Wednesday's Independent had a piece "Employers to put
potential before exams" which starts
"GROUND-BREAKING assessment techniques will
allow employers to test potential recruits
on their ability to learn rather than on
past exam results.
"But while extra efforts are needed to
encourage "underachievers", employers need
to be aware that in the present jobs market
the qualified candidate is "king", personnel
specialists will be told today.
"Too many people are excluded from jobs
because the education system has failed
them, according to Robert McHenry, chairman
of Oxford Psychologists' Press."
The 'education system has failed' is a spin which
avoids confrontation with the current holy status
of education and training. But from time to time
these 'IQ Tests are better than exams' pieces appear
without raising the difficult questions about
what exams measure and what 'education' does.
A parent whose child passes an exam may regard
exam-oriented education as good value (especially
when it is subsidised). The exam will help the
child jump in later life move up jobs queue.
"Education is a positional good" as I have heard
one economist put it.
Of course, moving up the queue means getting a
better wage so validating the educational system
in economic studies. These studies are mostly
done by the beneficiaries of the system.
The question of the effectiveness of education and
training is one which little debate: But it is
the major plank in the government's strategy for
creating jobs!
However, it is not just one monolithic question:
it has a myriad of associated smaller questions.
The feedback we are getting on http://www.faxfn.org
is suggesting that many people concerned with
education, training and jobs in a practical
capacity are not in tune with the views of
encapsulated in "Education, Education, Education".
As one posting from a small businessman starts:
"I have employed many college, university
and TEC graduates and have found that they
are generally institutionalised, overeducated,
one-dimensional characters who for the main
part have a chip on their shoulders because
they feel as graduates they should
automatically be placed at a management level.
However, in reality, this is rarely the case."
But what is more significant is the postings that
have not been received. The university researcher
who promised to try and do a posting but was
uncomfortable putting his contribution next to
others which were "a bit off the wall. They are
too like the answers we get to our questionnaires."
The other potential poster reported work which
involved psychological testing of 'educated'
management and 'less educated' workers. Many
of the management recorded low scores and many
of the workers recorded high scores. Some
organisational change may be occurring. But
the effective remedy is to test people before
the are put in post.
Let me finish with two quotes. First a further
quote from the small businessman:
"How, as an employer, can we employ
a student whose only knowledge of his
or her chosen career is theory based
with the exception of a 2 week placement
in a remotely related field.
"The students are taught by desk bound
individuals whose knowledge is also
theory based who have dipped their toe
into the workplace only to decide it
was actually hard work and actually they
knew nothing and in a state of panic
returned to the bosom of the education
system to become tutors and lecturers.
"How can industry take these people as
serious candidates for management posts.
Many of them have been institutionalised
by being in education until they are 19,
20 or 21 and have the social skills of a
caterpillar. Can they manage an iron on
a uniform? Can they manage to stand close
to the razor? All they seem to be able
to manage is to go home."
"Off the wall stuff" but his concerns ought
to be addressed by our education and training
industry. The second quote is from a Senior
Lecturer in Community Nursing:
"The route taken has, however, been to
make nursing more academic moving up
from certificate to diploma and degree
level and courses have moved from the
Colleges of Nursing to Universities,
often with the same teaching staff but
with their emphasis now on university
objectives where research has a greater
role than training. Unfortunately this
process has largely removed a vital
ingredient from nurse training -
practical experience...
"The change to an academic bias has
caused other problems. Many students
starting nursing courses are finding
that more book learning is not what
they expected and is not what they
like so the drop-out rate on some
courses is enormous. And because of
the nature of the block grant received
by universities, this drop-out rate
does not affect funding. Courses in
nursing are lucrative."
And if nursing is not just a one-off problem,
what lessons are to be learnt for the
overall policy perspective?
Geoff Beacon
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing