THEIR BIZARRE FORUM RULES STOP ‘DEPRESSED’ JOB-SEEKER FROM FINDING THIS WEBSITE
Okay, so I’m just going to tell you what happened – because if I slag off Prospects too much they can sue me!
Last week, I spotted a plea on their forum, entitled ‘Messed up – help!’
The post was from a desperate student who was flunking her finals. She said she was freaking out about her future, had ‘lost all my confidence’ and felt ‘depressed’.
Beneath it was a four-line reply from Prospects’ resident expert. This included sympathy (‘I’m sure many can relate to what you’re going through’) followed by advice to ‘Use your university careers service’ and ‘Get an appointment with the counselling service’.
It is my opinion that it was a fairly poor response.
So I decided to contribute a reply myself.
As the student had admitted she was ‘depressed’, I felt I couldn’t ignore it.
So I carefully composed my own (15-line) response of tailor-made advice.
At this point I should stress that I am not paid to do this – and regular readers will know I’m not a big fan of Prospects. But I thought, ‘This student’s wellbeing is more important than my petty disdain for the website she has chosen to post her question on.’
At the foot of my advice, I signed my full name and included a link to Graduate Fog.
I did NOT do this because I wanted to sell the student anything (My book earns me 25p per copy and this website doesn’t make me a penny).
I did it because I thought:
1) “This student will want to know the source of the advice, before deciding whether to take it” and
2) “This student will find Graduate Fog a useful and welcoming resource, considering the rather desperate nature of her post.”
Guess what happened the next day?
Did I receive a charming thank you letter and bunch of flowers from the Prospects team, saying they appreciated me helping out?
No.
I received this snippy email from their ‘Forum Moderator’, chastising me for including a link to Graduate Fog at the bottom of my post.
Their mean little message said:
“You have recently posted comments on the Prospects Forum, these posts contained links to your website https://graduatefog.co.uk/. This is classed as advertising and is therefore in breach of our Terms of use.
“Prospects.ac.uk is a central service for students and graduates to gather information to inform their career plans. A big part of this is the ability to share knowledge, information and opinion with their peers through our forum. Although moderation is minimal, we do try to ensure that posts comply with our Terms of use and are useful to forum users.”
When I checked the forum, I saw they had left my advice – but deleted the link to Graduate Fog.
I was confused – and I still am.
I understand that Prospects don’t want salespeople using their forum to flog their users all kind of rubbish products and services. But that is clearly not what Graduate Fog is all about. Furthermore…
Are we not all working towards the shared goal of helping young students and graduates to make sense of their options, as they think about starting their career?
And another question –
What IS Prospects?
Is it:
a) A charity or government-funded organisation, working tirelessly in the best interests of students and graduates of UK universities? Their slogan ‘The UK’s official graduate careers website’ and wholesome-sounding ‘.ac.uk’ domain name certainly give us that impression.
Or is it:
b) A profit-making business, like any other? One that protects its own financial interests at all costs? Because if it is, that’s fine – but I think this should be made clearer, so that we all know where we stand.
Seeking clarification, I had a dig around their website. This is what their ‘About us’ section says:
“Graduate Prospects is the commercial trading subsidiary of the Higher Education Careers Services Unit (HECSU), a higher education agency and registered charity. Unlike commercial competitors, Graduate Prospects is not responsible to a remote body of shareholders and instead reinvests profits back into the higher education system to the benefit of all — careers services, students and graduates, and recruiters.”
Does anybody understand what this means? How can it be “commercial” but also affiliated to a “charity”? And how exactly does it “reinvest profits back into the higher education system to the benefit of all”?
Perhaps somebody from Prospects would like to drop me a line and explain it to us?
And why – if Prospects is a charity working in the interests of students and graduates – they felt the need to remove my (helpful) link to Graduate Fog?
However Prospects explains this decision, it is my opinion that this is not how an advice website for young jobseekers should be run.
If somebody wants to add a comment to a post on Graduate Fog, they’re more than welcome to say who they are and to include a link to their website.
I don’t want salespeople using Graduate Fog as a platform from which to flog you tat or advertise specific vacancies (there are plenty of job boards out there and this isn’t one of them).
But as long as their contribution is helpful and relevant to you lot, the users, I see no conflict here. What helps you, helps me.
Why doesn’t Prospects share this view?
*Did I do the right thing?
Read the user’s post, my advice and Prospects’ own expert’s advice here.
And – if you think I did a good job – perhaps you’d like to include a link to Graduate Fog, so that our friend ‘Messed up – help!’ can find our website? Surely they won’t remove it if a fellow job-seeker adds it? Let’s find out ; )
As I am on my lunch I thought I would comment.
Your advice is a mixture of good, sound, practical suggestions delivered in an (IMHO) unnecessary ‘pull yourself together’ tone. Maybe this is the point and if so fair enough but I think the two issues you mention here are being confused. (namely was your advice ok and was Prospects wrong)
I am not a cheerleader for Prospects but the advice they gave says more about the pitfalls of trying to deal with potentially complex problems via email than some endemic failure on their side. That they removed your link is probably overreacting but it’s their site and you haven’t been very nice about them 😉
Thanks Matt – Are you a student / recent graduate yourself?
I only ask because it’s rare to find a student / grad who doesn’t like what you describe as the ‘pull yourself together’ tone of my advice! In fact, you’ll be the first! : (
(I had one Amazon reviewer who complained my tone was overly positive (?) – and that my book didn’t actually get a job FOR him (!) – but other than that I’m extremely proud to say i’ve literally never had a student / grad get in touch to say they DON’T like my advice – either when i manned the Guardian forum for 10 months, or in response to the advice in my book or on this site…)
So I’m intrigued! : )
Hi Tanya. Neither of those. If you have my email feel free to contact me direct. If not I’ll drop you a DM on twitter.
@Matt!
Now we’re REALLY intrigued!
: )
Glad to hear you’re not a student or recent grad though – it’s really important that my stuff works for them, above everybody else…
HI Tanya,
I think you have made some very valid points here. I won’t get involved in the whole Prospects issue, mostly because it will just get me worked up! I actually had a very similar forum experience with Wikijob, whereby I tried to calm a clearly ‘worked-up’ graduate, terrified at the implications of getting a 2.2., towards one of our press releases, showing (through research) that a 2.2 wasn’t necessarily of that bad. Sure enough, I got a message from Wikijob and the entire post was removed because it contained a link.
These so-called forum moderators really need to use a little common-sense. Theoretically, forums exist as arena for sharing information (although, perhaps in reality these companies are using forums solely to create new content and ultimately improve their SEO; any user benefit being a secondary gain), and as such, surely any links, which help to improve this process of sharing information, are extremely beneficial. Arguably, at times even more useful (directing towards articles which are well researched and well-written) than an answer which is reeled off in a couple of minutes, as a quick response. You only have to look at the quality of language or typing errors within forum answers, to see that they are often written quickly and not always with a huge deal of thought, and as you say Tanya – we don’t get paid to respond on forums – so incentive was quality content is reduced.
I guess what I am trying to say here, albeit a little haphazardly, is that graduate job forums are there to help students/graduates, so useful links posited on the forums that direct students towards websites that will help to answer their questions will ultimately achieve this. These big companies like Prospects and Wikijob need to make a distinction between spam links and useful links. It doesn’t take a genius to recognise the difference; one will be a generically produced message (often badly written) and one will directly address the forum question. Perhaps, while they are at it, they might like to make the distinction within their own company, regarding their own motive,s between helping students and using students as a platform to make them money (sorry, couldn’t resist).
Tanya,
I’m afraid that your suspicions concerning Prospects are right – it’s one complicated back-scratching stitch-up of commercial interests operating under the aegis of being ‘official’. Their status is very dubious, and it’d be nice if it were robustly challenged in the near future …
As for petty/vindictive moderation – it comes as no great surprise to me. If it’s any small consolation, you’re clearly in the right. I’ve had problems like this on a number of occasions where including a link has led to my posts being pulled on various forums or message-boards on the internet. The fact that these moderators are so cavalier and undiscerning when it comes to deleting (or editing, in your case) content when it contains a completely reasonable, relevant and non-spammy link speaks volumes about their ineptitude.
Sadly, our collective bluster means little … Prospects remains uniquely positioned (because of all the doors the .ac.uk/’official’ nonsense has opened) to have people come flocking to it, so they can afford to behave in any manner they’d like – they’ll continue to be able to rest on their laurels smugly raking in their profits as a perceivedly trustworthy/’official’ organisation.
Incidentally, in the past when I have emailed Prospects (as a student, not in any professional capacity) asking them to more fully explain the ‘official’ title and tell me what/who made them thus, I got completely ignored. Twice.
Good going. Nice, attentive and customer-focused approach there.
The problem is that now they’re so strongly established, there’s not much anyone can do – they have their claws in to just about every careers service, graduate/student website, government site and they have so many inbound links that they can’t help but appear at the top of most UK-based graduate searches (though this is less true for when users are searching for company-specific roles, in which case other sites are better optimised). Of course, this wouldn’t be a problem were it not for the fact that their monolithic size impairs their ability to provide good service to their users (especially students/graduates, though I wonder how positive their client feedback is) … with their success they have become lazy.
I totally agree with Ben and Charles- your link was relevant and helpful and the moderators were behaving in an extremely heavy-handed and foolish way in removing it. In the wider context of careers advice aimed at students/recent graduates (of which I am one), from my own experience as both an undergraduate and post-graduate student in the UK, as well as having worked in the careers department of a Russell Group university for almost a year, I can say that “prospects.ac.uk” is, by far, the main resource which students/graduates are referred to(read: fobbed off with). Consequently it is extremely important that we are aware of exactly what this website is and what its true objectives are, as you say. Alternatives to prospects are DESPERATELY needed and it is vital that more relevant, up-to-date and frankly, useful, sources of information such as your website are disseminated and promoted among students/graduates. If prospects is an “official” site which exists to aid graduates and students in any and every way possible in their careers then it should absolutely be encouraging them to look at the widest possible range of information and resources in order to make informed, realistic and most importantly up-to-date decisions! So, so, so much needs to drastically change in the too often disgracefully lazy, indifferent and ineffective world of university careers advice/career centres and in the integration of graduates into the national workplace in general and the only way for change to take place is for us to begin to question what we are being told- as students at school, university students and later as graduates flailing and failing in an ever-changing, complex and confusing job market. The system as it is now, with prospects constituting a significant part of it, does not work and needs to be rethought and reformed. You should be applauded, Tanya, for getting the ball rolling and taking us in the right direction.
If they can’t provide the knowledge and support for a student who so clearly needs it, they shouldn’t be snubbing those that do. Your link was clearly relevant, and if they’d taken the time to actually click it they’d have discovered that.
Your advice was clear, straight talking and helpful. It’s a shame Prospects can’t offer the same service to all the students that end up on the site…
@Christopher
The fact is that Prospects is an information resource amongst other information resources (albeit one with a near universal reach) they would undermine themselves if they started to refer people away from their site as a matter of course.
There are many other publishers producing good, reliable sources of careers information and job opportunities on the web. Group GTi are one Inside Careers are another. There are also specialists in particular sectors like Gradcracker for Engineering.
What troubles me is not that Prospects are some sort of evil empire but that the tone here seems to be “Prospects are rubbish therefore all current graduate careers advice is rubbish”
If you have genuinely gone to a University Careers Advisory Service for help and the only thing you have left with was a referral to Prospects then that is shameful. However, a brief look at the information links provided by many University Careers webpages can point you all over the web to all sorts of resources.
This is an interesting debate certainly.
Prospects were correct (in my humble opinion) in not allowing you to use the URL on the comment. This is classified advertising and very few commercially focussed websites would allow you to include a signpost, regardless of the site you are driving people to. I am a first time visitor to the site but I presume your business wishes to make money by selling services or books – why should you be allowed to advertise your services for free on a website which invests heavily in marketing for that user? Your website (whilst providing a very worthwhile service to assist graduates with careers advice) must seek to make money at some point? Piggy-backing forum activity will obviously be frowned upon (please correct me if you have no desire to make money from this site) no matter how many students and graduates you aim to help.
Also when you say “Are we not all working towards the shared goal of helping young students and graduates to make sense of their options, as they think about starting their career?”, does the site seek to help ALL students and graduates regardless of age- I’m guessing it does.
As somebody who advises a large number of clients where to place their graduate recruitment advertising, I see the good and bad sides of websites (including prospects.ac.uk) and I can understand your frustration at some examples of the service they provide, and I applaud your attempts to transform the industry – best of luck, but in this instance I agree with Prospects.
Regards,
Gareth
@Matt
I’m sure Christopher is quite capable of defending himself but I must just say that I disagree with EVERY point in your latest post!
I know there are other careers websites around, but the fact is that a situation has been allowed to develop whereby as far as most students and grads are concerned, graduate careers advice IS Prospects. Their careers adviser refers them to Prospects, Prospects refers them to their careers adviser… It’s not hard to see how this terrible situation has been allowed to continue for as long as it has.
My point is that Prospects is in a position of extreme power and responsibility – and I (and many others, evidently) are becoming increasingly concerned that they do not always treat this power / responsibility as carefully as they should.
I disagree with you that giving students information about alternative sources of advice would mean Prospects would ‘undermine themselves’. Does someone need to tell them that in the internet age it’s all about SHARING information? Keeping people to yourself because you fear someone else is doing a better job is not a good look these days.
On your final point – if the university careers advisers want to distance themselves from Prospects, why don’t they? Or are there financial reasons for these two groups to maintain a working relationship, however strained their relationship may have become?
As you clearly know a lot about this industry, perhaps you could clarify this? Because I genuinely don’t understand how it works! All I know is that something needs to change – and the students and graduates seem to agree.
Prospects should be reported to the competition commission! They seem to have a near monopoly on Career Services and graduate information through their ‘official’ status but like all monopolies they completely lack any dynamism. Completely agree with Graduate Fog they are dated and technologically speaking so far behind the curve it’s a joke. So many younger funkier companies doing a better job, if only they had as much exposure. In a fair fight Prospects would be shot down by the competition. What i don’t get is that everyone must know this to be the case, something has to change.
@Tanya
That’s fine. I understand your point on Prospects and as I have said before I am not here to defend them. (I’m sure they want to do that themselves – see twitter ;))
What I do object to is the notion that it is inherently terrible to talk to a Careers Adviser from your own University. Why is this and by what measure are you using to judge?
I would have thought that reaching out to University Careers Services (many of whom will have bought your book and recommended it to students) your reach would be far wider and your distinct message would be heard by more. By lumping everything together you just end up raging at the storm with no goodwill.
I do like your site.
@Gareth
Far from disagreeing with me, your comment actually hits the nail on the head! Prospects’ deletion of my link to Graduate Fog looks to me like a clear declaration of themselves as primarily a commercial organisation that is focussed on maintaining its market share. While I personally think this sort of thing is out of step with the entire ethos of the internet age (which states that spamming = bad, but sharing = good), I would have no problem with this behaviour when it appears on a website that makes it clear that it is a commercial organisation – as opposed to a charity / quasi-charity / government funded / university funded organisation.
My question is whether this IS made clear enough on Prospects. If it’s a business that protects its own interests, that’s fine – but say so. Because an awful lot of students and graduates tell me that because of the .ac.uk domain name, the slogan and the fact that it’s recommended by their university careers advice centre, they assume Prospects is non-commercial and is primarily a service that is all about serving THEM. Again, if this is NOT the case, I think they deserve to be made aware of this.
And finally – in response to your questions about my own business model…
First of all, if I was only in this for the money, I’d have given up long ago! : )
If you go to the ‘About Graduate Fog’ page, you’ll see that this site does not make a penny money at the moment – and I earn 25p per book i sell. As Graduate Fog grows, I will continue to be clear about how it makes money as I agree with you, it’s vital for users to be made aware of this.
Do I some day hope to make some money from all my hard work and the fact that – I think! – I do a really good job of something that’s really important to the future of this country and that nobody else (who IS paid!) is doing a good job of? Yes, that’s the general idea! I can’t say I’ll never carry advertising (I have to pay my rent to keep this site going!) – but I can honestly say that I will never put my commercial interests above the students’ and graduates’ wellbeing. This whole site is about trust and community – and it would collapse if their needs weren’t at the heart of it.
As for my own policy on links, as I said in the original post, I do not want salespeople using Graduate Fog to flog their tat, but if others come to the site and contribute a comment that is well-considered and their company is relevant, I have no problem with them including a link to it. As I said, what helps my users helps me.
I can promise you right now that you will NEVER catch me deleting links from anybody providing a free service that I think my users would find helpful.
@Charles and Ben – thanks for your support!
@Matt
“What I do object to is the notion that it is inherently terrible to talk to a Careers Adviser from your own University. Why is this and by what measure are you using to judge?”
I do not think it is ‘terrible’ to do this Matt – and actually I really like all the university careers advisers I’ve met – and I would tell students that going to see their sis definitely better than not doing anything about your career at all! They seem to me like good folks who take pride in helping young people.
However, I do think that they have been too slow to admit that the needs of their students has changed and that what they are doing needs a complete re-think.
I’m afraid – and this is going to sound harsh – that we have got to a situation where the only people who think university careers advice is working are the university careers advisers themselves. They are the only people who ask what my ‘evidence’ is for this. Have I done any independently verified surveys? No, but I do have hundreds of emails from students. Some never went in (why? there’s clearly a marketing problem here), but the most common complaint is that they seem to be geared towards those students who already know what they want to do – not those who feel overwhelmed, unprepared and generally freaked out about their future!
As for me reaching out to the careers services to support my cause – boy, have i tried! When the book first came out, I naively thought that they would say ‘Wow, this is great – you’ve done our students (and us) a huge favour – thank you!!’ and take thousands of copies to sell in their careers centres.
They didn’t. Although some were great (like the excellent Careers Group, University of London, who I worked with on Dude?) most saw the fact that i’d even written the book as an attack on what they were doing – so they got defensive. I guess, in a sense it was an attack. I wrote the book because I believed (as I still do) that there is a desperate need for better careers advice. There was me, a journalist, with no careers qualifications, saying there was a bit of their job (not even the whole thing!) that i think i’m doing better than them.
In the end, I’m afraid it just got too exhausting (every uni is independent) and I gave up working with them. The only thing they offered was for me to come in to talk to their students for free, which i did, many times, for nothing. Sometimes they’d say that I could bring a few books with me to sell – but when I make 25p per book, it just felt too pathetic so i never did!
Honestly, I would like nothing more than for the UK’s university careers advisers to rise up and really innovate. There must be thousands of careers staff out there who know, deep down, that what they’re doing isn’t working. All I’m doing is kicking the hornet’s nest to try and get something – anything! – to change so that we can all start providing a more helpful, modern service to the students and graduates who need – and deserve – far better than what we’re giving them right now.
Hi Ben, Tanya,
Ben – I haven’t had a chance to read this comment thread in full (I will when I get time over the weekend) but I wanted to respond to your post above, which I don’t think is accurate. I was the forum moderator who withdrew your post on the WikiJob forum. I did this because I did not deem the quality of the post sufficient enough to justify sustaining an outbound link to your website on our site. Your post was essentially an advert for your own blog/website and we remove all advertorial from our forums to keep them as free from outbound links as possible.
Happy to discuss further as I think I said in my email to you but for various reasons (including – importantly – keeping our website as useful to graduates as possible) we take a very hard line on forum posts with outbound links.
Regards,
Ed.
“Far from disagreeing with me, your comment actually hits the nail on the head! Prospects’ deletion of my link to Graduate Fog looks to me like a clear declaration of themselves as primarily a commercial organisation that is focussed on maintaining its market share. While I personally think this sort of thing is out of step with the entire ethos of the internet age (which states that spamming = bad, but sharing = good), I would have no problem with this behaviour when it appears on a website that makes it clear that it is a commercial organisation — as opposed to a charity / quasi-charity / government funded / university funded organisation.
My question is whether this IS made clear enough on Prospects. If it’s a business that protects its own interests, that’s fine — but say so. Because an awful lot of students and graduates tell me that because of the .ac.uk domain name, the slogan and the fact that it’s recommended by their university careers advice centre, they assume Prospects is non-commercial and is primarily a service that is all about serving THEM. Again, if this is NOT the case, I think they deserve to be made aware of this.”
+1
I was going to wade in and tackle Gareth’s points, but you’ve stolen my thunder!
Sadly, the vast majority of students take them at face value, assume that they are legitimately governmental/academic rather than a commercial entity and assume that because they are so highly publicised and promoted that they must be good. They end up neglecting the vast majority of other good (and, I daresay, better) careers/job resources which impoverishes them. This is compounded by University Careers Services being very unwilling, for the most part, to link to anyone other than Prospects or government-backed local internship/employment bureaus. This not only makes Prospects look even more like it’s legitimately governmental (or similar), but it also means that competition in the graduate recruitment market is throttled by an effective monopoly resulting from the stitch-up between Prospects, HECSU and AGCAS.
Ah. Now this is interesting! Tanya – I just read your above comment that you manned the forum on the Guardian careers site! Well about 12 months ago I wrote a couple of what I thought were very useful and very interesting posts about graduate recruitment, and included links back to WikiJob.co.uk, and guess what? These posts were removed!
So surely if your team is removing links and posts, it’s fair for the competition (i.e. Prospects, WikiJob, etc) to do so too?
Ed.
Ben – just re-read your forum post:
“These big companies like Prospects and Wikijob need to make a distinction between spam links and useful links.”
It’s definitely the first time our team of 5 has been called a “big” company but very flattering – thanks!
I think the case with you posting on our forum is slightly different to Tanya’s posts. Tanya is giving decent advice to job seekers and then providing a link to a not-for-profit website. Your posts were of a commercial nature and your links had the potential to drive our users to your own commercial (and notably competitor) business.
Gareth wrote:
This, quite frankly, was nonsense in 2001 when it was the kind of thing that regularly appeared in the terms and conditions of companies unwilling or unable to see past the end of their own websites, and in 2010 it makes less sense than ever.
There is a world of difference between the kind of unsolcited commercial post we’d all be better off and a link that is absolutely relevant to the topic at hand. By removing it the Prospect moderators are making their own page less useful to their users than it was before. The idea that you can ring-fence content and pretend that the rest of the world doesn’t exist belongs with the ark. As webmaster of two large (commercial) forums, I’m absolutely fine with people posting links to their own websites, as long as it’s relevant to the discussion at hand. It makes my site a better, more useful place, one people are more likely to return to.
@matt
“If you have genuinely gone to a University Careers Advisory Service for help and the only thing you have left with was a referral to Prospects then that is shameful.”
I have, as have many people I know.
“However, a brief look at the information links provided by many University Careers webpages can point you all over the web to all sorts of resources.”
Many of which are out of date. Many of which are only of use if you are studying a vocational degree subject or already have a very clear idea of the industry in which you want to work.
“the vast majority of students take them [prospects] at face value, assume that they are legitimately governmental/academic rather than a commercial entity and assume that because they are so highly publicised and promoted that they must be good.”
This is precisely what happens. As I mentioned before, I worked alongside professional careers advisers in an administrative capacity for almost a year whilst studying for my MA at a British Russell Group University. As part of my job I processed and read the feedback forms filled in by the careers advisers during their consultations with students/graduates. I also read the feedback forms which the students/graduates submitted anonymously following their consultations. The forms filled in by the careers advisers described the topics/issues discussed during the meeting and listed the “action points” recommended by the careers advisor. I can honestly say that after reading many hundreds of these forms, spanning all degree subjects, academic levels and career aspirations, the most frequently dispensed piece of advice was to visit prospects.ac.uk. Which in itself is fine. As a starting point and a stepping stone to other resources and sources of help/information. However, as Tanya said:
“as far as most students and grads are concerned, graduate careers advice IS Prospects. Their careers adviser refers them to Prospects, Prospects refers them to their careers adviser…”
Herein lies the problem; this actually happens. Students and graduates are fobbed off with the prospects link by careers advisers in place of more useful, valuable, targeted, focused and effective advice. The proof(from my own personal experience)? The feedback forms filled in by students/graduates following their meetings with careers advisers as well as the students/graduates I have had contact with and spoken to about this topic confirm, without any doubt, that the advice given to them by careers advice professionals in their own university is generic and ineffective- and this is especially true for non-vocational degree subjects. And by generic I mean that they are all, without fail, referred to prospects and ONLY to prospects. Rarely are other online (i.e. up-to-date) resources/links provided. And if prospects is the only site we are referred to, and prospects refuses to allow information to be SHARED which could be of great benefit to students and graduates then I am afraid we have a huge problem. The issue I have with professional careers advisers is that they need to know two things-
1. the current situation regarding (local, national and international) employment opportunities in the industries (linked to the degree subjects offered at their particular university) which they are supposed to have specialised knowledge of. This is particularly important for humanities/arts subjects and all non-vocational subjects.
2. the necessary (up-to-date) contacts, resources and sources of information to enable graduates to learn more about their potential career paths.
And I’m afraid that from my experience, careers advice is failing spectacularly on both of these. And by careers advice I am referring specifically to the two sources of advice most students/graduates will use which are their university careers service and prospects.ac.uk.
Nan of prospects is the Princess Of Platitudes.Just like University careers services themselves!
@Christopher
Not going to argue with you.
Completely and totally agree with this. I’m sorry your personal experience hasn’t had those expectations met.
@Tanya
Despite myself, there is something about the arrogant, slightly patronising tone of your last response that I do agree with. Careers Services need to innovate and change quickly to meet the rapidly changing economic circumstances and employment market. They also need to market the whole of their services to students and recruiters better. Some even as we speak are doing just that (even the ones employing whining careers crones)
Well you must be right then. I mean, around 450 000 UK and EU individuals left higher education in the UK in 2008, roughly the same amount in 2007 and probably 2009 as well. That’s over a million HE leavers leaving 170ish HE institutions in the last three years (not including non-EU leavers). Each institution trying to meet the demands of the individual as best they can in a climate of reduced HE funding and resource cutting. Some I’m sure doing better than others but nearly all will be internally and externally assessed for quality. I’m not surprised you have hundreds of emails Tanya, students and graduates can’t all be happy with that level of service.
However many are happy with the advice and guidance they receive. Some even write to say thank you. Believe it or not, even the career clueless, timid and scared ones.
@Ed
First i should clarify that when I worked as the Guardian’s resident graduate expert, it was as an invited guest contributor so i’m afraid i had no say in their moderation policy. Somewhat embarrassingly, I actually don’t even know what it is! : )
However, as we’ve discussed above, if the Guardian did delete it for commercial reasons, then I would say that as a clearly commercial business (however excellent their ‘Community’ section is, they do not claim to be running a public service), they are in their rights to do this.
My questioning of Prospects doing this is that this sort of behaviour seems clearly commercial – and therefore could be considered to be at odds with impression most students and graduates have that they are in some way an official and impartial service that puts THEM and their wellbeing first, as pointed out by Charles. If this is not the case, I feel Prospects should make this clearer so that students / graduates know where they stand.
As I’ve said, I am still genuinely unclear on Prospects’ business model – are they a charity or a business? I just don’t know, i really am trying to get to the bottom of this! Which is why I’m very much hoping that somebody from their organisation will come forward and clarify this for us shortly..?
@ Matt – Ha ha, I can live with being called ‘arrogant and patronising’ if you agree that I’m right! ; )
UPDATE:
On Friday 21 May at 14.21 a representative from Prospects contacted me via Twitter with this message:
I wrote back:
They responded:
I have been to the link and am still unclear of my crime. I feel it is clear that I was not ‘advertising’ – just saying who I was and suggesting a relevant link.
It seems that URLs are allowed by other contributors, as long as their content is not Xrated etc…
This issue of moderation is interesting.
It’s my opinion that a website can behave however it likes when it makes it clear that it is a commercial organisation.
However, I am still unclear of Prospects’ business model. And, until this incident, I was – like many students and graduates – under the impression that this website (including forum) was primarily there for the benefit of the students and graduates.
But the deletion of my (helpful) link raises questions about whether this is so.
Was Prospects’ deletion of my link a mistake? If not, I would like to hear how they can justify it if they really are working in the best interests of the students and graduates who use the site.
Is anybody from Prospects going to defend or explain this decision? Or are they just hoping this is all going to go away?
It is now Monday 24th at 2pm and I have not heard from them. Needless to say, I am very happy to publish their reply in full. I am sure many of you will be interested in reading.
I wonder how long we will wait for an answer from prospects and why exactly the CEO can’t publicly clarify their position on moderation and their role/purpose, specifically regarding their business model… Could it be that they don’t want to publicly admit that they are actually a commercial organisation?
I have a sneaking suspicion that Christopher is correct.
However, we shouldn’t be quick to judge – it may simply be the case that before putting forward any statement/response in the public domain they need to run it by their superiors and ensure that it’s thorough and says what it wants to. Putting out corporate stances and opinions, especially on potentially contentious issues, requires a bit of deliberation.
Or, it could simply be that they’re hesitant to answer difficult questions.
@charles
Probably a bit of both really. I just hope that the provide some sort of response!