Jobs For Jam Tuesday 1 June 2010
Posted by Jehan Casinader in Blog.comments closed
Can you be too qualified to push one of these around?
Is there anything to stop a political science graduate from working behind a supermarket counter? Work and Income seems to think so. It advised 22-year-old Natalie Meehan to wipe her degree from her CV when she applied for jobs at Pak’n’Save and KFC. The reason? WINZ was afraid that a prospective employer may be “intimidated” by Meehan’s academic transcript. But why? Most graduates have slaved away for years, in musty lecture theatres and alongside stacks of textbooks, in order to get a degree, to help them score a job. Any suggestion to dumb down your CV, by hiding your degree, must seem like the ultimate slap in the face.
It’s not often that a fresh, young graduate is told they’re ‘too qualified’. More commonly, older job candidates are knocked back. Surely, it’s embarrassing that spineless employers can be intimidated by confident job applicants. Being ‘overqualified’ should only be a problem if the applicant’s previous experience prevents them from doing a new job well. And why would a political scientist be less capable of working in an entry-level retail job? At a fast food outlet, would she reveal to the customers how the globalisation of fast food is having a rather devastating effect on developing countries? Unlikely. In a supermarket, would she expose the evil capitalist systems that are undermining the distribution of food around the world? Probably not. All she wanted was to earn some cash.
But if Meehan tells a prospective employer that she is a recent graduate, they may conclude that she will not stay in the job in the long-term. No surprises there: no university graduate wants to flip burgers for a living. But in any case, we shouldn’t be encouraging 20-somethings to work in low-wage, low-skilled positions. Sure, supermarket checkout jobs allow students to kick-start their working lives. But recruiters must not be under the illusion that a 22-year-old would be committed to a long-term career in supermarket retail or fast food, regardless of whether they’re qualified or not. Meehan should be able to apply for one of those jobs while being upfront about the fact that she has a degree.
Dumbing down your CV is consistent with the Kiwi mentality. We’re afraid to overstate our abilities. As a result, employers lose access to good talent, while talented people are left out of work. Sure, today’s employers are met by a sea of candidates, most of whom have identical qualifications. But graduates’ areas of study are less relevant than ever before. What any employer want to know is that the person they’re hiring is capable. Doing a degree requires intelligence, sacrifice, commitment, original thought, and a desire to learn. Dumbing down a resume leaves the graduate, and their prospective employer, feeling cheated.
Playing It Safe Sunday 16 May 2010
Posted by Jehan Casinader in Blog.comments closed
Eleven years on, the memory of Columbine is still fresh
It’s not easy to write about a problem that hasn’t really become a problem yet. The media are often blamed for putting fear into the hearts and minds of ordinary people, in a bid to sell more newspapers or magazines. That’s often true. Sensationalism is, and always has been, a journalistic hazard. But simply because a problem hasn’t come to the surface, that doesn’t mean the media should avoid covering it to avoid scaring the public. In fact, the media can often prevent a problem from developing. It’s usually dubbed “preventive journalism”.
That was the intent behind my feature in today’s Sunday Star-Times; a report on whether New Zealand schools are prepared for an armed intrusion. A school shooting? Not in this country, many would say. But perhaps that’s the problem. When I began writing the story three weeks ago, I was met by a wall of silence from the authorities. The Police, the Ministry of Education, the teachers’ union and many principals refused to be interviewed. Whatever their reasons were, it was clear that school security was not at the top of the priority list. On Monday morning, that all changed. A 13-year-old boy stabbed a teacher at Te Puke High School in the Bay of Plenty; the second such stabbing in two years. The wounds were not fatal, the boy was caught and charged. Just three days later, another incident, this time at Hamilton Girls’ High, where a distressed student produced a knife she had purchased during morning tea time. In a matter of days, the issue of school security had made it to the top of the news agenda.
Last week’s coverage focused on the safety of teachers, and whether they should have increased powers to search and seize weapons in the classroom. But one angle was missed altogether: whether our schools are prepared for an armed intrusion. While many schools have introduced ‘lockdown’ procedures, many are keeping students in the dark about what would happen (and how they should act) during an armed incident. Without that knowledge, students will be vulnerable. Many schools overseas have learned that the hard way.
Given the events of the week, the story is timely, and has a bit more punch than it would otherwise have had. But I’m often frustrated by our unwillingness to consider issues like this before it’s too late. Some readers choose to dismiss such stories and blame the editors and reporters for hyping up a non-story. Editors are often to blame for failing to present these stories in a way that is relevant but cool-headed. In any case, if we choose to sit around waiting for a social problem to hit us in the face before we’re ready to talk about it, we’d miss an opportunity to minimise the damage. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.
Bieber Fever or Pop Pandemic? Saturday 1 May 2010
Posted by Jehan Casinader in Blog.comments closed
Even the glasses couldn't prepare Bieber for his day of Kiwi drama
Days before teen star Justin Bieber touched down in Auckland, the media were predicting the sudden onset of ‘Bieber Fever’. Like swine flu, it came with little warning. Bieber’s music had only been on New Zealand radio for a matter of weeks. And, like swine flu, Bieber Fever posed a major security threat. The previous week, in Sydney, his concert was cancelled after many teen girls were hospitalised after being injured or, in some cases, fainting due to hyperventilation. But while the threat of swine flu had virtually no effect on New Zealand, ‘Bieber Fever’ sounded much more serious. And by the time he stepped out of the arrival gate at Auckland Airport, the ‘fever’ had turned into a pandemic. He was welcomed by screaming fans, bemused journalists and, ahem, police officers. Rather than spending the evening fighting crime, they’d fight a wall of teenyboppers to keep The Bieb safe. But as soon as he arrived, his visit lost its sugar coating.
The teen throng knocked his mother over. Unpleasant. But I have no sympathy for Bieber in regards to his stolen hat, which was pinched by an enterprising fan, as he was leaving the airport. He shouldn’t have been wearing a purple hat in the first place. But the hat debacle was only the tip of the iceberg. At What Now he was given a shaken-up bottle of L’n'P, which exploded, causing him to walk out. (He’s lucky he didn’t get gunged). On Twitter, he told off his Kiwi fans for “pushing” each other around. At a school, he pinched a chocolate bar from a fundraising container. When asked to pay, he claimed to have no money, but offered to sign the wrapper. But there were happier moments too: he sang at a school, he met some of the fans, he wore an All Blacks jersey, he jumped off the Harbour Bridge and he decided that Air New Zealand is the world’s best airline. Bieber may have given the New Zealand brand a boost.
But the way his visit was covered by local media was bizarre at best, and embarrassing at worst. Today’s most senior journalists have a tendency to jump on ‘new’ and ‘emerging’ stories which may attract a young, hip audience. (Bieber’s surname sounds like the name of a tween social networking website, although I’m not sure that had any bearing in this case…) On the day of his visit, One News led with storis about tobacco tax, brothels, childcare subsidies, the ANZAC tragedy and cannabis raids. Bieber turned up later in the bulletin. But 3 News had the gall to put Beiber at the top of the news hour. The first two stories were about him, and his missing hat. It’s a very dark day for journalism when the lead story on the evening news is about a 16-year-old’s missing hat. Even the Weekend Herald‘s editorial was about the Bieber boy’s big day out.
Why did the media go ga-ga? Because, unlike other teen sensations, Bieber ended up on our shores at the height of his popularity. The attention given to his one-day promotional visit was extraordinary, and what it shows is that the audience is gaining increasing control of the news agenda. Sure, the singer’s audience is a small and ardent one, but the wider public watched his visit with curiosity. And he’s paid to put up with the attention. There’s nothing worse that a complaining celebrity. Of course, Bieber should be credited with his success. (A bottle of water he drank from while in Auckland sold on TradeMe for almost $900). But as a wise old entertainer once told me, ‘The star that burns brightly burns out quickly’. Bieber should buy another purple hat to block out the rays.
