Education as a Trailing Indicator

I briefly considering blogging in 2011 and this entry is something I wrote in October of that year. I include it now because I think it is still relevant.

It is important to remember that I was still working full time at this point. My ethical "crisis" was in its earliest stages.

_________________________________________________________________________


In economics, there are "leading" indicators and "trailing indicators. A leading indicator is a statistic that may indicate where the economy may head next. For instance, the stock market is considered a leading indicator. If the market thinks the economy is going to turn south, often it goes down first. Any sort of overall downturn follows later.By the time the economy reaches its nadir, the market is already rallying.

On the other hand, a number like unemployment is generally a trailing indicator because employers react to the economy. If it is going down, they lay off employees after the downturn has started. And if it going up, they wait until they have hard evidence things are improving before they bring someone new aboard.

Looked at in this light, I would argue that education is a trailing indicator.

This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. But it is something worth considering when we ask ourselves: how can we improve higher education?

 It seems everyone has an opinion on what we could do to change/improve our schools. But if these opinions are based on backwards-looking information, how can we improve?

Jeff Selingo on HuffPost Education in his column "Why Can't We Educate for a Job and an Education?"  discusses this exact issue. He critiques both sides in the ongoing debate about the purpose of higher education. To educators who advocate education for the sake of education he tells them to recognize that college has become more of a "transaction", a step toward a better life. If they don't deliver what people are looking for, "it's going to be almost impossible to get students and parents to pay $200,000 for a four-year undergraduate degree." To those who argue for college as job training he says: "[E]mployers and politicians need to learn that if colleges provide training only for jobs that need to be filled now, those workers will probably be useless in about two years, given the rapid pace of change in most industries."

This is education as a trailing indicator in action. Both sides have good intentions. Both sides have good arguments. At the same time, many on both sides are anchoring their arguments in a reality that no longer exists.

Learning for the sake of learning is a great thing. I love to learn and spend a lot of my time trying to do so. But one thing everyone has to accept: you need to be able to afford to learn. Either in terms of time or money (or both). Not everyone can afford tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars to get "educated." As Selingo notes, people expect a college degree to deliver more than just "smarts." The truth of our current world -- at $100,000, you need to deliver something tangible.

Learning for the job is also a great thing. But again, advocates for this position are looking back and living in a different world. Ours is not a static existence. Technology has been changing at an increasing pace over the past century and a half; the change also seems to be accelerating. If we ground education in current job needs, we are going to spend all our time playing catch-up with ever-changing demands.

Selingo tries to bring the two sides together by pointing out that liberal arts skills -- writing, speaking, critical thinking -- are also professional skills.

I work at a professional school and this is something we recognized a long time ago. Being in close connection with an acting, functioning  profession has left us more in touch with its needs. Currently we are working on a new curriculum and this curriculum will be grounded in thinking, communication and critical thinking skills as much as possible.

It would be nice if more people could recognize this connection. We need to provide skills that are flexible, that give students the potential to become leading indicators. They need to have the skills to identify and recognize change, maybe even before it happens.

While it may seem I am coming down pretty firmly on the liberal arts side of the equation, not so quick. As far as I am concerned, content is only half the battle. Delivery/pedagogy is the rest. And here too, many of us are backward looking.

I can't count the number of times I have heard teachers at my school explaining a curricular choice as something "that worked for me."

Your students aren't you. They are a diverse bunch with a variety of learning styles. They have been raised in a technological world. While we don't necessarily know the effects this world is having on them yet , it is likely having something. As an educator, you can do nothing worse than looking back and be content with how you teach because "it worked" for you. As instructors we can't rest on our laurels. While we can't predict the future, we can at least try to be dynamic and innovative.