Do as the rich do
When it comes to education the Harlem Children’s Zone’s Geoffrey Canada has it right when he says he wants for Harlem’s kids what his rich donors want for their kids. Its a lesson worth remembering as business and education leaders meet for the Economic Summit.
Seems like the most important question for the attendees should be “what kind of education do you want for your kids and grandkids?” Rather than asking employers only “what kind of skills do you need to fill available jobs today and for the foreseeable future?”
We have explored previously the kind of education that Michigan’s affluent want for their kids and grandkids. The New York Times wrote about this as well in an article entitled A Silicon Valley School That Doesn’t Compute. Its about the Waldorf School of the Peninsula where some of Silicon Valley’s tech elite send their kids to a school. Its “one of around 160 Waldorf schools in the country that subscribe to a teaching philosophy focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks.” Where “the school’s chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found. No screens at all. They are not allowed in the classroom, and the school even frowns on their use at home.”
David Arsen in his terrific open letter to the Governor writes about Greenhills where many of Ann Arbor’s affluent send their children. He writes:
Students at Greenhills do not take standardized tests until they apply to college. The school’s educators sympathize with their public school colleagues whose professional lives now revolve around tests. Greenhills does not accept credit for online classes, nor offer classes for credit in the summer. It takes a firm position against students taking courses at other institutions, including colleges or universities, unless they have already taken the school’s most advanced course in a subject. Greenhills students don’t graduate early, but rather all together at a spring commencement. The school is designed around remarkable physical spaces devoted to “forums” for students in each grade to meet, deliberate and socialize. The school has a thoughtful rationale for these decisions: it wants students to interact with one another and faculty to establish a durable and supportive community.
The bottom line for all these schools as I wrote: “An education that prepares students for adult life in all its dimensions, not just for a job or even a career. An education that prepares students to pursue their dreams any place on the planet, not just here in Michigan. An education that is about being a lifelong learner, not just someone that scores well on a standardized test today.”
Michigan is a low wage state
Michigan was the birthplace of the 20th Century American mass middle class. Largely built on a foundation of high paid blue collar –– mainly unionized factory –– jobs. It is the main reason Michigan was one of the most prosperous places on the planet for nearly a century. But that economy is over. A victim largely of globalization and technology. If Michigan is going to be prosperous in the future –– a place one again with a broad middle class –– it will be built on a foundation of higher wage knowledge based enterprises.
In an MLive article Rick Haglund reports on how far Michigan has fallen in terms of wages based on work by George Fulton and Don Grimes of the University of Michigan. Since 2000 Michigan has fallen in the private sector from a high to low wage state Not the way you build a mass middle class.
Haglund writes: “Fulton and fellow U-M economist Don Grimes found that, in the first quarter of 2001, the average annualized private-sector wage in Michigan was $38,532 – almost $1,100 above the national average wage ($37,436). By the first quarter of 2012, however, the state’s average annualized wage of $47,465 had fallen $4,076 below the national average private-sector wage ($51,541). Adjusted for inflation, annual private sector wages fell $2,488 in Michigan during the period, but rose $3,008 for all U.S. workers.”
Clearly the end of mass high wage auto factory work is a major reason for the collapse in private sector wages in Michigan. That is the old economy foundation that is over. But another reason for the state’s now low average private sector wages is Michigan’s industry mix. The state is under concentrated compared to the nation in the proportion of jobs in the knowledge-based sectors of the economy. Which are now the high wage sectors in the economy. (For details see our latest annual report on the Michigan economy.) As Haglund writes: ” … Michigan now has poorer mix of industries compared to the nation than it did a decade ago. “We have a disproportionately large share of relatively low-wage industries, probably mostly reflecting a relatively small share of the knowledge-economy industries,” Grimes said.”
Michigan will only be prosperous again if our economy moves from factory based to knowledge based.
Growing Detroit
The Detroit Regional Chamber’s second annual Detroit Policy Conference was terrific. Worth attending in future years. 800 folks turned out to focus on how to accelerate the revitalization of the city.
As we have written frequently a vibrant Detroit is essential to Michigan’s future prosperity. Because in an increasingly talent driven economy, central cities are where young mobile talent wants to live, work and play. The most prosperous places across the country are big metros anchored by vibrant central cities with a high proportion of its residents with a four year degree or more.
(MLive just published an article that starts with: “It seems kids these days just don’t want to work in the suburbs. Campbell Ewald knows this. Dan Gilbert knows this. The idea of driving to corporate islands away from the vibrancy and amenities of downtown life may have been appealing to someone at some point, but for years now the trend has been that young American professionals want to be downtown.”)
No one articulates this better than Dan Gilbert. Who makes the case as well as anyone that metro Detroit and the state need the city of Detroit to work. More importantly Gilbert is a major force in making Detroit a talent magnet. Matt Cullen CEO of Gilbert’s Rock Ventures was one of the highlights of the Detroit Policy Conference. (MLive did a good overview of his presentation which you can find here.) Cullen reviewed the progress made in the last few years –– a pretty astonishing list –– and what is coming in the near future to make downtown Detroit an attractive place to live, work and play. New residents moving in, new residential development underway, more and more companies locating downtown with more on the way, new office building development, plans for new retail, thousands of internships available at companies downtown, M1 light rail, the continuing development of the riverfront walk and bike path and the list goes on and on.
The private sector and private foundations have been driving Detroit’s growth without a lot of support (or even worse barriers) from the city, regional and state governments. Even with an emergency manager on the way for the city, now is not the time to shrink government support for Detroit. The imperative for the city, but also for the region and state, is to grow –– not shrink –– Detroit.
Scientists
Even more than machinists and welders we have been told over and over again by policy makers and the business community that American has a critical need for more scientists. The consequence of the so-called dearth of scientists threatens the American economy. And therefore we need government action to get more kids to go into science. With some of options on the table that not only provide carrots to go into science (more broadly STEM) but also sticks not to go into the liberal arts.
One problem: we may not have a shortage of scientists. In two terrific articles the Atlantic’s Jordan Weissman explores the labor market for those earning Ph.Ds in science. Entitled “The Ph.D Bust: America’s Awful Market for Young Scientists” you can find them here and here. Worth reading!
Weissman writes: “In brief, we keep graduating more doctoral students in subjects like engineering, biology, computer science, and mathematics, and progressively fewer of them seem to be finding work by the time they have a diploma. The overwhelming majority (of) these bright minds probably land good jobs eventually, but the chilly hiring environment seems to undercut the idea the U.S. is suffering from an overall shortage of scientists.”
Weissman reports of those American citizens earning a Ph.D in engineering 43.7% had a job when they graduated, 27.7% were going on for further study and 28.5% had nothing. In the physical sciences it is 32.3% had a job when they graduated, 40.7% were going on for further study and 27.0% had nothing. In the life sciences it is 21.7% had a job when they graduated, 42.6% were going on for further study and 35.8% had nothing. (For the foreign born those who had a job in each category is substantially smaller than American citizens.)
As Weissman concludes: “Politicians and businessmen are fond of talking about America’s scientist shortage — the dearth of engineering and lab talent that will inevitably leave us sputtering in the global economy. But perhaps it’s time they start talking about our scientist surplus instead. … Most (of) these Ph.D.’s will eventually find work — and probably decently compensated work at that. After all, the unemployment rate for those with even a college degree is under 4 percent, and in 2008, science and engineering doctorate holders up to three years out of school had just 1.5 percent unemployment. But next time you hear a politician talking about our lack of science talent, remember all those young aerospace engineers, chemists, physicists who will still be casting around for a gig after they’re handed a diploma. There’s no great shortage to speak of.” (Emphasis added.)
Does the labor market long term need more scientists? Almost certainly. Is it a good long term investment to get a college degree in science? Almost certainly. But what is far less clear is if the demand for scientists over the long term is greater than the demand for those in non STEM professions or that the return on investment over the long term is going to be greater for those with science degrees compared to those with liberal arts and/or other professional degrees. A good reason to keep government out of the business of picking occupation winners and losers.
Does everyone need a four year degree?
The answer to the title’s question is of course not. But that fact shouldn’t change the design of k-12 education away from the goal of every child graduating high school with the ability to pursue a college degree without remediation.
I do not believe that everyone needs a four year degree. Far from it. Don Grimes and I for years published a report on good paying jobs that do not require a four year degree to try to make the case that there were other paths to the middle class. (Less true today than a decade ago, but still true.) And I certainly don’t believe that jobs that do not require a four year degree shouldn’t be honored. All work should be honored and respected.
The key questions policy makers should be addressing are “who decides and at what age an individual should start training for a job?” My hope is that it is the individual’s decision (not parents, educators, government, businesses, etc.) and that it happen after high school. To me k-12 education should be about expanding, not narrowing, opportunities for all kids. The goal should be every child leaving high school with the skills/capacities that makes a four year degree a real possibility. The option to live in the world that nearly all the readers of these posts live in. Not that every high school graduate has to (or will) choose to pursue a four year degree, but that it is an realistic option. To me this is the anchor of realizing the core American value of equal opportunity for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.