Employability is an ethical issue

Boring!

We are told to act more like businesses. Would any other business accept being held responsible for a complex outcome that they have no real control over and involves innumerable other actors? Would a restaurant accept being held responsible for the health and obesity of a customer five years after they last eat there? if someone sells you a suit, are they responsible for whether the interview goes well and you get the job? In both cases, the business product or service may help or hinder the outcome, but it is far from being the only factor. Why do universities accept these extraneous responsibilities? Is it because VC's hanker after the much desired 'Sir' or 'Dame' title and these are only handed out to government Quislings?

I finished this article none the wiser as to whether the author thought helping students to develop skills that will stand them in good stead in the workplace is a good or bad thing. What I did feel though was being almost oppressed by the sanctimonious tone, with the author appearing to view highly paid jobs as socially useless - unless the person does penance by giving lots of money away - and implying that lowly paid jobs are conversely somehow almost automatically socially virtuous. I think it's a little bit more complex than that... And casting career choices and salary levels in 'moral' terms ( when most people's career choices are fundamentally about having to get a job to pay the bills) does not strike me as very helpful. I am left wondering where on this scale the author would place their own job? Among the socially meritorious or the socially useless? And on what basis would they arrive at that conclusion?

Let's be honest here . Daddy and his friends are probably going to get her a job in Finance anyway. Playing "charity games" is what they would expect from a daughter so there is no real risk to her from doing this. What this reveals says more about the sorts of students that he deals with and, as such, very little about the more difficult choices faced by working class student - to work and contribute to the family or study. When more and more universities are creating punitive attendance policies which punish those who need to work there are more important ethical issues than advising the privileged few on the choices they have. Most students just dont get this level of choice and the ones that do, dont really need our support to get jobs.

I'm suspecting that the author hasn't spoken to many University Careers Advisers before making these judgements. First and foremost our work is student-centred, so we talk with the student about what their values are and how they can work to a future job that allows them to best express those. So in this case, it might well be that the best option is to work with the charity - but we do also introduce the 80,000 hours philosophy of 'money first, philanthropy later' - and, crucially, empower the student to make their own choice as to which is best. And I suggest he looks at the work of Tristram Hooley on careers guidance for social justice as well. I'd also invite the author to consider whether Careers Services think employment statistics are a good idea too!

This is a timely article as I try to help this year's graduates make the contacts that will help them develop and grow. At Christmas my daughter, an LSE graduate, had just the ethical choice to make invited to two second interviews one for a paralegal post with a human rights law firm in the City (with the opportunity to qualify as a solicitor) and the other with a Charity hosting meals using 'waste food from retailers. As an academic and parent the the law opportunity seemed worth pursuing - as her work could make a difference. She choose the charity. They offered her the post and she could see how her work has value and impact now. The law route was full of - could, should, would make a difference if and when. With so many graduates - those could and should prospects, maybe very transitory. In any case, why should the few make and be paid so much? (Some how football academies come to mind and the youngster they train so for making it to major teams - there is a cull built into the system).

Some interesting points to dissect out here. For a start, all this 'employability' being measured by the size of the wage packet is a metric dreamed up by politicians, so inherently worthless. We do need to question what we want our students to take away, apart from domain-specific skills and knowledge, though. A university education ought to be about replacing an empty mind with an open and enquring one, imparting the ability to think and the ability to learn. Thus equipped, students can do what they want... often quite dramatically. I myself graduated in botany and now am sitting in a university computer science department - I'd not have been able to make such a change of path if those ostensibly teaching me about plants had not empowered me to be able to think and learn for myself! Advice to students always needs to be centered on one thing: the student themselves. We are not politicians: we should not let our own self-interest intrude, but support each student to find the path that is right for them.

The correct response to the question is "You're an adult. The best thing about being an adult is that you get to make choices. Remember that you also get to live with the consequences of those choices. We've taught you well now off you go and decide."

Wow; I agree with much, if not all, of what has been posted on this thread. Common agreement on such issues is, for me, not easy to find. My views on the distinction between Education and Training often sets me aside from others who know the value of acquiescence. The former is what Universities should focus on and the latter is what Universities should denude themselves of. The former promotes 'trainability' and therefore employability. The latter is what employers do after appointing graduates to their training schemes. Significant financial savings can be made if Universities withdrew from that crass process of treating students as pupils. An ex pupil arriving for their first year at University should be allowed to develop in to an independent student by the end of their second year, with our support naturally. By the end of their final year they should be equipped sufficiently well to answer their own questions about employment, or at least realise that they require a myriad of experiences before they're able to put their expectations of themselves into proportion; failure being one of them. Talk of skills development and value laden employment perspectives is just nonsense. At best such talk just puts words in to student mouths. At worst such talk creates undeliverable impressions to impressionable young people; the weaker of whom will hang on to advice which often borders on being fraudulent and which often results in an unintended lie about what is achievable.