I have come to feel much of the discussion around the future of work and STEM in the education space is very misguided.
Yes, they are, in many ways. People have some really twisted beliefs on STEM and what educators think about STEM. There is some truth to academics not approaching STEM with the right perspective, but academics don't run colleges and universities. They have influence, but they do not make the decisions in regards to program sustainability and longevity. So the conversation is very different than that which is represented.
Quote:
The conversations we ought to be having regarding our education systems are around the future of society, not merely the future of work.
This is pretty much how the greater conversations go. A larger more long-term perspective is kept on society's needs and industry is used to provide guidance for immediate needs. Industry tends to look quarter-to-quarter and does not hold the larger long-term need in much regard. The conversations had with Amazon a decade ago are vastly different than the ones we have today, because of the evolution in their business model, yet higher education keeps that longer-term perspective front and center and feeds the needs of that interest.
Quote:
There will always be aspects of educational experiences that are just pragmatic and instrumental in moving towards a career, but our lives shouldn't be reduced to our careers and our education shouldn't be reduced to career prep. Education for wisdom, for joy, for mental health, for social cohesion, for meaning and purpose in life are all tremendously important, especially in a future of continued rapid change in industry.
Exactly. Considering that people will transition between careers multiple times during their lifetimes a broad educational base is required for people to be successful. Unless you plan on being in a specific trade your whole life, specialized education like that does not work for most people.
Quote:
Obviously, needs have emerged that can be addressed by new pathways like those provided by Google's certificates and others, but they're not replacements for a well-rounded education and we shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in our rush to revolutionize education systems.
Micro-certification has helped people hone very specific skills and show they are qualified for very specific jobs. These micro-certs have purpose. They are to provide differentiation in screening and show that an individual is qualified to complete a certain job. That is the whole intent behind all education and training. To better you as an individual and give you a competitive edge against your peers. This is one of the reasons why I tell all students to not just focus on completion of their current degree, but to develop a long-term learning plan that will keep you current and maintaining a competitive edge. For someone in the IT industry, that means a general degree then working progressively to higher levels as your career progresses. It also means continuing to achieve certifications. So for that individual interested in IT security with the hopes of becoming a CISO, they should be pursuing a bachelor degree in MIS or CIS with a focus on security. Then they should be layering that with general certifications (A+, Security+, GISF). Once they have achieved this they need to gain experience in the workforce, but at the same time working on increasing their certification stack with more specialized certs (MCSE, GCWN, GCUX, CEH). The next step is to plan for completion of their Masters, hopefully in something information security-centric. After that you need to build on that cert stack some more until you reach a terminal certification (GSE, CISM, CISA, CISSP). The last step, and is strictly optional but a big differentiator, is achievement of the PhD. The path of learning never ends, especially if you want to attain the highest levels of responsibility in your industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I think this exact attitude is the reason why the student debt level is on a linear path up, with no end in site, and there are thousands of jobs not being filled, while unemployment among first time job holders is at a record level.
The reason for student debt is because for-profit universities shifted the industry and gave reason for all institutions to raise the cost of education. Community college provides a cheap and affordable path to attaining an associates degree and starting your career. Students coming out of the community colleges are actually better positioned to get jobs because they haven't built up the same level of entitlement students get while working through a four year program. This is a really big problem.
Students complain that they don't have a job coming out of school, but very few of them do the work to earn a job while they are in college/university. Students think that because they competed a degree the world is their oyster and employers should be beating their door down with job offers in management and keys to the executive suite. I do blame this on schools for not better managing expectations and have mandatory classes on prepping students to enter the workforce. There should be a class a year on skill development in the area of job hunting. Students need to learn to do job searches, write resumes and cover letters, interview, and sell themselves as a product. I think the system is letting them down in this regard as it does not pass along an important lesson to them; they are responsible for their success and all aspects of building your career.
Quote:
You know what makes people happy? Not coming out of a 4 year degree program and realizing the only job available is flipping burgers at Mickey D's while living in their parents basement.
Is this your experience? What was your degree in? Why were you unable to find a job coming out of university? Let's talk this through.
Quote:
For some reason North America has this warped sense of reality where we think telling kids they should go for 'what they love' is going to equal a happy and functioning society, and yet European countries, where the education system pushes kids into programs where they can get 'jobs' is a lot more successful.
Wait, we shouldn't do something we love? Since we spend more time with our co-workers and completing work related tasks than we do on anything else, I would hope that people are pursuing a career that they can be happy in? A job is usually not a career and does not have good long-term outcomes. A career on the other hand is something that you take care in nurturing and make sure it continues to evolve with you.
Quote:
The whole problem is that the trades are not presented as an option simply because they are considered by our education system and the elites that run it as 'lower' in society, and surely our kids shouldn't strive for something lower.
This is changing dramatically. There are major forces in higher ed that are pushing more aggressively for this so it lets the students who are more academically inclined to have access and achieve greater success. The trades do need to be addressed and vocational skill centers are important facets of continuing and higher education. There are all sorts of specialized high schools popping up that focus on this very market and students who show a propensity for success in the areas are channeled in that direction. What is cool about this schools is they prep students for a trade but also give them the business foundations to be successful as a small independent business. I wish the media would show more on this aspect of the education field, but it isn't sexy and positive stories don't sell. It definitely doesn't feed the naysayers and trolls like a good negative story about higher ed.
Quote:
But hey, lets continue living in fairytale and with rainbows and pots of gold while the issues keep piling up.
I agree. We need to stop with the bad narratives that lead to bad outcomes. We need to focus on making the changes that are needed within the system. That is why this discussion of UBI is so interesting to watch unfold. There are a lot of fairytales and rainbows in the mix, but they don't lead anywhere. Solutions have to fit within systems, or systems need to evolve, or burned completely to the ground. UBI does not fit in the existing system, so there needs to be a larger discussion on the systemic evolution required, or the complete destruction and reconstitution of the system to a new standard, and that is likely to happen.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
But it's marketing right? The university is a business (rightly or wrongly) . They will promise guaranteed jobs (unicorns and rainbows) after a 4 year degree but in reality, you're on your own with the toolbox that you've paid $50,000 for. That guy who is getting that 4 year Humanities degree, the University is taking his money and laughing to the bank.
A class a year on skill development sounds like a good idea but I don't think one should pay $1,000 a class for it. That should have been addressed in Grade 12. The University probably assumes that their students already have applied for a job in their life and have these skills already.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
But it's marketing right? The university is a business (rightly or wrongly) . They will promise guaranteed jobs (unicorns and rainbows) after a 4 year degree but in reality, you're on your own with the toolbox that you've paid $50,000 for. That guy who is getting that 4 year Humanities degree, the University is taking his money and laughing to the bank.
I don't know of a serious institution that makes that guarantee. Leaves them open to not just a lawsuit, but a class action lawsuit that puts the school out of business. If there is such a guarantee there must be a lot of fine print of outcomes that students must achieve, and then a clear statement of what the payoff is should a student fail to achieve that job guarantee goal. I would assume that the student must maintain certain levels of academic achievement, have a proven documented aggressive job search, and then have a payoff of either free continuing education or a payback of a percentage of the balance of their loans.
Quote:
A class a year on skill development sounds like a good idea but I don't think one should pay $1,000 a class for it. That should have been addressed in Grade 12. The University probably assumes that their students already have applied for a job in their life and have these skills already.
There is a big difference from getting a job in high school than in the business world. I don't think you had to present a well constructed cover letter and vitae/resume to get your job at McDonalds or at Areopostale. The interview is not quite as rigorous and the competition pool is not quite as steep. What you learn in high school about this facet of the search and securing of a job is really not applicable. I agree that cost for this should be included in basic tuition. This is a mandatory skills development course, so it should be factored into the basic tuition.
I think the whole 'do what you love' is misguided, because it isn't presented fairly, nor should it be a realistic career choice. And, telling kids to do what they love, as in go to school for something they love doing is especially misguided because like mentioned before, how many kids know what love to do at 18 or 19?
"Do what you love, as long as it involves a 4 year degree in the humanities, and don't forget to rack up as much student debt as you can."
There has to be some kind of shift towards filling actual jobs. If we can't get kids to show interest in those fields, we need to change how we teach them.
As for the micro-degrees, if you look at a job like systems administrators, there is no 4 year degree for it. Instead you get certified for a bunch of stuff, build up experience, etc. Exactly like you mentioned Lanny. And then you learn on the job, upgrade our certifications, etc.
So the micro-degrees help build up your educational foundation, and then you learn on the job. Unfortunately a lot of companies (and teachers) are still stuck in the no post secondary 4 year program, no job stupidity.
Google is saying the current system sucks. If we're not listening to what they're saying, our kids are screwed.
I made the equality point earlier. Not only are we pushing kids in the direction that you all have mentioned. Once that bar is established, women and minorities also have to match that misguided direction to show a just society. It's the ultimate double down.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I made the equality point earlier. Not only are we pushing kids in the direction that you all have mentioned. Once that bar is established, women and minorities also have to match that misguided direction to show a just society. It's the ultimate double down.
Not pushing women or minorities in STEM related fields is one of the biggest failures our educational system has.
Pushing is the wrong word actually. Not helping women or minorities realize their potential in STEM fields is a better way of saying it.
I think the whole 'do what you love' is misguided, because it isn't presented fairly, nor should it be a realistic career choice. And, telling kids to do what they love, as in go to school for something they love doing is especially misguided because like mentioned before, how many kids know what love to do at 18 or 19?
"Do what you love, as long as it involves a 4 year degree in the humanities, and don't forget to rack up as much student debt as you can."
There has to be some kind of shift towards filling actual jobs. If we can't get kids to show interest in those fields, we need to change how we teach them.
As for the micro-degrees, if you look at a job like systems administrators, there is no 4 year degree for it. Instead you get certified for a bunch of stuff, build up experience, etc. Exactly like you mentioned Lanny. And then you learn on the job, upgrade our certifications, etc.
So the micro-degrees help build up your educational foundation, and then you learn on the job. Unfortunately a lot of companies (and teachers) are still stuck in the no post secondary 4 year program, no job stupidity.
Google is saying the current system sucks. If we're not listening to what they're saying, our kids are screwed.
I've always like Mike Rowe's speech about "Don't follow your passion", and his promotion of trades as a viable and vastly underserved career path.
A major issues with "follow your dream" is the flawed notion that it's even possible to end up with a job that you love every aspect of. What does follow your dreams even mean? How are you supposed to know if you will like a career, if you've never worked in it?
A much more realistic path would be to try to get experience in a variety of fields at an early age. Then choose a path that fulfills you in some way enough that that you can live with the negatives of that career path.
I would also state that we need a massive overhaul of the post-secondary system. With a major shift towards training for actual jobs that the economy requries.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
I should also mention that there are a lot of unfilled jobs outside of STEM & the trades, so those two aren't the only options.
Post-secondary has become a bloated, inefficient system designed to extract money from students while at the same time telling them it is necessary to go down the path of high debt load and no career potential. Even worse, the government enables it by allowing student loans to be secured for useless degrees.
I think the whole 'do what you love' is misguided, because it isn't presented fairly, nor should it be a realistic career choice. And, telling kids to do what they love, as in go to school for something they love doing is especially misguided because like mentioned before, how many kids know what love to do at 18 or 19?
Not many. Not many know what they want to do at 25 or 30. This is why a broad education base focused on critical thinking and the liberal arts - what makes us human and makes our societies thrive or fail. As I mentioned, most people will change careers multiple times during their lives, so a general foundation of skills that will carry them through to success is the most important thing an education can provide to an individual.
Quote:
"Do what you love, as long as it involves a 4 year degree in the humanities, and don't forget to rack up as much student debt as you can."
There has to be some kind of shift towards filling actual jobs. If we can't get kids to show interest in those fields, we need to change how we teach them.
As I mentioned, this is happening. Vocational schools and training are growing and becoming available at the high school level where those skills need to begin to be offered. The market has shifted to this modality and it is gaining more traction, especially at the college level. I think this is something that you're conflating in your argument. Colleges and universities are different beasts with different missions. Vocational training or skill development is not the responsibility of a university, and the college could argue the same in some regards, but I have long argued that college needs to offer those vocational opportunities so there is a crossover opportunity for some students - going both ways. That is happening, but not to the extent is should IMO.
Quote:
As for the micro-degrees, if you look at a job like systems administrators, there is no 4 year degree for it. Instead you get certified for a bunch of stuff, build up experience, etc. Exactly like you mentioned Lanny. And then you learn on the job, upgrade our certifications, etc.
So the micro-degrees help build up your educational foundation, and then you learn on the job. Unfortunately a lot of companies (and teachers) are still stuck in the no post secondary 4 year program, no job stupidity.
Micro-certifications (not degrees) are no replacement for a degree. A degree provides a framework of learning and a body of information that builds off of each subsequent class to establish a knowledge base that cannot be attained through individual technology specific certifications. The layering of certifications and degrees is where the sweet spot is and will lead to the greatest expertise and foundation to be successful.
Quote:
Google is saying the current system sucks. If we're not listening to what they're saying, our kids are screwed.
Google says a lot of stupid ####. If we are listening to Google for stuff like this, our kids are screwed. The system needs some minor changes, and those changes are happening. We do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Again, just like UBI, we need to understand the larger system and make some change, not burn the whole thing to the ground.
A major issues with "follow your dream" is the flawed notion that it's even possible to end up with a job that you love every aspect of. What does follow your dreams even mean? How are you supposed to know if you will like a career, if you've never worked in it?
A much more realistic path would be to try to get experience in a variety of fields at an early age. Then choose a path that fulfills you in some way enough that that you can live with the negatives of that career path.
I would also state that we need a massive overhaul of the post-secondary system. With a major shift towards training for actual jobs that the economy requries.
This is great advice. I would add that volunteering is a great way to branch out into a variety of fields. One can volunteer in countless areas that interests them and it enhances their social skills.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I should also mention that there are a lot of unfilled jobs outside of STEM & the trades, so those two aren't the only options.
Post-secondary has become a bloated, inefficient system designed to extract money from students while at the same time telling them it is necessary to go down the path of high debt load and no career potential. Even worse, the government enables it by allowing student loans to be secured for useless degrees.
The government is also funding most of our post-secondary education, without any direction. If you look at most countries that heavily fund post-secondary education, they also strictly control how many students are allowed into each field of study.
The vast majority of Canada's university students are pursuing humanities degrees. Many of these people, in turn, end up in office admin jobs. The problem is that they have no office admin training, so they have to waste another portion of their careers getting experience that they should have gotten in post-secondary.
I hope that the way access to information has changed might help this situation. In the past, if, for example, you were interested in history, you had to take courses to really get a deep dive. Now you can just look this kind of information up on the internet. It allows people to get a career orientated degree, while pursuing academic interests on the side.
A major issues with "follow your dream" is the flawed notion that it's even possible to end up with a job that you love every aspect of. What does follow your dreams even mean? How are you supposed to know if you will like a career, if you've never worked in it?
A much more realistic path would be to try to get experience in a variety of fields at an early age. Then choose a path that fulfills you in some way enough that that you can live with the negatives of that career path.
Quote:
I would also state that we need a massive overhaul of the post-secondary system. With a major shift towards training for actual jobs that the economy requries.
This is sort of contradictory to what you said earlier. How do you train someone for a specific job if they don't know if that is the job they want or the one they love? There is a catch-22 in vocational training as you want to invest your money in places where people are going to use those training opportunities to go on and have a career in that vocation.
What you're also missing is that training and education for "jobs" is specific to moments in time. This is the way business behaves. It takes time to train someone to do a specific job, and many times you can be trained to do a job that is on the verge of being replaced or is requires further training. A good example is training someone to code methods. You can train them to do one language, but if that language goes out of vogue, you have a retraining effort on your hands. Better to give someone the foundations where they understand the larger development cycle and how methods play into architecture, a much larger and more complex subject, where they can pivot more quickly and require less re-training. This is why a degree (foundational and timeless) coupled with a certification (technical and time specific) is the best way to provide long term educational opportunities for the majority of people, especially those unsure of what they want to do with their lives. With the foundation you can pivot much easier and still be more relevant to employers.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
How much of the "follow your dream" notion is coming from Universities, and how much of it is coming from parents that wish they had because they aren't fulfilled by their job, or parents who are, and would like the same for their children?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
This is sort of contradictory to what you said earlier. How do you train someone for a specific job if they don't know if that is the job they want or the one they love? There is a catch-22 in vocational training as you want to invest your money in places where people are going to use those training opportunities to go on and have a career in that vocation.
What you're also missing is that training and education for "jobs" is specific to moments in time. This is the way business behaves. It takes time to train someone to do a specific job, and many times you can be trained to do a job that is on the verge of being replaced or is requires further training. A good example is training someone to code methods. You can train them to do one language, but if that language goes out of vogue, you have a retraining effort on your hands. Better to give someone the foundations where they understand the larger development cycle and how methods play into architecture, a much larger and more complex subject, where they can pivot more quickly and require less re-training. This is why a degree (foundational and timeless) coupled with a certification (technical and time specific) is the best way to provide long term educational opportunities for the majority of people, especially those unsure of what they want to do with their lives. With the foundation you can pivot much easier and still be more relevant to employers.
This is a major advantage of starting programs like vocational training early. High school students can enter a program where they get exposed to a variety of trades early, and can choose the one they like or perhaps not choose to continue at trades at all. Much better than having young adults flounder around at retail jobs until they happen to find a gig somewhere.
Basically, schooling takes a shift from constant "general studies" to actually exposing children and young adults to careers. The main difference is that education is used to explore actual career orientated interests and talents. As opposed, to just getting a not so useful degree and then using young adulthood to explore careers.
There's nothing contradictory about that at all. You can have vocational schools without locking someone into a single distinct career. In no way am I saying, be a carpenter at 15, and now you're stuck there. If we go back to the German model, the vocational schools teach a variety of career focused skills that become more focused over time. Even then, some students may decide that path isn't for them, and they can learn that at an early age.
I came across this video that touches on a lot of topics discussed here and seem to be relatively objective:
Kind of a side note, but it mentions around the 12 minute mark that in the late 1800s, some workers needed to live in accommodations owned by their employer, which kept them basically in servitude, but this practice lasted far longer than that. When my parents came to Canada, they lived in housing (a camp actually) owned by their employer and almost all the money they made working went to pay for their room and board. It was essentially indentured labour. That was in the 1970s.
Its still going on now. Some employers offer "cheaper housing" in the same buildings they operate out of. Like a floor business with housing on the upper floors. Its a weird practice where the money still flows to the owner. The owner is seen as "helping" in such a scenario. Happens often in places like Toronto.
Yes, because education and other components of our social systems play directly into the UBI discussion. Say we abandoned public education because we needed the money to pay for UBI. Education then becomes a cost passed onto the recipient of UBI who then have increased costs to take into consideration. Same with healthcare and every other aspect of the social safety net. UBI then shifts from being a discussion of a supplemental income adjustment, it then becomes a discussion of the living wage and how that is determined and provided.
This is a major advantage of starting programs like vocational training early. High school students can enter a program where they get exposed to a variety of trades early, and can choose the one they like or perhaps not choose to continue at trades at all. Much better than having young adults flounder around at retail jobs until they happen to find a gig somewhere.
Agreed. This is why this is a common core education challenge than it is a higher ed issue. Vocational training and channeling individuals into vocations needs to start earlier than post-secondary education. The challenge with vocational training is making sure that the individuals are indeed going to be engaged in this vocation long-term, and then supporting their needs.
Quote:
Basically, schooling takes a shift from constant "general studies" to actually exposing children and young adults to careers. The main difference is that education is used to explore actual career orientated interests and talents. As opposed, to just getting a not so useful degree and then using young adulthood to explore careers.
The problem with what you are suggesting is that most people are not prepared to select a career at a young age. All you're doing to forcing students to make a decision based on a vocational interest. Kids are not prepared to make that call. Most people coming out of high school are not prepared to make that call either. That is why general education is as successful as it is in our economic system.
Quote:
There's nothing contradictory about that at all. You can have vocational schools without locking someone into a single distinct career. In no way am I saying, be a carpenter at 15, and now you're stuck there. If we go back to the German model, the vocational schools teach a variety of career focused skills that become more focused over time. Even then, some students may decide that path isn't for them, and they can learn that at an early age.
But you're locking student in at that young age. That is the complaint about the European systems that leverage this vocational focus. The Finish model of education is very highly regarded, probably the best education system in the world, but there are problems with their vocational focus. For students who enter that branch of the system it is hard to transfer to the other because they have gone down a divergent branch where learning is very different. The community college systems routinely see students that have to make these transitions and it is difficult for student to change modalities. They struggle and it takes time. So it is important we keep that in mind or align teaching modalities so they are similar in structure and can more easily translate. The branching is intentional to leverage the interests and strengths of learning style for the students, so this may hurt both systems. Interesting discussion though.
There's a reason more people don't gravitate towards the trades, and it's not because of teachers or guidance counselors. It's because it's usually pretty physically demanding (and sometimes dangerous) work in often uncomfortable conditions. And even if you're OK with those things, most trades still require skills, talent, and intelligence that not everyone is capable of.
Thinking that anyone can be suited for trades work and they're just too brainwashed to realize what they're missing out on is as tone deaf as people telling out of work coal miners to "learn to code".
And honestly, one of the biggest obstacles is some of the people in the trades themselves. Just like with police or prison guards, the jobs are sometimes self-selecting in terms of the type of personalities they tend to attract. If you want to attract more people to the field, then changing the whole attitude and atmosphere is one place to start. A lot of journeymen/companies are great for apprentices to work under, but way too many have awful safety standards (this is particularly bad in residential construction), tolerate hazing and verbal abuse of apprentices, and seem to think that screaming at employees is a great way to motivate them. I know multiple people who started as apprentices or pre-apprentices and ended up changing fields because they couldn't stand that atmosphere.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
