Systemic Mismatch?: Talent and Education

We Don't Need As Many College Grads As People Think

You've suspected this for a long time. Me, too.

Look around at the growth of technical specialties, professional 'assistant' roles, and retail employees. Then look at the charts below:

It's important to differentiate between media headlines and sound bites that scream, "Ten fastest growing occupations!" at some given moment in time. The consequences could be far-reaching: Do we really need to be sending Brittany, Madison, Monroe (and maybe even John Quincy) into Saturday SAT tutoring to bump up those scores from 1218 to 1241?

Caveat: Just in case you think I'm dumping on the advantages of a good education, I'm not. I've been a public school teacher and college administrator in an earlier life. Which is also where I first began looking more carefully at the relationship between "what is taught" with "what is needed." Thus, the use of the term "good education."

If you look at the top chart of the 10 occupations with the highest rate of growth, you'll see that six require either an associate or bachelor's degree while the other four require short to moderate OJT.

Seventy percent of the the top 10 with the largest growth don't require college; 30 percent do.

Here is another graphic to tweak your career/talent/education synapses:

Add up the actual percentage of jobs requiring a Bachelor's Degree or more--now and in 2014--and you might be surprised at the results.

The Education/Job Implications?

Here are just a few that come to mind:

1. Is there a realistic connection, beginning early in public schools, with what is really going to be helpful to job candidates and employers?

2. Same question for colleges and universities.

3. The biggest piece of the pie (OK, Bar Chart) belongs to On-The-Job-Training. Yet the figures I've seen published in ASTD and other sources show that large companies are cutting back; (medium and smaller companies are actually increasing their T&D investment).

4. Is the intense competition--and unbelievable tense high school prep--an unhealthy response to an overstated and misunderstood need?

I want to be clear that what I've presented so far is designed to take interested readers to a more complete and fully contextual article in The Carnegie Foundation Change Magazine. The synopsis above is from the article. Kudos to Paul E. Barton on his clear and easy-to-digest explanations of the facts, the evidence and some of the implications in How Many Çollege Graduates Does the U.S. Really Need? He also does a nice job of clarifying the distinctions between fast-growing and largest growth; two terms that are often tossed around without a closer look at what they are really saying.

When it comes to Talent and thinking systemically about it, we can't ignore the institutions who educate and supply the workforce. We can and should question whether the current system is designed to effectively produce what, and who, is needed. In fact, while I was putting together the material for this post, Tammy Erickson was overhearing a here-and-now example.

Although these figures represent the U.S. the readers here at ATW are totally global. What are you seeing in your country that may reflect a mismatch between the education system and the real-life workplace needs?
 

Comments

[Ed Brenegar]

Very interesting, thought provoking post.
A fellow familiar with corporate training programs told me the other day that there are really only two types of training taking place. There is senior level training. And there is training for new hires. What he told me was that there is a tacit assumption that when a person is elevated into a supervisor or management position that they know what the job requires because they know the job that they will be supervising. It is a misguided assumption, I believe.

[Dan Schawbel]

Steve, this is excellent research.

"Seventy percent of the the top 10 with the largest growth don't require college; 30 percent do."

This stood out to me. Some successful entrepreneurs don't even go to college but end up making millions.

[Steve Roesler]

Ed, your friend's observation is the same as what I have been seeing for about, oh, five+ years. It was as if someone pulled a universal plug on training & development but kept it quiet.

What fascinates me is that young people coming into the corporate world--and those who have been working for a brief time--clearly list "development" as a high priority for choosing an employer.

No wonder there is a "war" for talent. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Dan,

Isn't that a good piece of work? It's one of the most easily readable, useful, and thoughtful articles on education that I've seen in a long, long time. Yet I haven't seen anyone else refer to it and I came across it because I subscribe to a lot of research.

As for the entrepreneur/college connection: I ended up going to college with a friend and neighbor. As sophomores we were in the same Accounting class. He asked the prof a direct question about how to use what was being taught in order to make money. The prof told him that wasn't the point.

My friend stood up, announced that he had been in college two years and still hadn't learned anything about making money, then turned and walked out of the room. We were 20. At his 30th birthday party he was a multi-millionaire.

I'd never discourage anyone from gaining the depth and breadth of learning and experiences that are possible at university. And certainly, highly specialized professional fields can only be pursued through higher ed. But I would also advise that most college majors and courseswork do not, in and of themselves, prepare anyone to walk out the door and understand how to successfully maneuver through the world of work.

[Lisa Gates]

Steve, I have an ongoing dispute with a German-American friend, who trained to be a physician in Germany and came to the US and became a psychologist. Ph.D. variety. I adore learning and education, but she is credential-obsessed to my way of thinking. Our kids are young, 11 and 13, and she is adamant about achievement, pushing for grades, preparing for college and advanced degrees, and her kids are waaaay overscheduled and frequently hear lectures about the need for doctoral degrees.

I tell her I'm pushing for happiness, and at 11 I'm not much concerned about grades and routinely "forget" to take my son to school when the NCLB testing takes place (somehow the beach is so alluring on those days). It is a panic, fear-driven place out there in grade school! His school is rigorous and challenging, but I rarely sit on him about homework. He has his own inner compass and work ethic as a result, and his grades are far better than my friend's son. (Boy, am I cranky about this.)

According to your study, I extrapolate that desire, confidence, happy exuberance and innate, heart-fueled skills, and a passion-based BA will take him everywhere he wants to go. My son expects to go to college because it's in his family DNA. But I believe he will be a maverick, like your millionaire friend.

Having said all that, I'm also willing to be surprised.

Maybe there's another post I'm asking you to write: Do credentials matter? And where? Where does the school of life matter more?

[Jo]

Hi Steve, Good data. I like data. I would ask three questions:

a) If there are fewer well paid jobs out there, doesn't it make sense for people to become more competitive? [Personally, @ Lisa I believe we should let a 3 year old be 3, and a 4 year old be 4, etc. A season for everything, but if the picture is true, then isn't increased competitiveness rational?].

b) Countries aspire to expand their service economies. That happens at both ends: at the high end, say in more financial services, and at the low end as we delegate 'unskilled work' - we eat out for example. The overall pattern is similar in most 'developed countries' and knocks 'traditionally male' work. There is a place for unskilled, manual and craft work. Nonetheless, there is a systemic variable excluded in the analysis - the belief that some patterns of work must stay the same, and in particular, that some trades should be much better paid than others. Does it follow that these jobs have to be done in unthinking, unchanging ways and/or with lower status? Can't we challenge employers and unions to make work more exciting and interesting (and more equitable)?

c) The rate of change of knowledge is so fast now that knowledge is overtaken within 2 years. What this implies (over simply) is that knowledge you learn in the first year of college is redundant by your 3rd year. By 2010, the rate of change is expected to be 72 hours - 3 days. The corollary is that we need fundamentally different ideas about organization. And this will include ideas about supposedly unskilled work such as 'nannying' our kids. I agree that a lot of what passes for education is egregious. Good education communicates fundamental knowledge which underpins a wide range of work. If we know the principle, then we have a fair chance of learning new knowledge as it comes out. Steve's friend illustrates another point which is very clear if you have been in a classroom with Gen Y students recently. People want to see the relevance of knowledge. Gen Y see the world from a personal perspective. More and more, students challenge teachers to get to the point. No reason why they shouldn't. A good teacher enjoys it because very lesson/lecture becomes interesting. My question is would you really be happy with your child terminating his or her education early? Let's remember that people learn in different ways, VARK. We don't all enjoy the R (reading/writing) method - personally I am ultra slow on the K. I am not happy to see someone stop learning. My mother left Zimbabwe aged 77 and in the last 18 months has learned a new way of life, new rules, new laws, etc. She could use email and internet before she came here and she was an experienced bookkeeper. Since arriving, she has learned the basics of Excel and helps my brother-in-law who is an accountant. This is a simple story and is repeated all day and every day around the world. As a rule-of-thumb, we want to keep our kids away from schools and organizations where they are not learning by the minute and teaching the organization what-is-what by the minute! To make this ultra long comment a question [I obviously have too too much time], who disagrees? With this rate of change can we afford to be around organizations who don't organize themselves around learning?

And what is wrong with the beach? We learn by playing too and probably more. 'Good' schools (luxurious schools) typically make it mandatory for students to have high levels of extra-curricular activities (say 3 cultural and 2 sports per semester). That rule-of-thumb requires some adaption in a urban environment when kids spend time commuting, working and doing chores, but it is not impossible to mandate. Kids run schools very well too. I see the debate on US education from afar. Schools could be reformed by a simple and solitary control. Teachers write public blogs on the most stimulating question they heard from their students in each class! A simple appreciative exercise that cuts to the chase and that will get them to the beach and other stimulating places quite quickly! Blogs from managers each day saying what they learned from their subordinates? What we learned from our customers?

Provocative as ever Steve.

And too long as ever.

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Lisa,

Being time-zone sandwiched between you and Jo, I feel as if I ought to put on two extra cups of coffee when I log on in the morning:-)

I enjoyed listening to your parental stream-of-consciousness which, to me, goes a long way in determining the health and outlook of the student involved in this kind of scenario. If parents decide, without thinking for themselves, to allow the hamster-wheel-of-life to govern their kids' future and schedule, then the current system continues unchecked. This is why I included family and friends in the systemic chart on a previous post.

Of course credentials do matter, depending on the type of work or profession one chooses. In many cases, though, the B.A./B.S. is used as an arbitrary screening device. The thinking: "College grads know something/have proven something that others haven't." The job may not require anything specific learned in college, however. And, (I have a mid-career client like this now) there may be unbelievably talented people that are ignored because circumstances prevented them from attending.

I understand that large organizations need to come up with some screening process that narrows down their applicant pool. At the same time, I'm absolutely sure that many of the criteria now being used are substitutes for genuine discernment and are preventing terrific candidates from ever getting in front of a decision maker.

As for the life experience part of the equation: I can only tell you that when I look at my own hiring decisions, I start with attitude, genuine enthusiasm, and a track record of experiences demonstrating that the person is really "alive." Then I start talking talent, skill, knowledge.

BTW: My posture as a dad was the same as yours. In fact, I made decisions for our daughter that did not allow her to participate in everything, including extra A.P. classes. She ended up on the Dean's List at Ohio State and now works for a European bank in Manhattan. What got her the job? She traveled on business with me her entire life (we took her out of school at the drop of a hat), speaks two other languages fluently, and knew nothing about banking when she began.

Get another tube of sunscreen. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

Gee, how do you feel about this topic?

I got up this morning prepared to sort through the questions to send off to you for the guest post. Now you've generated even more. . .

Your research/data expertise is shining through here. And some of your questions could very well be turned into statements that are recommendations.

After reading both your comment and Lisa's back-to-back, here are some fundamental issues:

1. Does a parent (and a society) see the accumulation of individual knowledge as the foundation for a healthy existence? If so, then we need only teach facts and thought processes. We can continue to record voice prompts as an excuse for customer service and revel in the fact that we have colluded to save huge sums of money by diminishing or eliminating the notion of an actually-satisfied customer.

2. Do we continue to allow ever-increasing bits of governmental legislation purported to "protect" our kids--and us--from bad things and bad people? If so, then don't be surprised that once the "competitive environment" kicks in, young people aren't prepared to accurately weigh risk and reward. Organizations are often screaming for people to "take risks"--well, how will they know the difference between a good one and a bad one? And if they choose the second, what experiences will they have had that will allow them to get up, dust off their clothing, and keep on keeping on?

I'm going out on a real limb with this one, so get ready to start those cards and letters coming in:

3. Are trophy kids the new trophy wives?

I'm not kidding. What genuinely loving parent would automatically subject a child to a non-childhood in order to buy into the scholastic equivalent of a beauty pageant? In fact, I would venture to say that many of the same people would eschew the machinations of beauty pageantry while, at the same time, shoving their kids down a pathway that simply has a more respectable label.

For me, all of this leads to a question that was discussed earlier in the Talent, Passion, and Purpose series: What is your purpose in life?

Until one answers that question at a meaningful level, any external influence can hold sway.

Jo, with your permission I'd like to pull some of the pithy remarks for a future post. I'll probably do the same with Lisa's but she's at the beach and won't notice:-)

Thanks, as always. . .

[Chris Bailey]

Steve, once upon a time I wrote a post about the importance of a liberal arts education:
http://www.baileyworkplay.com/2005/09/the-importance-of-a-liberal-arts-education/
I still stand by this. The occupations listed above may be the fastest growing and most needed for the next few years. But if we're training people for a very specific line of work, are we cheating them from a much greater world view? And what happens if the person who trains to be a dental hygienist or home aide worker decides he or she doesn't want to do that anymore? Do they have a foundation for learning that will carry them through a transition?

The "how to learn" often gets shorted in our thinking. Kids - and us adults - get bludgeoned by what we should know. But how many of us know how to truly learn something? Honestly, I think we're becoming a dumber society in the US because we're trying too hard to impress ourselves with test scores (and good for you Lisa for well-planned beach days) and technical training that specializes at the expense of a more global perspective.

That good old liberal arts education may actually introduce someone to a talent they never encountered before...or foster the type of thinking that will make them a hell of lot more interesting as an adult.

[Steve Roesler]

Thanks for stopping by on this one, Chris.

I gotta say up front, you're preaching to the choir on this topic. I wanted to go into electrical engineering and a series of circumstances led me eventually to a B.A. and M.A. I do not regret it at all for the very reasons you outline. (I'll head to your link when I finish this).

Now, this is not to steer future engineers/scientists/accountants away from their talent, passion, and purpose; that would be foolish. What is more foolish, though, is to read a half-researched, sensational headline about the world going to hell in a hand basket because there will be a "shortage of micro-mini-maxi chip engineers" and then shoving a generation of students into that funnel. The evidence shows otherwise but, in a sound bite society, evidence holds less sway than is healthy.

What surprises me is the acknowledgment in publications, business meetings, and research of the overwhelming importance of EQ vs. IQ when it comes to long-term success in life and work; yet the systemic education and development process remains fixated on having students prove how much has been shoved into their heads. Unfortunately, the recall time for shove-knowledge lasts a few minutes past the test.

Now, if Lisa would just see fit to invite us all to the beach house. . .

[Lisa Gates]

Steve, if you're not writing a book, I'm going to have to yell at you.
"Trophy Kids." Spot on.

"What genuinely loving parent would automatically subject a child to a non-childhood in order to buy into the scholastic equivalent of a beauty pageant?"

Perfectly said.

But, what do I know? I'm just a granola crunching Californian who put her son in Waldorf Education (until 4th grade, when the school went under--gee I wonder why) so he could "liberally" (thank you, Chris) learn to connect all the dots in the universe.

Thank God for Gen Y. I pay attention to their conversations because they're on to something. Something sort of Socratically perfect in their rebellious, reflective, demanding, get-your-personal-development-handled, cuz-I'm-changing-the-world POV.

Let's see how they plan to raise the next generation. Will they be "workers" or will they be "chief fulfillment officers" and "Ph.Ds -- possibility highly developed."

[Steve Roesler]

Hey, Lisa, you've encouraged me to go register a .com with that name. Who knows where it will lead, but I have enough of a rant in me to do something:-)!

One thing is for certain: each generation, since the beginning of time, has been simultaneously taken aback/amazed by their progeny.

My question is: If we have thousands of years of history and observation, plus volumes of research on what constitutes a healthy human being, why don't we systemically pursue what we've heard about, seen, and researched?

I hear the Waldorf Education folks are doing a great salad these days. . .

[Jo]

Couldn't agree more Steve. And use what is useful and enjoyable.

I think the words you might want are savoring life? Relishing new experiences?

In appreciative inquiry, they call it the poetic principle. There, that punctured that balloon!

Let me recompense.
"This is not the age of information. This is NOT the age of information. . . .This is the age of loaves and fishes. People are hungry, and one good word is bread for a thousand."

Loaves and Fishes, David Whyte.

As I bore everyone with long academic posts, I'll make you an offer of restitution. When you have an idea, require me to find a David Whyte poem to illustrate. Offer open to others too.

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

Ok, you are on. (Although I'm absolutely positive that David isn't the originator of the loaves and fishes feeding people hungry for one good word :-)

[Robyn]

Really fascinating and emotionally charged issue, Steve. I would tend to agree with your posters about liberal arts being a great education for the "people web" (web 2.0) world. I started becoming familiar with computers in the early '70s and was struck one day by the notion that there must have been many people throughout time who were perfect for a particular profession which had not yet been invented, like computer programmer. If you had asked me in 1969 if I expected to work with computers, I would have told you no. And now I am going on my 3rd decade of using them. I must admit that I don't have a degree (though I have certificates, training, and education up the ying yang), and I know my lack of degree has hurt my employment chances in the past. But I'm not so worried about that anymore because, even though I'm 56, I feel as though this hugely collaborative web environment developed with people like me in mind and that I may be just on the verge of discovering my true vocation.