How much would you have to be paid to teach these oiks?

Michael Gove, Shadow Schools Secretary, has announced a quite simple new policy to entice more science graduates into teaching science – graduates get their student loan paid off, if they go into teaching.

It’s a good policy insofar that it gets lots and lots and lots of headlines. The downside is, it won’t make much difference. Gove claims that the scheme could potentially save graduates ‘£40,000 over a lifetime’.

‘Over a lifetime’, that is not a lot of money. A grand a year over a forty year career? Will that replace the hole in a science graduate’s earnings caused by turning down Glaxo for a teaching job? I doubt it. In real terms, Gove is offering a 3% pay increase to science graduates – up until their student loan is paid off. When that debt has gone, there is no incentive.

It’s better than nothing, but why would high-achieving graduates want to embark on a really stressful career for the sake of a barely improved salary?

Gove claims that the scheme will help create “generation of teachers who have made a commitment to the long-term, and thus we will diminish the churn that characterises our system now.”

How is a short term pay increase going to ‘diminish the churn’? To be a good teacher, you have to love your job. And I mean really love it. Extra pay might cushion job dissatisfaction, but not forever – and certainly not if the extra pay dries up in a few years.

Teaching is difficult and not particularly well paid. Why would someone with a first in Chemistry go and teach at a crappy comp if Deloitte have offered them a £25,000 starting salary for a piss easy consulting job?

Gove has got the right idea: you want better teachers, give them a better pay deal. But he needs to go much further.

Related posts:

1. Why shouldn’t medics and engineers pay higher fees?
2. Cut, cut, cut! Teaching jobs go at Sheffield University

In the UK, nearly one in three have a profile. Due to its popularity, Facebook has become a ubiquitous part of everyday life. Similar sites, such as Bebo and Myspace are in decline, with falling revenues and declining amounts of users. But Facebook goes from strength to strength, giving a forum to people who want to put every moment of their private life into the public domain.

Employers have been aware of this for quite a while. It’s only now, however, that employers looking at social networking sites prior to offering jobs have become the norm, rather than the exception.

75 per cent of young people claimed that they could not live without the internet. Nearly half admitted that they were happiest when on the internet.

A recent survey showed that nearly half of all employers do this, and that companies really do change their decisions based on what they read on site like Facebook. In another survey of 2,600 hiring managers, 53 per cent admitted that they had not hired candidates after looking at them on Facebook simply because of some inappropriate photographs or bad spelling.

These statistics alarmed me. If my dream employer searched for me on Facebook, the first picture they would find is one of me devouring a chicken leg, caveman style.

Delve further into my profile and the intrepid Facebook stalker/future employer would be greeted with hundreds of photos of me drinking, skiing and (my personal favourite) shirtless with both nipples covered in shaving cream at Leeds Festival.

Something tells me I wouldn’t be getting that job. My Facebook page gives the impression that I am a drunk who enjoys nothing more than debasing himself at music festivals. The only upside is that, amidst all the debauchery, my spelling is impeccable.

Aside from the photos, my profile shows me to be a nerd with a penchant for foul language (even if spelled impeccably). From an employers point of view, however, bad language is a lot better than slagging off your job in statuses.

Back in February, there was a well-publicised case of an office worker sacked for revealing that she was “so totally bord!!!” at work on Facebook. The manager sacked her as he did not want the company’s name in the media, rather than for her terrible spelling. Unfortunately, he didn’t bank on the girl selling her story to the Daily Mail.

There is a simple way around this problem. Set your profile on private and no one but your ‘friends’ can view it. This means you can write whatever you like. You could even do what one girl did and write “OMG I HATE MY JOB! My boss is a total pervy wanker always making me do shit stuff just to piss me off.”

This is fine, unless you have already added your boss – as this rather dim girl had. The boss promptly left a comment pointing out that a) he was gay, b) the ‘shit stuff’ was her job and c) that she was sacked.

Having a private profile, however, is not always the best idea either. Around 50 per cent of hiring managers said that a ‘positive’ profile would make them more likely to take a candidate.

The Careers Service at Sheffield asks students to “ensure that their Facebook pages, if open for public viewing, show them in a positive and favourable light” So, if you’re the type of person with statuses like “If you can believe, you can achieve!”, or “Great brainstorming session today, guys. Go team!” leave your profile open. If you lead a normal life, keep it shut.

But who are these companies, snooping on your Facebook profile? I asked the Careers Service at Sheffield and they knew of no companies who examined Facebook before hiring potential employees. I even called a number of companies in the Times Top 100 Graduate Employers, none of whom admitted to Facebook-stalking future employees.

Yet, evidently, many companies do, even in Sheffield. This summer I applied for two jobs at local bars in Sheffield that were part of the same company. One bar checks Facebook pages before hiring, the other doesn’t. Me scoffing my face with chicken must have put the former off as I didn’t even get an interview; the other gave me a job.

Employers snooping on potential employees are simply a symptoms of a more modern malaise. Facebook has caused the boundaries between people’s work, social and private life to become confused.

What was once private has instead become quasi-public, with comments that you would normally only tell real friends being relayed to hundreds – or even thousands – of virtual friends and potentially millions of stalkers, unless you specifically make them private. The instantness of Facebook generally just creates an orchestra of inanity, but occasionally the thoughtlessness with which we update Facebook can come back to haunt us.

For some, however, the instantness of Facebook isn’t enough. Sites like Twitter have emerged to plug a gap for those desperate to reveal their every waking moment to a collection of friends and ‘followers’. More than 65 million have signed up to Facebook mobile, so they can tell everyone they know (and a few people they don’t) exactly what they are up to at that very second.

And once you’ve started it’s hard to stop. Shilling for opinions on this feature I asked my friends (on Facebook, naturally), if they could live without it.

“I deactivated my account less than 3 weeks ago, and yet here I am commenting on your status – apparently, no” came one comment.

It’s unsurprising that 75 per cent of young people claimed that they could not live without the internet. In the same survey, nearly half admitted that they were happiest when on the internet.

Young people today are Digital Natives. Pretty much everyone under 25 has been surrounded by computers, the internet and instant communication since childhood.

Posting minute details of your life has become the norm, and it has consequences. It’s not surprising that employers have caught on (even if they won’t always admit to it).

You can also read this piece here, at Forge Press.

Related posts:

1. The age of the internet and the end of interaction
2. Banning Facebook is not the answer – frape is
3. Cut, cut, cut! Teaching jobs go at Sheffield University