Month: May 2018

LinkedIn career advice

In November 2017 LinkedIn began rolling out a new feature across its site called “Career Advice.” After trials for users in Australia and San Francisco, it then launched for users in the UK, India and the US and, recently popped up on my app.

LinkedIn hopes the feature will

connect members across the LinkedIn network with one another for lightweight mentorship opportunities. Whether you need advice on your career path, switching to a new industry or best practices for a project you’re working on, Career Advice can help you find and connect with the right person who can help.

which sounds like a marvelous opportunity to build networks and gain industry insights in a professional forum.

Upon log on users are presented with an option page introducing them to the feature and asking how it could benefit them

Screenshot_20180509-204455.png

Users can stipulate which other users in their networks they can get mentoring or advice from

Screenshot_20180509-204518.png

And specify to those users what help you are particularly looking for

Screenshot_20180509-204605.png

Back in 2014 I posted about an online community careers support effort on Reddit but those users are anonymous (an important feature for Reddit users) so feedback, engagement and advice to posted questions can vary hugely. The LinkedIn effort is different for the advantages of professionalism and positive branding offered to those offering to be a mentor. For the mentee or those asking for advice, the service is useful for the accessibility to distinct professional insight and then being able to contextualize this with knowledge of the advice givers experience and background

For those Careers Advice colleagues working with clients of an age or professional background that have LinkedIn or those helping clients set up their LinkedIn pages, it could be a useful suggestion to enable this option on their profile. A guide on how to do this to become either a mentor or a mentee is here:

https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/87884/signing-up-for-career-advice?lang=en

Also, if you’re on LinkedIn and you would like to connect, this is me

 

Advertisements

The CEC in front of the Education Select Committee May 2018 – not the one sided thrashing you were led to believe

Link to the Education Select Committee Video here:

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/90b1eb8a-1eca-40c2-8916-0956c5cce7a0

So far in its existence (at least to those of us in the Careers community that don’t work for it) it seemed that the Careers and Enterprise Company (CEC) was the golden child, arrived here to save careers work for young people in England. Central funding wise, they essentially are the only show in town as they scale up their pilot work and their communications, PR and branding have been a fresh breeze of modern professionalism in a sector that (if I may) has always been behind the curve in shaping its own public perception. This period of cosy positivity ended though with a bruising session for the CEC in front of Robert Halfon and his Education Select Committee. The trade press reported the session in typical combative framing and the CEC did itself no favourites with a poorly judged call for social media support afterwards.

The Select Committee (well the 7 present of the 11 members) seemed aghast at a number of areas of the CEC’s work and track-record

  • that the CEC had spent £900,000 on research publications which were monies that had not been spent on the front line
  • that the CEC was not yet able to report on the destinations impact of the provision that their work had funded
  • that their board meeting minutes were not made public
  • that the long mooted Enterprise Passport had been put “on hold” despite it being one of the three main strands of the CEC’s original remit
  • that funding pots supposedly dedicated to providing provision for disadvantaged areas were not being totally allocated to those areas
  • paying Enterprise Co-ordinators and other central, senior roles significant salaries above comparable school based roles

Some of these criticisms hold an element of truth but what was also apparent from the session was (yet again) just how woefully ignorant of the Careers landscape (and by extension the work of the CEC) the MPs were.

Of course, it is only fair for MP’s to ask for the upmost transparency and compliance when investigating the value gained for the spending for tax payers money and beginning to focus on the actual impact (rather than merely the quantity) of provision would have been something you might have read about on this blog back in July 2017. Funding from Government comes with strings attached, it must be accounted for so taking the CEC to task for not being clear on the destination data of the pupils receiving CEIAG provision funded by the CEC is to be expected. What was not expected was just how difficult it was for the MPs to grasp that this destination data was;

a) only part of the impact feedback with evaluations and further social mobility measures, employer feedback, skill shortage data etc also to be taken into account

b) not going to be ready yet as many of the young recipients of CEC funded provision were probably still in school at this moment – Mr Halfon seemed unable to comprehend this fairly simple point

and

c) extremely difficult to collect and place comparative value on as the inputs (the type of CEIAG provision) are varied and delivered by a multitude of different providers funded by the CEC

It was also astonishing to see Emma Hardy, the MP for Hull West, at one moment criticize the CEC for not publishing pupil level destination data to show the impact of their work only then to also harangue them for not funding grassroots organisations such as National Careers Week who also do not publish or collect pupil level destination data. NCW are a fine organisation but they are not providers of provision, they are a banner organisation whose launch events and social media exposure allow others to brand their own work. Their own reporting reflects this with the number of tweets and resource downloads indicating a successful impact rather than the actual outcomes of young people. Moments such as this highlight a complete lack of mastery of the Select Committee brief from some of the Members and this was only to continue throughout the session.

Trudy Harrison was the most clueless of the bunch, at times advocating that the CEC should only be judged on the hugely reductive measure of rising or falling youth unemployment in an area in which they are funding provision and showing her utter unpreparedness for the session by repeatedly asking what a “Cold Spot” was. In the end I admired Claudia Harris’ restraint as the Member for Copeland asked for definitions, clarifications and to be sent information that was published on the CEC website back in October 2015 and forms a fundamental basis for all of the subsequent work of the organisation.

(I also enjoyed Lucy Powell noting that the advertised circa £80k CEC Director of Education role is “more than we get paid” considering that an MP’s current salary is very close at £77,379 and Mrs Powell also enjoys income from a number of rental properties according to the Register of MP’s Financial Interests)

Despite the general ignorance of the line of questioning some important points were raised. The fact that the Enterprise Passport is “on hold” to use Christine Hodgson‘s phrase is of note but it was more a pity that the MPs did not have the forensic insight to ask how much had been spent on this project to date. The figures for the amount of applications for funding the CEC received should also have caused a greater swell of interest. For the original £5m funding pot, they received over 10 times (£50m) worth of applications which just shows that there could be vastly more CEIAG work happening with young people if only the funding was there. Again, the MP’s did not pick up on this huge appetite for provision that is currently being unfilled.

As the session progressed, both Hodgson and Claudia Harris struggled gainfully and mostly unsuccessfully to overcome the MPs preordained views. At times, this was the fault of the two representatives of the CEC as they struggled to recall funding amounts or specific data that would’ve helped their push-back and appear more in charge of their remit. This was clearly apparent as they struggled to articulate the processes and structure of the biding and allocation of both the Personal Guidance funds and the Career Hubs monies. This was not helped by Robert Halfon confusing his brief over the remit of two distinct pots of money but also the failure of Harris to explain why biding processes had been designed with certain methodologies and if the £5m allocated for disadvantaged young people was definitively going to be spent on disadvantaged young people. The promises that current schemes (Compass and the 2019 publication of destination data of pupils involved with CEC funded activities) would soon bear fruit also failed to appease the Committee. The central point remains though, it is clearly fair for Select Committee’s to ask for clarity on expenditure and impact and the CEC, with their multitude of funding pots and provision schemes, certainly dropped the ball in explaining this coherently.

Equally though, dissatisfaction arose due to the fact that the roles of the CEC still seem undefined to those MPs who oversee them. Despite Hodgson’s appeals to the contrary that their DfE grant letter provides a clear remit, throughout the session the CEC was tasked by different Members with being a provider of CEIAG provision, an umbrella organisation channelling funding to organisations on the front-line and a research intensive body such as the Education Endowment Foundation only finding what does and doesn’t work (somehow despite their earlier criticisms of too high a research budget) or all of those things or even some mixture of those things.

Perhaps, through no fault of its own, by the time of its creation, the marketplace the CEC hopes to shelter under its umbrella and stakeholder’s perceptions of CEIAG provision had grown so distinct and varied that bringing all of the partner organisations and oversight bodies together will provide a much harder task than they imagined. It’s not that everybody isn’t yet singing from the same hymn sheet, it’s that, despite the huge research investment, the debate over which hymn sheet to use is still happening.

Your @icouldstories top of the charts

 

icould_logo

Since their launch in 2009, icould.com have consistently uploaded videos that most Careers practitioners will have reached for to use as a resource. Their short taking head films are excellent group work resources or quick starter prompts when presenting to a class. The Buzz quiz will also be a saved bookmark for many practitioners when working face to face to clients.

At the time of writing (May 2018) they have uploaded 2800 videos to their Youtube platform and linked pages (pages which are now stacked with useful LMI information powered by the LMI for All platform) so I thought it would be interesting to look at the careers featured in their most popular uploads

Health warning: With some of their videos now dating back almost 10 years, you should check them before using them in front of a class. Some of the interviewees references to past qualifications or websites will sound very outdated to young ears so do check.

So, by number of video views, the most popular icould videos are:

10.Music Producer – 31,000 views

Popular with lots of young folk and now much more accessible with the (relative) affordability of producing programs, it’s obvious why this video has racked up so many views.

 

9. Personal Assistant – 31,000 views

A surprise for me this, perhaps the ubiquitous nature of the role means lots of potential Assistants are interested in what is involved in the role.

 

8. Marketing Manager – 32,000 views

Also another surprise to me as it’s a job title that doesn’t catch as many headlines as others but their seems to be significant interest.

 

7. Human Resource Manager – 34,000 views

Similarly, perhaps HR Managers are roles that people see advertised and look for clarity on what is involved with the role so find a video such as this.

 

6. Games Developer – 37,000 views

Okay, that’s much more in line with my stereotypes of your typical Youtube user

 

5. Prison Officer – 48,000 views

Another interesting entry, in my experience people are drawn to the public service aspect of being a prison officer and the security (ahem) that comes with the role.

 

4. Business Development Manager – 49,000 views

Another fascinating entry as it’s a role with significant potential for challenge and progression yet not one widely known.

It also does have the best comment to geek out the narrative career theory nerds

icould youtube comment

3. Captain – 56,000 views

A Captain of what? The Starship Enterprise?

No, a cruise ship.

2. Speech & Language Therapist – 76,000 views

Lovely to see such a therapeutic and giving role with this many views but also a role with significant science requirements. The comments below the video are also extremely positive about Helen’s (the interviewee) demeanor and story so it seems that it is not just the job title of an icould video that draws viewers but also the inspirational value.

 

And top of the charts!

1. Entrepreneur – Sir Richard Branson – 97,000 views

Helped with a little sprinkling of star name attachment, the role of Entrepreneur is still something that entices the dreamers and aspirationally minded looking for career advice.

 

At the other end of the scale, there are also many professions whose videos have not caught the imagine of the Youtube community. Spread a bit of love to Phil, the Centre Director who’s video has accumulated 6 views.

leave the scary stare out of the thumbnail Phil.