Browne's Gamble

[purplecat]

Interesting criticism of the Browne report although I'm not qualified to comment on whether it's pessimism over the interaction of market forces and "culture" are justified.

This entry was originally posted at http://purplecat.dreamwidth.org/28511.html.

Comments

[fredbassett]

According to the VC here one of the most employable courses is Classics! But he didn't say what as.

[purplecat]

When I was at uni there was a widespread belief that the Civil Service favoured classicists - how true that was then, let alone nowadays I couldn't say.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Classicists are very employable in accountancy and it's a very good educational background to go into accountancy with (as in fact are most liberal arts degrees). Trouble is, too few classicists apply and we get stuck with too many science graduates who aren't "too keen on the essay".

[purplecat]

Someone else must be snapping up the classicists then!! One wonders if this means market forces will create more Classics degrees or whether there are so few of them that people with the right skills for accountancy self-select onto them in some odd way - i.e. the degree isn't actually nuturing the skills that accountancy needs, it's just the same skill-set leads to success in both Classics and Accountancy. One presumes that market forces are going to lead to more Classics degrees and then we'll find out...

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

But how many are there? How many universities offer classics courses? How many schools teach Latin and / or Greek A-level?

As to the question of whether the degree nurtures the skills or it just has the same skill set that we look for, I suspect it's a bit of both. Classicists are more likely to be academic high achievers with good communication skills than, for example, the average Accounting graduate. At the same time, classics involves a good deal of lateral thinking and (to use a piece of educational jargon) 'higher skills'.

We don't actually discriminate at all on the basis of degree subject, just grades (so a 2:1 in Surfing Studies beats a 2:2 in Literae Humaniores despite my best efforts to convince the powers that be). We aren't alone in this, so I doubt that the market forces are actually that strong.

What will happen in accountancy is that we'll take on more non-graduates at 18 and train them ourselves. This probably makes more sense for us and for the applicants (who'll be earning money instead of building up debt). This in turn possibly* means that the academic and other requirements for graduates could end up being higher and that graduate entrants will be expected to be the fast-track high achievers with the potential to make partner or at least director.




* This is complete conjecture, although the move to taking on a higher proportion of non-graduates is happenning now.

[purplecat]

Interestingly there is also talk of widening the field of degree awarding bodies - I gather the publisher Pearson Education is interested in this. In that case it's forseeable that big accountancy firms (or groups thereof) could market their in house training regimes in some way, shape, or form as degrees.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

We (and all other accountancy firms) outsource the academic aspects of accountancy training but keep the practical training in-house and on-the-job. Non-graduates we take on do AAT training (accounting technician) which is seen as more than degree-equivalent anyway. Once they're AAT-qualifed, they move on to ACA (chartered accountancy).

I quite like the idea of company training = degree, but the problem for most industries would be "Hang on, if we train people up, and then award them a marketable qualification, won't they just bugger off and go and work for the competition?" For accountancy firms, lots of people leave when they qualify, but the accountancy firms' pyramid-shaped hierarchies are built to accommodate this (and alumni often end up as customers).