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.