In a session today, we were talking about the costs of taxpayer-funded education and the variation in school systems around the world, with Finland being pretty good at providing a slightly above average education experience. However, there are also a lot of problems with education systems, as they tend to support getting degrees, even if they won't be used. The other thing is, that for example in Finland, many will opt for a Masters degree, which I have always had a bit of an issue with.
It could be the naming convention that rubs me the wrong way, but a "master" isn't someone who has the theoretical knowledge of the job, but rather someone who can master the application of the theory and perform the tasks of the job with excellence. And, if a person is yet to do the job, how can they have proven themselves masterful? And then on top of this, the schooling can only teach general-level information, rather than the specifics for an individual role in a field, so it can't hit the precise needs of an organization.
So, what about a hybrid system instead, where instead of going to school for many years without generating anything, the time to value can be shortened by teaching the basics and then, only once in a specific role, would there be the continued education. This way, the role specifics can dictate what courses are required to perform the role well, and for example, a new employee in this position could work four days a week and have one day for lectures and study.
This way, the organization gets what they specifically need at that time rather than relying on a slow-moving education offerings, the education system can be more optimized to the needs of industry and, the student is getting hands on experience and learning immediately applicable skills that can advance their learning much faster. This seems like a better option than theory-based learning that doesn't get applied for a decade, by which time it is largely out of date and needs to be relearned.
Essentially, this makes all higher education much like trade school education, with basics and fundamentals taught in the classroom, and then a changeover process of on the job training and specialization. This also would encourage better job fit, because rather than having to leave a job to change roles or needing all skills to take a job, there could be "study leave" applied weekly. This also means that a company can employee someone full-time and if they want to study one day a week, it would also be possible to have that day taxpayer-funded, in a rebate system for reskilling.
I also think that this encourages a better career progression, where for example a young employee could learn the skills required for their entry-level position, and then only learn more skills as they start to progress through an organization. If they choose they are happy where they are, they needn't continue skilling, but if they change their mind, they can pick it up again, rather than investing time and resources into learning what they "may" need down the track, even though it'll likely be irrelevant by the time they would need it.
This also means that there can be more focused formats for what are essentially mini-courses, that can better align with demand, and potentially be attended globally, with more flexibility. Remote sessions aren't going away, and what this can do is lower the bar for attendance making it more inclusive, as well as reduce overall costs by removing the unnecessary components that aren't required right at this time by an employee. It can also put demand on specific educations by becoming prerequisite for some job changes, whether internal or across companies.
While this isn't a privatization of education, it can encourage a more diverse landscape of offerings and inclusion of additional courses that might not be in demand enough to warrant running a specific degree program for it, but would be useful for specific roles. With a changing professional industry that is affected by rapidly shifting technology, cultural change and employment participation, the education systems have to shift to accommodate the changing landscape in order to meet actual demand and in doing so, likely become more relevant to both business and student.
While this is just one potential model, the education systems and offerings are going to have to find ways to be useful again, otherwise they will fall into such irrelevance, they will not offer any value. Yet, because they are tax-funded, it will be decades before they are retired, becoming increasingly large money pits offering nothing useful to the people who pay for them.
What is pretty certain, is that the changing needs of businesses and the way people use the knowledge, is going to have an impact on what people need to learn and that means, if the education systems aren't supporting well enough, people have to take matters into their own hands. This is already happening to some degree, but will continue, creating an opportunity for both those who demand more education, and those who are able to provide good education.
On the job training has far more value than theoretical in most instances, so having flexibility to not only learn, but get formal skill training in bitesize pieces along the journey should be valuable to individuals. Not only this, because it all becomes trackable, learning these skills alongside performance creates a compelling package to either use as leverage for a better position, or reason to look after the talent a company has. The skill is worth more than the piece of paper - being able to apply the skill is the proof though.
I have talked to a lot of managers over the years and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people who can actually do the work in practice. Doing it this way gives not only a little more certainty, but also ways to improve skills for those who tick most boxes, but need a little more development in some. This gives flexibility and incentive in both directions to both perform as an employee and keep employees engaged and satisfied, whilst continuously developing and reskilling the group to be able to keep up with the changing world.
There are lots of better variations, than what we have available and, the needs will keep changing.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Government funded anything is a double edged sword but I have come to find almost everything is.
In Canada, healthcare is, for the most part, government funded. Great because families can visit the doctor or hospital and not worry about the bill. Not so great because the funding that goes into the system is always on the block at election time as a pint of contention, then it becomes a political thing. Also, inconsistent funding means the qualified medical doctors our education produces often opt to go make real money in the USA where healthcare is privatized. Plus there are the wait times and the unions…..
Anyhow, I think post secondary education. Should be somewhat government funded but can imagine the other edge of that sword making it not such an easy decision.
One of the things with government funded education, is taxpayers pay, and they are the workers, right? So, as businesses cut their needs for employees, making more money for less cost, the funding decreases across all sectors anyway, eventually leaving no resources for education systems anyway. This way, they could be partially funded by the businesses themselves, as businesses are incentivized to use them as a service.
At the moment, they are getting educated people for "free", whilst using those same educated people to reduce their need for workers. One of the things that people don't consider in this, is that companies pay far less tax than people, because they are the places that take the people into work to generate more tax. They are not generating more tax now, especially with global accounting practices and cutting staff needs, so they either have to support directly or, get taxed far more. They are entities with all the rights as people, so they should be taxed as humans too - even if their entire staff is robotic and AI.
Never thought of that angle.
Corporations paying less tax will always be a thing as these tax breaks are what is offered to them to select a country in which to do business. Easy mode for the government because they are not spending much to attract them (just giving them the friends and family discount) and employing people so the government doesn't have to support them.
Damn humans! (Love the conversations and learning on Hive when I follow the right people.)
It is funny, isn't it? most of the countries attract them, then the corporations (especially the digital behemoths) extract value, then pay almost no tax in the country they extract it from.
Not
justa pretty face ;PYou hit upon a lot of what I have long argued.
I have long argued that our higher-level education system is broken. University should be for theory, for studying theory, for studying knowledge itself and figuring out how to better all of mankind. When I think university, I think Plato's academy. Instead in today's world it has taken the place of trade schools, becoming trade schools for white-collar work.
What you suggest is good, but I'd go further: Instead of a hybrid system, I'd suggest to entire separate the job-training trade school from the university.
But yeah, there are many people who benefit from how it currently is, so any change will be slow in coming.
It would be interesting to have the open forum kind of sessions in university, where people would actually think on how to make the world better, and create next steps programs to try. Decentralized environments are good for this kind of development.
a lot of sense in all you have said.
It kind of reminds me of focused antenatal care and traditional antenatal care..
The results of the focused approach are way better, as it is more individualized.
I believe the educational system is designed to waste a large portion of useful time, which is why the wealthiest people are less interested in school and more interested in learning things that will help them...
The wealthy tend to get the degree, but also have access to the social networks that can leverage them well. Having a degree is only part of the story in many instances.
Do you think the degree is a strong factor in the success of any business??
For mez I don't think so but what do you think??
Yes, because some businesses won't do business with another unless the people working there have degrees.
I work and live in a pretty rural area. It is nice because given that setting, we are able to focus on a lot more of the skills type careers that you might not necessarily get elsewhere. Many of our students are farmers and such, so we know they may not be going to college. We have an industrial arts program that is one of the best in the state. It is pretty impressive the stuff that those kids can make. Unfortunately, many of the restrictions and career paths that are forced upon educators and students are imposed by the government in a guise to stay competitive with other countries. Educators would love to do more to help the students outside of government oversite, but our hands are tied for the most part. We just do the best we are able.
This is where I think that it would be useful to have more direct input from industry needs, rather than trying to keep up with largely irrelevant international standard testing. At the moment, people get educated, then go into a job and have to learn what is actually relevant and add more specifics. It is silly.
Totally true. It has always been that way though. So much of what I do in my job each day wasn't stuff I learned while pursuing my degree. Plus stuff changes so much it becomes irrelevant so quickly.
And it should become irrelevant, but shouldn't still be taught in schools as if it matter :)
It is clear that education, is one of the areas which needs a big innovation push in most countries, and with the way tech is evolving, with MOOCs accessible all over the world, the value/cost has no sense in more and more programs, especially the so-called "masters".
I have been a part-time teacher for many years and there is one program quite popular in Germany called dual education, where companies hire employees who work during the morning and go to school in the afternoon. I have no data to be able to determine if this type of education is successful for both, employees and employers but it seems a much better way to approach the training and education for someone who has a clear desire to join a specific industry/company.
A lot of large companies have internal training departments and reskilling with external private education companies etc, often getting subsidies to do so. Instead, I think it would be better to get people into the workplace faster, and then leverage continuous and ongoing training for the length of a career.
The thing with tax funded education is that you are taught what the bureaucrats think you should learn instead of what you want to learn. There's no market feedback process.
Yep - without that market feedback and demand adjustment, it gets out of sync very fast, no matter how good the system is.
I am always beside hands-on educarion/training. We can't know whether we are amateur or master unless we practice what we learnt.
And, salary has to have a connection to performance, not just what someone "could do" if they put in the effort. Too many salaries are tied to irrelevant pieces of paper, not practical usage.
I no longer remember most of the things from school. I wish that schools would teach blogging instead. Of course when I was in school Hive still did not exist.
So that might be part of the problem...Hive teaches blogging - you just have to run your own lectures :)
Finland's education system is constantly explained as an example in our country (Turkey). And the necessary studies are also exhibited, but unfortunately we have not yet reached the desired level. I think one of the most important problems is the family.
Also, the education system you have proposed is really remarkable. It is being implemented in some vocational high schools. Even successful students grow up and contribute to the country.
Vocational high schools are good examples and it should continue for all kinds of studies, where people work alongside their education, applying what they learn daily to their job and in real-world context.
When you think of govt funded education, you would find out that they kind of lock you in for few years too. That has been the problem for some of the people but then again we know how the govt funded or in fact any form of benefits are kind of multi edged swords with some catch to it.
People are coming out of school at thirty, never having had a job, calling themselves masters... :D
The education system is indeed broken, but I believe value is what we ultimately make of it. For some it may feel like wasted years, but I for one am more driven to dominate my field the higher I level up in education...though the results may speak different sometimes
If it is just proof a person can get through it, it is not time well spent. Create some other filter instead where real-world performance matters. Jobs tend to reward the performers, not the theoretical performers.
I know some individuals who are qualified, but don't actually know the job as they are in positions where they don't know the business or more importantly understand the business. Maybe this is why they move around so much before they get fund out.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I think there needs to be more models. Some models work for some and not for others. Having more options allows people to choose what they want to do and I also think education for the job you do is kind of important.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
A couple of instant problems, just add water...
#1
A study leave would be a great decision but it goes against what we have turned ourselves into. We are looking for maximum productivity at the lowest cost at all times and we have no time to waste by doing anything real with our lives. You step out of the assembly line, and you fall out of place. True for companies as well as individuals. We have reached the point beyond which actual skill is no longer possible. I.e. we're absolutely not sustainable but we have no time to become sustainable.
Conclusion:
We currently cannot sustain being sustainable.
...
#2
You can see the lack of skill, character, and even theoretical knowledge in today's leaders. Soft folk, created by soft times.
Conclusion:
It's kind of good that the hard times are already upon us again.
So basically like what TAFE does and what a lot of homeschoolers like to do? Probably a good idea but for the purists who are absolutely dead certain that the only place one can possibly learn anything is in a school or whatever educational insitution, I would anticipate a lot of screaming about how they're trying to cop out while charging the same amount.