Okay.
No one likes to say it, but I'll do it, anyway. Most of us wonder which means more to us, and whether or not either is mutually exclusive, meaning you can only have one at the exclusion of the other, in our quests to be "successful." We want to be successful because we want to have enough money to...to... To do whatever it is we think will make us and the people we care about "happy." Right?
It's seems just that simple. But how much of the formula involves having that little sheet of paper (diploma) versus having acquired a skill set that is only developed over time after repeated trial-and-error? The debate has gone on for forever, it seems, with educators and self-made men (and women) weighing in on what they felt was the key ingredient that made them "successful." Interestingly enough, repercussions are evident in the recent internet articles that have surfaced on "7 High-paying Jobs that don't require a College Degree" and such. Meanwhile images - and coverage - of celebrity athletes and musicians who make the decision to follow their intended career path flood the television waves on a constant basis.
As someone who works within the higher education field, I can't imagine that the individuals responsible for placing these articles front and center -- especially while we continue to lag behind internationally in the area of education and even moreso, specifically, in the sciences and mathematics areas -- are acting in the most responsible manner by doing so. Is this the message or impression we want to leave our elementary school age children? That higher education is not all that necessary to attain the American dream? I wonder that we're sending a very different message than has been the case in the not-too-distant past in a day and time where having a 4-yr degree is more important than ever before. The question becomes "why?"
What purpose would be served by circulating on the internet -- easily one of the greatest vehicles of communications known to humankind -- propaganda that encourages NOT investing in a college education and instead relying upon aquiring training? When trying to help nurture the next, upcoming generation, recognizing that they are driven by immediate gratification, should we make the decision to tell them not to try at all to work at something that will pay off in the long-term, instead? Does it matter that they live in a fast-paced world? Have old-fashioned virtues like hard work, and getting a college education gone the way of many of the other pieces of wisdom that we, as Gen X'ers, used to hear growing up, like making sure to save for a rainy day? Have we just gotten that lazy - or worse yet, do we just not care anymore? I shudder to think it.
I, for one, think we should still tell our youth (and others looking to the media for guidance in what to do and how to do it) to avail themselves to ALL forms of learning: in and out of the classroom. Education and skill training do not have to be mutually exclusive activities. Actually, one usually complements the other quite well. And in today's volatile and uncertain economy, we must be careful that the pendulum doesn't swing to far to the left on the issue of how to impact workforce preparedness. Today's worker must have the minimum educational requirements for multiple career possibilities (this generation changes jobs at a historically rapid rate) and yet also have a diverse set of skills that can help distinguish him or her from the rest of the crowd. In addition, it is an added benefit to actually have the natural talent factor come into play somewhere in there.
And this gives new meaning - and context - to a term usually associated with the acting industry but that has relevance for today's new entrants to the workforce: He or she must be a "triple threat" - possessing preparation educationally, in skill training and in talent. That's the message I am broadcasting.
No comments:
Post a Comment