From TV: Grads today.
I was watching a Chinese debate on TV earlier on. The debate touched on the quality of graduates today, the purpose of life, objectives of choosing a course of study...etc. In other words, everything about a graduate.
It started on the jobless rates of graduates. These think-tanks claimed that it is the attitude of graduates themselves who are to be blamed for not being employed - not competitve, demanding for high salary, lack of basic skills...etc.
I think this first part applies only to a minority. I would say the majority are competitive, at least marginal. Salary is a common need - everyone wants a bloody high starting pay, just that some are less smart in negotiating. Lack of basic skills, again, this applies to only a minority, which I think should be jobless for life.
Then they started flaming on the graduates' over-lavish lifestyle.
Let me roughly quote:
1. They are driving better cars than me. (commented by the professor.)
2. They are getting better things compared to us in our times. (some idiot's comment.)
3. They are spending beyond their means. (Fine.)
For the first statement,
I think the professor has no brains for progress. He's stucked in his time, thinking that only a professor can drive a good car. Anyone below a professor level, should ride a kaput vespa?
Second statement,
Another idiot who is stucked in his time. We're getting better things than the previous generation, and if that's bad, are they not getting better things than their previous generation as well? So what's the fuss? If they insist on upholding their stance, I believe they should live in caves, clad in leaves and cook with stones.
For the first both statements, I think that both of these self-acclaimed think-tanks couldn't be content, in other words, these ppl are envious of the new generation. If everyone is to follow his/her parents' footstep, where does development fit in? If everyone has to use a gadget older than their parents, when does new gadgets come in? They should know that everyone has their days. Theirs are over. Ours have just begun, but it will end one day as well.
The last statement, I have to agree. But do not blame it entirely on the graduates. Blame it on the financial institutions providing these services as well, which again, if no one uses these services, do you think our banks can expand its coffer? Do you think if the ppl all over the world did not spend that extravagantly, Malaysia could sustain its GDP?
Grads chose the wrong course, according to the idiots, a course not in demand by the market, then the question, what is a degree?
Is it for money? Or is it an education?
A course not in demand in market does not mean the grad made a bad choice. He/she might have an interest in that course, let's say, paleontology. He/she is bound to find no lucrative job in the market, so what? The question of, should we mass-produce graduates for the needs of the market or rather, should we be producing graduates for the future of the country has to be answered by both that idiots.
Malaysia has been accelerating its production of grads in the tech sector and finance sector, which is good of course. But come 2020, the year our country is supposed to achieve her developed-nation status, do we have any experts in the field of paleontology, languages, history, art, cross-culture, astronomy, marine biology, forestry..etc?
Are we having just engineers, financiers, lawyers, doctors, janitors,..etc?
Professors are smart ppl. Yet, they think like babies sucking milk - no thinking involved. Babies just suck.
No wonder the saying, once a third world country forever a third world country.
In short, a nation strata elevation is virtually impossible if the mindsets of ppl remain primitive and unprogressive.
It started on the jobless rates of graduates. These think-tanks claimed that it is the attitude of graduates themselves who are to be blamed for not being employed - not competitve, demanding for high salary, lack of basic skills...etc.
I think this first part applies only to a minority. I would say the majority are competitive, at least marginal. Salary is a common need - everyone wants a bloody high starting pay, just that some are less smart in negotiating. Lack of basic skills, again, this applies to only a minority, which I think should be jobless for life.
Then they started flaming on the graduates' over-lavish lifestyle.
Let me roughly quote:
1. They are driving better cars than me. (commented by the professor.)
2. They are getting better things compared to us in our times. (some idiot's comment.)
3. They are spending beyond their means. (Fine.)
For the first statement,
I think the professor has no brains for progress. He's stucked in his time, thinking that only a professor can drive a good car. Anyone below a professor level, should ride a kaput vespa?
Second statement,
Another idiot who is stucked in his time. We're getting better things than the previous generation, and if that's bad, are they not getting better things than their previous generation as well? So what's the fuss? If they insist on upholding their stance, I believe they should live in caves, clad in leaves and cook with stones.
For the first both statements, I think that both of these self-acclaimed think-tanks couldn't be content, in other words, these ppl are envious of the new generation. If everyone is to follow his/her parents' footstep, where does development fit in? If everyone has to use a gadget older than their parents, when does new gadgets come in? They should know that everyone has their days. Theirs are over. Ours have just begun, but it will end one day as well.
The last statement, I have to agree. But do not blame it entirely on the graduates. Blame it on the financial institutions providing these services as well, which again, if no one uses these services, do you think our banks can expand its coffer? Do you think if the ppl all over the world did not spend that extravagantly, Malaysia could sustain its GDP?
Grads chose the wrong course, according to the idiots, a course not in demand by the market, then the question, what is a degree?
Is it for money? Or is it an education?
A course not in demand in market does not mean the grad made a bad choice. He/she might have an interest in that course, let's say, paleontology. He/she is bound to find no lucrative job in the market, so what? The question of, should we mass-produce graduates for the needs of the market or rather, should we be producing graduates for the future of the country has to be answered by both that idiots.
Malaysia has been accelerating its production of grads in the tech sector and finance sector, which is good of course. But come 2020, the year our country is supposed to achieve her developed-nation status, do we have any experts in the field of paleontology, languages, history, art, cross-culture, astronomy, marine biology, forestry..etc?
Are we having just engineers, financiers, lawyers, doctors, janitors,..etc?
Professors are smart ppl. Yet, they think like babies sucking milk - no thinking involved. Babies just suck.
No wonder the saying, once a third world country forever a third world country.
In short, a nation strata elevation is virtually impossible if the mindsets of ppl remain primitive and unprogressive.
posted by greyhound at 12:30 AM
0 Comments:
<< Home