Higher education and employability: A Book Review

Abstract

APA Citation: Stokes, P.J. (2015). Higher education and employability: New models for integrating study and work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 189 pages.

In contemporary society, colleges and universities have the burden of proving that they are teaching their students practical knowledge and that upon graduation, their students can contribute to the workforce. Higher Education and Employability discusses the correlation between college and university pedagogy and employability. The central question of this text asks: “What should colleges and universities be doing differently to assist their students in preparing for the world of work?” (Stokes, 2015, p. 1).

Colleges and universities are not job placement agencies, but almost every campus includes a career services office. This office is responsible for helping students prepare their resume and cover letters, along with helping them with interview strategies and job search techniques. Higher Education and Employability prompts the following rhetorical questions: What is the obligation of American colleges and universities? Should colleges and universities be preparing students for the workforce or should they be preparing students for the general good of society? The content of this book focuses on the practices of colleges and universities, which categorically excludes community colleges.

The author further defines the premise of his thesis as a “both/and rather than an either/or proposition” (p. 4). Stokes (2015) argues that “the responsibility to educate individuals while preparing them for the world of work is a shared responsibility between both the education providers and employers” (p. 4) and not the sole responsibility of either the education provider or the employer. In the introduction, Stokes (2015) discusses his advocacy for institutions to develop the pedagogy that includes academic rigor along with professional preparation. The author articulates Robert Reich's position that American businesses are not sufficiently involved in the development of college and university curricula.

In Chapter 1, the author introduces the reader to the concept of Drownproofing. Steve McLaughlin (as cited in Stokes, 2015) indicated that Drownproofing 2.0 is a concept that refers to a person's ability to survive under pressure. Drownproofing 2.0 was a course in water survival techniques offered at Georgia Institute of Technology. Although Georgia Tech no longer offers Drownproofing, the institution's culture refers to this class as that of a motivator, and it is a reminder that in our contemporary society, the ability for a person to create their own job tends to be an important life skill.

With Chapter 1 predicated on Drownproofing, the author discusses a prevailing sentiment among higher education that vocational education or career and technical education, as it is known today, is considered by some to ultimately lead to a decline in the moral and/or civic purpose of higher education (Claxton, 2015; Lazerson, 2010). The argument on the other side, as articulated by Stokes (2015), is that colleges and universities are obligated to provide students with a learning pathway with the intention of developing their skill set to prepare them for the contemporary workforce. Hansen (2015) asks this rhetorical question: Are we training students for more successful careers, or are we cultivating more learned minds for the sheer joy of learning?” (Hansen, 2015, p. 76). It seems as if the debate about the utility of higher education is endless and it is often compared to another endless debate about the tension between academics and extracurricular activities. Hansen (2015) notes that “this long-lived debate simply evaporates when you listen to liberal arts college students and watch their performance on the job market” (p. 76).

Later in Chapter 1, the author claims that there is a gap between the skills employers are looking for in college graduates and what students are being taught at colleges and universities. Stokes (2015) articulates the argument of President John Fry of Drexel University that college and universities “won't be able to create more tangible returns on investment for our graduates unless the rapidly expanding chasm between what higher education institutions produce and what employers want is closed” (p. 14).

A college education within the context of experiential learning is not limited to career and technical education. Higher Education and Employability offers a contribution known as the bridge program. Stokes (2015) explains this program as a “subgenre” of experiential learning, which uses coaching techniques to “augment liberal arts students’ education with an applied curriculum related to business” (p. 49). The author provides numerous examples of this program in use at various American colleges and universities.

Throughout the text, the author discusses several institutions, which he feels do a good job of facilitating experiential learning. Chapter 3 offers a profile of Georgia Institute of Technology. Stokes (2015) explores the relationship between Georgia Tech and employability, and he notes that the relationship that the school exhibits with employers and policymakers throughout the state is not only part of the school's identity, but also a big reason why Georgia Tech's graduates are in high demand.

An essential aspect of the employer–institution partnership is the role that the employer plays regarding the development or redevelopment of the curriculum. This curriculum has a strong focus on cocurricular learning opportunities, and as the author explains, this co-op-style learning program is embedded within the culture of the institution: “the universities strategic plan demonstrates an understanding of this important role such experiences play in developing the talent of students and preparing them for the world of work” (Stokes, 2015, p. 81). It is interesting to note that the culture of Georgia Tech includes an expectation of cooperative learning opportunities and that this type of learning facilitation is detailed in the school's strategic plan. While many institutions have developed or are developing competency-based training curricula throughout their course offerings, co-op opportunities seem to be offered scarcely and on a departmentalized basis (Gallagher, 2016). In light of Georgia Tech's focus on experiential learning and cocurricular learning opportunities, there are some higher education institutions, which offer co-op programs. However, the majority of these institutions are technical schools or programs with a required externship component.

Chapter 4 offers an interesting observation. The context of the chapter is based on the history of New York University and its transformation into a globally recognized research institution. Stokes (2015) reports that President Sexton indicated that the university is more interested “in focusing on the learning than the professional outcomes of its graduates” (p. 105). This interpretation of the university's mission by President Sexton draws upon the ambiguous nature of vocational education. The author notes that the university appears to avoid association with anything that “smacks” (p. 105) of vocational education. Each institution of higher learning will define vocational education differently, and indeed, many have stopped referring to experiential learning as vocational and now refer to this learning style as career and technical. Why does a college or university have to be designated as a vocational, technical, or career training institution to offer experiential learning opportunities? Is being labeled as a vocational institution a pretext to offering students the skills associated with the type of hands-on experience typically offered at these vocational institutions? Claxton and Lucas (2012) argue that vocational education is not an education track specifically for the less able and, speaking in practical terms, suggest that all college and university programs are a type of vocational training.

Chapter 5 discusses Northeastern University's popular reputation as one of the nation's leading experiential learning institutions. Similar to Georgia Tech, Northeastern University has built cooperative education into the culture of the university. Students who enroll in programs offered by the university expect to receive some level of experiential learning. In contrast to President Sexton at NYU, President Aoun of Northeastern University suggested that students need to “learn to learn” and they need to “learn to earn a living” (pp. 132–133). President Aoun notes that experiential learning is not limited to providing students with specific experiences focused on specific job skills because of the vulnerability of the labor market. So, Northern University takes the position that experiential learning simply cannot be additional vocational training: “it is difficult to prepare students for the workplace because the workplace is subject to change. So, the job here at Northeastern is to prepare them to be competent, first of all, and to be global” (p. 133). President Aoun adds, “we do not want them to be comfortable with just one type of industry” (p. 133).

Another important topic covered in Chapter 5 is about integrating experience and learning, and while Stokes (2015) does not discuss competency-based learning in this chapter, he does discuss this concept earlier in the text. According to the author, competency-based education (CBE) focuses on aligning curriculum and assessment with the job skill targeted in the curriculum. Hora, Benbow, and Oleson (2016) indicate that competency-based learning is one of the best ways to integrate experience with learning. Stokes (2015) explains that some institutions of higher education are using CBE as a way of fostering work readiness. Among these institutions, some use CBE in an “attempt to align curriculum and assessment more directly to the skill requirements of particular jobs and professions” (p. 45). The author explained that the CBE movement began in 2013 when the federal government announced that in addition to credit hours, federal financial aid would be distributed to students based on their mastery of skills. Additionally, the author indicates that one of the hallmarks of a CBE program is the option for prior learning assessment where a student can earn college credit based on their experience or competencies.

Stokes (2015) ends the book with Chapter 6, which is titled “Being Different.” At the beginning of the chapter, the author laments on the idea that students are being referred to as customers and that institutions operating within close proximity refer to each other as competitors. This observation seems to push higher education into the realm of an industry rather than operating for the general good of society. While Stokes (2015) seems to imply that higher education appears to be transitioning into being an industry, Lagemann and Lewis (2015) insist that “free societies will not thrive unless colleges, graduate schools, and professional schools understand that the civic health of the nation is one of their central responsibilities” (p. 11). Given the competition and tuition rates at today's colleges and universities, it seems that Stokes (2015) is arguing that colleges and universities do not have a choice. They need to compete in terms of being progressive by working with various industries and integrating their responsibility of providing a civic good for society.

Indeed, colleges and universities fostering more aggressive experiential learning programs to include partnering with employers are offering students a better chance for employment and career success upon graduation. Certainly, this experiential learning arrangement does provide a civic good by graduating students who will then be able to contribute to society in the long term. The idea that colleges and universities are transitioning into an industrial state is evidence that prospective students are trying to secure the best education they can in an effort to secure their place in the increasingly volatile labor market. Therefore, it is the society for which colleges and universities provide a general good, which is responsible for forcing colleges and universities to operate as an industry.