Brian John Spencer

Open Letter: Why Sir David Bell is Wrong to Smack Down Employability Concerns of University Students

2013-05-14T08:19:41-04:00

The old order equation of "university degree = well paid job" is well and truly dead.

In response to the death of the old order, university students have started to demand that university courses are tailored towards employability. Read all about about this in the Times (£) here and here.

To my mind these demands are wholly sensible and represent a rational shift in the face of a changing world.

However Sir David Bell, vice-chancellor of the University of Reading recently smacked down the employability demands. In a riposte he said that it was vital that academics resisted such pressure in order to protect traditional courses; adding that the demands risk undermining the intellectual integrity of degrees.

With the fullest of respect I wholly disagree with Sir David Bell.

Here's why:

Firstly, university degrees have already been devalued by the sustained crusade to democratise university education. This is pretty simple economics: as successive UK governments have pushed for ever more young people attain a university degree, the supply-and-demand ratio for degrees has gone way, way, way off kilter.

This really gives meaning to the saying that the best intentions can have the most unintended of circumstances.

Secondly, the labour market has changed radically. It has become ever more competitive; with ever more sophisticated skill requirements. Therefore education must change radically.

As US law professor Jon M. Garon said, we need to 'Reshape Legal Education to Match the New Normal.' Just replace the word 'Legal' in the above sentence with your own career choice and you know what I mean.

Thirdly, by focusing on employability we can close the information deficit that exists between education and the real world.

This information deficit is a concern that I have voiced many times before, especially in my series 'Education is Not an Island Entire of Itself.'

In order to ensure a confident transition between education and the labour market, the two worlds need to be aligned informationally - as opposed to the current information asymmetry.

The real world needs to play a role in a young person's education; informing them on what the labour market wants.

In other words: young people need to make informed decisions that allow them to pursue career paths that have a realistic chance of delivering employment. As opposed to the current reality which has seen many young people to choose career paths that have no realistic chance of offering a job. See FT (£) article on 'Teens Aspire to Wrong Jobs.'

Fourthly, by focusing on the employability we can close the skills deficit that exists between education and the real world.

The ongoing skills deficit between education and the real world cause the 'inefficient allocation of young people.'

Young people leave university with plenty of theory and good reading skills, but wholly lacking in the actual doing skills.

As I've said before: 'All theory and no practice makes Jack an unemployable boy.'

Fifthly, to many, university is a sham. For many, no longer is university a place of high order learning. Frankly, many universities have degenerated into piss up villages where students don't actually learn anything apart from picking up drinking skills.

Like Dale J. Stephens of Uncollege said in the March/April edition of Wired Magazine:

'Going to college is meant to be the culmination of 12 years of hard work, determination and study... However any idealism was quickly squashed. For the most part, people weren't there to learn - they were there to party, and hangovers permitting, learn something along the way.'

Sixthly, since universities receive massive public funding that often exceeds 50% of their budget, they owe it to prepare young people in the best way possible for the labour market.

Seventh, the cries for employability are a symptom of something fundamentally wrong in the current university model.

Yes I wholly agree with Sir David Bell's wishes to guard the intellectual integrity of university. But to do so we need to properly regard university and not see at is the only career choice; but rather a place one chooses to attend after having made a genuine and sincere decision.

For some reason society has come to regard university as some sort of panacea. This is fine, but the reality is that not everyone can go to university.

This is the tyranny of the status quo.

We need to smash the status quo and create a divide between the traditional university model and create a new university model that encourages employability and employer led learning.

Having an Oxford degree naturally means employability. However having a degree from a lesser university militates towards unemployability.

As Stephen J. Stephens said in an interview with Forbes:

'I think a degree from Harvard is still highly valued -- but the reality is that most people don't go to Harvard. Most people, like me, go to mid-tier schools without any distinguishing features. For us, there is no brand value of your degree and you're likely going to be competing for jobs against others who have similarly meaningless degrees. If you want to get a job, create a portfolio and start your own projects. You need to prove that you're more than a piece of paper.'

This is part of a wider problem of esteem. We need to have a plurality of career choices. We should have the traditional university model for Oxbridge and the Red Brick universities; thereby meeting the wishes of Sir David Bell.

To meet the wishes of the concerned university students we need to create a spin-off university model that is less academic/theory focused but which meets the wider needs of the less able but still talented.

As it was said in a letter to the Times:

'Cognitive thinking and deductive reasoning should not get more attention than other kinds of intelligence.'

This plurality of career choices issue also requires us to regard the various choices as equal. We also need to value apprenticeships and technical colleges.

So there it is. My explanation on why Sir David Bell is wrong to smack down British students' cries for employability - with the qualification on why he is right to feel that something isn't right with the status quo.

To conclude I want to quote a fellow Huff Post blogger Roger Maidment and say: 'Learn Then Earn - Unis Must Prepare Work-Ready Graduates!'

Law School: The Default Career Choice

2013-05-07T07:59:56-04:00

Seven years ago I entered law school and five years later I left law school jobless. I also left law school without a day of practical experience; without an ounce of interview experience or even the faintest idea of what it was actually like to practice law.

I did have a fair bit of theory.

Not that that mattered for much; for employers wanted practical experience.

This was unsettling.

I had bought into the story that going to Law School was esteemed and a sure route to success.

I felt utterly duped and, as Steven J. Harper said, I felt law school was a 'sham'.

And there are a number of reasons why I felt duped and that law school was a sham.

Firstly, my university educators hadn't educated me in a way that aligned me to the job market.

Without practical experience I was wholly unemployable. There was a complete skills asymmetry between law school and the law market.

As the FT (£) rightly said, this leads 'to a period of "churn as this group retain and adjust themselves to the need of the labour market.'

Secondly, what unsettled me even more was the sheer weight of law graduates compared to the number of law jobs.

There was a complete information asymmetry between law school and the law market. Law schools in the UK and America were churning out law graduates even though the legal economy was losing jobs.

As it was said in the Atlantic:

'The legal economy is in shambles, and law schools have done virtually nothing to react.'

This is basic economics of supply and demand: when the demand for legal services is down, we should cut the supply of law graduates.

Why was I one person among thousands of very ambitious law graduates without a job?

Why hadn't my seniors, career advisors and policymakers made an issue of this?

Thirdly, what unsettled me the most was the fact that people had got it into their heads that law school is some sort of fabled career choice that leads to a place of unlimited riches.

People glamorise law, sex it up in their head and think that it's just the bee's knees of careers. As Stephen Harper said to Above the Law:

'People go to law school thinking they're going to grow up to be Atticus Finch or Alicia Florrick.'

It isn't - and unfortunately it took me around 5 years to work that out.

For my whole time at university I had simply held the faith that you go to a good high school; do well at GCSE, AS and A2; go to university and then everything will fall into place.

But I had made what seemed a sensible judgement in the face of received wisdom. But this just shows the weakness of the status quo and conventional thought.

As Tim Ferriss said in the Four Hour Work Week:

'The common sense rules of the real world are a fragile collection of socially reinforced illusions.'

But I wasn't the only one to have 'Law School Think' - if I can use that term.

Throughout history law has seemingly occupied the default career choice.

We can go right back to Edmund Burke. His father pushed him towards law and he actually went to London to study law. However he gave up to make a livelihood through writing.

Charles Dickens famously worked as a legal clerk in a law firm. His famous work Bleak House was inspired by his experience of legal practice.

Another famous writer, albeit lesser known, Honore de Balzac was an apprentice in a law office; but he turned his back on the study of law after wearying of its inhumanity and banal routine.

In his Ted Talk career analyst Dan Pink explained how in a moment of 'youthful indiscretion' he chose to go to law school.

In a biographical overview of Silicon Valley heavyweight Guy Kawasaki, ABC news explained Kawasaki's attempt at third level education:

'Rather than study medicine or engineering like a good Asian-American kid, Guy Kawaski earned a Stanford psychology degree and an MBA from UCLA. Hoping to please his folks, he enrolled in law school at U.C.-Davis, but hated it and dropped out.'

Comedienne Ruth Jones, well known for playing Nessa from Gavin and Stacey considered a career in law when at first acting wasn't working.

The world renowned children's book author and artist Oliver Jeffers highlighted the societal bias towards picking law as the default career choice. He explained when talking about his career:

'I was lucky that my mum and dad never pushed me to go down the road of getting a proper job, like being a lawyer or a doctor.'

Slate blogger, Matt Yglesias gave an overview in the video above and here of the very broad and altogether very vague career advice given to him. Which of course was to go to law school.

At the end of the day, we can't all be lawyers. So we need to do something about this damaging perception that regards law as some sort of pinnacle.

As we've seen, all this does is promote the inefficient allocation of human resources which in itself creates an unbalanced workforce, unbalanced economy and causes disillusionment among some of our greatest and brightest young people.

What we need is UnLawSchool; much like UnCollege - the brainchild of Dale J. Stephens which aims to break the myth that going to college is the only path to success - we need to break the myth that somehow going to law school is a guaranteed path to success.

Northern Ireland's 15th Birthday Present and Reward for Unruliness: A Handsome Cash Transfer

2013-04-29T07:50:12-04:00

Fifteen years ago Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and other statesmen mediated the un-mediatable and created the Northern Ireland that we know today.

Some see the bargain as a grand failure. The creation of a parochial sectarian state suspended in a form of purgatory with a bloody history and no future.

Others are more upbeat; Irish historian Ruth Dudley Edwards being one of the positive voices.

I'm undecided. Yes there's less bloodshed. There's less fear on the streets. However, as we keep hearing: there are more peace walls than ever and speaking generally, it's plain to see that the tribalism of old is very much part of society. Catholics go to Catholic schools. Protestants go to Protestant schools.

Apartheid in the purist form if you ask me. And people wonder why the old suspicions, mistrust and habitual hatred of old persist.

Any way, what better way to celebrate an unruly child's fifteenth birthday than with a gift of a big cash payment!? Yes the Northern Ireland secretary, Theresa Villiers and the hatchet men in Whitehall have pledged an economic aid package of amount yet undisclosed to go on top of the £7 billion annual subvention for the petulant child of British and Irish politics.

And 'childish' Northern Ireland politics and politicians are. Leading Northern Ireland industrialist John Cunningham said of the political establishment:

"It's like watching children argue, arguing at school. What relevance does it have? Why don't they put it all behind and really look and address the problems that we're facing.

"We're not facing these arguments and these historical things are not going to change the way we go forward.

"They're only going to keep us in the past. They're not going to keep our young people at home. They're not going to put prosperity into the Province. We should put them behind, move on."

Fifteen years on and political deadlock reigns; legislative incompetence and incontinence typifies the law makers; the working classes have been left behind; and the programme for Cohesion, Sharing and Integration flounders in a sea of partisan mudslinging.

BBC journalist Mark Simpson suggested that the elected officials are 'dull' but they're positively uninspiring.

Seamus Mallon was right, our Northern Ireland politicians are 'slow-learners'.

But seriously what we have is a perverse state of affairs and a perverse form of government. Two radical parties in a mandatory coalition which does nothing but grandstand and stonewall.

It's forever a politics of green and orange instead of left and right. Politicians are playing to their gallery and their grass-root radicals.

And by doing so they are ignoring the majority 'normalised' section of Northern Ireland society and encouraging the 'shrill' minority who are stuck in the past.

As it was suggested in the Belfast Politics, it's an 'old-style politics blind to society's changing shape'.

When the Union flag dispute hit Belfast streets on December 3 2013 Fraser Nelson of the Spectator said that 'the troubles are back'. However this is a distorted view of Northern Ireland. In the main part Northern Ireland society is civil and settled on improving relations and growing the economy.

The suggestion from Fraser Nelson that 'the troubles are back' is incorrect but understandable. But most importantly, it shows the ability of a radicalised and detached minority to destroy the good image of a majority Northern Ireland.

Jeff Peel has rightly spoken of the increasing 'normalisation' of Northern Ireland society:

'We're blighted by the shared future/education nonsense that's peddled by people who just aren't very bright - who fail to see that people can see beyond the trivia of Northern Ireland's two-tribe-machine.

This society is normalising. It's more accepting, more tolerant, less incendiary than it ever was. The Internet has made it more included in a global culture that moderates extremes and creates debate. The Internet has made this place less insular in a way that no other local cultural development could ever have hoped.'

Our children and our adults are leaving behind the nonsense of the past - despite the shared future nonsense-mongers that follow us around and sap our public finances.'

What Northern Ireland needs is jobs and a healthy economy. Yet what so viscerally animates the people is the old matters like flags, emblems and identities. How detached from reality can you get.

The reality is that the a great majority of people in Northern Ireland are educated and ambitious; they want to compete in the global race.

What Northern Ireland needs is a sustained effort of on the ground politics; of re-engaging and re-orientating the perspectives of the lowest in society. Make them outward looking instead of introspective.

And there's an important point on this: the introspection is a symptom of the soviet-like nature of Northern Ireland. Many of the people are almost totally reliant on state subvention. Even the card carrying republicans who make full use of the generous welfare system.

They have lost the stoic and marshall virtues. They love big government and the generous welfare payments she has come to offer; certainly they would not like it summarily dismissed.

No longer should Northern Ireland politicians be allowed to behave as they have. As John Cunningham said: 'if Stormont were a business they'd be bankrupt.'

And so we should not put up with it. We should not allow our own puerile politicians to use their own disfunctionality and that of the detached minority to leverage more cash off London.

It's like North Korea threatening global nuclear war to get a bit of aid. Except in Northern Ireland we cry poverty and maladjustment to prize out ever more money off a cash-strapped British government.

Have some shame. We in Northern Ireland should wish to stand on our own two feet. And we can do that if we educate the most radical and practice a politics of left and right that is interested in the economy instead of a brand of politics of green and orange that is interested in the dangerous arts of identity.

Lets not let Northern Ireland reconcile itself to the permanence of state largesse that makes it a soviet-style economy reliant on Westminster munificence.

When It's Cool to be Dumb

2013-04-22T19:38:32-04:00

For the average young person, quite frankly it's not cool to be smart. Stick your head above the noisy herd and you risk setting yourself out for a barrage of scorn and ridicule.

What a sad and perverse state of affairs: that a young person should be punished for showing ambition.

Back in my day it was a weird and uneasy tension. It was the typical social hierarchy that you would see on American TV: at the top you had the rugby 'jock' whose social currency was athletic prowess and weekend conquests.

At the bottom of the pile you had the archetypal 'nerd'. Think McLovin from the 2007 comedy, Superbad. The currency for this social class was intellectual exploration and the accumulation of knowledge - pretty much a worthless currency in school circles.

In the land between the top and bottom of the social hierarchy was a rich spectrum of 'types' from the kinda' 'nerdy' kid to the wannabe 'jock'. Right across the UK this microcosm of social 'types' is replicated.

So here's the rule: dangerous, disruptive and edgy is 'cool'. The reading of books, good grades and good behaviour is 'uncool'.

Growing up I seemed to coast between the two extremes: neither a jock nor a nerd. Like my politics, I pretty much held the centre ground.

But as I cast my mind back to my school days, this rule has been unsettling me. My former peers on the 'jock' and side of the social spectrum are now floating somewhere between extended education and low paid employment. All washed up has-beens with their ideas of grandeur reduced to nothing.

While my former peers on the 'nerdy' side of the social spectrum are now barristers, investment bankers, entrepreneurs and generally settled and successful people.

Let's pause for a moment. There's really something not right about this: that we should celebrate 'dumbness' and utterly castigate those who seek to do well inside of the classroom. Yet it is the people who do well in class and got ridiculed for doing so, who then go on to succeed.

While the 'cool' kid who bunked class and did drugs at the weekend - and who got celebrated for doing so - then ends up not doing very well at all.

These are perverse incentives.

The qualities that make someone 'cool' are the exact qualities that a young person should want to avoid. And the qualities that are deemed to make someone a 'dork' or a 'wonk' (Americanism of excessively techie/nerdy), should be the qualities that young people should aspire to.

It's deranged!

Let me go lateral on this and look into what's behind this perverse rule that governs social relations among teenagers and young people.

My first port of call is to my favourite blogger and all round fount of wisdom, Andrew Sullivan. He said something that could point to the root of the problem. He recently said on the character of British people: 'the worst British trait: resentment of others' success.'

But my wider reading tells me that this isn't just a UK phenomenon. Chicago economist Raghuram Rajan said of young people in his book Fault Lines: 'in too many schools in America, being smart can be positively dangerous.'

It's 'uncool' to be smart in both the US and UK. It's transatlantic, if not global. So there must be something bigger to this.

To my mind what's creating this system of relations is the culture and TV that young people watch. Think about the movies we watched growing up. Macho is cool. The protagonist was usually the chauvinistic male, celebrated for his physical stature and his womanising. Nerds were a side feature.

Nowadays of course we have TV shows like the Jersey Shore in America and The Only Way is Essex in the UK; both of which celebrate some perverse race to the bottom in order to see who can be the most dim witted and intellectually vacant.

However I've started to notice a tepid change in the social and cultural tide.

The rise of nerds, wonks and beta-males like America's Mark Zuckerberg and the UK's 17 year old tech maverick, Nick D'Aloisio. Could this signal the changing of the old guard? Yes, we had Bill Gates 20 years ago and he didn't have a big effect on making 'nerdy' cool. But I do think the Facebook effect really could be making 'nerdy' cool.

Then we have BBC Radio 1 which seems to be making a genuine and sustained effort at encouraging young people to be studious and do revision. To my mind, efforts like this have the power to the turn the accepted consensus among young people.

I noticed another example recently that suggests that the consensus may be changing. I watched the Hollywood film '21 Jump Street' and was intrigued. It suggested that the 'old order' of 'jocks v. nerds' has been turned on its head.

The short of the movie is that two 30-something year old cops have to go back to high school as undercover agents. On their first day back they revert to the 'old order' that has traditionally governed the social relations among young people. Adhering to these principles the bigger of the two cops whacks the traditional 'nerdy' kid for wearing his bag on two shoulders and then calls someone 'gay'.

But something strange happens: the school kids recoil; aghast at the 'jocular' behaviour. It was then made clear that being gay was cool and the traditional nostrums 'nerdiness' are actually mainstream and even cool.

Perhaps this is the start of what could be a 'new order'?

Certainly, evidence of a 'new order' exists. Having lived in Brooklyn, New York I saw that it being 'nerdy' was cool. Geek really was chic. Big wide rimmed glasses, so long the target of bullies, are now 'way cool'. Just look at Will.i.Am, formerly of the Black Eyed Peas and what he's wearing.

This anti-consensus 'new cool' movement is typified by Lady Gaga who was bullied herself. She champions the geek, nerd and the downtrodden. We cannot legislate new social rules for our children; but cultural icons like Gaga have the power for change mind-sets and youth culture.

In New York 'Matilda the Musical' has come to Broadway. What a fantastic way to tell the story of our need to fight against illiteracy and impoverished imaginations.

It is these cultural icons that we need. They can turn the perverse social tide.

As a concluding observation I want to note Malala Yousufzai. The well known Pakistani girl shot by muslim extremists for championing her rights and those of other young girls to an education.

The same sort of education that each and every young girl and boy is given in this country; the same sort of education that we and our children take for granted; the same sort of education that we and our children bemoan and forever grumble at.

Each and every child in this country has the chance of being the best. Few realise this and as a result, few realise their potential.

If only we and our children could take a step back and appreciate what good education fortune we actually have. It's all of our responsibility to make the most of the chance we have. Make sure you do so.

Gerry Adams' Comment on Thatcher Comes from a Party of Protest, not a Party of Policy

2013-04-16T10:47:57-04:00

The UK editor of Vice Magazine, Alex Miller was right: Lady Thatcher's passing did usher in an almighty wave of dickheadism onto our streets.

And no more so than in Northern Ireland where in republican enclaves, we saw rejoicing and mass celebration. How crass.

When the news of her death broke, the "glorious leader and perpetual president" of Sinn Fein Gerry Adams came out with the usual anti-Britain spiel: calling her policy on Ireland, "draconian" and "militaristic".

The day after, the Guardian gave him a full column.

His comments were vile, mischievous and utterly reeked of gross hypocrisy. The man did after all orchestrate a reign of murderous terror that lasted decades. Everyone knows it, just he won't admit it.

The republican street celebrations were foreseeable; but it certainly didn't help that Adams came out with vitriol and raw anti-Thatcher rhetoric.

His comrade Martin McGuinness was more moderate; urging fellow republicans not to celebrate. But then Gerry Adams seemingly drew back on his original statement. Saying that he could forgive Thatcher but added a caveat that he couldn't forgive her for the outcome of the 1981 hunger strike.

His row back was probably more a case of Adams remembering his new resolution: to love unionists into a United Ireland - as opposed to trying to bomb them out of Ireland.

However what people fail to remember is that Gerry Adams' original comment does not represent the mainstream view of the Irish people. While it would be wrong to suggest that the Irish are big fans of Thatcher, the majority want to see her off with respect. And a great many Irish have done so.

Including the current Taoiseach Enda Kenny and current President Michael D Higgins.

Adams is wrong in so many ways. Yes the lady did a fair bit of bad on the Irish question but Thatcher also did a fair bit of good for Ireland. And contrary to popular view, it was actually the Labour government that implemented the prison regime that led to the hunger strikes.

As Anne Marie Hourihane of the Irish Times said, "Ireland gained from Thatcher rule, as did Sinn Fein."

She laid out the first paving slab on the route to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. Thanks of course to the Anglo-Irish accord of 1985.

And as Newton Emerson noted, her spending in Northern Ireland actually increased. She propped up a failing De Lorean plant which went against her most puritan free market predispositions.

He was also right to note that Thatcher authorised a back channel of communication with the IRA.

I'll not exercise the sort of terminology that Rod Liddle of the Spectator used. That Gerry Adams is a "rat-faced semi-house-trained murderer." Because ad hominem attacks are not useful.

I want to do something else: I want to look at Gerry Adams' false rhetoric and false patriotism following the Thatcher death and look at what it implies.

A lot like Ed Miliband's Labour leadership, Sinn Fein is too much about protest and too little about practical policymaking and pragmatic politics.

As Irish Times columnist Harry McGee said recently, there's a "paucity of detailed policy" on the part of Sinn Fein.

To echoe Tony Blair's critique of Ed Miliband in the New Statesman, Sinn Fein must resist the easy option and not merely aspire to be a repository for people's anger.

But I'm not going to spend my whole time here saying how bad Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein are. I'm going to suggest how they should change.

What they need is a Clause Four Moment, much like the one that recast the Labour Party as New Labour. The Clause Four Moment under Blair's leadership vigorously broadened the parties franchise and recalibrated many of the parties' policies. The result was a barnstorming performance for Labour at the ballot box in 1997.

I totally respect the aspiration of nationalists and republican to seek a United Ireland. But let's be sensible and cognisant of the current economic challenges and on-going sensibilities surrounding identity.

Can we not just enjoy present laughter instead of pursuing utopian bliss?

Though I'm unsure if anything like a Clause Four Moment could really be brought about: could Sinn Fein shake-off their violent past?

Moreover, we must remember who Sinn Fein really are: Sinn Fein in Irish means, "Ourselves Alone." To me this reads that the party and its supporters are more than just separatists, they are isolationists. But in this international and digital age could such a rationale really go anywhere?

It's just all very Ukip-ish. But then again Ukip are considering a re-branding exercise. So it's something to consider.

But I want to ask: is Sinn Fein really a party of capable pragmatic governance? Or is it just a perennial party of protest?

You've read my title but you can take your read of who the party is and what it has to offer.

Michael Oakeshott on Rationalism and How Practice Trumps Theory

2013-04-05T08:19:00-04:00

Ok I get it: the title of this piece reads very high and esoteric. But please do bear with me. I really think we're onto something.

What I want to do today is to discuss Michael Oakeshott and explore how he can speak to schools and educators. But before we enter into an analysis of Oakeshott and schools we need to address two points.

Firstly, we need to ask: who is Michael Oakeshott?

Well Michael Oakeshott was an English political philosopher of the conservative tradition. He died in 1990 and was all about small government, individual liberty, political conservatism and economic liberalism. Think Edmund Burke; or the Austrian political economist, Freidrich Hayek without the abstract potentialities.

Though it would be wrong to think that Oakeshott is like any other political theorist or philosopher: because he isn't. He is entirely unique as a conservative thinker. As Andrew Sullivan of The Dish said, 'Michael Oakeshott's philosophy fits no ideological or party label.'

You can read Michael Oakeshott's personal manifesto, 'On Being Conservative' here.

Now we need to ask: what is rationalism?

To my mind - being a big supporter of plain English - the word rationalism a prime example of jargon and academic speak.

But in spite of the academic smokescreen, rationalism is actually a simple concept: it's a land of theory, thoughts and ideas. A place of mental activity and head exercise: where the big thinkers discuss political, social and economic ideas about how we should live and be governed.

Rationalism is the theoretical 'thinking' realm as opposed to the practical 'doing' realm.

Ok prelude over, it's now time to talk Oakeshott, his critique of rationalism and how practical 'doing' precedes theoretical 'thinking'. And to do so requires us to refer to his much under-read book; Oakeshott's critique of rationalism, 'Rationalism in Politics and other essays'.

In three words what the book is about is: pragmatism over ideology. And it's this Oakeshottian concept that's at the core premise of this piece.

In 'Rationalism and Politics' Oakeshott argued that philosophy was of limited worth for solving real world political problems.

Taking this precept it's my argument that philosophy and theoretical thinking is of limited worth for young people who will need to tackle real world, on-the-job problems.

Young people in second and third level education need context and methodology over abstract instructions. Passive theoretical learning should only be one of half of a person's knowledge and as Gene Callahan has said of Oakeshott's critique, theory should actually follow practical learning.

Gene Callahan wrote in the Foundation for Economic Education:

"Oakeshott argues that the rationalist, in awarding theory primacy over practice, has gotten things exactly backwards: The theoretical understanding of some activity is always the child of practical know-how, and never its parent."

Gene Callahan added:

"Oakeshott contends that the essence of an accomplished practitioner's skill cannot be conveyed to a neophyte through explicit technical instructions, but instead must be learned tacitly, during a period of intimate apprenticeship."

It is important to note that apprenticeships are making a comeback following The Richard Review.

Gene Callahan in his writings went on to offer a concrete example of why Oakeshott argued real world learning trumps theoretical learning:

'The rationalist cook is oblivious to the years that the skilled chef has spent establishing intimate relationships with his ingredients and tools, and tries to get by in the kitchen solely with what he can glean from a cookbook. As a result, he botches most of the dishes he attempts. However, his repeated failures typically do not lead him to suspect that his fundamental method of proceeding might be faulty. Instead, each disappointment only spurs the rationalist to search for a new, improved, and even more "rational" book of recipes.'

This was echoed by Andrew Sullivan who articulated Oakeshott's passion for practice over theory:

'What fascinated him was someone who had mastered something practical -- the experienced cook, the skilled gardener, the calm midwife. Probably his most profound influence in this respect was Taoist thought, which sees in steady, accumulated practical skill more wisdom and peace than a thousand books.'

In Experience and Its Modes and in his own words Michael Oakeshot said of practical experience:

'Great achievements are accomplished in the mental fog of practical experience.'

So as I've argued before, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here and here, it's now a simple fact that the rationalist project of all-theory learning is now defunct.

So what we need is a second and third level education experience that is centered on practical, real world 'doing' that is complimented by theoretical 'thinking'. A education system that is a blend of pragmatism and rationalism.

As it was suggested by Harvard education specialist, Tony Wagner in the New York Times recently, no longer can education and the work place be two hostile tribes.

But what we need is even more than this simple realignment.

The world has changed. The irresistible rise of technology and the continuing reach of globalisation has utterly disrupted the old order.

So what education needs is a radical adjustment to the new world order. For a young person so be effectively and properly aligned to the ultra-competitive and globalised digital economy, the schooling system must adapt to the new world order.

So not only do we need an education system ground in practical learning which is then followed by rationalism, we also need a new system of schooling altogether.

As Tony Wagner wrote in his book "Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World":

"More than a century ago, we 'reinvented' the one-room schoolhouse and created factory schools for the industrial economy. Reimagining schools for the 21st-century must be our highest priority. We need to focus more on teaching the skill and will to learn and to make a difference and bring the three most powerful ingredients of intrinsic motivation into the classroom: play, passion and purpose."

The conclusion is brief. Firstly, the passive, book-centered schooling system of rationalist policy makers has in recent years been utterly misguided.

Teenagers and young adults need to be readily prepared for the job market. To meet this demand schooling must be active and must foster experience-born, real-world proficiency. Book smart, desk monkeys are not immediately alignable to the job market.

Secondly, the world has utterly changed and so education must change. We are witnessing the passing of the old order as the industrial economy declines; and what we are seeing is the embedding of the new order - the digital and networked economy.

These are tectonic changes driven by technology and the ingenuity of man and so education systems must adapt to meet the new changes.

Young People: the Inefficient Allocation of Human Resources

2013-03-24T19:40:49-04:00

Ok, I think we can all agree on one thing: all theory and no practice makes Jack an unemployable boy.

Excuse the clumsy proverb, but the message is simple: whether the economy is up or down it's simply not enough for young people just to be exam-passing desk monkeys.

Young people need to have real world smarts as well as book smarts.

That addressed, I now want to move on and look at another worrying trend. A trend that is associated with the all-theory-and-no-practice issue and which in fact precedes and aggravates this problem.

Here it is: not only are secondary and third level educators failing to educate young people about how the real world works, but they're also failing to properly guide young people towards sustainable careers in the first place.

This causes an unfortunate reality. As it was put by the Financial Times: Teens aspire to wrong jobs.

For example: the legal economy is tanking and as a result most students have 'no hope of a job'. Yet thousands of young people are still applying for places at law school. Hmm...

On the other hand: the engineering economy is buoyant and job opportunities are plentiful. Yet recent analysis by the Social Market Foundation has said that the UK will need to have 40,000 more science and engineering graduates each year to meet the projected increase in demand by high technology businesses.

The headline from the FT follows a study produced by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. The short of the report is that young people are pursuing careers which represent only a small fraction of future job vacancies.

As a result of this the authors of the report added that many young people are learning too late on in the day that they have chosen the wrong career path. This then leads onto a period of "churn" where the misallocated young adults have to re-skill and readjust to the demands of the labour market.

This represents a serious problem. As the Social Market Foundation said it's thwarting attempts to re-balance the UK economy. It's also serious waste of young people's time, money and resources.

It is in effect the inefficient and misallocation of human resources.

But whose fault is it? I'm always open to rebuttal but I genuinely feel that responsibility for this grave error falls squarely at the feet at educators.

There will never be perfect information in a marketplace. However, educators should be in a position to align the education system with the real world and so make the information balance as perfect as possible.

Unfortunately, as the latest study suggests, educators aren't meeting or discharging this responsibility.

Writing previously on the Huffington Post this is what I've called, Education's Information Asymmetry.

The reality is that educators aren't closing the information gap between education and the real world.

The bottom line is that young people aren't being given the correct career guidance. The bottom line is that we are failing our young people.

So what can we do?

Firstly, we need to create a more symbiotic relationship between education and the world of work so that the transition from school or education and into work is as seamless as possible.

Secondly, we need to ensure that all young people are given genuine, sincere and market-informed career guidance. Not the sort of wishy washy stuff that had passed off for employability support in recent years.

Thirdly, as I've said before and connected to the first point, young people, their educators and parents need to think like investors when choosing a career.

By this I mean that young people and those around them need to take the long view so that they can allocate their resources wisely and in alignment with the demands of the labour market.

Fourthy, as Gillian Tett suggested, we need to ask ourselves: 'is it time for Europeans (including young people in the UK) to migrate?'

In the current economic climate it may be the case that young people may have to migrate in order to pursue the career they really want.

Fifthly, it's often the case that children from privileged backgrounds can avail of contacts in high places and call upon informed parents who can fill the information gap which teachers ignore.

In response to this it would be wise to consider aligning a young person with a suitable mentor who is further up the career chain. The role of the mentor would be like that of a bridge, thereby closing the gap between education and the world of work.

There's a great article here which explores this idea.

Finally, young people should really concentrate the mind towards plugging themselves into the knowledge and connected economy. They should think about using social media, blogging and creating a web presence in a professional manner that aids and promotes their employability prospects.

Famous blogger on personal branding, Dan Schawbel has said that while young people use technology like it's a third arm, many fail to see the power of digital media for creating a professional profile.

Americans Are Laughing at Us and Using UK as a Case Study on Why Not to Do Austerity

2013-03-21T09:51:29-04:00

The George Osborne budget was tepid and utterly uninspiring. To paraphrase Fraser Nelson of the Spectator, the budget was devoid of substance and replete with gestures.

Making things worse is the raft of very unfortunate realities: UK growth forecast for 2013 has been downgraded to 0.6%; national debt is going up not down; the deficit reduction has stalled; UK unemployment rate sits 7.8% and rising.

And I could go on. As for the IMF and rating agencies, I'm not even going to go there.

However, the utter economic shambles in Britain stands in sharp contrast to the United States where the economic mood music is positive.

US joblessness figures have been positive and whilst our growth rate has been revised downwards their's has been revised upwards to 3% for 2013.

In light of this, commentators in the UK are starting to chatter. And as David Wighton in the Times has said (£), perhaps we in the UK need to look across the Atlantic to pick up some lessons on how to manage a national balance book.

More interesting than this is the fact that Americans are saying that it is they who need to look across the Atlantic: not to draw any positive lessons but to get a clear warning on why a modern economy shouldn't pursue a do or die austerity route.

And they're doing more than just taking notes - they're laughing at us! The Americans are laying the boot in and shouting about how Obama's "kicking David Cameron's butt" when it comes to reducing the deficit. The initial laughter came courtesy of the prolific finance blogger Joseph Weisenthal.

And it pretty much went viral. Here's one:

Austerity Fails "Barack Obama Is Kicking David Cameron's Butt When It Comes To Reducing The Deficit businessinsider.com/the-us-is-kick... via @bi_politics"
— ybfmiami (@ybfmiami) March 20, 2013

Here's another:

Barack Obama Is Kicking David Cameron's Butt In Terms Of Reducing The Deficit zite.to/ZdbHz4 #UniteBlue #teaparty
— R.Saddler (@Politics_PR) March 20, 2013

And another:

Austerity v Growth: Barack Obama Is Kicking David Cameron's Ass When It Comes To Reducing The Deficit businessinsider.com/the-us-is-kick...
— Matt Browne (@GlobalProgresMB) March 20, 2013

You get the idea.

And not only is the US outperforming Britain better on deficit and growth terms, but the world's largest economy is also managing a better job on the debt too.

So yes, maybe David Wighton is right. Maybe we've got to suck it up and look to the cousins in America.

The US Federal Reserve has been behind some creative and imaginative measures: and surely the incoming chief of the Bank of England, Mark Carney has taken note. We also need more sweeping banking reform like in the US: Banks need to lend more, especially to small businesses and big corporates themselves need to stop sitting on cash.

As David Wighton also suggested we need to open up the balance sheet and borrow more to finance public spending projects which would stimulate the economy. Certainly while Osborne needs to stay the austerity path in broad terms, he should loosen the schedule and take a long brew, long view approach.

All in all its about sentiment and how consumers are feeling and George Osborne didn't do a great deal to help the man or woman on the street or the small business.

All Theory and No Practice Makes Jack an Unemployable Boy

2013-03-19T17:08:56-04:00

These days we're all hard pressed. But for young people it really hasn't helped that schools and universities are failing to properly prepare them for the world of work.

It's impossible to fully articulate the latent value of having a good education, of being well read, of being strong at arithmetic and of having the ability to analyse a problem and formulate a solution.

A good education is an invaluable currency and the weapon against the cruelties of this world.

However, all of this is for nothing if teachers and schools, lecturers and universities fail to explain to young people how the professional world actually works.

It's of no value a young person to be a rigid and technical desk monkey; they need to know and understand the context and methodology of the actual work place, as well as social graces and professional etiquette.

As I often say: all theory and no practice makes Jack an unemployable boy. In good economic times and in bad, a fundamental knowledge of how the real world works is priceless.

In 2003 when the boom years were gaining momentum the Guardian warned that universities were failing to prepare young people for the job market.

Ten years on the problem persists. Even worse is the fact that it seems to exist from top to bottom.
Universities have expressed that A-level students are often unprepared for third level education.

Then employers and recruiters have said that graduates are unprepared for the job market.

And it's not just recruiters saying this; graduates themselves are saying that they themselves feel unprepared for the workplace.

Interestingly this phenomenon is mirrored in the United States where a survey found that two fifths of high school students are often unprepared for college. And likewise, college students are unready for the professional world.

It's especially worrying to see that IT and engineering graduates are often chronically under-prepared for the world of work post graduation. IT and engineering are two real boom sectors where the market is demanding a steady supply of labour.

For universities to fail to raise students to the required level is an utter sham and disgrace.

The reality of education which sees a clear delineation between the place of learning and the place of work is unsustainable. No man is an island entire of himself. Equally, education is not an island entire of itself.

There should be a symbiotic and mutually interested and interactive relationship between school, university and the workplace.

I've written about this many times including here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I'm sure you can really tell that this is something that I'm passionate about!

The other unfortunate reality is that the monnied classes have the luxury of well placed parents who can bridge the information gap between school and work by actually informing their kids, shaking hands and opening the proverbial door.

Oh how I detest the nepotistic tendencies of the elite.

So what we need to do is utterly reimagine the place of learning. We need inspirational and radical leadership; the kind that properly reflects the digital, borderless digital world in which we now live. Perhaps something like what was suggested in the Ted Talk, "Changing Education Paradigms".

We need to tear down the walls that surround education, bring professionals into the classroom and bring the classroom into the professional workplace. This will ensure the fluid and rhythmical interplay that's needed to foster an exciting and fully informative educational experience.

An educational experience that ticks both boxes and teaches theory and practice; thereby making Jack a very much employable boy.

The Northern Ireland of Old Hasn't Gone Away, You Know

2013-03-05T11:17:43-05:00

Belfast is a changed city. No longer is it the viscerally divided place that it was decades ago. In many ways it's the archetypal western capital: a bustling metropolitan centre possessed of a growing body of outward looking people, coffee shops on every street corner, a splash of fancy eateries, a growing art scene, an abundance of progressive retail outlets and a flowering Northern Irish culture.

Unfortunately there's another, and lesser heard, narrative. Behind the peaceful cosmopolitan façade lies a simmering pot of malcontent. The old Northern Ireland narrative hasn't gone away, you know.

Ever since the Good Friday peace agreement of 1998, parties on both side of the divide have, albeit slowly, attempted to move things forward. And forward things have moved, as I explained at the start. However, a critical demographic have been left behind: the working class and the radicals within.

And my very real worry is that these radicals could turn Northern Ireland back in on itself.

These are persons and communities who refute and reject the peace settlement: dissident republicans on the one side and bull-headed loyalists on the other.

Hard line republicans utterly repudiate the current constitutional arrangement and are wedded to violence. But why wouldn't they? The forbears of their cause now sit in government - former law breakers made law makers.

On the other side of the camp, loyalists see themselves as a community left behind, a people unheard and unrepresented. An unfortunate state of affairs worsened by the fact that loyalism doesn't have the same impetus or goal to work towards.

Where republicans have a united Ireland to gain, loyalists feel like they have everything to lose; and so we see random, incoherent, aimless and utterly chaotic knee jerks and arms swings that do nothing but land self-defeating blows on the broader protestant, unionist, loyalist cause.

The truth though is that loyalist violence is merely an expression of their insecurity and of how uninformed they really are.

What we then end up with is two polarized forces who, physically and ideologically are perfectly opposed. This reality gives very real cause for concern; concern for the peace, stability, prosperity and long term progress of Northern Ireland.

The simmering pot that is Northern Ireland could very well spill over.

Since the removal of the Union flag from Belfast City Hall on December 3 2012, loyalism and people beyond the loyalist franchise have been up in arms. And there exists little evidence to suggest that these malcontents will retreat any time soon.

In fact, there's much reason to suggest that tensions could rise further: prominent loyalist leaders, Willie Frazer, 53 and Jamie Bryson, 23 have been arrested and refused bail on charges of public order offences. The bail refusal falls against news that leading republican Sean Hughes, 51 was released on bail after being charged with offences relating to murder of Robert McCartney in 2005.

These events have now pushed on tensions as loyalists complain that the police have shown bias towards them.

And as violence and tensions have risen within loyalism, so it has risen in the ranks of dissident republicanism. Only a few days ago the Police Service of Northern Ireland thwarted a dissident attempt to blow up a police station with mortar bombs.

Against this backdrop it feels like we in Northern Ireland now stand at a tipping point. As angry hand reaches over angry hand, tensions rise on each side to the point where I have to ask: when will the spilling of blood come? This, of course, would be disastrous. Any sort of sectarian motivated casualty or murder could be the downfall of this all.

I'm not being a gloom merchant; I'm just expressing a feeling that I have deep in my bones.

As a way to conclude I could go into the warm, fluffy language that we in Northern Ireland need to embrace peace and reconciliation and the coming together of the communities. I'm not going to do that. What we do need though is more elemental: we need to fix our education system, give people jobs, give people opportunity and so give people a purpose in life other that fanaticism.

By actually educating and informing people you give them the opportunity to shape their own future. You give them a platform and a vantage point to see the world beyond the infantile and fatalistic introspection that has for so long defined the working classes in Northern Ireland.

I'll leave it at that, but gazing forward I say to you: brace yourself.

Social Media and the Law: Know Where You Stand

2013-02-20T06:53:14-05:00

Twitter and Facebook and other social media are an incredibly powerful force for good. They give every man and woman a soap box and democratise man's ability to influence. Thanks to new media people can share ideas and information, articulate a message and communicate with people in high and faraway places.

"Sharing ideas and experience moves humanity forward."
- Medium

Real time social media communications have utterly flattened and revolutionized the ways of the world.

But with this incredible good has come a large measure of bad. The anonymous internet troll is now ubiquitous, the keyboard warrior is part of the daily rhythm and the anti-social social media user is common place.

Stories and anecdotes abound. The Twitter community was shocked and offended when a student sent grossly offensive and distasteful tweets about Fabrice Muamba. The Inbetweeners actress, Emily Atack who was threatened with death.

We've also heard about the #TwitterJokeTrial when Paul Chambers was arrested in 2010 for tweeting that he would blow up an airport. The over-enthusiastic action of the authorities quickly provoked a backlash and really drew out the question of when the law should step in.

Some instances of social media misuse are black and white and demand legal action. Social media cannot be allowed to degenerate into a lawless space where people harass and make credible threats against other users.

Other instances are hazy and uncertain. People have a right to be obscene and insulting and say things that are distasteful. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right enshrined in law by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998 which brought Article 10 ECHR into British law. But at the same time, people cannot gratuitously harass, threaten or offend with impunity. There are some lines that just can't be crossed.

So the question stands: when can the police and the courts step in, hold people to account and prosecute?

This question was answered in December 19 2012 by the DPP for England and Wales, Keir Starmer QC when he published interim guidelines. The guidance document outlined the instances in which the police can make an arrest and prosecute a social media user.

So here's a breakdown of what you shouldn't do, unless that is you want to be arrested:

1. Make a credible threat of violence against persons or property

2. Maintain a campaign of harassment against someone which breaches the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

3. Break a court order i.e. research the past of defendant in court (trial by Google)

In these three instances the law is clear, security agencies will take robust action.

The fourth instance in which you can be arrested is a little more complicated. Like I said earlier, freedom of speech allows for people to be offensive, however that right is not absolute. People cannot say WHATEVER they like. There will be qualifications. So, take for example the Fabrice Muamba tweet incident. You can be offensive but not grossly offensive.

This is a matter of semantics and personal interpretation. The reality is the can be no total delineation between that which is offensive and grossly offensive can be drawn. The advice from Keir Starmer QC, does go some way to narrowing the level of uncertainty.

4. You can be arrested if your communications don't fall into one of the above, but if your communications are either:

i. grossly offensive
ii. grossly indecent
iii. grossly obscene

Such communications must be more than shocking, disturbing, distasteful, offensive, satirical or rude and more than just an unpopular or unfashionable opinion.

Keir Starmer QC has made it clear that the action of security forces must not have a "chilling effect on free speech", therefore the threshold for arrest and prosecution has been set high. Each case must be seen on its individual facts and merits, and context is everything.

As such, arrest and prosecution must be in the public interest. To ensure that this is met, the fourth category comes the following qualifications. If you are grossly offensive, indecent or obscene, you will not be prosecuted if:

a. You take swift action to remove original communication
b. The service providers such as Facebook and Twitter have taken swift action to remove offensive content
c. The original content was not intended for a wide audience
d. The communication did not go beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in an open and diverse society which upholds freedom of expression

These guidelines are not absolute or perfect, they remain open to interpretation. However Keir Starmer QC has gone some way to removing the uncertainty and inconsistency that has dogged police forces across Britain.

But the guidelines aren't simply useful for security forces. We the public should be minded to share the information. Bring the guidelines into the public domain, pass it onto educators and local schools, send it to community workers. Debate about free speech and what is and isn't acceptable.

The more we do to educate and inform ourselves the further we can go to making the online social media space a safer and more enjoyable place to socialise and do business.

In the mean why not take some time out and make your views and feelings known by filling out the public consultation document on the interim prosecution guidelines. You can access the document by clicking here, closing date for contributions is March 13 2013.

Why 2013 is the Year I Learn to Code

2013-01-31T09:59:08-05:00

I have a confession to make. In a moment of youthful indiscretion I chose to study law. It wasn't a decision informed by any regard for the actual profession: just the vague notion that being a solicitor or barrister would be a prestigious path to big pay. What a mistake that was.

The economic dislocation of 2008 and the years since have viciously assaulted the once cushy-big profit world of law. The profession is oversubscribed and in parts haemorrhaging jobs.

Against this toxic backdrop law students now have to face the up to one of the fundamental laws of economics: the law of supply and demand. Demand for lawyers has decreased. The number of law students has increased.

Put these two realities together and it makes for pretty easy arithmetic: a law degree is pretty much a worthless asset. And it's not just me saying that. Michael Todd QC, Chairman of the Bar Council has said that many have students "no hope" of a job in law.

The head of the American Bar Association, William Robinson has said that law students should have known what they were getting into. I fundamentally disagree. But that's a discussion for another day.

What I want to talk about today is the need for digital literacy and specifically the need for literacy and fluency in coding.

As a law graduate I've had to exercise a bit of creativity to get some value out of my law degree. And so I've started a business that helps law firms to get online. Get them a website and help them with social media etc. But this has been a little harder than I had originally thought.

As a law graduate I'm pretty well read. But that's well read in a subject that is wholly antonymous to the world of coding. So I know absolutely nothing about what goes on behind the monitor screen. So when I tried to create a website I was stumped. And then when I asked someone to create a website for me I was hit with a massive quote of over £4k.

But this makes me uneasy. The terms of digital engagement are totally skewed. I'm not comfortable with the opaqueness. The fact that others know how to create websites, news platforms and online infrastructures and I don't. There's a great wall between the digital consumers and the digital creators and those creators could spin any story and we digital illiterate consumers would be none the wiser.

Are you happy for the Mark Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs of our lives to stonewall something that is so ubiquitous to daily life? I'm not happy with coders and programmers controlling what we can or can't see, can or can't use.

And I don't think that anyone should be happy with this.

We're living in the age of algorithms. An age in which digital is creeping into every aspect of our personal and professional lives. The majority of us are passive users. Yes we can navigate around a computer, but under the screen we know nothing.

Just as the Gillian Tett of the FT said that you "have to understand money to understand the world," I firmly maintain that you need to understand coding in order to properly understand the new digital world in which we live.

So we need to become active users. We need to become a people who cannot only consume digital content but a people who can also create content and understand how others have created it.

Fortunately I don't think I'm alone in my sentiment. The Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg resolved in 2012 to learn to code with Codecademy. The Education Secretary Michael Gove has been very keen on pushing full digital literacy and the Education Department has called coding educationally "vital".

Technologist Tom Armitage is another particularly noisy advocate for coding literacy who has set out a number of interesting arguments for learning code.

In spite of these efforts it still remains that only a small fraction of society truly understand how computers programming and software works. So long as the lack of digital transparency continues a minority will be in control of what the majority.

I'm not happy with this, and so like Mayor Bloomberg my resolution for 2013 is to learn coding with Codecademy.

And for me things have been progressing quite well so far. I've created a website for my business and one for my personal brand. Boy it was hard, but it was rewarding!

Education's Information Asymmetry

2013-01-28T08:37:36-05:00

The news that the British economy contracted in the last quarter of 2012 was utterly depressing. For young people it was especially unwelcome.

Youth jobless figures remain stubbornly high at 20.5%. But against a backdrop of austerity and a flat economy I can't help but feel that these difficulties will continue for some time.

There's not a whole lot that young people can do. Young people are the unfortunate prisoners to the very unfortunate circumstances.

There is one thing that does need to be done and that can be done. That's to address the education system's information asymmetry. By this I mean the misalignment between education and the world of work.

In a perfect world there would be a two-way flow of information between the world of education and the world of work. However in many places of learning the lines of communication remain blocked.

Two very serious and negative effects spill over from this reality.

Firstly, employers fail to communicate the skills needed for work.

Due to the information misalignment educators continually fail to properly inform, prepare and equip young people with the skills and know how needed to succeed in the professional and working world. Without basic job skills young people are essentially unemployable in a down economy.

Secondly, employers fail to communicate oversupply or undersupply.

Due to the information misalignment employers fail to indicate where the opportunities lie in the job market. For example, there may be lots of job potential in engineering but little opportunity in law.
But if employers don't indicate this, and if educators don't communicate this, young people will make uninformed career choices that may lead them to nowhere.

Some young people have the good fortune to be able to counter the information asymmetry. A few have well informed, well connected parents and family who help them to bridge the information gap. Other young people have the wherewithal to inform themselves.

But by and large these are the exceptions. The general rule is that young, impressionable people are not going to possess the initiative to properly align themselves to the job market.

So what can we do?

We need to open up the lines of communication and realign education to the world of work.

Firstly, educators need to teach young people the context and methodology of professional practice.
This may well mean bringing employers into the classroom. But it may also mean bringing young people into regular contact with the world of work.

We've already seen some positive signs. The coalition government have recently unveiled plans to push professional apprenticeships. This is a step in the right direction but more of this kind of work needs to be done.

Secondly, employers and educators need to communicate to young people which parts of the job market are growing and which are declining.

Young people need to make informed and market-minded decisions before choosing a career. If a profession like law is haemorrhaging jobs then you best have a good solution to beating the odds.

It's an utter travesty without qualification for a young person in want of a job to be unemployed. But it's equal if not more a travesty to see young people go through education uninformed about the world of work and uninformed about where the job potential lies.

There's never going to be a situation of perfect information but the current setup which sees the world of education strictly divorced from the world of work is ostensibly wrong. By realigning and bridging the two worlds we could move some way towards doing right upon our young people.

I welcome and applaud some of the recent developments. But more needs to be done. I am particularly drawn to the employer led-project learning model which fosters real employability skills. These have been unveiled in some parts of the country.

For my mind this new model represents the future of education and I look forward to exploring the emerging education paradigm in a later post.

Sinn Fein: Ireland's Ukip

2013-01-23T19:00:00-05:00

Times are hard in Ireland. Households are massively indebted. Corporations are covered in red ink. The economy is flat and the Dublin government is struggling to keep afloat under the strict terms of the EU-ECB-IMF bailout programme.

In a few words: Ireland is one of the most economically encumbered countries in the world.

But against this depressingly gloomy backdrop Sinn Fein now want a border poll. Instead of focusing on growing the economy, creating jobs, establishing economic stability and rebuilding Ireland's credibility abroad - which everyone wants - they're now focusing on re-opening the old debate and picking an old wound - which very few want.

The campaign for a referendum on Irish unity was launched in Dublin by the leader of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams TD on Saturday 19 January 2013. Outside Sinn Fein ranks, the move has been met with a large measure of criticism from both unionists and nationalists.

Irish deputy Prime Minister, Tánaiste Eamonn Gilmore, called it "unwise and ill-timed". Michael Martin TD leader of Fianna Fail, the most republican minded of all Ireland's political parties after Sinn Fein, called the announcement "bogus." Saying that the party's move was neither sincere nor genuine.

DUP Minister for Enterprise Arlene Foster rightly called it "politics for the optics". But it's bad for more than just a weighty and compelling economic argument.

It's bad for two other core reasons.

Firstly, the popular will doesn't want it. As Matt Cooper writing in the Sunday Times rightly said: "Recent census data does not lend itself to the idea that even a Catholic majority in Northern Ireland would automatically translate into a vote in favour of a 32-county state."

That is of course the census in which 25% of respondents in Northern Ireland regarded themselves as 'Irish only.' And these are the census results which came on the tail of the Life and Times Survey of June 2011 which revealed that 73% of people in Northern Ireland wanted to remain in the UK.

Secondly, it's bad because it will do nothing but divide and retrench opinions further and heighten already heightened sectarian tensions. Real responsible politics then...

But the drive for a border poll in the face of hard facts and against the backdrop of a divided society merely further exposes what Sinn Fein is all about.

Firstly, to echo Michael Martin TD, it shows that Sinn Fein is a self-serving and self-interested party.

To govern effectively politicians need to offer a package of broadly mainstream, consensus and centre ground policies. But to push the referendum card is swing to the fringes and to alienate and cut off a huge chunk of the Northern Ireland populace.

But I suppose Sinn Fein's self-interested politics is just part of their genetic make up. Sinn Fein does after all translate into: us alone.

Secondly, they are a party wedded to destabilisation, whether it be by the gun or the ballot box.

Sinn Fein knew that restricting the flying of the British flag would rile their protestant counterparts. But that's long been a core tactic in their wider all-Ireland strategy: to destabilise and cause confusion in the ranks of the pan-unionist community.

Pushing the Irish unity debate will only rile unionists further and rock the Northern Ireland boat even more.

Thirdly it shows what Sinn Fein is really about: that they're a one-policy protest party. In the face of facts that say people in Northern Ireland have largely moved on they still want to turn back to that old issue.

People living on Main Street in Northern Ireland want to move forward together and compete in a global economy; they do not want to retreat back into the trenches as politicians revert to the inward looking politics of old.

The idea of a united Ireland is the idea under which Sinn Fein was conceived. It has motivated their politics and ideas ever since. But such ideological absolutism means that Sinn Fein is not a party of productive or progressive governance.

The drive for Irish unity is regressive and isolationist. And so Sinn Fein, in a few words, have no more to offer people than the UK Independence Party do.

Yes Sinn Fein have other policies but these are merely cosmetic and have been engineered as a means to their end goal: Northern Ireland secession from the UK and Irish unity.

We recently saw British PM David Cameron pledge to deliver a referendum on the EU question in 2017. So now in a sense UKip have won. They have gained their living and dying wish. But what political ground do UKip now occupy other than a cage rattling protest party?

The question applies to Sinn Fein. Even if Sinn Fein were granted their wish for a border poll, what role would they serve after the said referendum? In reality they have little to offer to pragmatic and progressive society.

Very few in Northern Ireland want to bring an end to partition. They want more from life under their new and evolving Northern Irish identity. They want to move forward collectively with inclusive and mutually interested policies. By raising the spectre of Irish unity once again Sinn Fein is risking peace, stability and prosperity.

I will conclude with a few wise words that came from former US President Ronald Reagan. He said: "If history teaches us anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of facts is folly."

Northern Irish Is the New Irish

2013-01-14T20:34:09-05:00

Northern Ireland politics is difficult with a capital D. Just look at the rioting over the decision to restrict the flying of the Union flag. It's pedigree stasis state politicking. Two mutually opposing blocs at community and government level cancel one another out as they cling to mutually opposite symbols, identities and aspirations.

Or is this really the case?

Yes if you go by the traditional narrative. It goes as follows: on one side of the province-wide debate is the Catholic bloc who see themselves as exclusively "Irish" and who will a United Ireland; and then on the other side of the debates lie the Protestant bloc who see themselves as exclusively "British" and who will the continuance of the Union with Britain.

No if you go by the emerging new narrative for Northern Ireland. Hard data which reflects the realities on the ground and away from the faceless institutions and hardline communities has recently suggested that the traditional 2-bloc narrative is changing.

According to the latest census there's a new identity: people are increasingly seeing themselves as Northern Irish. Figures from the census paint an interesting picture of changing identities. 21% of the citizens of Northern Ireland regard themselves as Northern Irish only, while 6.2% think themselves British and Northern Irish only.

This stands against 25% of the population who see themselves as Irish only and 40% who see themselves as British only.

The new Northern Ireland question is an encouraging development for a society long riddled by division and sectarian conflict. A Northern Irish identity has the possibility to cut a route between the 2-bloc stalemate that continues to hold Northern Ireland aspirations for peace and prosperity to ransom.

But what exactly is Northern Irish? What demographic does this represent?

In a recent Radio 4 broadcast called, Northern Ireland: who are we now?, William Crawley explored the emerging Northern Irish identity in more detail. Speaking with an academic we heard that those who regard themselves as Northern Irish are typically young and politically speaking, hold the centre ground.

Although this isn't a hard and fast rule. William Crawley also spoke with a woman from a hardline background Protestant background who now sees herself as Northern Irish. She explained that she saw herself as Northern Irish and British just as men and women in Scotland and Wales see themselves as Scottish and Welsh as well as British.

For Sheila McWade, a writer from Northern Ireland speaking on Twitter the census news is the sign of a newly evolving identity. This was echoed by political commentator Alex Kane who said that people in Northern Ireland need to embrace the changing reality of identity.

These interpretations are balanced, pragmatic and speak sense. Identities, cultures and nationalities are not fixed, they are fluid. Changing identities at an individual, societal an national level are part of the organic human process of change and evolution. To deny this is to fight against the long arc of history.

So should people in Northern Ireland start to see themselves less as strictly British or Irish and more pragmatically as Northern Irish?

No doubt this is a no go area for many people in Northern Ireland. Such revulsion is often the sign of identity insecurity. But there shouldn't be such a fear. By embracing the new identity people in Northern Ireland could begin to formulate an inclusive identity that reflects its unique history and make up and allows its people to move forward together.

"There were no aborigines in Ireland" was a famous quip made by the former editor of the Irish Times Douglas Cageby. This encapsulates the reality that Ireland is an island shaped by centuries of in and out migration and a plurality of identities. No one single person or community can really claim Ireland as there own.

Looking forward, embracing a Northern Ireland identity should not be seen as a weakness or as the lessening of an ideological position or about making a concession. It's about a people coming together and moving past the old grievances and creating a new and inclusive future.

Protestants and Catholics need each other. They are tied together in an inescapable network of mutuality. The future needs to be dictated by mutual concern and interest and not mutual detestation and hatred.

The young, ambitious and outward looking Catholics and Protestants who call themselves Northern Irish and who look beyond the mindlessly partisan politics have shown how it can be done. They see the bigger picture: a world of opportunity beyond our borders and it is they who have chartered the route that the rest of Northern Ireland should take.

If more people continue to embrace the changing identity and regard themselves as Northern Irish and less of the politically volatile British or Irish my outlook on Northern Ireland would pick up a great deal and become more bullish. Should people in Northern Ireland ease off and retreat back into the opposing camps things will start to look a whole lot bleaker.