why do people think B arts = unemployment?? (1 Viewer)

[S1M0]

A graduate of medicine is a doctor.
An accounting graduate is an accountant.
Until he chooses to be employed as something else at a permanent position, then he remains what he worked all those damn years for {and even then he is still qualified as an accountant, doctor etc}. HE Has the skills and the knowledge that qualify him to be what he is.

But despite his qualifications, despite his eligibility to take up a potential job in that career, he cannot yet be recognised as being a doctor, accountant, etc. He has the opportunity yes, but he remains as unemployed until he has been offered, and has accepted, a position in his chosen career path.

 

[melanieeeee.]

actually an accounting grad. can't be recoginsed as an accountant without postgrad. qualifications from an accounting body...
just like a psychologist can't be recoginised as a psychologist without 4 years of a degree related to psychology + 2 years masters

a job title is only applied once you get the job.

 

[beentherdunthat]

Based on your previous posts you struggled with the basic premise that a degree doesn't neccessarily guarantee a job with the career pathway that the degree would have opened.

I found it unbelievable that a person with a law degree would choose to work as a cleaner, as cosmic agrees. { I assumed the poster had made a mistake with the the background of the man}

You are arguing with me a point{ a generalisation more like} that I didn't even make.

Hypothetically, if he had a job previously and lost it you might label him an accountant. Not if he's say, an accounting graduate unable to find a job.

This is what you're claiming which is fucking stupid

A {NO JOB} + B {ACCOUNTING DEGREE} = NOT ACCOUNTANT
So, is the employer who's employing this new guy meant to assume that he's NOT an accountant just because he has no first job experience?
A {No JOB BUT USED TO HAVE A JOB} + B {DEGREE} = ACCOUNTANT

So hypothetically i could do, for argument's sake, an engineering degree, MBBS and a law degree, and, due to a severe lack of jobs in those sectors, i am forced to go work as a cleaner. In that case, i am to be recognised as an engineer, surgeon and a lawyer, despite the fact that my occupation is a cleaner?

Talk about extreme case.
But yeah I do agree to that statement.

Have a long hard think about the logicality of your posts.

O shutup.

 

[Studentleader]

Why would anyone hire an over-educated painter?

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I found it unbelievable that a person with a law degree would choose to work as a cleaner, as cosmic agrees. { I assumed the poster had made a mistake with the the background of the man}

You are arguing with me a point{ a generalisation more like} that I didn't even make.



This is what you're claiming which is fucking stupid

A {NO JOB} + B {ACCOUNTING DEGREE} = NOT ACCOUNTANT
So, is the employer who's employing this new guy meant to assume that he's NOT an accountant just because he has no first job experience?
A {No JOB BUT USED TO HAVE A JOB} + B {DEGREE} = ACCOUNTANT



Talk about extreme case.
But yeah I do agree to that statement.



O shutup.

For heaven's sake.

The employer of the accounting graduate does not think he or she is an accountant. YET. He or she will be an accountant WHEN THEY GET THE JOB THEY APPLIED FOR. edit: if it's your first job, yes, you are an accountant but you don't get to be called that until you start working.

If you've previously worked as an accountant, are between jobs and looking to go into the accounting sector again, you could still be called an accountant because that is what your occupation is, you're just not working at the moment. There is a distinct difference between this, and a graduate who has not had even ONE job yet. See?

If you've previously worked as an accountant, are between jobs and end up working in a different field you are no longer an accountant. You are a [insert job], with an accounting DEGREE.

Christ, for someone doing law, as I have inferred from other posts, you sure have trouble with logic.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Why would anyone hire an over-educated painter?

Why wouldn't they? Besides, you tailor your application to fit the job you apply for. I wouldn't put a Medicine degree on a McDonald's application.

 

[pLuvia]

Why would anyone hire an over-educated painter?

You've got the wrong idea of a B.Arts lol, you're thinking B. Fine Arts there's a big difference

And I agree with cosmic, if someone has done a actuarial degree and graduates with that degree they are not granted the title of actuary until they become a Fellow of the IAAust which means they need to get a JOB and study at the same time. Also not all graduates of Law become lawyers, they are more so working within a law field, i.e. legal advising etc, but not as actual lawyers

It's like saying if I graduate from a politics major then I'm automatically a Politician. Graduating in a particular field means you can pursue a career in that field doesn't mean you are in that field

 

[Studentleader]

You've got the wrong idea of a B.Arts lol, you're thinking B. Fine Arts there's a big difference

Oh

 

[melanieeeee.]

I found it unbelievable that a person with a law degree would choose to work as a cleaner, as cosmic agrees. { I assumed the poster had made a mistake with the the background of the man}

I don't think that person would choose to be a cleaner but if he/she can't find a job then it kind of make sense

This is what you're claiming which is fucking stupid

A {NO JOB} + B {ACCOUNTING DEGREE} = NOT ACCOUNTANT
So, is the employer who's employing this new guy meant to assume that he's NOT an accountant just because he has no first job experience?
A {No JOB BUT USED TO HAVE A JOB} + B {DEGREE} = ACCOUNTANT

yeah i have to disagree with S1M0 there:

A {NO JOB} + B {ACCOUNTING DEGREE} = NOT ACCOUNTANT
A {No JOB BUT USED TO HAVE A JOB} + B {DEGREE} = NOT ACCOUNTANT
A job title is only applied if you have the job at present.

In that case, i am to be recognised as an engineer, surgeon and a lawyer, despite the fact that my occupation is a cleaner?

Talk about extreme case.
But yeah I do agree to that statement.

In that case that would be a cleaner with a engineering/ medicine/ law degree.

 

[scarybunny]

This person had never been a lawyer before. So it's not like she quit her law job and became a cleaner. She never had a law job, she needed to pay the bills so she did some part-time cleaning work. It's not that hard to believe.

Law students have part-time, non-degree-related jobs, right? Is it so unusual that they would continue with them after they graduated until such a time that they started a career in law? This can take time. Look at the study I posted previously- more than 10% of law graduates weren't even working in law-related employment, 3 years after they graduated.

A lawyer is a rather specific profession, and lots of people who do law degrees don't become lawyers. They often work with the law, use skills they learned in their degree, but they are not lawyers.

 

[melanieeeee.]

on the contrary a person that work his/her way up to a managerial position without any qualifications is still given the title: manager.

 

[scarybunny]

ALSO, you need more than a law degree to be a lawyer. You need a separate certificate to practice law.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

on the contrary a person that work his/her way up to a managerial position without any qualifications is still given the title: manager.

Which proves the whole point that it's the job and not the qualification (if any) that determines your title.

 

[S1M0]

I found it unbelievable that a person with a law degree would choose to work as a cleaner, as cosmic agrees. { I assumed the poster had made a mistake with the the background of the man}

You are arguing with me a point{ a generalisation more like} that I didn't even make.
.

lol.

Of course he wouldn't choose to be a lawyer, the reason why said person is working as a cleaner is because he can't find a job as a lawyer (or any such careers open to someone with a bachelor of law/combined law)

But as you yourself mentioned:

Which damn right doesn't sound right, he's probably a one-off, why would a A LAWYER go become a cleaneR?

I think my interpretation was reasonable.

Edit: I also assumed you weren't an idiot which, at the time, was reasonable.

This is what you're claiming which is fucking stupid

A {NO JOB} + B {ACCOUNTING DEGREE} = NOT ACCOUNTANT
So, is the employer who's employing this new guy meant to assume that he's NOT an accountant just because he has no first job experience?
A {No JOB BUT USED TO HAVE A JOB} + B {DEGREE} = ACCOUNTANT

Indeed it is. I shouldn't have comprised the integrity of my argument in a vain attempt to reconcile with someone who, despite many previous claims to be intelligent, to repeately fail understand what is generally percieved as common sense.

Ignore that statement, it sympthasisies more with your flawed argument than with mine.

Also, quit law while you're at it. If you consistently fail at making logically coherent arguments and statements as you had done in your previous strings of posts, you'll be out a legal job pretty soon.

 

[Gay Captain]

I think most B. Arts people end up tacking a Dip. Ed on the end of their degree and becoming teachers.

That's where the problem starts

 

[S1M0]

Fuck that.

B Mathematics Education/B Education etc --> M Education ---> PhD (Philosophy)

My outcomes > Yours.

So Engo ---> M Engo ---> Phd (Philosophy) for me

Woo.

edit: wait, can that work?

 

[Graney]

I am uneasy with your semantics. How does the arguement work when applied to other careers?

With a B. Sci I would not hesitate to call myself a Biologist, Physicist, Chemist, Geologist etc... Academic study is enough, even if I have never been employed in the field. Albeit, perhaps with the proviso 'amatuer'

With B. fine arts, I would call myself a sculptor, painter, visual artist etc... even if I've never been paid.

Similarly historian, philosopher etc... if you are educated, active and enquiring in the field, regardless of whether you are paid.

So what do you call someone learned in law, if not a lawyer? What if an individual was expert, fully qualified and licenced to practice law, and performed many of the functions of a lawyer for family and friends, such as providing legal advice, arguing in front of a judge, but was never formally employed or paid for this role?

I can not see why the above person is not a lawyer.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I am uneasy with your semantics. How does the arguement work when applied to other careers?

With a B. Sci I would not hesitate to call myself a Biologist, Physicist, Chemist, Geologist etc... Academic study is enough, even if I have never been employed in the field. Albeit, perhaps with the proviso 'amatuer'

With B. fine arts, I would call myself a sculptor, painter, visual artist etc... even if I've never been paid.

Similarly historian, philosopher etc... if you are educated, active and enquiring in the field, regardless of whether you are paid.

So what do you call someone learned in law, if not a lawyer? What if an individual was expert, fully qualified and licenced to practice law, and performed many of the functions of a lawyer for family and friends, such as providing legal advice, arguing in front of a judge, but was never formally employed or paid for this role?

I can not see why the above person is not a lawyer.

Someone learned in law is someone learned in law. They aren't a lawyer unless they are actually employed to do what a lawyer does, which is more than just sit there knowing a bunch of stuff bout law.

A person with a B. Fine Arts probably practises as an artist. Therefore, they can be called one. For me, being paid is not the defining point here, it's more about DOING what you're qualified to DO, as opposed to just getting a degree and then not using it but saying "oh, I'm a [something]." You aren't, not unless you actually do it.

Same thing applies to your other examples. A B. Sci does not make you a scientist unless you are doing something practical with your degree, like research, or whatever else science graduates do. I don't agree that academic study is enough. In a few years I will have done enough academic study to be qualified as a teacher but without actually TEACHING I'm not able to call myself one.

I agree with you when you say "if you are educated, ACTIVE and enquiring in the field, regardless of whether you are paid" that you get to be called " a something". It's about what you do. The piece of paper doesn't seal the deal.

 

[Graney]

But to what level do you reduce the complexity of 'doing' something? If you agree you do not have to be paid, do not have to have a specific regularity or timetable to your work, then where do you draw the line to say someone is not part of a profession.

As an example: A man who stood in his backyard with an old telescope and made observations and study of the night sky, however irregularly, even monthly or less, would be called an amatuer astronomer.

Someone who did the same, with a masters degree, and slightly more precision would be called an expert astronomer (not professional ofcourse). Even if they only make the most meagre of study and observation.

The above is an astronomer. Academic study in this case is definetly enough. Amatuers regularly make major discoveries.

Now, how is this different from my previous example of someone who provides free legal counsel in an informal fashion calling themselves a lawyer? Are you proposing they need to be employed within a part-time or full-time framework, a number of hours per week, to claim they are within a profession?

Those people are usually self employed.

Self employed/Volunteer work.

No.

So electricians, plumbers, mechanics, chefs, tradesmen of all sorts who own their own business are not entitled to claim this as their role, just because they are self employed?

 

[Graney]

So we agree they are lawyers.