"We don't want to be apprentices"

the young are apparently saying.

The media today is reporting that the number of young apprentices is actually declining under the current Labor government. Labor of course is the very side of politics which should see increasing numbers of young people taking up apprenticeships. What has gone wrong?

I can think of a number of reasons. It would be easy to say it was a sense of entitlement with respect to employment and pay for some. It is equally easy to say it is also a sense that "I am never going to get a job so why bother?" at the other. There is the lack of hope for the future and much more.

But there is something else we could do something about but almost certainly won't. We could return to the "bad old days" of the "technical high school" (a type of "secondary modern" in Upover). 

Were they really such bad places? Did students in those schools really feel no sense of pride or hope? Did they really feel they were getting a "second class" education with no hope of going to university? Did all the students who attended them actually want to go to university? Is it where everyone should aim to go?

A former governor of this state, a man I have met and talked to at length, was a "technical high school boy". It never held him back. He told me he had never regretted attending the secondary school he attended. Why would he? He worked incredibly hard and was awarded with the state's most prestigious job as well as a knighthood. Another man who attended the same school is a multi-millionaire. He used the skills he was taught at that school to set up his own business.  The Senior Cat's cousin, once "Apprentice of the Year" reached the very top of an international engineering firm and worked overseas for many years.

There was more than one similar school for girls with similar success stories. There is a woman who ran a hospital, another who had her own fashion business - and they are just two I have met. There are many others.

Now it seems this is not possible. "You need to go to university if you want to succeed" is what young people are being told. They are told they need university degrees to be electricians, plumbers, bricklayers and "roofing experts" - whatever they may be. Carpentry skills are no longer needed. The parts come in from China and you "just bung them together". Really?

I think it is much more likely we really need electricians who can wire a building to the requirements of those using or living in it. When this house was built there were additional power points put in. They were designed with aging and disability in mind.  The light switches are lower than usual for the same reason. The electrician who did the work was surprised by what was asked for and admitted he had to think about it. He also said that even then not everyone could have done as asked. You needed to be fully trained and qualified and able to take a real interest in your work.

I once knew a man who described himself as "rough carpenter". He did the basic work, the work that nobody would see on buildings. He must have done it well because he was always in demand. His home also had furniture he had made. At the time I knew him I didn't know much about carpentry because the Senior Cat did not have much time for one of his hobbies. Now I realise this "rough carpenter" had real skills. He was by no means "low level" he was an "essential" worker. 

We have been too busy telling young people that such work is somehow less important. It is not. It is essential. The dentist and the doctor are not going to be able to work without builders, electricians, plumbers, instrument makers and much more. Perhaps we need to rethink this and tell young people how essential these skills are - and that they can be proud of achieving them? 

   

Do you use your title?

There was an odd little thing which came up on a friend's blog a couple of days ago. She said it annoyed her when people who were not doctors used the title "Dr". By this she meant people who have a "Doctor of Philosophy". She felt they were not entitled to be called "Dr". 

It is an interesting thought. Are they or aren't they? They are of course. They are the original "doctors". It was only later the medical profession started to use the title. They even go on to become "Mr" (or the female equivalent) again later when they rise through the ranks.

But a "doctor" back in say the fourteenth century was someone who had studied and reached a high level of learning. It probably goes back even further than that but I have not bothered to look it up. By no means all of them had written the theses required today. "Dr Johnson" of dictionary fame was simply known as "doctor" and there are plenty of other examples to be found among the men of science. Women of course did not get consideration!

The use of the title "doctor" varies. It is more common in some countries than others. It is much less common here than it is in Italy for example. If people write to me here they are much more likely to address me by my given name (and that will often be spelt incorrectly.) They might address me as "Ms" - a term I find intensely irritating. (That apparently began because the late Winston Churchill once said, "Well write "m" stroke "s" then if you don't know if she is married". ) If colleagues in Italy (and elsewhere in Europe) write to me I can get not just "doctor" but "doctor doctor".  Once I even had a letter which used "doctor" four times. It was apparently considered correct etiquette" in the situation!

I certainly do not sign myself off as "doctor", especially in social situations. It is not considered appropriate here. I have a friend in Cambridge who pointed out that it is considered quite usual there - but it is one of the oldest university cities in the world and it is considered quite normal there.

The other problem is the danger of being expected to act as a doctor in an emergency situation. This happened to someone I know. After attending a conference in Athens she was flying back to London. There was a medical emergency on the plane and she was called on. Fortunately there was a medical doctor on the plane and she was actually able to help him because her late father had suffered from the same condition and she knew what to do. But, it was a close call. The head of the research unit we both worked in at the time sent a message around to the staff advising them not to use their doctor titles when travelling abroad.  It is possibly even more important now when litigation is so much more common.

I suppose it is up to individuals themselves but I also thought of housekeepers. Many housekeepers, especially in the eighteen and nineteenth centuries, were given the title of "Mrs" even when they had never married. 

On the whole I think I will leave titles to the medical profession and when it matters in academia. I call my doctor by her given name and do so at her invitation. Last week the barrister, a KC working for us introduced himself by his given and last name and then said, "It's J..." (his given name) so we knew what he preferred. In court I would be more formal. Even the judge involved was relaxed outside the formal court proceedings. It all just indicated there is a time and a place for titles. Getting it right is the problem.   

The person behind the camera

does not usually appear in the photograph. (I am ignoring "selfie sticks" and mirrors here.) 

It came as a real shock to me yesterday when I realised I do not actually have a photograph of a very, very close friend - now deceased. I was asked to provide one for a newsletter  and could not do it. In the course of trying to find one I contacted someone else. No, she did not have one either.

My wonderful friend was always the person behind the camera. Looking back I also realise that even she took very few photographs. As I avoid having my photograph taken if at all possible there are very few of me but Middle Cat could provide one if necessary - and the state newspaper could hunt in their morgue and pull up a few I suppose. All the same I will avoid the camera if I can.

E... was not camera shy. I suspect it just never occurred to her that there might be an occasion in which she also needed to appear in the record of the event. Her sister was never interested, indeed refused to use a camera at all. 

And so I had P... hunting yesterday. She is elderly and I felt guilty at even having to bother her about something so apparently trivial. There was a good reason for it all however, a rather sad reason. We are winding up the scholarship fund set up in her name. It was not something I wanted to happen but it simply is not possible to continue it. Over the last few years it has allowed almost two hundred girls in two "developing" countries to finish their secondary education and make them eligible for tertiary help from other places. The first country was one where E... and I both had a friend, a nun who ran the camp for unaccompanied children. The other country was one where E... herself had worked. It has all been a lot of very, very hard work but a great adventure helping those girls. Some of them are now teacher, nurses, pharmacists and even a doctor. 

I thought of this as P... promised me to ask another member of her family this coming week. I also thought - perhaps we do have a photograph of her, many photographs. She is reflected in all the girls she taught and those who had the further benefit of her bequest.