The Education-to-Employment transition is one hot debate worldwide, with a host of endeavours, both within traditional education and outside it, directing enormous amounts of money and innovation towards solving it. And, despite all these efforts, gap is just getting wider, and more and more people are completing education but not getting a job. And, besides, if one looks at starting salaries, the problem is even worse - underemployment is rife and level of jobs that these candidates get often do not need the education they have got.
All of us possibly know people who did not get a job after finishing education, and indeed, people who are underemployed. But, chances are, we also know people who found their groove, as one would say, after a few years of drifting around. I almost see a pattern with people who come out of school with a degree in, say, Arts, that they would have a succession of poorly paid jobs and internships, and then, the most resilient of them, would actually start off on a promising career. So, while the education-to-employment looks severe if we solely focus on the fate of recent graduates, but it may not be quite so bad if one takes their longer term prospects into account.
I have been working on the Education-to-Employment fault-line for many years, almost two decades excepting a few brief stints in technology. Most of it felt like a combination of banging my head against a brick wall and trying to talk about a problem that no one, those who are really concerned, really cares about. Consultancies may do, as they have to sell their reports to governments, but the educators, who think, rightly, the end of education should be more about mere employment, and employers, who really see them as consumers of talent but do not want to have anything with educating them, couldn't care less for this transition.
However, my feel is that there is more than just indifference. For one, the For-Profit schools, whose business model really depends on getting their graduates jobs, have not done too well either. In fact, the For-Profit schools have made the loan default problem worse in the United States. Employers, who chronically complain about talent shortages and pour money into universities to help create talent they need, have had limited impact. It seems that we need a complete paradigm shift if we have to problem substantially.
One such paradigmatic question is to ask whether it is relevant to talk about Education-to-Employment anymore. This implies a sequence, which may or may not be valid any longer. It is definitely not valid for those early-career drifters who really learn from those years of drifting before settling into a career. And, indeed, the growing wave of boot camps and uncollege movement, is directly challenging the traditional sequence of life. One could claim that these are still outliers, and more and more people are going to college, but the point is to think whether the traditional assumptions about stages of life is still valid.
It makes sense to point out that what we just called the traditional assumptions are not that traditional. Even in the eighties, the expectation was that High School would develop job specific skills, and the college, both in Europe and North America, would develop leaders, entrepreneurs etc. Somewhere in the nineties, this switched to the modern idea of mass Higher Education, primarily because of the expansion of technology jobs (and growing automation in other jobs). Thinkers like Charles Handy may have predicted it (different types of organisations and careers that start and end later), but college was not about entry-level jobs at all. Since then, we have had enormous expansion of college infrastructure, without necessarily updating the mindset. So, if the entry level jobs still remained at High School level, but now took in graduates because they were abundant, it is a self-inflicted problem. We may find Charles Murray elitist, but this is the point he seems to be making - too many people are going to the college - and we need to think whether we can do better.
One idea for doing better is to invert the Education-to-Employment conversation. Why does it have to be education first? Lifelong Learning is now a known concept, at least in Europe, and we have learned to accept education as a continuing process. Building an intertwined education-and-employment process may be one solution to the equation we are trying to solve.
In practice, this would look like a sequence of boot camps and employment for people coming out of High School, all of which will earn college credits. This is not about simulations, project placements or internships (most meaningless of all), but real work, for which one gets paid for. This should be employment leading to education, rather than the other way round. And, indeed, education, in this model, would mean more than getting a job, as the students would be in employment first, and more than job skills, because one has to do more than just learning the technical and professional skills to get a degree.
One could question whether employers would readily participate in a scheme like this. This is a question of design, as this model is more relevant in some sectors than others. It is indeed a question of carefully mapping labour markets, projecting demand and focusing on areas of high growth, rather than going after jobs that exist today. This is indeed where private capital fails to see this model, in its quest for scale, and it is only visible from the vantage point of an educator. My work in the last few years have convinced me that even in more traditional countries like India and China, employers are ready to participate in such projects, if, instead of starting with academic subjects, the educators are ready to start with their needs - and look to top up a students readiness for life with academic abilities.
One can possibly see this idea to be consistent with the culture of vocational education, a predominantly European theme increasingly popular in the developing world. However, because the model is broken, the conversations about vocational education has been more like the higher education, scholastic and classroom-based, without its prestige. In some ways, inverting this education/employment conversation is also about ending the false divide between vocational and academic education, and creating, at once, a more unified but a more nuanced structure.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Meritocracy is a convenient lie, as Socrates foretold, and it is the ballast of the social system we have built. The story goes like this. Once upon a time, we had kings and queens and their families and nobles, who got the best meat and the best mate, and everyone lived happily. But then the things fell apart as luxury corrupted the nobles and feebled the spirits of their offsprings - and the peasants and the artisans came claiming their fair share. So we had the age of revolutions in Europe and North America, when we created a new, fairer social system, under a 'natural aristocracy of men', where destiny was no longer shaped by birth but by intelligence and hard work, and anyone could make it in life. And, everyone again lived happily ever after. Of course, this did not really happen. Slavery persisted, at least for a long time. The 'fair' system mostly excluded the real peasants and workers and once they have done their duty dying for various revolutions, they were s
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.