I do not live under a rock. I fully understand that higher education serves workforce needs. Furhtermore, I also understand that to be relevant, higher education must be part of, react to, and shape the broader culture of which it is a part -- and in the case of the U.S., the culture has strong corporate elements/influences. (And this is not merely a US cultural trait.)

But why are "jobs" the only merits of higher educaiton touted by our elected officials and the foundation leads who influence them? Also, why does community college vocationally-oriented education appear to be at the forefront of the kind of education in which these elites want to invest resources?

It seems like there is a disproportionate emphasis on "re-tooling" the proletariat going on here. I don't disagree with the efforts, as long as there are comparable efforts made to provide the same "workers" with additional education that equips these graduates as participants in a democratic republic, to foster critical thinking, and enable the cultivation of intellect that does not just "do" work, but creates meaningful forms of work for others.

Note to our leadders: Recall the adage, haste makes waste -- that applies in both economic and democratic contexts.

Karin,
As an adjunct professor of project, program and asset management, I think the PRIMARY answer is to get a better balance in the classroom between practitioners academics.

Unfortunately, experiential based learning is not something you can cram for, and I question whether Obama's efforts (like so many others) sound good, but once the details are known, end up as being bail outs or welfare subsidies disguised as sound policies.

Having said this, the key is not to educate more people, but to encourage the private sector first to create more jobs. Once the jobs are created, THEN we can start educating people to fill those jobs.

But for the centralized planning of big government to dictate who should be trained and in what subjects is a recipe for disaster.

BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia

What graywolf said. In spades.

Obama really thinks we need more training for workers? (And that's what colleges do right? "Train workers.") I think we need jobs for workers before we spend a lot of time training workers for jobs that don't exist. And frankly, colleges should be preparing critical thinkers with writing skills in tune to use technology, with a desire to learn throughout their life with an appreciation for diversity and ecological conservation first... then train them. Time to get priorities straight.

The career college sector has been preparing people for and successfully placing them in the workforce for 100's of years. Government schools have and as graywolf states, to be critical thinkers, problem solvers, creators of meaningful work. The President's plan is wrong-headed and will exacerbate the problems.

While I agree that we need to do a better job of training the workforce of tomorrow, I want to suggest the community colleges are not the only places that can work on that initiative and for vulnerable students, speeding up the process to a degree is not an optimal solution as it prevents time for concerted and much needed support initiatives. To that end, I also think it is critically important for community colleges to partner with four year colleges and universities -- even small, private colleges like the one I lead. See the below links, which further develop these very points. Indeed, the Pell Institute study suggests that two year colleges need to take certain steps to make the transition to four year colleges possible. To that end, the colleges themselves can help with that, as we are presently trying to do with two community colleges. Those pipelines are critically important. Karen Gross, President, Southern Vermont College

LINKS: http://blogs.svc.edu/president/the-three-year-college-degree-for-whom/
http://blogs.svc.edu/president/the-benefits-of-partnership-possibilities-in-higher-education/

Too often institutions of higher education offer programs that simply reflect the interests of faculty in research and further study -- whether those programs are effective in preparing students for jobs or not! As a faculty member, I have seen this first-hand in my own department, and I know that many of my faculty peers recognize this too.

Let's "fess up" to this fact and re-engineer our programs so that they deliver the outcomes we want to produce (including career outcomes, social outcomes, critical thinking outcomes, etc.) rather than allowing our programs to simply reflect faculty preferences.

This is what outcomes assessment is all about. President Obama is simply pointing out that elevating our attention to career outcomes will be most helpful to restoring a healthy economy and a strong country.

J.O., Philosopher turned activist

Yes, experiential Learning is a most in colleges and universities. How many students graduate from college with a degree in literature and have not written a short story, poem, play or encouraged to do so. It is great to critically read and analyze the works of others but at the end of the good grades, the question remains, what of all my learning is really mine? Departments must create capstone programs, which encourage/mandate students to demonstrate a certain level of creativity, or a self-actualizing project.
tkm

I think J.O., Philosopher turned activist, has a good point.

You know, you are actually ALL correct. However, how about developing a hybrid approach that teaches critical thinking while at the same time will enable students to develop skills they can put to work.

As a foreigner, I admire the diversity of this discussion. It reflects the energy and frustration of professional educators searching for effective answers. It also shows that education cannot solve the challenges alone. There was a time when universities fought for their independence, but in our complex era independence is not enough. We need to start dissolving boundaries between education, the professions and the corporate sector. When there is a healthy tension between independence and dependence, our students will thrive. There is much to learn from education for the professions with regard to preparing competent graduates. Bill

I would very much like to hear from some experts from the world of cognitive psychology and learning theory on this. If the real measure of success is learning, not just documenting sufficient seat time, can the equivalent of a 2-2.5 year program be effectively crammed into 10 months?

What do employers want? ... educated employees with both practical skills AND as graywolf says "critical thinking...a cultivated intellect..." Employers do not see these as mutually exclusive as some of the comments here imply. "Vocational" programs that bring insight into the cultural,historical, philosophical underpinnings of the "job" result in employees with complex problem solving and critical thinking abilitities.

Please pardon my ignorance, but am I reading that the value of a college is in teaching problem solving and critical thinking skills? What does that say about K-12 education?

Accelerated programs are crap and do not prepare students well for the workforce. Look at the courses offered, then look at job descriptions. Any relationship?

Concur with #4, scintern. Hearing over and over again (and knowing quite a few personally) about the hordes of educated, highly-trained, critical-thinking, intellectually-cultivated engineers--just to mention one field--with years of professional industry experience who are unemployed with no reasonable prospects of living-wage jobs, unless they are able and willing to move to India (and companies based there are willing to hire Americans over their own citizens)--I can't buy the argument of needing 5 million "better prepared" new college graduates for the jobs of today, 5 years from now, 50 years from now. We already have a huge educated, overqualified yet unemployed--or underemployed--workforce competing for jobs that have been outsourced or eliminated, and hence DO NOT EXIST. Training with no opportunity for work is futile, and critical thinking doesn't pay the bills. Frankly, the college degree requirement for many jobs has replaced the high school diploma due to competition and oversupply in the labor market, not because the job justifies a college-level education to do the work. Reinstituting and supporting currently relevant versions of the New Deal CCC and WPA programs would be federal funds much better spent. To summarize and paraphrase: "It's the jobs, stupid!"

rogmar said..
The career college sector has been preparing people for and successfully placing them in the workforce for 100's of years. Government schools have and as graywolf states, to be critical thinkers, problem solvers, creators of meaningful work.

Are these two things mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to prepare graduates who are ready to do that thinking, solving, and creating IN THE WORKPLACE?????

Two things, how can Obama expect higher education to produce more graduates when faculty are too busy helping students overcome middle school skills. Second, why doesn't the federal government just fund the first two years of post-secondary education at an in-state institution for everyone who can get in. (Yes, I do mean free of charge). It would probably be cheaper to do that than it was to finance the Iraqi war. Money, even at the community college level keeps a lot of folks away.

Graywolf (#1)says what needs to be said quite well, and I'm sure many will agree.

I have taught at community colleges and four year liberal arts colleges. At both, for decades, I've heard the same old story about education as preparation for "jobs of the future," so I confess to being irritated by this "news." A former President (Wilson) once said that there were two sorts of schooling,one for the hand and one for the head. The one for the hand was vocational education. The one for the head was liberal learning.

As long as we adhere to this opposition, we're stuck in an unhealthy hierarchy (see Sennet's THE CRAFTSMAN). I was an avid supporter of Obama, and while my fervor has waned, I remain hopeful. Still, I wish he and guys like Duncan would help the nation understand its part in doing more than employee training, and that preparation for life as a citizen in a democracy is the larger vocation for which schools should (and really do) exist. Right now, all I'm hearing is a rather mindless injunction for schools to solve the unemployment problem, as if unemployment were due solely to the proliferaton of ill- or improperly educated masses. Tell that to all the well-trained folks who lost there jobs to other countries where they were shipped (KUDOS TO LYNNF # 15). I'm really quite weary of schools always taking the exclusive or main responsibility for society's ills.

Finally, what's interesting in all this is the steady decline of state support for higher education. If it is true that "industry" (whatever that is) is so dissatified with college or other graduates, let them open up their own facilities and "train" the workers for jobs "now and in the future." Does that make more sense than making the public, via taxation, pay for employment training?

Are we forgetting the student's responsibility in all of this? I feel that many of us who work in education are sitting around chatting about what WE should do to provide for our students, but I wonder if the question should be, "What should these students do for themselves?"

I went to a small, private Liberal Arts institution that taught me critical thinking and analytical skills. I was a Theatre Arts major who was taught drafting, sewing, the use of power tools, public speaking, etc. All actually quite practical in the job market.

Additionally, I CHOSE to have my work study position in the Accounting office so that I could get some practical, on the job training because I recognized that most people will look at my degree in Theatre and say, "What can you do with that?"

So perhaps it doesn't matter what opportunities we provide for students. If they are not able to think long term and plan for their own futures, what hope can we have to prepare them? Maybe this kind of long-range planning should be addressed in high school before students get to college.

Fabulous. Another unfunded federal mandate in addition to unprecedented levels of state appropriation reductions.

free of charge

What we need right now at the CC's is funding! Our catagorical budgets have been cut 50%, and every day is about what is going to be cut or discontinued next.

Where is Obama when we need him? There seems to be a HUGE disconnect somewhere.

Indiana's governor just announced $150 million in cuts from colleges and universities that receive state funding. Talk about disconnect...

I find it ironic that Obama calls our colleges to prepare citizens for employment on the one hand and on the other he is in the process of blowing up free enterprise and jobs.

His policies and Marxist agenda are destroying the very businesses needed to keep the implied promise that education can lead to a meaningful rewarding job and better life. We are at 10.2% unemployment and rising.

What is he doing to grow our economy, cut our debt and provide real jobs? There will be no recovery without support for both education and free enterprise.

Ironically, our Marxist President himself now advocates banking education. Paolo Freire must be rolling in his grave right now.

Jobs will come once employers have an incentive to grow again. With the prospects of nationalized health insurance and cap-and-trade tax hikes, we'll be lucky if surviving employers actually keep their head offices within the US of A. There's no sense being prepared to work if there are no private sector jobs to report to.