should bankers be forced to pay back there bonus.

[thekirbyfake]

bobthemonkey said:

On a separate note, can the next Government please please try to regain some parity between A-levels and Degrees. There is no way on this planet that an A-level in chemistry (even its its current state in which it is oppressively reduced to learning colours and some equations), requires the same workload or effort as any of these Willy Wonka A-levels. Equally how can a 2.1 in god-knows-what from some unknown university be equated, at least on paper to a 2.1 in Mathematics from Cambridge. This nonsense devalues the efforts of those who currently, and have previously studied 'proper' subjects with actual utility. Yet again, Comrades Blair and Brown have displayed a fantastic capacity for screwing the country

It's only going to get worse, too.

If you sit a maths GCSE higher paper you only need 51% to get an A. Hardly preparation for the real world is it? Get half of your maths questions wrong, get an A. Get half of your job wrong, get the sack.

A-levels are going the same way and a mate of my dad's is a university admissions man. They get so many A or A* students these days it has become impossile to distiguish one from the other so they have their own exam for the student to sit.

Personally I went for a classic degree (Chemistry), from a good university (Warwick) and got a decent mark (2:1). I get sent CVs from people who got a 1st in Amercian History from Thames Valley University. How on earth am I supposed to know if that's "good" or not?

[Vesuvius 996]

thekirbyfake said:

I get sent CVs from people who got a 1st in Amercian History from Thames Valley University. How on earth am I supposed to know if that's "good" or not?

It's not. It's just a worthless piece of paper which arose as a result of Labia's promise to send more kids to Uni.

American Studies FFS. Really useful.

[plasticpig]

thekirbyfake said:

bobthemonkey said:

On a separate note, can the next Government please please try to regain some parity between A-levels and Degrees. There is no way on this planet that an A-level in chemistry (even its its current state in which it is oppressively reduced to learning colours and some equations), requires the same workload or effort as any of these Willy Wonka A-levels. Equally how can a 2.1 in god-knows-what from some unknown university be equated, at least on paper to a 2.1 in Mathematics from Cambridge. This nonsense devalues the efforts of those who currently, and have previously studied 'proper' subjects with actual utility. Yet again, Comrades Blair and Brown have displayed a fantastic capacity for screwing the country

It's only going to get worse, too.

If you sit a maths GCSE higher paper you only need 51% to get an A. Hardly preparation for the real world is it? Get half of your maths questions wrong, get an A. Get half of your job wrong, get the sack.

A-levels are going the same way and a mate of my dad's is a university admissions man. They get so many A or A* students these days it has become impossile to distiguish one from the other so they have their own exam for the student to sit.

Personally I went for a classic degree (Chemistry), from a good university (Warwick) and got a decent mark (2:1). I get sent CVs from people who got a 1st in Amercian History from Thames Valley University. How on earth am I supposed to know if that's "good" or not?

Would a history degree from a Cambridge college be any different or for that matter a classics degree from Cambridge?

[Vesuvius 996]

plasticpig said:

thekirbyfake said:

bobthemonkey said:

On a separate note, can the next Government please please try to regain some parity between A-levels and Degrees. There is no way on this planet that an A-level in chemistry (even its its current state in which it is oppressively reduced to learning colours and some equations), requires the same workload or effort as any of these Willy Wonka A-levels. Equally how can a 2.1 in god-knows-what from some unknown university be equated, at least on paper to a 2.1 in Mathematics from Cambridge. This nonsense devalues the efforts of those who currently, and have previously studied 'proper' subjects with actual utility. Yet again, Comrades Blair and Brown have displayed a fantastic capacity for screwing the country

It's only going to get worse, too.

If you sit a maths GCSE higher paper you only need 51% to get an A. Hardly preparation for the real world is it? Get half of your maths questions wrong, get an A. Get half of your job wrong, get the sack.

A-levels are going the same way and a mate of my dad's is a university admissions man. They get so many A or A* students these days it has become impossile to distiguish one from the other so they have their own exam for the student to sit.

Personally I went for a classic degree (Chemistry), from a good university (Warwick) and got a decent mark (2:1). I get sent CVs from people who got a 1st in Amercian History from Thames Valley University. How on earth am I supposed to know if that's "good" or not?

Would a history degree from a Cambridge college be any different or for that matter a classics degree from Cambridge?

Yes, because any tit can get into Thames Vallet. Cambridge actually vet people and only take the best, so the person with Cambridge degree is likely to have a broad skill set.

[munky]

audidoody said:

It seems the nub of the problem may have been that many in the City Wall Street clearly did not understand how it works.

EFA

[plasticpig]

Vesuvius 996 said:

plastic pig said:

thekirbyfake said:

bobthemonkey said:

On a separate note, can the next Government please please try to regain some parity between A-levels and Degrees. There is no way on this planet that an A-level in chemistry (even its its current state in which it is oppressively reduced to learning colours and some equations), requires the same workload or effort as any of these Willy Wonka A-levels. Equally how can a 2.1 in god-knows-what from some unknown university be equated, at least on paper to a 2.1 in Mathematics from Cambridge. This nonsense devalues the efforts of those who currently, and have previously studied 'proper' subjects with actual utility. Yet again, Comrades Blair and Brown have displayed a fantastic capacity for screwing the country

It's only going to get worse, too.

If you sit a maths GCSE higher paper you only need 51% to get an A. Hardly preparation for the real world is it? Get half of your maths questions wrong, get an A. Get half of your job wrong, get the sack.

A-levels are going the same way and a mate of my dad's is a university admissions man. They get so many A or A* students these days it has become impossible to distinguish one from the other so they have their own exam for the student to sit.

Personally I went for a classic degree (Chemistry), from a good university (Warwick) and got a decent mark (2:1). I get sent CVs from people who got a 1st in American History from Thames Valley University. How on earth am I supposed to know if that's "good" or not?

Would a history degree from a Cambridge college be any different or for that matter a classics degree from Cambridge?

Yes, because any tit can get into Thames Valley. Cambridge actually vet people and only take the best, so the person with Cambridge degree is likely to have a broad skill set.

The most academically gifted students do not necessarily make the best employees in the real world.

[Vesuvius 996]

plasticpig said:

Vesuvius 996 said:

plastic pig said:

thekirbyfake said:

bobthemonkey said:

On a separate note, can the next Government please please try to regain some parity between A-levels and Degrees. There is no way on this planet that an A-level in chemistry (even its its current state in which it is oppressively reduced to learning colours and some equations), requires the same workload or effort as any of these Willy Wonka A-levels. Equally how can a 2.1 in god-knows-what from some unknown university be equated, at least on paper to a 2.1 in Mathematics from Cambridge. This nonsense devalues the efforts of those who currently, and have previously studied 'proper' subjects with actual utility. Yet again, Comrades Blair and Brown have displayed a fantastic capacity for screwing the country

It's only going to get worse, too.

If you sit a maths GCSE higher paper you only need 51% to get an A. Hardly preparation for the real world is it? Get half of your maths questions wrong, get an A. Get half of your job wrong, get the sack.

A-levels are going the same way and a mate of my dad's is a university admissions man. They get so many A or A* students these days it has become impossible to distinguish one from the other so they have their own exam for the student to sit.

Personally I went for a classic degree (Chemistry), from a good university (Warwick) and got a decent mark (2:1). I get sent CVs from people who got a 1st in American History from Thames Valley University. How on earth am I supposed to know if that's "good" or not?

Would a history degree from a Cambridge college be any different or for that matter a classics degree from Cambridge?

Yes, because any tit can get into Thames Valley. Cambridge actually vet people and only take the best, so the person with Cambridge degree is likely to have a broad skill set.

The most academically gifted students do not necessarily make the best employees in the real world.

True enough, but the Cambridge entrance procedure does not major on academics. Back in my day the offered only on people with three As at A level, so acadaemics were a gievn.

They looked for well rounded people, who DO make the best employees.

[ewenm]

Vesuvius 996 said:

plasticpig said:

thekirbyfake said:

bobthemonkey said:

On a separate note, can the next Government please please try to regain some parity between A-levels and Degrees. There is no way on this planet that an A-level in chemistry (even its its current state in which it is oppressively reduced to learning colours and some equations), requires the same workload or effort as any of these Willy Wonka A-levels. Equally how can a 2.1 in god-knows-what from some unknown university be equated, at least on paper to a 2.1 in Mathematics from Cambridge. This nonsense devalues the efforts of those who currently, and have previously studied 'proper' subjects with actual utility. Yet again, Comrades Blair and Brown have displayed a fantastic capacity for screwing the country

It's only going to get worse, too.

If you sit a maths GCSE higher paper you only need 51% to get an A. Hardly preparation for the real world is it? Get half of your maths questions wrong, get an A. Get half of your job wrong, get the sack.

A-levels are going the same way and a mate of my dad's is a university admissions man. They get so many A or A* students these days it has become impossile to distiguish one from the other so they have their own exam for the student to sit.

Personally I went for a classic degree (Chemistry), from a good university (Warwick) and got a decent mark (2:1). I get sent CVs from people who got a 1st in Amercian History from Thames Valley University. How on earth am I supposed to know if that's "good" or not?

Would a history degree from a Cambridge college be any different or for that matter a classics degree from Cambridge?

Yes, because any tit can get into Thames Vallet. Cambridge actually vet people and only take the best, so the person with Cambridge degree is likely to have a broad skill set.

Of my 3 friends who did classics at Cambridge, one is a teacher, one a journalist/photographer and one a tax consultant in the City. As far as I understand it, a degree used to show the applicant could work independently, manage their time and apply themselves appropriately to tasks; the subject was less important. Now it seems a degree can no longer tell you that.

[thekirbyfake]

plasticpig said:

The most academically gifted students do not necessarily make the best employees in the real world.

I completely agree. And that's my point.

If I'm trying to cut the wheat from the chav it's harder to do so because everybody has a "univerity degree" these days. Who do you invite along for an interview based upon results on a CV?

By the way, have I touched a nerve? How did your American Studies course go?

[Vesuvius 996]

thekirbyfake said:

cut the wheat from the chav

Genius.

[im]

Vesuvius 996 said:

Cambridge actually vet people and only take the best, so the person with Cambridge degree is likely to be a Communist sympathiser spying for an axis of evil power

EFA





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five

[trimbo]

thekirbyfake said:

If I'm trying to cut the wheat from the chav it's harder to do so because everybody has a "univerity degree" these days.

The currency's been devalued. That's the only tangible achievement from Labour's drive to bring 'opportunity' to all.

My advice to employers; ignore the academic stuff unless it's from one of the big names.
The interview process has now become the only way to evaluate potential employees.

We hired a junior trader two months ago because he came across really well when we met him. He left school after his GCSEs, by choice, grades were good, but he really wanted to test his skills in the workplace. He's had two years experience before coming to us, he's self motivated, keen to learn, hard working and enthusiastic. His friends have all just started Uni, will be interesting to see how his chosen path compares to his pals' over the coming years.

My advice to 16 - 18 year olds; consider looking for work instead of further education, unless you're an academic high flyer you might be harming your future prospects.

[plasticpig]

thekirbyfake said:

plastic pig said:

The most academically gifted students do not necessarily make the best employees in the real world.

I completely agree. And that's my point.

If I'm trying to cut the wheat from the chav it's harder to do so because everybody has a "university degree" these days. Who do you invite along for an interview based upon results on a CV?

By the way, have I touched a nerve? How did your American Studies course go?

Good question. There are plenty of ways of reducing a pile of CV's. Randomly disposing of half of them although not scientific always helps.

As for touching a nerve. Not really. I have met a lot of people who have made up for being academically gift-less by hard graft though. I dont have a degree as I spent too much time getting pissed and not doing enough study. I like to think I have made up for it since though!

[thekirbyfake]

plasticpig said:

There are plenty of ways of reducing a pile of CV's. Randomly disposing of half of them although not scientific always helps.

David Brent said:

I throw away half of the CVs. The reason? I don't employ unlucky people

[Vesuvius 996]

thekirbyfake said:

plasticpig said:

There are plenty of ways of reducing a pile of CV's. Randomly disposing of half of them although not scientific always helps.

David Brent said:

I throw away half of the CVs. The reason? I don't employ unlucky people

Generally out of 100 CVs received, 50 have a spelling mistake in them. Bin. Several have coloured paper or crazy fonts. Bin. Several have stupid things in like "Achievements : 50m swimming badge". Bin.

Generally about 10 survive to be read in detail.


Plain white paper. Plain font. End of story.

[Digga]

Vesuvius 996 said:

thekirbyfake said:

plasticpig said:

There are plenty of ways of reducing a pile of CV's. Randomly disposing of half of them although not scientific always helps.

David Brent said:

I throw away half of the CVs. The reason? I don't employ unlucky people

Generally out of 100 CVs received, 50 have a spelling mistake in them. Bin. Several have coloured paper or crazy fonts. Bin. Several have stupid things in like "Achievements : 50m swimming badge". Bin.

Generally about 10 survive to be read in detail.


Plain white paper. Plain font. End of story.

Unless you're in the public sector, in which case you have to have 100% justifiable and 'PC' grounds to dismiss all applicants. I have a friend who is a surgeon whose only 'realistic' means of pairing down the huge numbers of CVs he has to review is to 'loose' a few in the post...

No wonder the oublic sector is so fked up - not only are you unlikely to be fired, you are also unlikely to be rejected in the first instance.

[plasticpig]

Vesuvius 996 said:

thekirbyfake said:

plasticpig said:

There are plenty of ways of reducing a pile of CV's. Randomly disposing of half of them although not scientific always helps.

David Brent said:

I throw away half of the CVs. The reason? I don't employ unlucky people

Generally out of 100 CVs received, 50 have a spelling mistake in them. Bin. Several have coloured paper or crazy fonts. Bin. Several have stupid things in like "Achievements : 50m swimming badge". Bin.

Generally about 10 survive to be read in detail.


Plain white paper. Plain font. End of story.

The reasoning has always been that if you randomly throw away the CV's you cannot be accused of being racist, sexist or any other form of ist. Then you start throwing away the ones printed on pink paper with purple ink and a gothic font.

[Vesuvius 996]

plasticpig said:

Vesuvius 996 said:

thekirbyfake said:

plasticpig said:

There are plenty of ways of reducing a pile of CV's. Randomly disposing of half of them although not scientific always helps.

David Brent said:

I throw away half of the CVs. The reason? I don't employ unlucky people

Generally out of 100 CVs received, 50 have a spelling mistake in them. Bin. Several have coloured paper or crazy fonts. Bin. Several have stupid things in like "Achievements : 50m swimming badge". Bin.

Generally about 10 survive to be read in detail.


Plain white paper. Plain font. End of story.

The reasoning has always been that if you randomly throw away the CV's you cannot be accused of being racist, sexist or any other form of ist. Then you start throwing away the ones printed on pink paper with purple ink and a gothic font.

No wait, I forgot the ones which start


Name

"A bubbly, intelligent articulate woman with a bright personality and who is great with people."

[Benny Saltstein]

plasticpig said:

Vesuvius 996 said:

thekirbyfake said:

plasticpig said:

There are plenty of ways of reducing a pile of CV's. Randomly disposing of half of them although not scientific always helps.

David Brent said:

I throw away half of the CVs. The reason? I don't employ unlucky people

Generally out of 100 CVs received, 50 have a spelling mistake in them. Bin. Several have coloured paper or crazy fonts. Bin. Several have stupid things in like "Achievements : 50m swimming badge". Bin.

Generally about 10 survive to be read in detail.


Plain white paper. Plain font. End of story.

The reasoning has always been that if you randomly throw away the CV's you cannot be accused of being racist, sexist or any other form of ist. Then you start throwing away the ones printed on pink paper with purple ink and a gothic font.

and if you're a minger don't put your photo on the CV. This seems to be the latest trend. Is it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of being hideously ugly?

[Vesuvius 996]

Tip.

Anyone applying for a job here will get a long way if they replicate the young woman who applied for the role of administrative assistant who listed her interests as "Modelling, theraputic massage and gymnastics."