Life After College – Econlib

• Can the four-year degree truly be salvaged? For the majority of learners, I posit that it cannot. As cheaper, more reliable alternative pathways crystallize, the traditional degree will increasingly appear impractical. But must a college education be synonymous with a degree? Why can’t the American Dream be accessible through other educational offerings, different frameworks for career preparation, and pathways to adulthood?

• —Kathleen deLaski, Who Needs College Anymore? (page 166)

For decades, American policymakers have championed the idea that college education should be universally accessible. Kathleen deLaski, however, contends that it’s time to chart alternative routes for young adults seeking their place in the labor market.

DeLaski’s extensive career in exploring alternative workforce development strategies underscores her commitment to equipping youth for employment. Yet, her book largely sidesteps the broader notion of how a college education might contribute to a fulfilling life.

She argues that traditional higher education fails to meet the needs of significant segments of the population:

• I foresee the merging of workforce training, college education, and corporate training into a singular “edu-training” sector. Within this framework, the term “college” may persist, but the degree would merely represent one of many educational offerings. (page 5)

DeLaski points to the diminishing prestige of higher education over the last decade, particularly in light of student debt crises and pandemic disruptions.

• A 2020 Strada Education Network study revealed that 62 percent of Americans favored shorter-term skills training and non-degree credentials over traditional degree programs. (page 24)

She envisions a future workforce marked not by a single degree, but by what she terms a “skills wallet.”

• We are entering a new era: the “skills-first” age. I contend that this movement is already challenging our college degree-centric culture….

• The skills-first paradigm will propel us forward. As employers increasingly hire without mandating degrees—driven by necessity—the educational landscape will undergo a profound transformation. (pages 15-17)

Employers are becoming more explicit about the specific competencies they seek, despite the evolving nature of these requirements.

• This decade is witnessing the most significant and abrupt shift in skill demands ever recorded. LinkedIn reports that the skills listed in job postings shifted by 25 percent from 2015 to 2022. This was prior to estimates suggesting that 40 percent of all work hours may require new or different skills due to AI advancements. (pages 33-34)

In such a rapidly changing environment, possessing a narrow skill set is insufficient.

• I advise students to cultivate verifiable “starter hard skills,” potentially through industry certifications, while also demonstrating “starter durable skills” such as creative thinking, analytical reasoning, collaboration, communication, curiosity, resilience, and motivation. (page 54)

Referring to these as “durable skills” rather than character traits feels somewhat clumsy, a linguistic hurdle that pervades the book. This terminology raises an important issue: college administrators might argue that the traditional degree process inherently fosters these character traits, a claim that alternatives proposed by deLaski may not fulfill as effectively.

DeLaski identifies five innovative models for skill development:

• Making skills visible; Validating job-ready skills; Experience sampling; Micro-pathways; and Embracing the weave.

Her terminology may leave readers scratching their heads. “Making skills visible” means that educational institutions must clearly define the skills employers desire and align course outcomes accordingly. “Validating” these skills involves passing industry-recognized exams, like those in computer network management. “Experience sampling” combines classroom education with real-world work experiences. “Micro-pathways” represent short educational programs that allow individuals to engage in the workforce without a lengthy commitment to traditional college. The “weave” describes a longer-term approach to oscillating between classroom learning and work experience.

Fortunately, deLaski grounds her proposals in practical examples rather than abstract theory. Her book is rich with narratives about individuals and initiatives that illustrate these models in action.

Yet, we encounter a paradox in what deLaski identifies as “competing narratives.”

• Narrative 1: College is no longer worth the investment; it’s become unaffordable and excessively risky.

• Narrative 2: 72% of “good jobs” necessitate a college degree. (page 134)

The second narrative bolsters the argument for “college for everyone,” yet nearly half of all students who embark on a college journey do not complete their degrees, lending credence to the first narrative.

If we accept that traditional college is best suited for the most privileged students, then who should really be the focus of our educational resources? DeLaski suggests narrowing our attention to four distinct groups:

• Class transporters; Legitimacy label seekers; Degree and license workers; Longing-to-belongers. (page 146)

Her definitions, however, are anything but transparent. “Class transporters” are those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who could benefit from the cultural capital that college imparts. “Legitimacy label seekers” are individuals who believe they will encounter employers demanding a degree at some future point. “Degree and license workers” are those who require advanced degrees for their chosen careers. Lastly, “longing-to-belongers” are young individuals yearning for the community and camaraderie that college life offers.

Except for the degree and license workers, these motivations for attending college rest on intangible benefits that alternative models may not adequately address. However, there is potential for new ventures to provide the cultural learning and community aspects that many seek. Moreover, society may gradually shed its biases against those who opt out of the traditional college pathway.

A lingering question remains: Will higher education adapt to these new realities, or will it be supplanted entirely? My impression from reading deLaski’s book is that, absent the generous government support currently enjoyed by institutions, replacement may be the more probable outcome.