Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
There is a burn out problem, yes.
The minium number of exams you need to pass is 8. I did 14, back in the day.
Pass marks are all 50%. Pass rates vary, but some are in the 40s, some much higher.
In theory you can get both qualifictions in 3-4 years, in two rounds. 4-6 is more normal.
At that stage market rate is probably £60-70k. Overall, the salaries are pretty much double the ones in that table above (and are easy to look up online).
I'm also sure there are a class of stupidly high earners both in IP and architecture, the data for which doesn't find its way into salary surveys.0 -
So not only should old people be kicked out of their too large for them houses. They should also have to sell them cheap so young family’s can buy them at below the market price.rick_chasey said:
I don’t, I just think it’s weird we have a culture where it’s normal for old people to live in houses that are far too big for them and young families are priced out of houses that are the right size for them.Stevo_666 said:
A few questions on this:rick_chasey said:
Well all the old biddies living on their own in 6 bedroom houses in my mother in law’s cul-de-sac could be living the high life if they downsized. Alas.pblakeney said:
One caveat being that owning a house outright doesn't necessarily mean having loads of disposable cash. It just means what you have goes elsewhere.rick_chasey said:Goes a way to explain the wealth inequality
As an example, I am mortgage free yet I have never earned enough to pay 40% tax.
They’d rather live like miss Havisham while the families grow up their kids in houses where the kids have to share bedrooms.
Makes sense.
- How do you propose getting the old biddies out of their 6 bedroom houses?
- What sort of income demographic do you think would be able to afford 6 bedroom houses?
- Are you bothered that this is only a timing difference? (As the the old biddies will pop their clogs before too long).
The people mentioned in my anecdote are all pensioners so I’d imagine they’re all pretty bottom quartile earners.
Timing is everything and people are retired for roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of their lives - just because you’re retired doesn’t mean you’re likely to die in the next decade.
You just come across as someone who is bitter and envious that older people have managed to acquire (due to probably working hard in most cases) what you desire.
You need to get a better job and earn more or change your aspirations.0 -
-
5.0
-
Are those current rates? They seem low even compared to my own related field which is less protected.rjsterry said:
This doesn't sound that different from what we need to input with our trainees. The big difference is what they can get paid.First.Aspect said:
Separately, and sorry this is an interesting discussion for me, we do loads of training internally.rjsterry said:
If you are hiring people straight out of HE, and that HE doesn't have a vocational component then someone in your organisation needs to do the training. And probably that training needs to be more structured than just hoping they'll pick it up. I do sympathise as I keep finding new things that I think our junior staff should have learnt already but apparently haven't. That said they often bring in new skills that we don't have. Another thing is making sure that they ask enough questions: they often don't know what they don't know.First.Aspect said:
Hard to explain to non-patent professions or aspiring patent professionals.rjsterry said:
Is the bit in bold the problem? If you can't articulate it, how can you expect a new employee to achieve it other than by chance.First.Aspect said:
Hard to explain.rjsterry said:
What would you say are the skills that differentiate between a good and an indifferent candidate?First.Aspect said:
We don't hire people already trained, in many cases. So you only find out whether a PhD/1st class hons is one of the ones who has aptitude for the job, or a block head, after a year or so. Even then, sometimes the penny can drop.rjsterry said:
I think a certain amount of pushback against the long hours and shouting at people culture is healthy.First.Aspect said:
No I'm actually quite good at it (although the nature of the people who do my job means it is a low bar), I just don't want to.rjsterry said:
While there are certain character traits that will help/hinder, it sounds like you were just sent on the wrong courses.First.Aspect said:
It doesn't make much difference in my experience. Such training either tells you how to suck eggs, or it is baffling fluffy nonsense. It depends whether or not you are a good manager or not in the first place.rick_chasey said:
Was explaining to my bosses that I spent a decade as a junior basically being bullied into doing the right things, so if they want me to manage people well they probably need to get me some formal teaching.First.Aspect said:You are going to make a great manager RC. Get people to the office and keep an eye on them...(stop them posting on social media, that sort of thing). Under no circumstances empower anyone.
Saying that, does anyone know how to get a decent workload or even a smidgen of initiative out of generation snowflake?
We have an industry wide problem of young people coming into the profession very much wanting to be spoon fed and not working past 6, even when they know this leaves a steaming pile for their boss to finish.
If you tell them anything isn't good enough, you either get tears or a complaint to HR. And no, it's not me...
Be more picky about who you hire. Make it clearer what you expect at interview. If you really want people to work 60hr weeks, don't pretend the hours are 9-6. Ask better questions to test whether they have the abilities you want. Once hired give people some agency in seeing rewards for improved productivity - if soft-pedalling gets you more or less the same as pushing yourself, why bother. I can't help you with reducing juniors to tears.
More the issue is getting the commitment out of them so you can figure out of they aren't progressing because they are not getting enough done, or because they are never going to get there no matter how much practice they get.
Basically, it's figuring out if we can transition them from what they might regard as "busy" when they were studying or as a postdoc, to what they need to be able to take on to justify the salaries they feel entitled to.
As Ted Lasso would say, it's like pornography - difficult to define but you know it when you see it.
It is certainly not merely academic grades or industrial R&D experience, though. And we can't ask new trainees questions about patent law or inventions, because none of them have any knowledge or experience when they first join.
We just have to use a bit of spidey sense, some tried and tested noddy "invention spotting" tests, and some psychometrics.*
*(which we mostly refer to if our spidey sense suggests that the gregarious blue sky thinker we've just interviewed might not be happy working long hours alone, or if the highly ambitious person asking about partnership might not be patient enough to slog their guts out for a decade first).
I'm happy to try but you'll die of boredom.
In the context of the day to day work, explaining what we need and what is wrong with what someone is doing is quite easy.
But before someone starts, it is hard to say how they will adapt.
The greatest issue, and the one that I can't get my head around, is how we get any of those of a certain generation to try hard enough to figure censored out for themselves eather than asking teacher (me), or act like they want to be doing my job or higher, in 10 years time.
As regards boring me to death, I was looking up the RMT's finances last night, so do your worst 😀.
I personally put about 50-100 hours a year into it, that I can be bothered to record. For a trainee, every single bit of work needs reviewing. To turn them into a not trainee, we red line it, or push it back with questions, have calls to point out issues without giving the answer, etc., or give up because we are out of time and just do it. 4 or 5 rounds back and forth isn't uncommon with someone several years in, to get something in range to be filed or sent to a client. The precision needed is insane.
We also do tutorials for the legal exams, and send them on courses.
0 -
rick_chasey said:
Lol what multiple of your earnings was your first house?
Somewhat meaningless without mortage rates, though I'm not going to argue that UK house prices aren't silly.
When I bought, 3x salary was a decent mortage offer.0 -
Anyone actually want to argue homes are as affordable as they always were?
It’s this kind of pathetic defensiveness that leads to the political ignorance of the problem.0 -
It will happen at some point, as death is inevitable. Patience young Jedi, which you'll need as there's not much choice. Although the cost of living crisis could encourage downsizing as pensions may well not cover the costs of running and maintaining a large house.rick_chasey said:
I don’t, I just think it’s weird we have a culture where it’s normal for old people to live in houses that are far too big for them and young families are priced out of houses that are the right size for them.Stevo_666 said:
A few questions on this:rick_chasey said:
Well all the old biddies living on their own in 6 bedroom houses in my mother in law’s cul-de-sac could be living the high life if they downsized. Alas.pblakeney said:
One caveat being that owning a house outright doesn't necessarily mean having loads of disposable cash. It just means what you have goes elsewhere.rick_chasey said:Goes a way to explain the wealth inequality
As an example, I am mortgage free yet I have never earned enough to pay 40% tax.
They’d rather live like miss Havisham while the families grow up their kids in houses where the kids have to share bedrooms.
Makes sense.
- How do you propose getting the old biddies out of their 6 bedroom houses?
- What sort of income demographic do you think would be able to afford 6 bedroom houses?
- Are you bothered that this is only a timing difference? (As the the old biddies will pop their clogs before too long).
The people mentioned in my anecdote are all pensioners so I’d imagine they’re all pretty bottom quartile earners.
Timing is everything and people are retired for roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of their lives - just because you’re retired doesn’t mean you’re likely to die in the next decade."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Or split the 6 beds into 3 flats?0
-
Bit of a generalisation don't you think? Anyway I would have thought that you want the new houses to be built in Ricktopolis where there's less space than in the country.rick_chasey said:What they could do is of course build more houses.
But that’s objected to by said residents."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
rick_chasey said:
Anyone actually want to argue homes are as affordable as they always were?
It’s this kind of pathetic defensiveness that leads to the political ignorance of the problem.
Where's the defensiveness? No-one's arguing that they are as affordable as they were, but that graph is incomplete without a recognition of interest rates: one of the reasons I got my home is because it was repossessed in the early 1990s, when people couldn't afford their mortgages, even on low multipliers.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Anyone
It’s not just old people who object to more houses being built. It’s people of all ages who already own a home.rick_chasey said:What they could do is of course build more houses.
But that’s objected to by said residents.0 -
Or indeed the tax breaks.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Anyone actually want to argue homes are as affordable as they always were?
It’s this kind of pathetic defensiveness that leads to the political ignorance of the problem.
Where's the defensiveness? No-one's arguing that they are as affordable as they were, but that graph is incomplete without a recognition of interest rates: one of the reasons I got my home is because it was repossessed in the early 1990s, when people couldn't afford their mortgages, even on low multipliers.
Affordability is absolutely a problem and going out and telling young families to earn more like webboo in an era of no growth is not a good argument and smacks of defensiveness.
The “I/we/they earned it.” Argument.
I don’t really see the relevance od that? It’s just getting personal, which this isn’t.0 -
Don’t know what happened to the quoting.0
-
So it not ok to earn it. Maybe if you had job that did something to improve the world we live in rather than one that’s making rich people richer. I might be more prepared to believe you were saying something worth listening too.0
-
Anything in particular? 😉briantrumpet said:Don’t know what happened to the quoting.
0 -
So I’d suggest this is just being personal and is not a constructive way to argue.webboo said:So it not ok to earn it. Maybe if you had job that did something to improve the world we live in rather than one that’s making rich people richer. I might be more prepared to believe you were saying something worth listening too.
(Nor, therefore, is it enormously convincing)0 -
rick_chasey said:
So I’d suggest this is just being personal and is not a constructive way to argue.webboo said:So it not ok to earn it. Maybe if you had job that did something to improve the world we live in rather than one that’s making rich people richer. I might be more prepared to believe you were saying something worth listening too.
(Nor, therefore, is it enormously convincing)
And not generally representative of discussions on here, I think, which is one reason why CS discussions, for a public forum involving politics, are largely respectful and interesting. I frequently find myself referring with friends to "a bike forum I spend quite a bit of time on" in referencing interesting discussions involving a range of intellectually engaging people. Yeah, that's you lot.0 -
Of course it’s personal just as is all the stuff of yours aimed at older people. All of which leads me to believe most of what you say when challenged is just weasel words.rick_chasey said:
So I’d suggest this is just being personal and is not a constructive way to argue.webboo said:So it not ok to earn it. Maybe if you had job that did something to improve the world we live in rather than one that’s making rich people richer. I might be more prepared to believe you were saying something worth listening too.
(Nor, therefore, is it enormously convincing)2 -
Don’t go tarring us all with the same brush!briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
So I’d suggest this is just being personal and is not a constructive way to argue.webboo said:So it not ok to earn it. Maybe if you had job that did something to improve the world we live in rather than one that’s making rich people richer. I might be more prepared to believe you were saying something worth listening too.
(Nor, therefore, is it enormously convincing)
And not generally representative of discussions on here, I think, which is one reason why CS discussions, for a public forum involving politics, are largely respectful and interesting. I frequently find myself referring with friends to "a bike forum I spend quite a bit of time on" in referencing interesting discussions involving a range of intellectually engaging people. Yeah, that's you lot.0 -
Pross said:
Don’t go tarring us all with the same brush!briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
So I’d suggest this is just being personal and is not a constructive way to argue.webboo said:So it not ok to earn it. Maybe if you had job that did something to improve the world we live in rather than one that’s making rich people richer. I might be more prepared to believe you were saying something worth listening too.
(Nor, therefore, is it enormously convincing)
And not generally representative of discussions on here, I think, which is one reason why CS discussions, for a public forum involving politics, are largely respectful and interesting. I frequently find myself referring with friends to "a bike forum I spend quite a bit of time on" in referencing interesting discussions involving a range of intellectually engaging people. Yeah, that's you lot.
Soz.0 -
The ageism is the real problem.
The benefits of when Boomers were born is conflated with responsibility for those benefits.
The root cause is a poor electoral system that allows minority vote share to give large majorities to parties that favour subsets of the electorate. That and younger people more likely to not use their vote.0 -
No, because they aren't.rick_chasey said:Anyone actually want to argue homes are as affordable as they always were?
It’s this kind of pathetic defensiveness that leads to the political ignorance of the problem.
I would have loved to have bought a house for the price my parents paid for our family home but that's life. One good thing that will come from this bout of inflation is that for those with mortgage debt, it will reduce the value of what they owe over time."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yep Not a profession for those looking to get rich.Pross said:
Are those current rates? They seem low even compared to my own related field which is less protected.rjsterry said:
This doesn't sound that different from what we need to input with our trainees. The big difference is what they can get paid.First.Aspect said:
Separately, and sorry this is an interesting discussion for me, we do loads of training internally.rjsterry said:
If you are hiring people straight out of HE, and that HE doesn't have a vocational component then someone in your organisation needs to do the training. And probably that training needs to be more structured than just hoping they'll pick it up. I do sympathise as I keep finding new things that I think our junior staff should have learnt already but apparently haven't. That said they often bring in new skills that we don't have. Another thing is making sure that they ask enough questions: they often don't know what they don't know.First.Aspect said:
Hard to explain to non-patent professions or aspiring patent professionals.rjsterry said:
Is the bit in bold the problem? If you can't articulate it, how can you expect a new employee to achieve it other than by chance.First.Aspect said:
Hard to explain.rjsterry said:
What would you say are the skills that differentiate between a good and an indifferent candidate?First.Aspect said:
We don't hire people already trained, in many cases. So you only find out whether a PhD/1st class hons is one of the ones who has aptitude for the job, or a block head, after a year or so. Even then, sometimes the penny can drop.rjsterry said:
I think a certain amount of pushback against the long hours and shouting at people culture is healthy.First.Aspect said:
No I'm actually quite good at it (although the nature of the people who do my job means it is a low bar), I just don't want to.rjsterry said:
While there are certain character traits that will help/hinder, it sounds like you were just sent on the wrong courses.First.Aspect said:
It doesn't make much difference in my experience. Such training either tells you how to suck eggs, or it is baffling fluffy nonsense. It depends whether or not you are a good manager or not in the first place.rick_chasey said:
Was explaining to my bosses that I spent a decade as a junior basically being bullied into doing the right things, so if they want me to manage people well they probably need to get me some formal teaching.First.Aspect said:You are going to make a great manager RC. Get people to the office and keep an eye on them...(stop them posting on social media, that sort of thing). Under no circumstances empower anyone.
Saying that, does anyone know how to get a decent workload or even a smidgen of initiative out of generation snowflake?
We have an industry wide problem of young people coming into the profession very much wanting to be spoon fed and not working past 6, even when they know this leaves a steaming pile for their boss to finish.
If you tell them anything isn't good enough, you either get tears or a complaint to HR. And no, it's not me...
Be more picky about who you hire. Make it clearer what you expect at interview. If you really want people to work 60hr weeks, don't pretend the hours are 9-6. Ask better questions to test whether they have the abilities you want. Once hired give people some agency in seeing rewards for improved productivity - if soft-pedalling gets you more or less the same as pushing yourself, why bother. I can't help you with reducing juniors to tears.
More the issue is getting the commitment out of them so you can figure out of they aren't progressing because they are not getting enough done, or because they are never going to get there no matter how much practice they get.
Basically, it's figuring out if we can transition them from what they might regard as "busy" when they were studying or as a postdoc, to what they need to be able to take on to justify the salaries they feel entitled to.
As Ted Lasso would say, it's like pornography - difficult to define but you know it when you see it.
It is certainly not merely academic grades or industrial R&D experience, though. And we can't ask new trainees questions about patent law or inventions, because none of them have any knowledge or experience when they first join.
We just have to use a bit of spidey sense, some tried and tested noddy "invention spotting" tests, and some psychometrics.*
*(which we mostly refer to if our spidey sense suggests that the gregarious blue sky thinker we've just interviewed might not be happy working long hours alone, or if the highly ambitious person asking about partnership might not be patient enough to slog their guts out for a decade first).
I'm happy to try but you'll die of boredom.
In the context of the day to day work, explaining what we need and what is wrong with what someone is doing is quite easy.
But before someone starts, it is hard to say how they will adapt.
The greatest issue, and the one that I can't get my head around, is how we get any of those of a certain generation to try hard enough to figure censored out for themselves eather than asking teacher (me), or act like they want to be doing my job or higher, in 10 years time.
As regards boring me to death, I was looking up the RMT's finances last night, so do your worst 😀.
I personally put about 50-100 hours a year into it, that I can be bothered to record. For a trainee, every single bit of work needs reviewing. To turn them into a not trainee, we red line it, or push it back with questions, have calls to point out issues without giving the answer, etc., or give up because we are out of time and just do it. 4 or 5 rounds back and forth isn't uncommon with someone several years in, to get something in range to be filed or sent to a client. The precision needed is insane.
We also do tutorials for the legal exams, and send them on courses.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Do you all drive Volvos now Saab have gone bust?rjsterry said:
Yep Not a profession for those looking to get rich.Pross said:
Are those current rates? They seem low even compared to my own related field which is less protected.rjsterry said:
This doesn't sound that different from what we need to input with our trainees. The big difference is what they can get paid.First.Aspect said:
Separately, and sorry this is an interesting discussion for me, we do loads of training internally.rjsterry said:
If you are hiring people straight out of HE, and that HE doesn't have a vocational component then someone in your organisation needs to do the training. And probably that training needs to be more structured than just hoping they'll pick it up. I do sympathise as I keep finding new things that I think our junior staff should have learnt already but apparently haven't. That said they often bring in new skills that we don't have. Another thing is making sure that they ask enough questions: they often don't know what they don't know.First.Aspect said:
Hard to explain to non-patent professions or aspiring patent professionals.rjsterry said:
Is the bit in bold the problem? If you can't articulate it, how can you expect a new employee to achieve it other than by chance.First.Aspect said:
Hard to explain.rjsterry said:
What would you say are the skills that differentiate between a good and an indifferent candidate?First.Aspect said:
We don't hire people already trained, in many cases. So you only find out whether a PhD/1st class hons is one of the ones who has aptitude for the job, or a block head, after a year or so. Even then, sometimes the penny can drop.rjsterry said:
I think a certain amount of pushback against the long hours and shouting at people culture is healthy.First.Aspect said:
No I'm actually quite good at it (although the nature of the people who do my job means it is a low bar), I just don't want to.rjsterry said:
While there are certain character traits that will help/hinder, it sounds like you were just sent on the wrong courses.First.Aspect said:
It doesn't make much difference in my experience. Such training either tells you how to suck eggs, or it is baffling fluffy nonsense. It depends whether or not you are a good manager or not in the first place.rick_chasey said:
Was explaining to my bosses that I spent a decade as a junior basically being bullied into doing the right things, so if they want me to manage people well they probably need to get me some formal teaching.First.Aspect said:You are going to make a great manager RC. Get people to the office and keep an eye on them...(stop them posting on social media, that sort of thing). Under no circumstances empower anyone.
Saying that, does anyone know how to get a decent workload or even a smidgen of initiative out of generation snowflake?
We have an industry wide problem of young people coming into the profession very much wanting to be spoon fed and not working past 6, even when they know this leaves a steaming pile for their boss to finish.
If you tell them anything isn't good enough, you either get tears or a complaint to HR. And no, it's not me...
Be more picky about who you hire. Make it clearer what you expect at interview. If you really want people to work 60hr weeks, don't pretend the hours are 9-6. Ask better questions to test whether they have the abilities you want. Once hired give people some agency in seeing rewards for improved productivity - if soft-pedalling gets you more or less the same as pushing yourself, why bother. I can't help you with reducing juniors to tears.
More the issue is getting the commitment out of them so you can figure out of they aren't progressing because they are not getting enough done, or because they are never going to get there no matter how much practice they get.
Basically, it's figuring out if we can transition them from what they might regard as "busy" when they were studying or as a postdoc, to what they need to be able to take on to justify the salaries they feel entitled to.
As Ted Lasso would say, it's like pornography - difficult to define but you know it when you see it.
It is certainly not merely academic grades or industrial R&D experience, though. And we can't ask new trainees questions about patent law or inventions, because none of them have any knowledge or experience when they first join.
We just have to use a bit of spidey sense, some tried and tested noddy "invention spotting" tests, and some psychometrics.*
*(which we mostly refer to if our spidey sense suggests that the gregarious blue sky thinker we've just interviewed might not be happy working long hours alone, or if the highly ambitious person asking about partnership might not be patient enough to slog their guts out for a decade first).
I'm happy to try but you'll die of boredom.
In the context of the day to day work, explaining what we need and what is wrong with what someone is doing is quite easy.
But before someone starts, it is hard to say how they will adapt.
The greatest issue, and the one that I can't get my head around, is how we get any of those of a certain generation to try hard enough to figure censored out for themselves eather than asking teacher (me), or act like they want to be doing my job or higher, in 10 years time.
As regards boring me to death, I was looking up the RMT's finances last night, so do your worst 😀.
I personally put about 50-100 hours a year into it, that I can be bothered to record. For a trainee, every single bit of work needs reviewing. To turn them into a not trainee, we red line it, or push it back with questions, have calls to point out issues without giving the answer, etc., or give up because we are out of time and just do it. 4 or 5 rounds back and forth isn't uncommon with someone several years in, to get something in range to be filed or sent to a client. The precision needed is insane.
We also do tutorials for the legal exams, and send them on courses.
0 -
Not in my experience.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Flattery gets you nowhere Brian.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
So I’d suggest this is just being personal and is not a constructive way to argue.webboo said:So it not ok to earn it. Maybe if you had job that did something to improve the world we live in rather than one that’s making rich people richer. I might be more prepared to believe you were saying something worth listening too.
(Nor, therefore, is it enormously convincing)
And not generally representative of discussions on here, I think, which is one reason why CS discussions, for a public forum involving politics, are largely respectful and interesting. I frequently find myself referring with friends to "a bike forum I spend quite a bit of time on" in referencing interesting discussions involving a range of intellectually engaging people. Yeah, that's you lot."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You all smell.Stevo_666 said:
Flattery gets you nowhere Brian.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
So I’d suggest this is just being personal and is not a constructive way to argue.webboo said:So it not ok to earn it. Maybe if you had job that did something to improve the world we live in rather than one that’s making rich people richer. I might be more prepared to believe you were saying something worth listening too.
(Nor, therefore, is it enormously convincing)
And not generally representative of discussions on here, I think, which is one reason why CS discussions, for a public forum involving politics, are largely respectful and interesting. I frequently find myself referring with friends to "a bike forum I spend quite a bit of time on" in referencing interesting discussions involving a range of intellectually engaging people. Yeah, that's you lot.
Back on track now....1 -
Disappointed.rjsterry said:Not in my experience.
0
