I recently graduated from university, and to be completely honest, with a masters degree in maths/physics from a top university I felt that I was above menial work. I don't think it makes me a snob (I worked for 6 years at ASDA whilst at college/uni), I just don't see why I should sell myself short and accept a job I am clearly capable of doing better than. I didn't want to lower my chances of getting a graduate level job because of a ty minimum wage job.

The graduate job applications are an absolute nightmare, It was pretty much a full time job, and I genuinely don't think I would've been able to give myself the best chance of getting a job if I were working.

I don't think older people have any idea how time consuming graduate job hunting is. To give you a rough idea, for each job I applied to I probably spent a full day initially researching the company, then another full day filling out the application form, and answering all the motivation/competency questions (the average was probably 5 questions, 300 word limit for each) Then there's the online tests (one of the big 4 made me do 5 separate tests). When I passed these stages I spent maybe 3 or 4 full days researching the company/preparing for the interview. Then another day or two revising everything before my assessment day/second interview. I did about 20 graduate applications, and got to the interview stage of most.

Also, I think there are a lot of snobby recruiters out there, and I think that a lot of the prestigious companies would be put off from hiring someone who graduated from uni then went to work at Starbucks or Morrisons. Yes being unemployed looks worse, but if you do some charity work/travelling like I did, and sell it as a gap year it looks a lot better.

Before I get any abuse, In my time unemployed I'm not claiming JSA or any benefits - I'm doing a bit of maths tutoring, and I'm lucky that my parents can help me out a bit.

If I did a subject with limited opportunity for tutoring and my parents couldn't help me out, then I would've claimed JSA whilst I was job hunting, and the forced employment would've lowered my chances of getting a top graduate job compared with those not forced to claim JSA.

Yes there are loads of people with a 2.2 in media studies from a poor uni who probably need to get used to menial work, but not at the expense of punishing talented, poor graduates by forcing them to work at poundland when they should be doing job applications.

As it happens I spent New Years Eve at a museum and yes my food and drink was possibly served by people without a university education - I didn't ask. I assume that if you want work in a museum full time then it's most likely that this ambition will have to be matched by a university education if you want to progress from serving food and drink.

I don't think anyone is fond of the work programme on here which is a good

Nice fishing rod, wrong bait though.

Yes, it does. You think you're too good to earn a living in a job you deem to be below you. But that doesn't mean I disagree with your reasoning.


Sorry, I'm hearing excuses. Plenty of people (including graduates) manage to job hunt while in employment.


You think applying for jobs these days takes longer?

Try job-hunting when jobs could only be found in certain local or specialist papers on certain days of the week or by visiting job agencies, when you often had to pay to get a CV put together and printed, then had to post it off before attending several stages of the interview process, and when, weeks later, you were still waiting by the phone for 'that' call, or by the letterbox for 'that' letter. Time-consuming? You don't know the half.

Today, you can search for jobs 24/7 and your application and cover letter half the work can be done in seconds online, via email or by phone wherever you are, and an interview arranged within minutes. Assessments can be done online and your research can be done online. On that note - how on earth you can take 3/4 days to research a company and prepare for an interview is beyond me.


Not sure I agree with that. The more 'prestigious' recruiters I recruited for didn't really care. They wanted the relevant qualifications, and of course if possible, relevant experience and the 'right' person.


Good on you. And yes you are lucky. I see no reason why the state should support you for an indeterminate length of time because you see a whole raft of jobs as below you.


Does the old saying 'it's easier to find a job when you have one' not apply? Perhaps genuinely not for a graduate straight out of uni. Working for a low wage in a menial job may be unappealing to someone as smart as you, but it's miles better than working for your JSA.


Most of them probably expected the same from their degree as you do - a chance to obtain the first step on the rung of a good career. Problem is, that's getting tougher and tougher.

I sympathise with you and other graduates, I really do. The job market is a horrible place for experienced workers, never mind young people with only a slip of paper and no experience. But for me that's all the more reason to take what you can get while you're looking. Unless your parents are willing to bail you out indefinitely of course.

I know that I can do better than a minimum wage job. Stating that makes me sound a bit like a knob but its true. I'm definitely not a snob, I wouldn't be volunteering at a local charity shop if I was. I know that it's possible to job hunt whilst in employment, I just think that it reduces your likelihood of finding a graduate job, so I decided I wasn't going to risk it.


All people of my parents generation that I've spoken with simply sent off a cover letter and a copy of their CV, then if they were successful went down for an interview. There wasn't a ridiculous number of tests to pass, competency and motivation questions to answer, second interviews, assessment days etc. Its easier to look for a job nowadays when it can all be done on the internet, but they seems to be a lot more stages to the application process, I presume because the applicant/job ratio tends to be much higher. I may be wrong - my parents and their friends don't have 'good' jobs, so this might be why they don't understand how complicated and time consuming the application process is.


Very, very extensive research on the company that I'm applying to, their main competitors and the industry. When there are over a hundred people applying per vacancy, all of them with a good academic record (they literally won't even let you apply if you don't), and many with relevant work experience (which I don't have), I thought it was best to try and stand out by being ridiculously knowledgeable about the company.

That surprises me a little, but tbf that opinion wasn't really based on any evidence, just a gut feeling, so it might be completely wrong (in most cases).

I think probably not for someone straight out of uni (as long as oyu have previsou work experience of some sort), after a year the travelling/volunteering excuse runs out and gaps in your CV really start to look bad.

Yeah I know, I feel sorry for people who haven't got a 'good' degree from a 'good' uni, many of them have been sold a very expensive lie IMO.

Personally having worked in a supermarket for 6 years, I don't think any menial work would really give me any experience, or make me more employable. I know what you mean though, I have friends who are 22/23 and have never had a job, I wouldn't hire them.

I think my parents are willing to support me for 1 round of applications, if by the end of this application cycle I didn't have a job I think I'd have to lower my target significantly and take anything just to pay board (Luckily I've got an offer from one of the big 4 so I won't get to find out).

Obviously a degree would not be a requirement for absolutely every job at a museum but do you seriously contend that the only people employed at a museum are those working in the shop or greeting visitors?

Where do you suggest those who are responsible for research, collation, arhchiving etc are sourced? Perhaps they could all be work experience, dole-wallahs but I'd suggest that the museum experience would be a lot poorer for it. Or maybe museums should just be great big sheds with a handfull of minimum-waged greeters and shop assistants, then all the technical and intelligent stuff could be outsourced to the private sector.

Do we still have museums in your "real world"?

You are once again struggling with simple comprehension - where in this thread did I suggest that the only people who work in a museum work in the shop or greet visitors? I simply countered Damo's suggestion that you needed to have a university education to work in one.

Given the majority of museums outside of London are pretty small affairs I would suggest - although I have no data - that the greater majority of people who work in these museums don't have a university education. Does that make the experience any the worse?

Again I never said that - what I said was having a degree is not a minimum requirement to work in a museum.

A fact all the same

No its not, and there is a very simple reason why no government minister ever dare utter the word "wage" when speaking of any sort of workfare program - it can't be seen as a wage because HM Government would be breaking the law by paying £2.30 an hour to an adult for workfare.

Its an allowance based on your past contributions or current lack of income and your age, and its work experience designed to be part of an overall training and advice package offered to all job seekers which may or may not include some element of practical work experience, simple as that, nothing to do with a wage at all, be very careful about refering to it in that way in The House.

HOWEVER,

When it comes to party conference season it makes for damn good shouting and a-whooping and a-hollering to the party faithful when you give the impression that you're going to force these shirkers and work-shy lower class plebs to work for their benefits.

True but they are being forced to work for an amount of money that is way below the minimum wage.
Probably doing work that stops someone else from getting a job that would pay them the minimum wage.

The only winner here is Poundland getting free labour.

Indeed, and as I have said, that is the real issue.

The fact she's work shy and would rather toss it off volunteering in a museum is immeterial.

The facts say otherwise.



I really don't know whether you're trolling here, Standee, or whether you mean that:

1) Working in a museum isn't 'real' work – which itself suggests that museums are worthless;

2) Work experience isn't useful?

We don't know that she is workshy and we don't know what her volunteering duties involved.
But yes, it's immaterial to the issue of Poundland being the only winners, if that's what you meant.

On the basis that, after the Poundland nonsense, she apparently went and found a part-time job at Morrisons, while also doing work experience at the museum, it's a fair bet that we know that she is not "workshy".

Indeed, fair point.

I like Standee...He is an enigmatic conundrum. He can work himself into an orgasmic lather leading the righteous in a cavalry charge to have injustices over a couple of photos being displaced at the KC...Alternatively he can come on a thread like this and talk narrow-minded bollox!

What I don’t get is the Work Programme cost the tax payer about £5 billion, I think, and, (as far gaining full-time employment is concerned), being on the WP is worse than ‘doing nothing’.

The government has been accused of artificially reducing the unemployment figures by 105,000 because they are counting unemployed people on these work placement schemes as employed.

From here: [urlhttp://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-10-23d.124129.h[/url

"Those participants whose activity comprises any form of work, work experience or work-related training are classified as in employment. This is regardless of whether the individual is paid or not."

There also an issue of people being under-employed i.e. people in work who are seeking longer hours but can't get them. This is also in part thought to be linked to the free labour these work placements provide.

Finally there is the issue of falling unemployment yet no growth in GDP. More people said to be in work but the country is not producing more and income tax receipts are down. This is also partly explained by people doing voluntary work on a work placement scheme being classed as employed yet they aren't producing anything nor paying tax or NI because their income is JSA and not a wage from an employer.

Smoke and mirrors, methinks.

The whole Atos/A4e/WorkFare/demonisation of disabled, unemployed, low-paid, anyone on any benefit etc etc is nothing other than playing with deckchairs on the Titanic; the iceberg in question being the fact that there are neither enough jobs around for the working-age population, nor enough jobs that pay a living wage so that the taxpayer does not continue, via in-work benefits, to have to subsidise companies.

Successive governments have both helped to create/facilitate the development of this situation – and not done enough to tackle this central iceberg, while also not telling the public that this is at the heart of the issue.

In a shellnut.

Waste of time and money? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... thing.html Happening now. www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2-0003.htm www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/1072 Watch this space? www.legislation.gov.uk/new/2013- ... 2013-02-14

Waste of time and money? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... thing.html Happening now. www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2-0003.htm www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/1072 Watch this space? www.legislation.gov.uk/new/2013- ... 2013-02-14

Quote ="V6Chuk"Waste of time and money? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... thing.html'" "The employment minister, Mark Hoban, suggested the double-dip recession had taken a toll on the programme." Exactly. There are not enough jobs. And no amount of paying companies to get people into jobs will work if those jobs do not exist. We also know that there have been rises in things like zero-hours contracts, which take people off any unemployment register, even if they only get a couple of hour's work a week. Companies and organisations have cut hours for some workers too. It's no wonder that we're still not seeing any rise in consumer confidence, despite the further attempts to claim that unemployment is falling and that we're on the cusp of economic growth.

Quote ="V6Chuk"Waste of time and money? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... thing.html'" "The employment minister, Mark Hoban, suggested the double-dip recession had taken a toll on the programme." Exactly. There are not enough jobs. And no amount of paying companies to get people into jobs will work if those jobs do not exist. We also know that there have been rises in things like zero-hours contracts, which take people off any unemployment register, even if they only get a couple of hour's work a week. Companies and organisations have cut hours for some workers too. It's no wonder that we're still not seeing any rise in consumer confidence, despite the further attempts to claim that unemployment is falling and that we're on the cusp of economic growth.

David Cameron also attempted to claim that thousands of new jobs had been created, when in fact they were simply jobs that existed in the public sector (higher education) being transferred to the private sector.