The New York Times reported on July 2 that even in the current economy, many jobs are going begging. During the recession, “many employers moved towards greater automation, laying off more of their lowest-skilled workers and replacing them with cheaper labor abroad. Now they are looking to hire people who can operate sophisticated computerized machinery, follow complex blueprints and demonstrate higher math proficiency than was previously required of the typical assembly line worker.” According to the Times, employers say they are looking for aptitude as much as specific skills. “We are trying to find people with the right mindset and intelligence,” said one employer.
Dictionary.com tells us that education is development of the abilities of the mind (learning to know). Training is practical education (learning to do) or practice, usually under supervision, in some art, trade, or profession. The workforce of the future needs both education and training. Some individuals will do best concentrating on one process. Some will do better concentrating on the other. But there is a danger that current discussions of how best to increase the attainment levels of the population will lead to counterproductive polarization of these paths.
It is clear that bachelor’s degrees open unique doors for people. In most cases, not earning a four-year college degree limits both the set of personally rewarding experiences and the earnings opportunities available. But that doesn’t mean everyone should aim for a four-year degree—it doesn’t have to take four years to influence people’s mindsets and approaches to learning.
Many jobs require some postsecondary experience but not a bachelor’s degree. Many people are unenthusiastic about spending so much time in the classroom. Many people have skills and predilections better suited to occupational preparation than to liberal education. There is no doubt that whether because of their nature or because of their backgrounds and experiences, attempting a four-year degree is not the best choice for everyone.
But the fact that some people are and perhaps should be focused more directly on preparing themselves for specific occupations does not mean that they should avoid—or be deprived of—the opportunity for education—for the development of the abilities of the mind and learning to know, as opposed to only learning to do.
One reason education is so important is that life is about more than one’s work. Knowing how to perform a narrow set of tasks might allow one to put food on the table, but it might not allow one to make the most of all of life’s experiences. But even with a clear focus on the labor market, narrow training is unlikely to be a good long-term solution for most people. The specific jobs that are available today will not be the same ones available ten years from now and having the capability to learn new skills and the flexibility to adjust to new expectations is surely a prerequisite for a successful work life.
Obviously a stronger elementary/secondary education system is key here. But even without that, postsecondary institutions can do much more to prepare people for a dynamic and demanding workplace. Moves towards providing more efficient ways for people to acquire the necessary credentials quickly are certainly important. Acknowledging that not everyone will be in a white-collar job with a lot of decision-making responsibility is important. But we must be able to provide a diverse set of educational opportunities for a diverse set of occupations without giving up on improving people’s abilities to think and learn throughout their lives.
4 Responses to Careers Last Longer Than Jobs
agpbloom - July 16, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Baum and McPherson write:”Many people have skills and predilections better suited to occupational preparation than to liberal education. There is no doubt that whether because of their nature or because of their backgrounds and experiences, attempting a four-year degree is not the best choice for everyone.”Here we go again…same elitist line. The THINKERS are a rare breed, but they also have the burden of assigning the menial tasks to those who have a different NATURE than the superior one possessed by them.Notice…these authors question whether or not such folk should even “attempt” a four-year degree.This kind of elitism sickens me because it goes back to the same worn-out script: The thinkers in this corner and the workers in the other!God help us. I mean it.What McPherson and Baum should have mentioned is what employers are really looking for in their workers these days.Answer: SLAVES who have been educated to know their true natures and stay in their predesigned places in the evolutionary ladder. If such slaves are confused, college-educated elites can help them see clearly.Give me a break!
walrus - July 19, 2010 at 11:49 am
@agbloom: Do you have a problem with this kind of “elitism” with regard to athletics? That is, is it elitist to say to a kid, “You know, you may not be cut out to be a professional football player”? Are “American Idol,” “America’s Got Talent,” and “So You Think You Can Dance” elitist because they’re also looking for “rare breeds”? (And here I thought one of the appeals of those shows was precisely because they offer an opportunity to anyone willing and ABLE to achieve great things in the different disciplines! I guess it’s only when you act like everyone is the same that you’re truly not elitist.)Or do you just reserve your contempt for those who notice that there is as much intellectual and temperamental diversity as there is diversity in abilities to catch a ball, sing a song, do tricks, or dance? The authors are not saying that a given individual should not even attempt to go to school because they are from the wrong class, the wrong gender, the wrong race, or what have you. They’re simply saying that people who are neither willing nor able to go to a four-year college should not be forced to do so because to do so is a lose-lose: The students hate it and the educational process suffers at the same time. The spirit of the article is to give everyone the opportunity to do what they want to do and what they do well.Now, if you want to say that a four-year liberal education is something that anyone can do and everyone MUST do, then you must be some sort of prophet sent to help EVERYONE “see clearly.”
agpbloom - July 19, 2010 at 9:01 pm
walrus writes:”Do you have a problem with this kind of “elitism” with regard to athletics? That is, is it elitist to say to a kid, “You know, you may not be cut out to be a professional football player”? Are “American Idol,” “America’s Got Talent,” and “So You Think You Can Dance” elitist because they’re also looking for “rare breeds”? (And here I thought one of the appeals of those shows was precisely because they offer an opportunity to anyone willing and ABLE to achieve great things in the different disciplines! I guess it’s only when you act like everyone is the same that you’re truly not elitist.)”Yes, I do have a problem with it in relation to athletics if those who make the decision are not qualified to do so. Also, sometimes decisions about a athlete’s stature or abilities are premature. Earlier in his life, Jesse Owens was deemed to be in poor physical condition, at death’s door. What if that had been the final word?Also, I am not convinced that the processes of “American Idol” or “So You Think You Can Dance?” are the best long-term patterns for selecting “rare” ability. Perhaps, those shows appeal to a sort of misplaced social Darwinism that thinks a “king-of-the-hill” understanding of talent and contribution is enough at the end of the day. Besides, do Idol notables like Adam Lambert represent the top of the natural singing talent heap, or the audience’s preference for particular styles and themes of the day?But hey…if you think “American Idol” is the template to follow…go for it! I just think you may want to question an implicit notion of elite judges who are able to cull the best talent just by reading contest results or misguided assessment measures.
11161452 - July 19, 2010 at 9:48 pm
“The authors are not saying that a given individual should not even attempt to go to school because they are from the wrong class, the wrong gender, the wrong race, or what have you. They’re simply saying that people who are neither willing nor able to go to a four-year college should not be forced to do so because to do so is a lose-lose: The students hate it and the educational process suffers at the same time. The spirit of the article is to give everyone the opportunity to do what they want to do and what they do well.”*****I lived too many years of my life teaching in a nonselective SLAC where too many students clearly did not want to be there. I suppose some of them were just glad to get out of the house, and Mom and Dad were willing to shell out thousands of dollars for the college experience, so what’s the problem?The problem is that the educational process does suffer: the unmotivated student gets nothing, the other students in his orbit are tainted by the great sucking vortex, and the steady stream of such students makes teaching a demoralizing exercise.