Whilst I may be a part of the "technical training leading to employment" mindset of Australia, I don't necessarily support it.

I believe it's no coincidence that Australia is the small business capital of the world - (something we shouldn't be proud of). All Aussie brand icons (yes, even our beers as my transTasman colleagues have pointed out) are owned by overseas interests. Speedo swimming costumes, Akubra hats, Dryzabone oilskin coats, Vegemite, Arnotts Biscuits etc.

A typical Aussie business (employing less than 50 people) believes it cannot afford to train people on the job. The practice is often therefore to employ somebody from the industry (thus not introducing any new 'genes' into the company) or (more often), poach somebody for a few dollars more from the opposition. This cannot be construed as a growth strategy and thus the business perpetuates (if it's lucky), rarely breaking out of its market spot or growing beyond an immature state.

On the other hand european, US and South African corporations are all gargantuan when compared with our biggest businesses and, guess what, they place more emphasis upon the quality of your degree than the subjects you studied. They employ by intellect and maturity then TRAIN their people in the ways that have made their business successful.

I also believe that this is why a typical Australian employee only sticks with one employer for (say) two to five years before changing jobs (inevitably to move a step up the ladder because there's nothing for them where they are). Another anti-growth strategy.

stales