Why Can't We Educate for a Job and an Education?

There seem to be a few unspoken rules among the ruling class in higher ed. Among them: Don't say a purpose of a college education is to get a job, and don't refer to students or employers as consumers of a college education.

I broke both rules in a recent post about how the American higher ed system is in love with itself, and as a result, doesn't believe that it needs to undergo some fundamental changes. And boy did I hear from readers. The post generated more than 90 comments to The Chronicle, and a response here on the Huffington Post by Brian Rosenberg, president of Macalester College.

Obviously, there's no shortage of opinions on the subject. So I want to return to the debate, particularly given some new ammunition supplied over the past week by the governor of Florida and a coalition of unemployed law school graduates.

We often talk about the goal of college as learning a specific skill or growing intellectually. Both aims are not mutually exclusive, of course, although by framing it as an either/or question we have allowed two opposing camps to emerge. On one side is higher ed, which believes it's educating future citizens by helping them grow personally and intellectually. On the other side are employers who have jobs they can't fill because they're unable to find skilled workers.

Politicians seem to be taking the side of the employers. Witness Gov. Rick Scott of Florida who last week said his state shouldn't put more money into degrees that are unlikely to produce more jobs, such as anthropology.

What many of those in higher ed fail to realize is that as college has become more expensive, parents and students increasingly view a bachelor's degree as a transaction. For many, education for education's sake no longer cuts it. That doesn't mean students shouldn't major in French literature or philosophy, or anthropology, but institutions need to do better at connecting such academic programs to lifetime employment prospects. Otherwise, it's going to be almost impossible to get students and parents to pay $200,000 for a four-year undergraduate degree.

At the same time, employers and politicians need to learn that if colleges provide training only for jobs that need to be filled now, those workers will probably be useless in about two years, given the rapid pace of change in most industries.

Colleges need to reframe the question when asking employers what they need. Instead of asking about the jobs they need to fill tomorrow, colleges should ask employers to describe the valuable skills of their best-performing and longest-serving employees. It's likely the answer will be critical thinking, writing, team work, and problem solving -- all attributes of a classic liberal-arts education.

Another reason that higher ed might be reluctant to tie an undergraduate education to job prospects is because it's on the defensive right now over job-placement rates in law schools, as The Chronicle's Katherine Mangan reported this week. As the article points out, college officials are nervous that the consumer-protection pressures facing law schools could spill over to other professional schools. It's surprising to me that universities don't face more scrutiny of their graduate programs in general, which reel in prospective Ph.D. students every year while providing very little data on the job prospects of their graduates.

So if a bachelor's degree is sold as a ticket to a specific job much as the J.D. is in law schools, students and parents might begin to ask a lot more questions about the placement data supplied by colleges. The federal government might tie student-aid funds to the employment gains of students, as it has with many for-profit vocational programs. And some in higher ed might be forced to reconsider their disdain for the consumer moniker and to treat their academic programs as products that sometimes need to be refreshed, or even retired, rather than just assume student demand will always be there.

In his thoughtful response to my original post, Rosenberg, the Macalester College president, recounts the story of Steve Jobs' brief stint at Reed College and how he didn't realize until much later in life how the study of calligraphy and music had any practical application to his success as a business leader and visionary. Often left unsaid in the retelling of that famous story, however, is that Jobs received part of that education by simply hanging around the Reed campus after he dropped out as an enrolled student. I'm sure Reed College would have preferred him to have stayed as a paying customer.

 

Follow Jeff Selingo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jselingo

Comments

[John Sarvey]

02:36 PM on 10/24/2011

I too never hear anyone in higher education say that preparation for employment should not be one of the key goals of a college education. What I do hear from liberal arts advocates though is the belief that narrowly-tailored, more occupationally-oriented undergraduate programs do not provide students the broad-based liberal arts skill set of critical thinking, problem-solving, reading and writing. This belief is not based on research or evidence but inference. Do you really think that a nursing major does not gain skills in critical thinking and problem-solving? It is probably true that students who major in subjects that require extensive, substantive essay writing will come out with better developed essay writing skills along with the research and analysis skills that go with that. But I think too many employers find that just because someone can write a 30-page comparative essay, it does not mean they can write a memo, set of instructions, ad copy, or fundraising letter. Too many college graduates from either category of major come out with an insufficient set of skills and competencies to be immediately effective as workers and citizens. (Read the recent book "Academically Adrift). What is receiving insufficient attention in higher education today is the identification and description of what should be that essential set of skills and competencies that all college students should master regardless of major. That conversation should then be followed by: how do we best develop those skills and competencies in students?

[JimWoodell]

12:02 PM on 10/24/2011

Thanks, Jeff, for your commentary on this. I have been baffled about why this has to be an either/or debated. Our universities are complex places that have for a long time been about multiple purposes and often cross-purposes. They are means to many ends, and looking for ways that these ends compliment and each other, and even overlap, will be far more productive than separating purposes and putting them in opposition to one another.

[mira chancleta]

08:46 PM on 10/23/2011

Answer to your question...

1...Because colleges have been historically of the philosophy that an educated person is one who knows a little about a lot and then proceeds to experience the world and life with the hope/intention that s/he will always be of the inclination to learn her/his entire life.

2...Colleges are not "trade schools" where you learn a lot about on thing. Then you get a license, certificate or other badge of accomplishment and get a job that is probably secure and can feed you for a lifetime.

BOTH venues have their audience and benefits. But they should be confused one with the other.

Then of course one can work for the Chronicle of Higher Education and pretend to be an expert on everything.

[Kevin Wolfman]

06:22 AM on 10/21/2011

Jeff,
What about the non-quantifiable benefits of college? Higher ed has a lot of "pros" that can't be measured in earnings potential and employment prospects. I wrote about this here: http://bit.ly/q1PKhE To me, there is a problem with measuring the "worth" of a college education by how much money it puts in your bank, or how many job offers it gets you. Higher education has profound and positive social and political effects, according to research. What are your thoughts on this?

[methodman]

06:07 PM on 10/20/2011

I think you are mixing two marking systems. I am reading a book about Insects Sex Bugs and Rock N Roll by a Champagne University Instructor. Now I note taking using electrical diode switching, resistance voltage and current notation. because this diagramming language allows me to develop important details that can't be noticed from an English 1a ciricuulum. Why is what I am doing so far out. I also studied Brain hemispheres while creating Advanced Dungeon and Dragon and Dungeon Master Maps trying to make cards for monsters and quality and comparison them . then substituting them to different sections of the Brain. Everyone in the math lab found what I was doing interesting.

[Gotowarmissagnes]

04:11 PM on 10/20/2011

I've been on college campuses for the past 30 years. I've NEVER heard anyone raise even a mild objection to the idea that a college education has the dual purpose of both preparing students for a job and preparing them to be better people. So, I find this idea that the "ruling class of higher ed" has some huge divide between itself and the business community very alien to my experience.

Furthermore, it's long past time for people to deal with the difference between the sticker price and the actual net price of college education.

I think we'll have far more productive discussions about how we can improve education if we deal with the facts on the ground, rather than the myths that make for great HuffPo headlines, but bad policy.

[rothomaha]

07:49 AM on 10/20/2011

I believe the "classical" method of education - philosophy, mathematics, literature, etc. prepared students with a fundamental background of knowledge and an ability to critically analyze lost to students who follow a specific major track from the get-go. It was apparent to all of my peers in college that the Engineering majors, for example, might know higher mathematics far better than the rest of us, but most had absolutely no idea what was happening in American politics, nor had they read Plato's Republic or Moby Dick! We need to stop "training" young people, calling it a college education and then expecting their lives to be more adaptable to societal changes than, say a steam shovel. We've moved on from there and the world will continue to do so - our young folks have to be able to adapt!

[ThePeoplesKey]

06:12 AM on 10/20/2011

When did the burden for training employee's shift from the companies that need the workers to the American taxpayer? It used to be that companies hired promising workers that with training could become productive contributo­rs to the overall company goals. They then proceeded to develop their potential at their own expense with the goal being to make more money from the efforts of their employee than the costs of developing the skills of the employee. Somewhere along the line that tried and true system shifted to one where the employee is supposed to arrive completely trained for the position required, and if not, it's the fault of the education system for not preparing the employee for the work that the education system could never know years before hand would be required from the company. So now when the expensivel­y trained potential employee arrives at the company gates, they're routinely sent back for retraining at even more expense to taxpayers in order to "update" the skills that were never present from the company's point of view to begin with. What's wrong with this picture?

[BigBearcatBill]

01:33 AM on 10/20/2011

From the management level, Obama and governors should order a review be done on short-term and long-term needs of employment, where are the jobs going to be. Make sure they look at trades and construction because we all know under worst cases we would probably not have enough of these guys if a lot of things needed fixing/building all at once, like after a major earthquake taking down roads, bridges, dams, etc. I also think they should plan in the long run for shorter work week hours - make 40 hour work week turn into a European 30 or whatever it is on average of France, Britain, Germany, maybe check Japan, South Korea too. Our workers in all full-time jobs need same hours, vacation and sick leave as the best countries in the world give theirs, we must not let the profiteers push us to China and other labor standards. Next, determine the resources for producing students/grads in these areas, enough teachers and classrooms, training equipment etc. Also check which industries must have skilled workers train new grads for that OJT that cannot be replaced by books, and talk to industries to see if they are losing a bunch of baby boomers/retirees before they get new grads to OJT for being productive before retirees go.

[smart tee]

09:26 PM on 10/19/2011

The #1 problem with unemployed college grad these days is the major they chose.
Most choose majors in English and History. The 2 easiest majors to graduate in 4 years time. Anyone says otherwise is_ lying_.
# 2 Economics sans Finance. Although you might disagree about economics, I beg to differ. In this day and age Finance industry don't really look for economics major to be on their team. They want analyticals and mathematic wizards.

Unless, you're an engineer major and science you will have a hard time landing a job.

[cydRN]

08:46 PM on 10/19/2011

We've sold the American people a bill of goods regarding higher education. Witness the hysteria around the "nursing shortage". While there is indeed a great need for nurses, the quality of the students and the appalling education they're recieving is disurbing. For-profit colleges are turning out half educated nitwits who will graduate with staggering debt.

They have no concept of what will be required of them in this field. In school, they will have been told that they are highly sought after and will be able to dictate their schedules and command high salaries. In truth, they will scramble for jobs and be on nightshifts for 2-5 years, and in no way will be able to dictate their schedules. While they will make a good salary, that salary will likely top out at $35 an hour within a few years. Again, they will be in debt up to their eyeballs.

Nursing used to attract those with a vocation. Now the majority are centered on the paycheck and have little interest in the healing compassion that has always been the hallmark of the profession.

[Aristontoles]

08:35 PM on 10/19/2011

"Institutions need to do better at connecting such academic programs to lifetime employment prospects. Otherwise, it's going to be almost impossible to get students and parents to pay $200,000 for a four-year undergraduate degree."

Maybe THIS is the basic problem we should try and fix: $200,000 for a four-year undergraduate degree (and just in tuition) is simply impossible for most people. Shouldn't we work on trying to make higher education affordable? Instead Selingo accepts in resignation the fact that higher education has become too expensive as the new status quo, and then proceeds to propose changing its goals and prostituting university so that parents and students can go on becoming bankrupt and buying themselves 4.0 GPAs and sweet jobs. Higher education shouldn't be about this...

Mr Selingo regards students and employers as consumers of college education. Perfect. That's what they are: consumers of college E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N. Not buyers of As or a good job. They are consumers of education. And what they should pay for that education shouldn't be $60,000, or $50,000 a year in tuition --more than the average American salary! Not even $10,000 for resident tuition of a "public" institution.

[Feministo]

07:47 PM on 10/19/2011

You don't solve some problems creating new ones. "What many of those in higher ed fail to realize is that as college has become more expensive, parents and students increasingly view a bachelor's degree as a transaction." Absolutely. And there are two problems here: 1) College is disproportionately expensive; 2) The belief that the money you pay buys you good grades and a job. So we should work to make higher education less expensive and tell parents and students what college is for. I don't have any problem considering them customers, but they should know they're buying education and knowledge. If they want something else they should go somewhere else, not to the university.

[Eva fate]

07:14 PM on 10/19/2011

Why can't we educate more usefully BEFORE college?

I find it insane that in the average BA, there are two whole YEARS of courses that have nothing to do with someone's major, and are mostly slightly more in depth reviews of stuff I learned in high school.
I honestly don't see the reason that high school can't be designed so that students can, say, get a two year tech school certificate, or serve an apprenticeship for their second two years of high school. I don't see why the second two years of high school couldn't be designed to teach students all their "gen ed" courses, either.

An alternate idea would be something like apprenticeship for university students, having them work for the school in a related field, with half of their income going towards their tuition costs.

Many people are just in school because they need a piece of paper to wave in front of an employer, not because they don't already know how to do the basic things needed for the job they want. Many modern degrees are based on that and on teaching the byzantine university system politics and customs. None of those things are as useful to an employer as on the job experience, but many in america believe they are, which is creating billions of dollars of debt for our young people yearly. Why not revamp the already free high school system so they can get useful job skills out of it?

[JustThisGuy]

06:18 PM on 10/19/2011

Some people gain from liberal arts and some don't. Not everyone builds skills.

You want something that will be good for the long term? Study math. Study math that you find hard. There will be a right and wrong answer to every problem. You will have to try different things that will not work. You will fail. You will need to get help. You will not be able to make excuses. In 20 years, in 50 years, there will be more math, but everything you know about math will still be accurate.

Study science. Not what we know, but how we know it. Learn how to question assumptions. Learn to have other people check your data, and how to check other people's data with both an open mind and skepticism. Learn to be honest with yourself when you find out something you did not expect, or what contradicts what you are looking for. Learn statistics.