What with termination of the Iraqi regime, George Bush in the Whitehouse, Bersluconi bestriding Europe and internecine war between the Labour government and the BBC, the editors of the Guardian must be scratching around urgently for some news they can celebrate.
They have finally found some: the emergence of the next generation of guardianistas:
The public sector is now the most popular choice of employer for graduates, new research revealed today.
In a Mori poll, 32% of students said they would like to work for a public sector organisation – ahead of blue chip companies and small to medium enterprises.
On the face of it, the revelation that nearly a third of graduates want to devote their lives to consuming taxes and finding ever-more bizarre ways to spend other people’s money, should be somewhat alarming. But maybe it is simply a doleful recognition that the private sector has little use for people who have spent three or four years immersed in ‘Gay Studies’ or the ‘History of Yoghurt’.
I suspect the real culprit here is the addle-brained article of faith for our political elites that lack of personal achievement is inextricably linked to feelings of self-esteem, especially the self-esteem that grows from having ‘qualifications’ regardless of how bogus they might actually be. It was this conviction that led to an explosion of state-backed ‘universities’ which tossed out potemkin qualifications like Palestinian candy.
The result, however, is no an upgrading of people but rather a downgrading of education to the point where image of a ‘graduate’ as a steely-witted young go-getter has been reduced to a laughable myth.
Graduate Prospects’ chief executive, Mike Hill, said: “The public sector has a great deal to offer young graduates looking for their first job, not least working conditions that often mean a better balanced life. This can include flexible hours, home-working, job-share and better holidays.
And that, for me, is the ‘money’ quote. Isn’t the term ‘better balanced life’ really a polite euphamsim for ‘easy ride’? Perhaps these prospective graduates have lost none of the survival instincts they were born with and are unwilling to undergo the rigours of the private sector that they know will shred their fragile intellects. Hence, find me a sinecure and find it quick.
“In addition, many graduates want to feel they are doing something good for society in their work. Research by the audit commission found that wanting to have a positive effect on people’s lives was the main reason why staff chose the public sector. That makes it an attractive option for graduates.”
As if we need a bigger army of Diversity Development Outreach Co-ordinators in order to set off the harmful effects on society of all those greedy people who devote their lives to the selfish pursuits of trade, innovation and enterprise.
I am willing to wager that it is the highly selfish pursuit of soft options and not sham altruism which is lying at the root of this new trend. But, let’s face it, the alleged desire to ‘do good for society’ sounds a lot more like the kind of thing that the paladins of the education establishment want to hear. But that is still a problem because clearly the education establishment is committed to pushing this message to its charges and, for as long as that is still happening, then the assembled forced of reason have a long march ahead of them.
“The result, however, is no an upgrading of people but rather a downgrading of education to the point where image of a ‘graduate’ as a steely-witted young go-getter has been reduced to a laughable myth.”
I just spent a very pleasant morning with a group of young law students who are spending the summer with my law firm, and I can tell you that there are still plenty of “steely-witted young go-getters” out there. This group of youngsters is scary smart, incredibly poised and pulled together, and completely capable. Needless to say, they are looking for private sector jobs that offer them maximum challenge and income.
So, all is not lost.
T.Hartin…. please tell me this isn’t true…. not only are all the dumb graduates aiming to work for governmental bureacracy and do their best to take our hard earned money away through every increasing legislation …. but now all the smart graduates are determined to be the lawyers who try to take our money away from us by interpreting these laws. ….. ouch! 🙁
For several months, Donald Rumsfeld has been spending much of his political capital attempting to gain US Congressional approval for “streamlined” personnel rules for the Dept of Defense, which he heads. Part of the problem DoD faces is attracting young people to the military’s civilian work force.
I’m of two minds on this. On one hand, I know it’s important for DoD to be able to attract competent young lawyers, accountants, scientists, etc. On the other hand, it seems to speak well of young Americans that few are apparently interested in becoming cogs in the wheel of federal bureaucracy.
It depends really David. For example, I identified with this:
Graduate Prospects’ chief executive, Mike Hill, said: “The public sector has a great deal to offer young graduates looking for their first job, not least working conditions that often mean a better balanced life. This can include flexible hours, home-working, job-share and better holidays.
I have flexible hours, in that some days I work a lot more than others, and I have home-working, in that I often end up taking work home with me, and I job share, in the sense other people share their crap with me, and my holidays feel much better as I can get away. This may distinguish my role from one in the public sector.
“but now all the smart graduates are determined to be the lawyers who try to take our money away from us by interpreting these laws.”
As private sector lawyers, these smart young people will be your allies as you take on the many tentacles of the regulatory state, and as you put together the kind of complicated deals that modern capitalistic business requires.
Fascinating topic, really. I agree that it is at least in part symptomatic of the mentality that what you know–and whether you in fact know anything at all–is less important than your commitment to holding hands and singing We Are The World.
At the same time, I have to sheepishly admit to falling into the statistical camp described here. I’m studying Eastern Europe, and will likely end up there as a political or cultural attache for the government (in other words, I’ll probably be a striped-suit State Department functionary). My reasons, though, are deeply anti-collectivist. As long as we’re developing closer and more intimate ties with the likes of Poland, the Czech Republic, and so forth, I’d like to be a part of that process.
I suppose you could say screwing France has become my life’s work. You don’t have to, mind. But you could.
This is surely Miss World syndrome – most people prefer to pretend that they want to be a school teacher or state-subsidised nursery helper “I want to work with children” rather than admitting that they want to get a highly-paid job doing something they’ll find personally fulfilling.
The scarey bit is the indoctrination people go through in education where capitalism becomes a dirty word.
Many of my university contemporaries had high-minded plans to go and get a financial training at PWC before “doing good” for an NGO. They are mostly still at PWC.
T.Hartin, your last post is interesting and much worth contemplating. And the thing I’m contemplating is that you’ve got things not merely wrong, but backwards.
What I’m thinking is that lawyers represent a special case. Engineers or a scientists (to give two examples) are not inherently pro-liberty nor anti-statism. Their professions are not integral components of Big Bureaucracy, although some in those professions are burearcrats, of course.
But it seems to me that lawyering, as a profession, is intrinsically devoted to throwing sand in the gears of free society in a way that other professions are not. Yes, of course some lawyers devote their energies to “tak[ing] on the many tentacles of the regulatory state.” But such people are, it seems to me — and it has surely been my experience — in the distinct minority.
Actually its not irrational, graduates going into the public sector can envision senior management positions paying six-figure sums. Throw in job security and a tough job market in the private sector…
As a fresh graduate (a pass in Cybernetics, a waste of £12000 if ever there was one), I considered the civil service (political ideals don’t put cash in the bank). However, the graduate scheme demands a 2:1 or better, irrespective of what you actually know. I spent my time at university learning rather than attending lectures, hence the poor degree.
The graduates joining the civil service are the ones that are in thrall to the lecturers/system, and as such are probably less likely to be inventive in creating ways to deny our liberty than someone who knows what can be accomplished outside the system.
Let the guardianistas, the social workers, and the PC police elect themselves to positions of power. The intellectual monoculture will only serve to make it harder for them to percieve of people defying them.
Yeah, Steve, but I don’t want to spend my life defying them while paying their salaries.
I want there to be drastically fewer of them. And I want the ones that are left to be considerably humbled about their position in the world.
George, I will freely admit that many lawyers are devoted to extending the reach and grip of the state in many ways – either as state employees or as surrogates creating or enforcing new mandates via their work as plaintiff’s attorneys suing big tobacco, gun makers, etc.
However, given that the state is a fact of life, most lawyers in private practice are in the business of either actively foiling the nefarious schemes of the state (as defense attorneys, for example) or of helping people do what they want to do without getting enmeshed in the coils of the state (regulatory compliance).
Many other attorneys are simply business advisers, helping to allocate risk, draft contracts, etc., and are active and enthusiastic facilitators of the capitalist engine that really don’t have a lot to do with the state, other than helping the capitalists get where they want to go in spite of bureaucratic barriers.
OK, T. Hartin, you make a somewhat persuasive case. We obviously aren’t going to resolve the matter here.
Let me just add this thought: The late political philosopher Isaiah Berlin made a notable distinction between (1) positive freedom (what I am free to do) and (2) negative freedom (what I am free from — eg, the state — while pursuing “positive” freedom).
People on the Left put great emphasis on (1). Libertarians and many conservatives (of whom I am one) perceive that (1) (ie, “postitive” freedom) isn’t enough — that all will not be well until we are free from the “tentacles of the regulatory state” (to once again employ your apt metaphor).
Which brings me back to lawyers and lawyering. The legal profession in our age is very much interested in “positive” freedom, but has little time at all for the other. Or so it seems to me.
David, all you left out was the “inflation-proof-pension”; otherwise this would be perfect fodder for the
Two Minutes’ HateDaily Mail.I thought to be a good Daily Mail article you had to rant about the psychic benefits of crystal powers. Thats one messed up newspaper, one minute its send the wogs home, the next its the healing powers of the secret pyramid lizards of atlantis.
Unfortunately, too many lawyers *ARE* involved in using the government as a club to shakedown businesses…here in the US they came for (and got): tobacco, asbestos and they’re coming for food producers. And they don’t just aim for big scores either. In Los Angeles, a law firm called “Trevor Law Group” went after small businesses for $2000 (or so) each for minor, stupid violations of some consumer protection laws…where no one was actually harmed. The story (registration required) can be found here
Lawyers helping fight the government? Feh.
“Which brings me back to lawyers and lawyering. The legal profession in our age is very much interested in “positive” freedom, but has little time at all for the other. Or so it seems to me.”
I’m not sure your definitions of positive v. negative freedoms are exactly on. I have always viewed negative freedom as that which the state does not prohibit me from doing, and positive freedom as those things that I am actually capable of doing. For example, if the state doesn’t prohibit me from owning a fully-automatic machine gun, then I have the negative freedom to acquire one, but if I can’t afford it, then I don’t have the positive freedom to acquire one.
Leftists/Statists tend to think that it doesn’t matter what your negative freedoms are if you don’t have the positive freedom to actually do it. Thus, the fact that I am not prohibited by law from obtaining good housing means nothing to them if I can’t pay for good housingv – thus, the “right” to housing is transmuted from a right to be free from state interference in obtaining housing to a right to draw on the public purse to obtain housing.
I am not sure the positive/negative freedom thing has all that much to do with the private practice of law. Some kinds of practice are very much concerned with negative freedoms – a regulatory compliance practice is all about finding that zone of activity that is not subject to regulatory prohibition. Other kinds of practice are much more concerned with positive freedoms – a corporate/business practice has mostly to do with how you go about doing whatever it is that you are actually financially capable of doing. Most private practice is a mix of the two – first, identifying the zone of negative freedom where you can do what you want, and then helping you exercise your positive freedom to maximize your returns.
“Unfortunately, too many lawyers *ARE* involved in using the government as a club to shakedown businesses…here in the US they came for (and got): tobacco, asbestos and they’re coming for food producers.”
Too true, sadly. When I refer to the private practice of law, I do not mean to include the parasites and sharks of the plaintiff’s bar, which act for all too often as private attorneys general. I join Andy in saying “feh” on the plaintiff’s bar, and do not regard them as a force for liberty.
Like the Philosophical Cowboy above, I wonder in retrospect whether in choosing only private-sector employers I was being rather self-sacrificial.
Especially since a lot of them seem to have serious chips on their shoulders about which universities they could or couldn’t go to in their day — for which I had / and still have / to pay, of course.
The public sector never attracted me, but surely there is nothing wrong in principle with wanting shorter rather than longer hours, more rather than less pay, flexible rather than rigid work?
Talking to some private-sector employers when I was fresh out of college in the 80s sometimes made me feel I was listening to members of a mind-control cult – for example those Scientologists who have achieved ‘clear’ and thus have that peculiar look in their eyes. At the employers’ fair at college I would ask at each desk about work and hours, perfectly reasonable questions I feel.
Pay was a normal question for them. But when I asked about hours, the funny look in their eyes started to shine. “God, I don’t count the hours at work – it’s an exciting challenge – I’ve worked three weekends in a row – if you want to get ahead you can’t think in those terms….” they would babble.
Indeed, I am sympathetic with firms not wanting clock-watchers, and when I work on a project I work extremely hard and for as long as it takes.
That doesn’t necessarily mean I like being told that by an employer, as though it is vulgar of me to even think about leaving work to go home at some point in the evening.
All through the last decade or so, I was frequently amused by the articles in the paper every so often bemoaning the fact that so many graduates wanted to find a good job and make a lot of money. The writers were obviously distressed at this loss of “idealism”, which was clearly defined as a visceral animosity towards the greedy predations of the capitalist system.
Every once in a while, there would be a triumphant little puff piece about some high school or college student who was committed to saving the (fill in the blank) or defending the downtrodden (blanks) from further victimization, invariably including a sentence similar to “This is an example of the ideals of a committed young person who feels he/she can make a difference in the fight for (whatever).”
I’m not going to get into the subject of lawyers, since I have dealt with a great many of them and have found both good and bad, as could be expected with any group of people. Many of those described above seem to want to go into law as a career, but how many actually end up working in some free legal clinic for one-legged, indigent senior citizens with asthma or some such is, of course, impossible to know.
I have no problem with people going into careers in public service, not including professional politicians, which I object to on Jeffersonian grounds, as long as they understand their purpose in the larger scheme of things. If they realize that they are working to provide a coherent structure for free people to go about their business in peace, then they are an integral feature of the societal infrastructure required by a democratic, constitutional, capitalist system.
(It must be very obvious by now that I find the frequent arguments in this and other blogs concerning the virtues of anarchy to be oxymoronic, and pointless in the extreme).
Occasionally, I did run across someone who simply didn’t understand the purpose of a public service career in a free society. My favorite example was the guy in charge of city licensing, who came to a meeting to provide information about the license process, and began by smugly describing the city as one in which “all commercial activity is strictly regulated in order to preserve the quality of life demanded by the citizenry”.
One participant in the meeting then asked him about an article in the morning paper that very day which described how a new business had abandoned its plans to open a facility which would have provided over 100 jobs in a depressed area because it could not get the necessary permits. Another person asked about a local mechanical engineering firm which had just moved out of town because it couldn’t get permits to enlarge its facility.
When a third example of a similar nature was raised, the official decided he had to attend another meeting at the courthouse and could not continue. I must admit it was refreshing to see him sweating for a change. Democratic processes are often stressful to the statist, which I find to be a virtue of a free society.
I’m not sure your definitions of positive v. negative freedoms are exactly on. I have always viewed negative freedom as that which the state does not prohibit me from doing, and positive freedom as those things that I am actually capable of doing.
T.H., I am of course not writing about which definitions seem reasonable to you (or to me, for that matter). “Negative” to most people connotes “bad,” while “positive” means “good.”
But Prof Berlin had something else in mind when he defined his terms in Two Concepts of Liberty (1959).
See, for example, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p.43, Simon Blackburn (ed.).
I went to work for local government after leaving university. It didn’t pay very well but it was a job.
Much is made of the pension, but what doesn’t get mentioned is that the scheme is a contributary one, and whereas the private-sector schemes I’ve seen operate on the basis of 60ths or money purchase, the local govt one operates on 80ths, so you have to contribute for ten more years to get the same benefit.
“I am willing to wager that it is the highly selfish pursuit of soft options and not sham altruism which is lying at the root of this new trend”
David, I hope you’re right. It’s the altruistic ones who really scare me!
Cydonia
The problem with bestriding Europe is that it leaves your balls exposed to every pumped fist.
“Like the Philosophical Cowboy above, I wonder in retrospect whether in choosing only private-sector employers I was being rather self-sacrificial. “
Oh, I like what I do. And (slightly depressing) I do take moderate pleasure from being high up our department’s monthly “hours” charts. Partly as it shows I’m keeping busy (it’s a good sign about how your work’s going if you don’t have much time unassigned, and if you find work to do when you do have time unassigned, that’s a matter for personal satisfaction).
It’s just the original quote could be read in a couple of ways, and if you view a willingness to do some hard work at times as desirable, then it could be an ad when put the other way round…
“At the height of Victorian power and prosperity in 1851 the Whitehall departments of central government employed only 1628 civil servants.
“In that year, when Britain led the world in commerce and industry, the whole public payroll including postal workers totalled just 75000.
“Now, the Government employs 516000, of which 463000 (up from 431000 in 1998) are Civil Service staff rather than workers in the remaining nationalised industries.
“The Inland Revenue has taken on an extra 14000 staff to deal with increased workloads caused by increased taxation and Gordon Brown’s tax credit system.
“The vast expansion of the Civil Service has gone hand in hand with Britain’s decline. In 1900, when the Empire covered a quarter of the globe, the Foreign Office employed 142. Now it has 5620.”
Daily Mail, 25 July 2003, p37.
All the clueless wonders at Hull U went of to the CC. These were people whose grip on reality was tenous at best and who dealt in “concepts” not actual facts.
Blue chip ret or ic.