Sure great idea, alot of unis offer sandwhich degrees across the U.K. IMO It should be made mandatory. Those who opt out unless having a good reason again IMO are idiots!

To work for a bluechip company, I would be str8 in there. Shame the scheme wasn't put in place before, allot of current grad's will loose out.

I did have a placement year but doesn't look as good on my CV as Microsoft or Barclay's would.

A good idea but should have been in place a long time ago.

I'd echo what others have said.

I graduated in 1990 at age 28 (started at age 24 as a mature student) and was told by many companies they would not accept me onto their graduate schemes as I was too old !

Quite right, allot of Internships though offered were local to me. At my university and others, as far as I am aware they were all paid. I wouldn't say that bad either. Just over 15, 000 was offered for JP Morgan and shell were offering 18000.

Those who do the part time degrees, most are working? - maybe in their chosen degree subject, I was more thinking about those who have gone str8 through from school, young peeps like me in their l8 teens and early early 20's rather than perhaps mature students (e.g. Full time students - who may be working at Tesco part time). This though then raises questions of fairness if younger peeps are getting their internships and mature students are not.

I agree there! Seems to me there is allot of BS involved in applying for grad schemes. Though they offer a great deal should you get through. e.g. Relocation expenses, a dam good salary (for someone with limited experience), excellent development schemes, health care etc etc + the opportunity to meet lots of people of similar age to you and work in a big company.

I for one certainly do not want to end up in a small I.T. business with just a bunch of middle aged men. Big companies offer social advantages etc which many others jobs you may do not. + More chances to meet women in nice big companies, if your single.

But hey gotta face the rubbish questions/tests/interviews/presentations to get all the above.

Doing what? Regardless of whether their salary is paid by the government or not, that doesn't automagically enable new graduates to do server administration. This simply means more people doing the lower-level work, causing even more of a log jam for entry-level folks to try to eventually "prove themselves worthy" of rising to the next level. For you guys who are trying to break into IT without a degree, this should be rather disturbing news.

This reminds me of the good old days of the late 70s and early 80s, where there appeared to be too many grads and not enough jobs.

Back then, I grabbed the bull by the horns, left school, got a job... and I am still with the same employer.

I know Uni is supposed to be a wonderful experience but, in the current climate, I just wonder if it means 3 or 4 years study for a degree that will not get you a job.

Perhaps it's better to leave school at 16 or 18, study/learn on the job, get the qualifications and progress that way.

Anyway, I digress...

I agree, if I was someone trying to get into IT (or any profession) without a degree I would be worried. This gives those people at Uni an unfair advantage.

Surely it makes more sense to give the jobs to the people that have already trained and invested in their career ?

Thats how the world works in general. Thats why doctors go to med school and lawyers take the bar exam.

Makes no sense for a grad with 3 years training to sit unemployed while a untrained person gets the job. Anyone that has trained should get an advantage over those that haven't.

People have got used to IT being an easy catch all career for people to jump into and make money, well it isn't that way anymore, nor should it be frankly.

I agree apprenticeships probably make more sense than degrees for many professions, unfortunately we don't currently have that, what we have is an excess supply of graduates.

I think it depends on whether the jobs are relevant to their training. Fair enough if it is but giving someone with an IT degree a job in an area that they haven't trained for and have never seen as a viable career path isn't doing anyone any favours.
To stretch your analogy a bit, what's the point of going to med school if the only job you can get with it is as a medical receptionist.
Maybe I'm just bitter about being forced out of one career by people with worthless bits of paper who I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoelaces. Hopefully this isn't an indication that my second-choice career is dead and buried before it starts.

I, for one, assumed that was the point. By investing time (and money) into getting relevant higher level qualifications shows that you're commited, hard-working etc etc. Obviously the whole 'no real-world experience graduates' vs 'people with experience but no qualifications' argument comes up here but still...that's the point of the article.

People generally don't put in all of the extra effort to obtain high-level qualifications for nothing. In the current climate, yes it's difficult to obtain a job, but that will change with time, and no one is going to take that qualification away from you once you have it.

My two cents.

Qs

Fair point, not all degrees are the same after all, and many pieces of paper aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

My point still stands however, the employer has to judge 'relevant training', the traditional education route is an easy if not totally effective way for them to do this.

Yes the UK seems preoccupied with getting people degrees when there may not be a job at the end of it, I think this is very bad, however TP's are doing just the same in the commercial sector, many people fail to see this on this very site.

I'd like to see less degrees and more apprenticeships but thats not been the government or industry drive for the last 10+ years, now we have the grads we should at least use them. Better to have overqualififed rather than underqualified staff in my opinion.

Why is that then? Doesn't that punish the people who possibly haven't had the best of times at school or who would rather go out and get a job, learn a trade, earn money and pay taxes, rather than racking up huge debts whilst studying at Uni for a degree that they may not use once they have gained it?

There will be certain specialist areas, such as medicine where I can see your point.

This makes it sound like Uni grads have a God-given right to a job, whereas those of us who didn't go don't. If that happens, we are in danger of bringing back working and middle class-type boundaries.

I never thought it was in the first place, but I agree some people come into the IT profession with that view.

But it is something that we did have in many professions, such as plumbing, painting & decorating to name but two; however, it looks like employers will not take people on in such circumstances. Maybe the Government should widen it's plan to tackle such employers and get them to take on people to do the likes of C&G?

True. There were loads of people when I was a lad who seemed happy to take Sociology as a degree when it meant nothing in terms of what they wanted to do when they actually left Uni. It was, merely, a degree. I assume, from the numbers taking it, it was an easy one too.

Yes, but training is one thing; the ability to do the job is another. Now, taking someone on just becaue they have a degree does not mean they can perform those duties any better than me. I may be more adept than they are at something. It happens. There is no interview process between Joe No Degree and Fred 2:1 as far as I can see here. That means those without degrees are excluded from the process.

Couldn't agree more. But, with the degree side of things, it keeps those people off the Unemployed Register for 3 or 4 years at present.

I agree with the first bit. Still cannot agree with the second bit... sorry DM. I don't see why, just you've got a degree, you should have any better chance than me. Better someone who wants to learn, wants to graft hard and who will be a team player - whetehr that person has a degree or not.

Read the statement, I said give jobs to those who have trained, I didn't specify only degrees. I said nothing about punishing anyone, people who can prove they deserve it and want it the most should get the jobs, ie a meritocracy. To me TP's and certs just don't prove this as much as a degree in general because of various issues we often debate here.

You can get a degree part time while working, you can pay taxes at the same time, you can not rack up debts, you can get a degree that is useful in the workplace. People who invest in themselves and in training for a career should get rewarded, whats so hard with this principal ? If you worked in McDonalds while getting a foundation degree in IT, I'd reccomend you over the person that just worked in McDonalds for an IT job.

Actually theres no real reason why GP's or lawyers couldn't do an apprenticeship and nightschool in my mind, its just the status quo.

I never said they should have a 'God given' right to anything, only that those that have applied themselves to training for a career should get opportunities before those that haven't. They have chosen to work and earn money over training and investing in their future. Of course there are ways of doing both as already mentioned.

Employers in the end decide what they value most not you or myself. I think no positive descrimination should be used either for unemployed or for grads.

Very true... and with this sort of debate you will rarely get a consensus.

Again, true but degree should not equal job. You have to show you can 'cut the mustard'.

Surely getting a relevant degree shows this to some extent, which is what's come up in this discussion.

This is why potential employers rate (relevant) higher-level qualifications such as HNDs/Bsc. As DMarsh has previously said - these people have applied themselves in order to progress and they should get opportunities sooner than those who have not, and I agree with him.

Qs