Young adulthood has gone through significant changes over the past 20 years. Looking back at the research conducted by people such as David Hargreaves (1967) and Colin Lacey (1970) in the 1970s, most young people made an easy and predictable transition from school to employment. The situation today is assumed to be very different as the ‘standard employment relationship’ of full-time permanent employment has become less common for young people. The market position of young people is assumed to be much more sensitive to economic fluctuations than the adult labour market. With the rise of neoliberalism, there has been a significant decline in demand for unqualified school leavers. As such, the transition from full-time education to full-time employment is assumed to have become much more precarious, as the transition is not guaranteed, desires can be left unfulfilled and, in some cases, the school leaver can remain in a state of permanent childhood, or permanent liminality, living at home with parents in a state of dependency as NEET (not in education, employment, or training). Young people are regarded as at the same time risky and at risk – in other words, dangerous but vulnerable. This means that young people are more at risk of exposure to vulnerability and less likely to have the skills and abilities to respond to these risks. In some accounts, individual vulnerability is conceptualised as an outcome of a process of inadequate family responses to risk. Young people were never taught the skills or acquired the character or ability to respond to risk and the forces that generate vulnerability. The vulnerability of young people is seen as an individual attribute, and policy intervention is focused on enhancing the attitudes, skills, and resilience of individuals who are perceived to be disconnected from education. This chapter will examine the emergence of both the therapeutic and enterprising discourses within an educational context and suggest that with the emergence of character education in particular it is possible to identify therapisation as a discursive form of power within an educational context. Central to this argument is the view that character education is based on the assumption that the transmission of working-class parents’ cultural capital, particularly concerning school, is problematic and needs to be countered. Successful character education changes the individual's relationship to her or his identity, social relationships, and social world.