Employability and engagement key to graduate success

With almost 50 per cent of young people now going to university, the graduate employment market is becoming a crowded place. For students and graduates the picture is a lot more positive than the data portrays, but the key message is to take advantage of the help on offer at higher education careers services and, for those who are yet to enter higher education, to plan ahead. The good news is that university offers lots of opportunities for personal development and to become more employable. Getting a degree can open up a wide range of exciting opportunities; the experience equips graduates with the skills and knowledge as well as the confidence to enter the world of work at a level of competence expected by graduate employers

Achieving Effective Action on Universality and National Implementation: The CWC Experience

Ye

Professor Jim Rhodes

Jim Rhodes has championed research in the area of Thin Walled Structures (TWS) for almost 40 years. His contribution to the understanding of the behaviour of TWS is second to none and he has consequently enjoyed a high international standing in the field. He was educated at St Michael's College in Irvine and served a craft apprenticeship with Laird & Sons Ltd, Irvine, before moving to Massey Ferguson Ltd. He was awarded an HNC (with distinction) in Mechanical Engineering from Kilmarnock College, which he then followed by degree studies at the University of Strathclyde, where he graduated with a first class honours BSc in Mechanical Engineering in 1966 before progressing to Doctoral study under Professor James Harvey (Head of Department and later Vice Principal of the University). He was awarded a PhD degree at Strathclyde in 1969 for research in Mechanics of Materials. His external examiner for his PhD was Professor Henry Chilver, later Lord Chilver and Vice Chancellor of Cranfield University

Backyard Politics, National Policies: Understanding the Opportunity Costs of National Fracking Bans

Some local communities in the United States, particularly in the Northeast, are scrambling to oppose natural gas production enabled by hydraulic fracturing (or fracing, fracking, or hydrofracking) in shale formations. Local opposition to the impacts of fracking is understandable, but recent proposals for national bans ignore a key, more potent threat. Due to a mismatch between the benefits and costs of fracking, on the one hand, and the distribution of political and legal influence, on the other, the voices of those opposed to extraction may drown out the more distant voices of those suffering from the widespread future effects of coal—the primary fossil alternative to gas. Energy policy processes must recognize the opportunity costs of banning gas, including the consequences of continuing to rely on coal as our primary electricity source. The negative environmental impacts of natural gas extraction must be addressed, and our focus on gas ought not to divert attention from the need to develop more sustainable energy alternatives. However, policymakers should not adopt the myopic view advocated by some anti-fracking activists. Rather, policymakers should formulate energy policies that fully weigh the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action and consider the interests of those under-represented in the policy process.The Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Energy, Law, and Busines

Volunteers and the Economic Downturn

The recent economic crisis has subjected America's nonprofit organizations to considerable fiscal stress. To find out more about the response of nonprofits to the recent economic climate, the Corporation for National and Community Service partnered with the Johns Hopkins Nonprofit Listening Post Project on a national survey of nonprofits and AmeriCorps sponsor organizations.The survey revealed that 80 percent of responding organizations experienced some level of fiscal stress between September 2008 through March 2009, when the downturn intensified, and that for close to 40 percent of them the stress was considered "severe" or "very severe." In response, nearly a quarter (23%) of nonprofits reported decreasing staff hours, a third reported eliminating staff positions, and 40 percent reported postponing the filling of new positions. At the same time, nearly three-fourths of the organizations reported they had maintained or increased the number of people their organizations served, and even among those reporting "severe" or "very severe" fiscal stress and resulting cutbacks in staff, 60 percent reported they had been able to maintain or increase the number of people their organizations served