For this ‘necessary’ action to work it would have to be successful or the economy would be in the same place that it started. There have been mixed views on whether the schemes have been successful or if they have not. both young people the training is aimed at and sociologists have expressed views of concern as they think the schemes are not working.
The introduction of Youth Training Schemes was unpopular among many, especially the young, as it was viewed as 'slave labour' whereby the young person did the same job as other employees but received only a fraction of the pay. For others the introduction of such schemes had lead to greater unemployment. The question was asked, ‘why would employers take someone on for a fair wage when they can get a young person to do the job at no cost to the company?’
One of the earliest sociological accounts of Youth Training comes from Finn, who claimed that Youth Training was introduced to reduce the number of young people who were registering as unemployed and even though this may be seen as a success, he argued that making young people go on Youth Training Schemes reduced the unemployment statistics, and made the government's performance look better.
The work of Clarke and Willis also lends credibility to Finn's arguments. Clarke and Willis claim that young people are kept in suspended animation when they enter New Vocationalism. This means that they are kept on ice until work becomes available. Philip Cohen's study of Youth Training Schemes also supports Finn. Cohen claims that the view that youth unemployment is the result of young people's lack of training is false. His study shows that the training on many Youth Training Schemes does not give young people skills for work. Instead they are taught that if they fail to get a job it is their own fault through their 'failure' to sell themselves adequately.
However, Roberts points out both bad points and good points of the scheme. He distinguished three types of Youth Training. Firstly, 'sponsored' Youth Training, where the employer takes the best-qualified youth and there is a virtual guarantee of a job at the end of a period of quality training. Youth taken on under this new scheme were known as apprentices rather than being labelled as trainees. And 'apprentice' is generally seen as having a higher status than a 'trainee'. The second type is 'contest' Youth Training where firms take on more trainees than needed. The trainees then have to compete with each other throughout their training period and at the end the best trainees are kept on. Finally, he cites 'warehousing', which tends to be found in areas of high unemployment. This type of scheme takes youth with the lowest qualifications and offers little opportunity for permanent employment.
In conclusion, sociological accounts of New Vocationalism have generally been negative. Only Roberts has offered a wide examination of Youth Training, identifying both benefits and disadvantages of Youth Training. Despite his findings, even Roberts concludes that the best way to occupational success is via an academic route. However, Roberts' colleague, Moore, believes that New Vocationalism has won the ideological battle with traditional liberal education. At present the recruitment policies of employers and traditional universities support Roberts' account of New Vocationalism, but the fact that new universities are welcoming applicants from GNVQ students supports Moore. Nevertheless, it appears that the GNVQ has many battles ahead in the question to be seen as a real alternative to the A-Level.
