Career / Vocational Fields


Tue, 10/15/2019 to Wed, 10/16/2019


201 W Marcy St
87501 Santa Fe , New Mexico
United States
New Mexico US

Work-force development could learn from higher education's bundled approach (opinion)

In the past, I’ve been critical of bundles.

In my 2015 book, College Disrupted: The Great Unbundling of Higher Education, I describe degree programs -- the economic engine of higher education -- as bundles of remedial course work, general education courses and advanced courses in the major. What’s more, this bundle of instruction is itself bundled with a range of tangentially related services, as Anant Agarwal, president of edX, has enumerated: “Admissions, research, facilities management, housing, health care, credentialing, food service, athletic facilities, career guidance and placement, and much more.”

There’s a good reason to bundle college. Many products and services are easier to use when they’re bundled, and often easier to market and understand. The impact can be profound. The bundle known as the iPhone has transformed lives in a way that no disconnected set of hardware, software and services ever could. Similarly, over the past 50 years, the college bundle -- no less audacious and seductive than Steve Jobs’s vision for the iPhone -- has dominated public attention and wallets to become the only pathway from youth to a remunerative and respected adulthood, at the expense of other forms of human capital development.

The bundle has been highly rewarding for higher education. Colleges and universities are now a $500 billion industry employing over four million faculty, staff and administrators. The bundle has helped to build and support families and entire communities. About half of this spending is sourced from willing governments, reflecting the public’s college consensus. Employers contribute $20 billion. The rest comes from students and their families.

At the same time, the bundle is at the root of higher education’s dual crises of affordability and employability. As Apple’s $237 billion pile of cash amply demonstrates, bundling captures surplus for producers. And surplus capture has permitted tuition hikes at double the rate of inflation (and recently room, board and student fee hikes at double the rate of tuition), resulting in $1.56 trillion of student loan debt. Likewise, smug that the bundle’s allure would keep paying and borrowing students walking through the gate, colleges and universities haven’t exactly upended legacy practices to prioritize student outcomes, like whether students complete, or graduates get good first jobs.

What does the unbundling of higher education look like? In his book The End of College, Kevin Carey introduces the University of Everywhere, consisting primarily of online courses and resources, reducing costs and increasing access. In my view, as online is an imperfect modality for developing soft skills and digital skills, it’s unlikely to constitute the main bridge from K-12 to employment. Instead, unbundling comes from millions of students opting for faster and cheaper on-ground, immersive, workplace-like pathways to good first jobs.

Whatever your vision of unbundling college, I’m not a lunatic about it. I agree with critics like the vice chancellor of the U.K.’s University of Portsmouth, who recently pointed out to me that students shouldn’t be able to opt out of mental health services, or elements that build necessary social capital. To do so would be to disadvantage students in greatest need of our help. “University is a complex good. It necessarily involves some redistribution of resources from some students to others. Unbundling and letting students choose which bits of the university experience they want would shortchange them.” Nevertheless, I continue to believe that 50 years of pre-eminence has led to far too much complacence, and that unbundling represents the proper direction of travel for colleges and universities.


College’s position and vector stands in stark contrast to its twin quasar: work-force development.

What is work-force development? It’s a fragmented system of state and local work-force development or investment boards. These organizations are responsible for spending federal and state work-force dollars on “one-stop” career centers to help job seekers find jobs. Charged with human capital development, WIBs maintain long laundry lists of training programs operated by nonprofit organizations and community colleges and also provide access to an alphabet soup of public programs, e.g., HUD employment and training programs, Job Corps, Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives and Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program, National Farmworker Jobs Program, and Senior Community Service Employment Program.

If college is the paradigm of bundled human capital development, today’s system of work-force development is its antithesis: a completely unbundled system. The very name itself -- one-stop center -- tries to prove too much, demonstrating insecurity around the many organizations providing services to the typical client. The one-stop center attempts to coordinate. But because everything is outsourced, getting lost in the shuffle is a common experience.

So while most Americans can rattle off the names of small and obscure colleges, few understand or have even heard of work-force boards: the lack of a clear bundle makes them much harder to grasp. The same is true of public support for work-force development, which falls short of college by an order of magnitude. The federal government spends only $19 billion of education and defense funding on career education and training. Department of Labor funds don’t add much. Federal spending on work-force development through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) is only about $1 billion (the remainder of the $3.3 billion in WIOA spending is allocated to disability and youth programs).

Work-force development’s lack of resources has led to a system that prioritizes keeping cost per client low, that emphasizes counseling over education and training, and where performance is measured on speed to placement, not on value added. So it should be no wonder that work-force boards find themselves in a vicious circle of attracting only low-skill workers, and only the lowest-skill positions from employers; there’s little opportunity or rationale for value add.


If we’re ever going to have work-force programs that rival college as pathways to employment in terms of support, prominence and/or effectiveness, work-force development must take a page from higher education’s textbook and begin to bundle. I don’t mean research budgets and lazy rivers. I mean full-stack solutions that directly overcome the key barriers keeping both job seekers and employers from bridging the education-to-employment gap.

What are these barriers? For individuals, it’s education friction. Education friction explains why most Americans don’t go out and equip themselves with the skills employers are seeking. It’s the time to upskill, the cost of upskilling and -- most important -- the uncertainty of a positive employment outcome. Eliminating education friction should be the Holy Grail of any work-force bundle. But that’s not nearly enough. There’s also hiring friction on the employer side. Hiring friction explains nearly seven million unfilled jobs: due to the increasing cost of bad hires and high churn in entry-level jobs, American employers are increasingly reluctant to hire candidates who haven’t already proven they can do the job. It explains why many employers now require years of relevant experience for positions that should be (and once were) entry level.

Over the past five years, a number of terrific not-for-profit organizations backed by well-meaning foundations, families and corporations have begun trying to reinvent work-force development with new pathways to employment. But because they haven’t committed to abandoning the fragmented work-force paradigm, none of them have addressed hiring friction by serving as the employer of record for “graduates” and allowing employers to try unproven talent before they’re asked to buy. Hiring friction is best addressed via bundled work-force solutions -- i.e., not a one-stop source of referrals, but rather a single provider with a mission of scaling the provision of entry-level talent through a more bundled value proposition for both individuals and employers.

The story of American work-force development -- particularly when thrown into relief by the college colossus -- is that an unbundled system has its limits, particularly when faced with a population ill equipped to navigate it (the same concerns around unbundling in higher education) and employers that insist on the perfect candidate served up on a silver platter (or they won’t hire). I’m convinced work-force development’s next decade will look very different. The inspiration is easy to find: our beloved, bundled alma mater. Emerging bundled work-force pathways that eliminate both education friction and hiring friction are poised to close the skills gap across a wide range of sectors and job functions. And by eliminating hiring friction, many more employers will be drawn to work-force pathways: replacing work-force development’s current low-skill vicious circle with a virtuous circle.

So while college unbundles, watch for work-force development to bundle. They’ll meet somewhere in the middle both in terms of models and popularity. And as they do, America will find itself with a system of human capital development that is much more balanced and sensible.

Ryan Craig is the author of College Disrupted (2015) and A New U: Faster + Cheaper Alternatives to College (2018). He is also an investor reimagining the future of higher education and creating new pathways from education to employment. Follow Ryan on Twitter: @ryancraigap.

Editorial Tags: 
Image Source: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

For-profit cosmetology schools used legal threats to prevent competition in Iowa, but case appears to be an outlier

For-profit cosmetology operators in Iowa used legal threats to prevent competition with lower-priced community colleges, according to The New York Times, but the case appears to be an outlier.

Coming soon to Ivy League campuses: free coffee, privacy not included

A Japanese café chain plans to spread among Ivy League and other top campuses, offering free coffee and tea in exchange for students' personal information and consent to be contacted by companies.

Career training legislation seems stalled in Congress

With renewal of the Higher Education Act turning into partisan grudge match, a popular career-training bill could be a straightforward accomplishment for Congress. But key lawmakers remain far apart.

Summit on the Credentialing Economy

Thu, 06/07/2018 to Fri, 06/08/2018


1825 Connecticut Avenue NW 8th Floor (FHI 360 Conference Center)
20009 Washington , District Of Columbia
United States
District Of Columbia US

National Student Employment Association Annual Conference

Wed, 10/17/2018 to Thu, 10/18/2018


53203 Milwaukee , Wisconsin
United States
Wisconsin US

Study finds poor economic results for students who enroll in certificate programs at for-profit institutions

New analysis says that students in certificate programs gain more economically from attending public institutions -- or no institution at all -- than for-profits.

Trump used wrong word when he talked about 'vocational' education, but he made a valid point (opinion)

By now, most Americans are used to President Trump using words that, if not inappropriate, are quite wrong. It’s clear he’s a far cry from his idol, the great communicator, with speeches that are varyingly at a fourth-grade vocabulary level or read off the teleprompter at a protracted pace.

So when the id of forgotten America says he wants community colleges to be more “vocational,” he’s using the wrong word. But he does have a point.

“Vocational” is the wrong word because most people interpret vocational education as training for a building or industrial trade involving working with one’s hands. And while these jobs are critical and admirable, there are two problems.

First, while President Trump might want millions of displaced workers trained in building trades -- perhaps to help build hotels and golf courses, or maybe gaudy monuments to our 45th president -- labor economists don’t. While there are shortages in certain trades, none are projected to be among the fastest-growing job categories in the next decade; the 21st-century economy won’t be built on the backs of welders and electricians.

The second reason, of course, is that while policy makers -- including Trump, who included a love song to welders in his first State of the Union address last month -- love to talk about training welders and electricians, talking about “vocational” training as the alternative to college only serves to reify and deify college in the minds of America’s successful and aspiring families.

Few parents who attended college and work in white-collar jobs are excited about sending their offspring down an educational path that leads to manual labor. The same is true of parents who haven’t achieved the American dream but want it for their children; choosing between a profession and a vocation for their children is no choice at all. All of which serves to put college on an even higher pedestal.

As usual, Trump’s choice of words undermines his objective. His administration believes we urgently need a multitude of pathways to good jobs, not a single four-year pathway. And if faster and cheaper alternatives to college are essential for Generation Z to avoid the same crises of debt and underemployment that befell their millennial brethren, it turns out they’re just as important to many older Trump voters.


In her superb 2017 book, Janesville, Washington Post staff writer Amy Goldstein documents the aftermath of the 2008 closing of the GM plant in Janesville, Wis. The plant had been in town since World War I, and with the network of suppliers and businesses that served GM and its workers, the closing was an economic catastrophe for House Speaker Paul Ryan’s hometown.

For me, the most stunning scenes involved displaced workers funneled by the local work-force board to Blackhawk Technical College, Janesville’s community college, and the universal expectation that workers requiring retraining had to return to a classroom. Blackhawk does its best to accommodate the flood of newly unemployed adult learners, but it’s not a good fit for most: “As he enters his first class this morning -- psychology -- Mike is worried. Does he really know how to study? Can he write a research paper? Will he be able to use Word on a computer?”

According to Goldstein, “of the laid-off workers who arrived at the college in the fall of 2008 … nearly half left without finishing what they’d begun.” The completion rate was lower -- approximately one-third -- for those who enrolled in associate-degree programs.

Although Blackhawk tries “like hell,” it shouldn’t be a surprise that men and women who worked for decades on a GM assembly line aren’t thrilled at the prospect of sitting in a psychology class. It’s hard enough to educate adults in a college environment. Students need to be motivated to return to campus. But Janesville’s displaced workers were more disgruntled than motivated. Most had lost confidence in their economic future and their own capabilities. Then they’re told by the work-force board that the only pathway requires returning to an environment they last experienced as a teenager -- an environment they perceive as infantilizing. It’s a recipe for dropouts.

According to [email protected], there are at least 10 million American workers who need reskilling right now. Based on exit polls from the 2016 election, most who voted pulled the lever for Donald Trump. So although Trump says “vocational,” it’s entirely valid to express frustration at the classroom monoculture of our postsecondary system.

All students care about getting good jobs -- displaced workers doubly so. (In Janesville, one student drops as soon as his instructor levels with him that there actually aren’t many jobs for graduates of his program.) It’s generally the case that the more you’re in a classroom, the further you are from employers and jobs. The inverse is equally true: the further you are from the classroom, the closer you are to employers.

What kinds of postsecondary programs are far from the traditional classroom? Trump’s vocational programs, for sure. But also a wide range of faster, cheaper pathways to good digital jobs that run in workplace-like environments. Galvanize programs run in co-working spaces, alongside hundreds of hiring companies. Revature students work business hours and wear business attire. (Note: both Galvanize and Revature are University Ventures portfolio companies.) Techtonic Academy students work on real client projects and begin billing time as early as early as week five or six. While these examples are in software development, we are actively backing similar models across a wide range of industries and job functions -- anywhere the skills gap can be remedied through last-mile training.

It’s always easier to sit students in a classroom and talk at them. My mother taught at a community college for over 30 years, and -- ask anyone -- she loves to talk. But adult learners -- particularly displaced workers -- are almost always better served in workplace settings. Project-based learning is good. Real projects from real clients who’ll ultimately hire students (or who may have already done so, as with apprenticeship programs) are even better.

I’m not saying there's no role for classrooms; many concepts are best conveyed and mastered in a classroom environment, particularly classrooms set up for active learning. But we’re unlikely to engage those in greatest need of reskilling if classrooms are the sole, or even initial, modality. Of course, the other problem with classrooms is the bureaucratic baggage built up over decades. The forms, financing, offices. Tell one of the Janesville protagonists that he needs to visit the bursar's office, and he’d either roll his eyes or run away screaming. The apparatus surrounding much college-based retraining could not be less conducive to those who need it most.

Employers aren’t going to do the work to establish these workplace settings. Few colleges and universities want to. But higher education has to do the work to create more workplace-like learning environments. Because that’s what millions of displaced workers need today, and what tens of millions more will need tomorrow as technological change accelerates.

The closure of Janesville’s GM plan was such a sudden, singular event that the story could be told in concise form by a newspaper reporter. But gradually, the same story has happened across many parts of America you probably don’t spend much time in. Education can't stop industries and companies from losing their competitive edge and going out of business. But it’s our responsibility to help the people affected. Telling every single one of them that their only pathway runs through a college classroom is unimaginative, irresponsible and borderline sadistic. It's as though half the country is starving, and our national policy is that they need to sit in a classroom and learn etiquette before we allow them to eat.

So this is what I think Trump means when he says “vocational.” Then again, maybe he knows better. It could be the case that, in addition to the other social tensions he's stoked for political purposes, he’s just trying to rile up welders and electricians.

Ryan Craig is managing director of University Ventures and author of the upcoming A New U: Faster + Cheaper Alternatives to College.

Image Source: 
Getty Images
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 

Feds release data on nondegree credentials, including certificates and licenses

More than a quarter of Americans hold a nondegree credential, with 21 percent completing a work experience program, according to new federal data. And many of these credential holders have well-paying jobs.


Subscribe to RSS - Career / Vocational Fields
Back to Top