acid74

The skills Kathryn mentioned: dexterity, numerical skill, speed and social skills required- and all at the same Dexterity: that's picking things up and moving them about(???). Numerical skills: since when have tills not been equipped with automatic adding devices known as calculators? Social skills: smalltalk? OK for autistic people this can be a problem, but it's not even a requirement, it's just a bonus. Not to mention that these are from the perspective of an autistic person, in which case that's understandable. To a person with no legs walking across the road would require some special skills, to anyone else it's no issue. Besides, these skills aren't specialist skills, they're general skills that can relate to any job, not just a checkout job. And it's hypocritical of you to say I won't accept other people's opinions, yet here you are telling me I'm wrong. Me not accepting your opinion that a checkout job is not menial is no different than you not accepting my opinion that it is a menial job.

1) You're right, I've never worked at a checkout, but from what you say it sounds as if you have worked at a checkout. What more to it is there than operating a till and scanning items? 2) Self service machines have additional features that a normal checkout doesn't have, such as weight sensors to ensure that the customer isn't trying to sneak extra items on or off, checks when age restricted items are purchased, checks the money being inserted is real - these, and more, are additional functions that a normal checkout doesn't need. Saying that people "mess up" when they are using a machine that has plenty of areas to go wrong on is expected. Don't blame the machine going wrong as being the user's fault. But just in case I missed anything, what problems occur for a user of a self service machine that are no fault of the machine and would require special skills or talents (hence not menial) to operate? Furthermore, unless over 50% of users have difficulties, then inability to use the machine correctly is not a case of requiring skills or talents to use, but as being the user's incompetence at doing supposedly straightforward tasks that the majority of people can do. In reality it's only like 10% (max) who have difficulty, this does not constitute as specialist skills being required. P.s. You are verging on a straw man argument, I said a lot in the previous post and you're exaggerating on one sentence. Please try and avoid yet another straw man argument, I'm bored of them.

Also observe how rhetoric presents itself when bandwagons are about. As I have repeatedly said, I used the word menial exactly as it is defined. I used the example of a checkout job at a supermarket as being a menial job, the fact that there are self service machines that do exactly the same thing that a checkout does, that are intended for anyone to use, demonstrates that a checkout job is menial as there is no need for specialist skills or talents - anyone can do it. Of course I don't mean anyone who isn't a doctor has a menial job, there are plenty of jobs that don't demand qualifications that aren't menial. A mechanic, plumber, electrician etc. don't require degrees (although some kind of certificate may be required), but these aren't menial, you need to have the skills to do the job. Menial jobs are like being a bin man, checkout person, road sweeper etc.. And I'm not saying that people who do the job are inferior or anything else about them, we need them, I am talking entirely about the job itself. P.s. A straw man argument is: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including: - Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position. - Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2] - Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1] - Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. - Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. 3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed. Which is what both suze and Bid have done.

At no point did I criticize, or even allude to the people who do the job. You are twisting what I said to instead make out I was demeaning the workers. It does not mean "job that inferior people do", which is what you're saying it means, hence a straw man argument . If you misunderstand what the word means that's your problem, don't get annoyed at me. Close, but no cigar. To make things perfectly, abundantly, crystal clear, I said "a menial job". Observe how the word "menial" is an adjective about the noun "job". Definition of "menial", unedited and straight from google Adjective: (of work) Not requiring much skill and lacking prestige. So no, it does not mean "low skilled jobs for servants", it means "low skilled job". If you want to amend it with "for servants" or "for inferior people", then you've got the wrong definition for the context that I used it in the sentence... a straw man argument. Besides, what would have been a better way of describing a job that doesn't require much skill or talent, other than to use the word that describes a job that doesn't require much skill or talent? You shouldn't get offended by the accuracy of words or the truths they describe - a job that requires little skill is menial, whether you like it nor not, this is what it is. darkshine, I didn't specify this, but yes, getting a degree to look good on a CV is not going to do much good on its own. What I should have specified is get a degree that is in demand and that you are interested in, then pursue a job relating to the degree you've done. If the degree is in a subject that is in demand (such as maths, sciences etc.), you should be fine at finding a good job. If, on the other hand, you do a degree in something there is no demand for (I won't specify a subject or suze will get offended), don't seem surprised when the degree doesn't do you much good at getting a job. Employers don't hire a person with a degree because it's impressive (well, not usually), they hire a person with a degree because it's beneficial for the job. Ah bid... I have no idea why you are talking about getting a home when this is nothing to do with anything I have said. I never said, or suggested, that you would be homeless with a menial job. This is another straw man argument, I wish people would stop it with the straw man arguments. Try arguing with the points presented instead of making them up or twisting them to mean something else. If you're going to insist I meant things I didn't mean then this "discussion" will go on indefinitely. I will rephrase my point here, without using complex words like "menial" and being more specific about what I mean, hopefully things will be clearer: If you'd prefer not to have a job that involves minimal skill, as you have more potential than this, a good option is to go into further education because the more/better qualifications you have, especially for an "in demand" subject, the more job possibilities you create for yourself. K? K. How this is bashing workers or saying they are homeless I do not know. I'm interested to know what other things you are able to invent from that paragraph.

That's nice, I won't blame you for not understanding it then I'm assuming you didn't understand it, either that or you were using a straw-man argument, misrepresenting what I actually said to mean something else.

I never said that they were all like that, or even the majority were, I meant exactly what I said - people at the top universities are not always nice people. Some are, some aren't, but you shouldn't assume that just because they're clever enough to get there that they're going to be nice people, which is what people often assume. From my experience, although they often are nice, there is a notable amount who are pompous elitists.

Actually I use the self service machines when I buy food at the supermarket, it's quicker and I don't have to do smalltalk. Besides, I didn't knock people who do the job, I in fact used the word "menial" as precisely what it's defined as. Don't blame me for the word!

No, my dad didn't care about what was going on at school other than what grades I got so he could boast about "how well his son was doing" and by extension the prestigious university I would go to (drunken sociopath prick). The only time he would actively do anything was upon learning that, quote, "he isn't doing as well as he could be", which immediately prompted the drunken ###### to aggressively "encourage" me to work harder, which if anything did the opposite as I just didn't give a ###### about anything anymore. Going to university was extremely liberating. My mum was a bit mad (don't know specifically what was wrong) so couldn't effectively get involved. With respect to big or small universities, I think a campus university would be best as you would be in an all-student environment and students are mostly very nice people*, whereas in a non-campus environment, mingling with the general public who are seldom nice or cheery, could provoke anxiety etc.. I don't think a big or a small university would make much difference, when you're considering groups larger than a few dozen people then a place of 5000 will be just as (potentially) stressful as a place of 20,000. But students are generally pleasant people and are for the most part decent and accepting, so they shouldn't provoke anxiety... well maybe on first entering university, but shortly after you realize that all students are nice to each other. One time I was outside with one of my main friends (I have 3 main friends who i do almost all socializing with, all foreign) and there were some other students that we never met (and have never met since) outside having a barbecue, they invited us to join them. Good times. *the general student being someone who goes to university to study what interests them and to enjoy themselves, but unfortunately there is a small minority of students who just go to university as more of obligation and are no different to someone of the general public (boozing, uncouth, no real interest in getting a degree etc.). Generally, the lower down the league tables the less wholesome the student become, students at the bottom ranking universities are not much different than the average person on the street (not always though!). Surprisingly, people at the highest ranking universities are not always the nicest either - elitist, sanctimonious, pompous... the list of adjectives could go on. Very hypocritical of them to preach about being liberal and accepting of everyone, yet are obnoxious to anyone who doesn't conform to what they want people to be like, when I encounter said students they often lose interest in me when they realize I'm not the social type - they only really care about having "perfect friends" who they can do all of their inane socializing with, they sometimes become hostile when I (as Aspies do) say something potentially rude - being clever does not make them nice. I'd say somewhere in the upper-middle ranking universities would be the most casual and relaxing sort of student, and as I said above, the teaching quality of the university is often just as good as the higher ranking ones.

I know how you feel that "no-one cares" and that life if ######, my dad was a drunken ignorant ***** who saw any kind of mental issue as being insanity or fake. School was hell, endless fights and bullying. No friends. But the reality is feeling bad for yourself fixes nothing, I brooded for years and all that happened was I felt depressed and angry and became even more unpopular. If you can't stand getting a menial job (I can't either), then: Higher education > University > PhD > The world is your oyster or something like that. Good qualifications the key to the world, without them, then.. yeah, asda checkouts are the alternative.

Actually they were very uninvolved with my education. They went about as far as "How well are you doing? O rly? Do better or you won't get to university.". I can't vouch that all foreign people are sociable, the stereotypes do have a degree of truth (especially with the Chinese, but I'll not go into that, don't want to offend anyone!). I've found that Romanians are particularly nice, as are most European people.

Yeah this is only for when applying for university, along with student finance, it's in case extra funding or facilities etc. are required for any special needs.

A-levels are just a stepping stone, as GCSEs were before, and SATs before that. Assuming he intends to go to university (which I strongly suggest he does as he'll love it if he's studying what he enjoys), A-levels become long forgotten and a thing of the past. It doesn't matter how well or badly you do - once at university it doesn't matter at all. Ignore league tables. When I applied for university (just over a year ago) I went by league tables. I picked 5 universities from the top 20. They all asked for grades ABB - AAA. I succeeded in interviews easily because I was applying for a subject of my special interest (computer science). I got offers from them all. But for numerous reasons (teaching style that didn't help me much, little interest in the subjects I was doing, depression, stress etc.) I flunked my A-levels, getting well below what I needed, which was a shame because I could have easily got A's for them had conditions been adequate - if this isn't a perfect example of "special education" being required, I don't know what is. As a result I ended up in clearing. Clearing was an anxious time but by no means last chance saloon. I rang about 5 universities and got offers from 2 (they instead chose students based on UCAS points [A = 120 points, B = 100, C = 80], I had far more than was required). I ended up at a very decent university and delightfully, I prefer it far more than the places I originally applied for. Now at university, people are extremely nice (unlike at school), lecturers are very nice people (not idiots like school teachers) and as I'm studying my special interest I'm excelling, I'm planning to do a PhD when I've finished my degree. League tables are deceiving. They do NOT define the quality of a university, they define the statistics of the university. The reality is most universities are equally good when it comes to resources and teaching quality, it's other factors that determine league table positions, such as amount of research conducted, how many students complete the degree etc.. It's a vicious circle really, "high ranking" universities stay high ranking because all the best students apply there, therefore the statistics of the university are the best, whereas equally good universities lower down on the league tables are forced to more accepting of students of all qualifications, not just 3 A's. A university at position 50 can be just as good as a university at position 5. The moral of the lecture is, it doesn't matter how well or what he does at A-level, he will always have the chance to get to a good university, and when he's at university doing what he enjoys he will do better than you would ever have imagined. Just make sure he is doing EXACTLY what he wants to do (otherwise he's likely to become bored and underachieve). Something else you might not consider when applying for university, the more foreigners there the more he will fit in. Foreigners come from different cultures and are basically "from another world", as the saying goes with Asperger's, "wrong planet". I was extremely fortunate in that where I ended up has a vast number of foreign students, so my "social ineptness" that other English students would (and do) quickly notice, foreign students don't. I made lots of foreign friends as we are mutually different at socializing. Also, foreigners love it when English people are so accepting of them.

This sounds very similar to what I did throughout GCSE and A-level. My notes were mediocre and I didn't look back on them much anyway. I left work to the last minute, staying up all night to finish it. This is what I did (still do at university). I have a great memory so I "record" lessons (lectures) in my mind. It doesn't record every single detail, but it does capture about 80% of it, thus only brief revision is required, and then using my memory I remember the details just by reading through it once or twice. I winged my GCSEs quite successfully with no revision but with the power of my memory. To me it sounds like he's not enjoying what he's studying - he just wants to do what he's interested in. If he plans to go to university to study his preferred subject he'll probably do very well at it. When I was doing my A-levels I spent all my free time learning about my own interests, more or less ignoring my A-levels as I wasn't that interested in them, as a result my results were mediocre (but good enough to get to a decent university). Now I'm at university, doing what I enjoy, I'm getting top marks.

Yes, I know exactly what you're on about there, talking to females is difficult - I want to discuss science and silly stuff [that men like to discuss], women prefer to talk about fashion and gossip which is a complete mystery to me. I have no idea what to say to them, whenever I try and talk to them like I normally would (like talking to another man) they very quickly think I'm weird and disappear. Like you say, I'm not feminine at all. I function entirely using logic yet they seem to be driven by emotions, it's incompatible! Sorry if that's offensive to females, I'm generalizing, I know that not all of you are like this, just most of the ones I encounter are! The reality is I don't care what normal people have to say because normal people are completely boring! It's always the same generic stuff; sports, getting drunk, socializing and women they're "dating". I don't care about any of this, I don't even drink. People don't have any interesting hobbies, again, it's always the same generic stuff - films, music* (see below), games... I find any kind of discussion completely uninteresting. *music: I'm a classically trained musician, a warehouse dj, and connoisseur of numerous styles - when I say I listen to music I mean I REALLY listen to music, like for 9 hours a day I'm playing music and my music collection is huge (and I actually listen to it all, I don't just collect it and never play it). When someone plays the same couple of albums every few days and say they're into music, I find it annoying, in fact I find it insulting. They don't know anything about music or music appreciation. Music appreciation (or rather, lack thereof) is a personal peeve of mine. I digress. See? I just go off on a tangent about my areas of interest. I don't have any questions to ask of a normal person, after they present that they are completely uninteresting I'm incapable of forcing a conversation. My best suggestion is to befriend interesting people, ideally people who aren't "normal", because normal people are boring and shallow. Why try and change yourself to be accepted by them? Anyone who requires you to change who you are to conform to their style of friend isn't worth knowing. Just find people who accept you the way you are. But that's not what you want to hear is it From experience, my top tips: - Talk about sports and other current events. Boring people like this kind of discussion. - Be vague and don't be argumentative. People don't like opinionated people. - Ration what you say, but don't say too little. Keep what you say to short sentences. - Let the other person say whatever it is they want to say (even if you don't care). - Look out for clues as to their area of interest, usually it's what they talk about a lot. Pretend to care about it so they like you more. This also gives you permission to go on about your personal interests without feeling like you're being boring - you're mutually boring! - Your knowledge of trivia can come in handy, but just keep it brief, one sentence is ample. A short nugget of trivia goes down well with people, lectures do not.

Small talk, and conversations in general with normal people, are always difficult. I have to think about everything I say to make sure it's relevant, not rude or not boring - quite labour intensive on the brain. If allowed to speak what I want to speak I'd end up boring the person with my areas of interest or something trivial (there is a lot to be said about different types of water and its taste!) or offend them by saying something offensive by stating a fact that albeit true, is not "pc" or something. I'm not trying to be offensive or boring, I'm just saying facts and truths that are relevant to the situation (although not completely necessary). If I have something to offer to the conversation that could influence people's opinions or explain something then I'll say it. It just so happens that most people are rhetorical or simple-minded and don't really care for an accurate explanation.... See, I'm rambling, I'm ###### at smalltalk even on a forum. I've found that I'm most comfortable to present myself in a manic fashion as my actual weirdness comes across as being humourous, people find it funny and makes you surprisingly popular - everyone likes someone who can make them laugh. Just don't go overboard and appear annoying or completely insane. If instead people don't like it, I don't associate with them, simple as that. I'm not going to waste time trying to befriend people who won't accept someone because they don't do smalltalk about sport or something inane, these people are shallow and often quite stupid. A great quote: Those that matter don't mind, and those that mind don't matter.