rules as we have other tools to use to get that information, the main one being carried in everyone's pocket.

Remember there has been a war going on since the late 60's for the minds of the young between the old and new orders. Your daughter will no doubt be of the opinion that everything British Empire etc was/is awful and ...ist. A thing to be shameful of. It's purpose the destruction of any kind of positive view of all things imperial under the metric view.

The backlash to this has basically been a recent referendum in which the old way/view dug it's heels in a bit. Yes the young should be told how to do things manually and properly before going down the totally modern way, because there is always the chance that that way may be the only viable option.

The thing is the changing social mores since the late 60's have had a very big impact in what is/isn't acceptable/needed to be taught. I think in a detrimental way that will come back to bite us at some point.

 

[AJB Temple]

It is interesting that there is something of a political backlash against politically correct views: the chairman or the National Trust was forced to resign this week (hopefully soon to be followed by the CEO). I am not sure how many young people share the anti empire views, politically correct ideologies etc promoted by the somewhat obsessed mainstream media. Not sure that the majority of young adults buy it.

My kids (24 and 19) do not read the newspapers on line or in person, do not watch television or listen to the radio (I usually have BBC radio 4 on by contrast). They get their information from entirely different sources, usually on mobile devices, and take most of it with a massive pinch of salt coupled with an understanding that much of it has little relevance to them in day to day life. The eldest is doing a PhD and frankly has no time for anything much.

As regards things like logarithmic scales - I would say that things like log tables etc that I learnt to use at school were already an anachronism within 10 years when I did my PhD (largely maths) and are now 100% irrelevant as computers do all calculations required for practical engineering, mathematics, physics etc. Whilst theoretical knowledge is required for exploring the boundaries, our tools have improved immeasurably. As we get older it is difficult for us to appreciate the direction of education today - but that is not to decry it: it's merely a statement of my own ignorance really.

 

[greeno]

AJB touched on this slightly.

I don't think there is any de-skilling of the workforce.

What you're seeing is evolution.

Some skills that were once needed are not needed any longer and vast new industries that are no less practical or less intellectual are opening up.

Some redundant skills will survive in a heritage environment, some will die of completely.

Skills shortage is a different conversation and we have major holes in STEM based topics.