Argument: Vocational courses produce better employees

The courses which are generally offered at the moment are not serving students well when it comes to providing the skills for employment. 65% of businesses complain of being unable to hire people with the right skills. [1] Increasingly, universities are offering as a selling point the fact that they have extra-curricular courses to teach people business skills, but this is a tacit admission that they are selling people degrees which are not fit for purpose.

Solving this requires us to teach more vocationally. There are schemes underway in many areas to do just that – to give one example, in Maine, USA, a bill has been passed to improve local colleges. [2] Our policy moves these efforts from the fringes to the core of the system: isolate as far as possible the specific things which make good employees and teach those to people. This will help them get jobs more easily, and also ensure that companies are able to operate effectively. The consequences of such a policy would be good all round.

[1] Personnel Today, ‘Skills gap ‘hindering UK business growth’, say CEOs’, agr, 29 April 2013

[2] State House Bureau, ‘House Oks bill to plug ‘skills gap’, Portland Press Herald, 21 May 2013

Candidate 1: "Vocational training would not actually improve training in the skills which employers are concerned about. When people complain about a skills gap, there are two kinds of skills they are worried about: technical ones, in subjects like engineering, and general ones, such as the ability to present or to write clearly. This is something which is already done in university; the best way to learn how to present and write is to practice presenting and writing. Picking a subject, such as history, simply acts as a useful focus for this work.

As long as employers can be sufficiently clear about what it is they want graduates to be capable of, we will be able to incorporate this into existing courses – so in fact, even supposedly non-vocational courses will teach the right skills.

Technical careers like engineering and computer science might indeed benefit from the change, but it makes no sense to shape the whole education system around a limited set of jobs."
Candidate 2: "The statement “universities can’t take everyone” is clearly true. But there is a big jump from that to saying “we should stop people from applying,” for two reasons. Firstly, the more obvious conclusion would be to find a way to increase the number of places available, on the grounds that more students means a larger pool of knowledge to draw from and therefore academia will be better. Secondly, for this to have the desired effect we would need the good people to continue to apply, and this is by no means guaranteed – they may simply waltz off into jobs and be lost to academia, in which case we will actually end up worse off.

The limited number of places is a problem, but the proposed solution may make things worse."
Candidate 3: "Everyone gains something from university, whether quantifiable or not. Simply getting out in to the world and meeting more people – not just minorities and other social groups, but even a wider variety of people within your own social group – is an effective way to learn to think more broadly. Many university students live away from home for the first time, forcing them to do things for themselves and learn how things like personal finance work. It also allows them space to explore themselves and shape their own principles. Non-academic activities within university can also broaden horizons and teach new things such as joining student clubs or societies, such as the debating society. Although university may not be the only way of doing this, it has proven effective over the years, so it’s not true to say non-academic people get absolutely nothing from it.

Despite the problems associated with a degree culture, there are other problems with a non-academic culture. Academia creates things: products and inventions in the case of sciences, and thoughts or ideas in the case of humanities (and even though some people argue against government funding for humanities, almost no-one argues they should not be studied at all). Sustaining this creativity requires at least some new people entering the field, bringing their own insights and approaches. For this to happen, it has to be both respectable and accessible. A government policy against academic courses will cripple this and damage all of us."
Candidate 4: "This is a mischaracterisation of how academics work. No serious researcher cuts themselves off from the world to work: collaboration, exchange of ideas and chatting by the water cooler are invaluable. Often, a crucial insight into a problem comes from a casual reference by a colleague. Every report into improving research environments stresses the importance of collaboration, both within a discipline and between disciplines.

Anyone who loves their subject will be happy to have more people studying and sharing ideas with them, even if those people are not quite as committed as they are. If those people then leave to do vocational stuff, they will have at least been a positive presence."

Vocational training would not actually improve training in the skills which employers are concerned about. When people complain about a skills gap, there are two kinds of skills they are worried about: technical ones, in subjects like engineering, and general ones, such as the ability to present or to write clearly. This is something which is already done in university; the best way to learn how to present and write is to practice presenting and writing. Picking a subject, such as history, simply acts as a useful focus for this work.

As long as employers can be sufficiently clear about what it is they want graduates to be capable of, we will be able to incorporate this into existing courses – so in fact, even supposedly non-vocational courses will teach the right skills.

Technical careers like engineering and computer science might indeed benefit from the change, but it makes no sense to shape the whole education system around a limited set of jobs.
