Giffgaff – could it be a role model for universities?

How can universities distinguish themselves in today’s marketplace? And how can they appeal to finance-conscious students, whilst ensuring they offer a comprehensive and high-quality education experience?

 

Increasingly, universities are looking to collaborative, co-operative and innovative approaches. But can universities learn a thing or two from unusual models created by young companies and start-ups? Recently, mobile virtual network operator Giffgaff found itself the third top trending subject online, after climate change and the global economy. The company, set up in 2009, has created a real buzz for its innovative service. But could a university be run along the lines that Giffgaff has explored?

 

Giffgaff uses a community model in its approach to customer service. There are no customer service phone lines. Instead, the firm uses online message boards and problems are solved by other users. As payment, these informal IT support teams are rewarded ‘payback points’, which they can exchange for cash using PayPal. If there are specific issues that can’t be dealt with, or which involve confidential account information, they’re handled by ‘agents’ – Giffgaff employees.

 

The result for the company is huge cost savings in terms of call centres – not just salaries, but also real estate, heating and lighting, phone calls, etc. Comparably, BT has some 20 call centres in the UK alone, with a similar number in India. That’s a huge number of employees.

 

It works for a digital start-up. But could it work for a university? What if lecturers only lectured; administrative duties were stripped to a minimum and instead, online communities helped with the student support that has traditionally been the role of the teaching staff? It makes sense on the one hand, because lecturers are well-paid and there is the argument that they should not be spending time on areas that are not their specialism. On the other hand, the student journey is a sensitive one and needs to be handled carefully; is it fair to say that a key part of student support is to get one-to-one time from their tutor?

 

The result could be a pared-down approach to fees – a no-frills model, where minimal support and a reduced student experience is accepted as the price of significantly reduced fees. But could this work, and would it be popular?

 

Making the connections

In practice, a collaborative university is likely to look somewhat different.

Ryan Craig, author of College Disrupted, outlines what ‘Career Services 2.0’ might look like. It’s likely to be data-focused on the one hand, and connectivity- focused on the other. ‘Career Services 2.0 can advocate for university-wide ePortfolios or skills passports or digital badging, Craig says, ‘providing additional competency data that employers can utilize not only to determine which graduating seniors might be good candidates, but which sophomores and juniors might be good candidates for virtual internships or other engagement.’

 

Secondly, Career Services 2.0 would ‘engage schools and departments to galvanize a culture of employment focus and connectivity, for example through the aforementioned online departmental career networks, or – more promising – by facilitating the establishment of structured pathways to employment.’

 

It’s in this second area, connectivity focus, that our comparison with Giffgaff might come into its own. The key is for university providers to think differently about how to connect students with the workplace. The existing model – give students an education, then expect them to somehow find the right career straightaway when they leave – is no longer fit for purpose. Indeed, we could argue that it’s never been fit for purpose; it has just always been the default, with neither university nor business seeing it, until now, as ‘their job’.

 

These things can be changed, so why is it not happening?

‘When we think about how dramatically the world of work has changed, it is remarkable that the methods utilized to prepare students to enter it have remained static,’ says Andy Chan in Roadmap for Transforming the College-To-Career Experience.

 

There are lots of highly-skilled graduates out there, but they might not be aware of the companies that are looking for them. How many job applications can a graduate reasonably fill in on leaving university? We all know how long such forms can take to fill in; and to maximise the chances of getting the job, they need to be tailored to the company the applicant is trying to get noticed by. Often, job applicants have to fill in templates supplied by the employer which mean you can’t cut and paste – you have to manually enter information into different boxes.

 

All this is extremely time-consuming. It’s inefficient and frustrating for the applicant, and it means companies are missing out on potential as a result. There’s hard evidence that this problem is real. Nicholas Wyman, CEO of the Institute of Workplace Skills and Innovation wrote last year that ‘as 2015 begins, 9 million Americans are unemployed. Youth unemployment hovers at 15%.’ But at the same time, ‘4.8 million jobs are unfilled because employers lack the skilled workers they need. This gap between jobs and the skilled talent needed to fill them isn’t going away any time soon. 63% of CEOs globally are worried that a lack of skilled workers will continue to threaten the growth of their businesses.’  Clearly, something needs to change.

 

For Wyman, ‘people without jobs and jobs without people’ is a problem that ‘won’t be solved by one sector alone.’ Short-term fixes won’t work, he argues, and the way forward has to be ‘the creation of innovative partnerships between educators, policy makers, and industry leaders.’ Fortunately, ‘there is growing momentum’ for this. ‘The future of workforce development in the US hinges on collaboration between the companies that will hire the next generation of workers, and those charged with educating them.’ Wyman points out that while companies need skilled workers, educators need more understanding of what skills are required by business, both general and specific. ‘The good news is, collaboration between policy makers, educators, and industry is growing.’

 

Wyman outlines four key qualities that innovative collaborations and partnerships demonstrate to ‘change the game for students and job seekers at any stage of life, creating clear pathways to a promising career and a stable economic future.’ These qualities also ‘bolster local economies and strengthen local communities’:

 

  1. Have a shared vision. ‘Partners need to share the same goal and commitment to solving a shared problem.’ It’s in collaborators’ interests to ensure that graduates are equipped for work in today’s fast-moving environment. But to achieve this, ‘partners need to really listen to one another, and determine what each brings to the table. What unique resources can they each contribute to further that shared vision and how, specifically, will they do so?’
  2. Be flexible. ‘Not only do successful partners share a common goal, they also know how to meet each other halfway,’ Wyman argues. ‘Educators need to be willing to adapt curriculum and training programs to meet the changing realities of the world of work.’ Additionally, ‘business leaders have to learn to be flexible and adaptive in their approaches to training and mentorship.’
  3. Start before university. ‘Offering students the opportunity to get a taste of vocational and real-world skills early in their educational journey only results in a more engaged, and motivated workforce.’ Wyman quotes the example of a school in South Carolina where high school students can study robotics, machine technology and industrial electronics with industry professionals coming into the school to help them. Not only that, but as a result, ‘international talent recruiters who want to invest in promising students’ post-secondary education’ are also present at the school. This aligning of study with ultimate career is invaluable and as the example shows, cannot start too early.
  4. Stay up to date. ‘A hallmark of successful skills training models throughout the world is ongoing efforts between educators, employers, and industry groups to stay on top of the newest technologies and trends.’ The South Carolina region referred to above has a Business-Education Alliance, where ‘local business leaders and managers meet regularly with the district’s teachers, guidance counselors, and school superintendents to collaborate and share information.’

 

Taking the initiative

Graduates are taking the situation into their own hands too, by using social networking sites like LinkedIn to provide a ready-made shop window for their skills and experience. Learning how to get this right can be invaluable; if you have a strong profile, are well-connected and have recommendations, you will get alerts to specific job adverts that you might be well-suited for. You might even get headhunted. The algorithms involved here are used in ways that are still relatively crude; but the canny student can take by advantage of it by thinking strategically and using LinkedIn’s community model to narrow their focus on jobs that they standing a good chance of getting.

Collaborative models are only going to increase as the gap between unemployed people looking for work and businesses looking for workers continues to be a problem. Technology can help crunch this; and the sophisticated student will find their own new ways to get jobs. But schools, universities, governments and businesses could all find that by working together more, the benefits add up for national economies, the university sector and businesses as a whole.

 

Main sources

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/4-key-traits-partnerships-work-nicholas-wyman

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2016/03/17/career-services-2-0/#522f024d23ba

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/sep/18/bt-promises-to-bring-call-centres-back-to-the-uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

When education meets the corporation

Globally, there is a disconnect between students and jobs. According to McKinsey’s recent Education to Employment report, around the world ‘75 million young people are unemployed, but businesses can’t find enough skilled workers to fill job vacancies.’ Meanwhile, businesses frequently complain that they don’t get the calibre of graduates they need to fill the roles they have, particularly in STEM subjects.

 

Why has this situation come about – particularly considering that fees for universities have increased at eye-watering speeds over the past few years? And what can universities do about it, to better match their students with the jobs that businesses want to fill?

 

First, let’s consider some context. The McKinsey report reveals some fairly dramatic figures.

 

  • Half of young people are not sure that their post-secondary education has improved their chances of finding a job.
  • Almost 40% of employers say a lack of skills is the main reason for entry-level vacancies.

 

Against this figures, let’s look at some equally startling statistics about how much is invested in our young people’s education. At the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, Anthony P. Carnevale and Nicole Smith reveal that in the US,

 

  • Approximately $1.5 trillion or 11% of GDP is spent on human capital or skills development each year.
  • Elementary and secondary education takes the largest share of this: $608 billion (41% of spending).
  • Together, formal and informal training by employers represents $454 billion (30% of spending): $313 billion on informal training and $141 billion on formal training.
  • $380 billion is spent on higher education, which primarily consists of formal education programs at colleges and universities.

 

Some $380 billion is spent on higher education – and yet employers can’t find the right graduates for their jobs? Something is amiss somewhere along the line.

 

The McKinsey work points to several fault lines that it believes are causing this problem. A broad summary of its view would be:

 

  • Workplaces, educational institutions and students are operating in ‘parallel universes’. Fewer than 50% of young people and employers believe that new graduates are adequately prepared for entry-level positions. But 72% of education providers believe new graduates are ready to work. A similar disconnect appears when asked why students fail to finish courses – 39% of education providers state drop-out rates are because courses are too difficult, but only 9% of students agree, citing affordability as the main reason.
  • Education-to-employment is an obstacle-strewn road. Getting the enrolment means overcoming issues of cost and ensuring you’ve chosen the right course. Once underway, there are issues with building skills – 60% say that on-the-job training and hands-on learning are the most effective instructional techniques, but fewer than 30% are enrolled in curricula that prioritise such techniques. Finally, there is finding the job at the end – a quarter do not make a smooth transition to work, as their first jobs are unrelated to their field of study and they want to change positions quickly. In emerging markets, this number rose to as much as 40%.
  • The current education-to-employment system fails for ‘most’ employers and young people. The McKinsey research reveals that only 31% of employers get the talent they require.

 

How we reached this situation

Part of the problem has been the way the competencies that society needs has shifted so quickly from production-based to information-based skills. As Carnevale and Smith at Georgetown put it, ‘In the past, employers viewed workers with solid occupational-specific skills as sufficient for success on the job. But as workers are increasingly called upon to make decisions at the point of production or point of sale and display good interpersonal skills when working in teams or with customers, the confidence that engenders success in these areas springs from a positive sense of self-worth or self-esteem.’

 

In consequence, traditional universities are suffering an assault on several sides from MOOCs, vocational training and for tech educations, coding bootcamps. There is a risk that if traditional universities don’t adjust to today’s fast-changing circumstances, they may find themselves gradually but inexorably being squeezed out by providers that are more flexible about how students learn, tailor themselves to students’ needs, can offer more guarantees of jobs at the end of the process, and come out cheaper overall. When students are being increasingly under pressure from galloping tuition fees, price becomes much more of a stalling factor than it used to be – it can be the difference between committing to a course, and not going at all.

 

Whilst alternative approaches to education are not going to make the walls of our oldest universities tumble down just yet, there is a slight sense of inevitability about the way technology is making distance learning ever more enticing to cash-strapped students. If you get the job at the end of the day, who needs to spend three or four expensive years in a cloistered bubble? Ryan Craig, Managing Director at University Ventures, argues that this point is pertinent to the future of tertiary education. The question Craig poses is – ‘how to use technology to develop and deliver shorter, less expensive, 100% digital (and therefore accessible) postsecondary programs that lead to credentials that employers will recognize and value.’ The answer to the question, if there is one, ‘will be critical to the future of colleges and universities.’

 

Look at the gradual success of disruptive providers like Udacity, which offers ‘nanodegrees’. Starting out as a MOOC, Udacity has developed nanodegrees ‘in partnership with leading technology companies (“built by industry”),’ Craig explains. ‘The thinking [is] that Google’s involvement in the Android Developer Nanodegree improves the curriculum; the Google brand doesn’t hurt either. Udacity has done the same with iOS (Apple), Tech Entrepreneur (Google) and its other programs (by a committee of leading technology lights).’

 

Udacity is slowly but surely making progress. ‘A New York Times profile of Udacity on September 17 [2015] revealed that Udacity has 10,000 students enrolled in Nanodegrees – a number growing by 30% every month.’ If, as Craig points out, ‘10,000 students are paying $200 per month, that’s annual revenue of over $20M – perhaps enough for profitability.’

 

The aim of such courses is to be ‘shorter, cheaper and more accessible’ and create ‘credentials – badges – that employers will recognize and value as an alternative to the existing, expensive and constantly derided degree-industrial complex. To this end, both companies are trying hard to link their content to employers. Udacity’s Nanodegrees carry with them the names of the world’s most famous technology companies – where traditional universities rely on their long-established brands, Udacity piggybacks today’s tech giants to boost its brand for it.

 

Universities at least need to address these side-swipes from badge-based providers. Consider a few more damning figures from McKinsey:

 

  • A third of employers say they never communicate with education providers.
  • Of those that do, fewer than half say it proves effective.
  • More than a third of education providers say they are unable to estimate the job-placement rates of their graduates.
  • Fewer than 50% of graduates state they had a good understanding of what disciplines lead to professions with job openings and good wage levels when they chose their course.

 

A final criticism of traditional degrees comes from Google itself. Degree grades are, believe it or not, ‘worthless as a criteria for hiring,’ according to Google’s Senior VP of People Operations. If this is the view of our leading tech company, which is now busily partnering itself with badge-based providers like Udacity and Coursera, surely traditional education has to sit up and take notice.

 

Looking for the solutions

So, what’s to be done? If universities in the form we understand them are going to survive, then surely the key point is simple to say, but hard to do in practice. It’s essentially for learning organisations, businesses and students all to engage with each other more.

 

The McKinsey research suggests several desirable outcomes – all from the top-line points of universities, businesses and students needing to communicate with other more effectively, collaborate more and stop seeing university education as a linear process where the ‘job offer’ only comes at the very end.

 

In essence, the way forward can be described as follows:

 

  • Have new incentives and structures. Stakeholders need better data to make informed choices and manage performance. Give data to students and parents about career and training options.
  • Offer more workplace data. Information about what happens to students after they graduate is not routinely offered by learning organisations – it could and should be. What are the job placement rates? How long does it take students to get to an average salary role? What proportion of graduates reach high salary roles?
  • Connect more effectively with business. Transformative solutions involve multiple providers and employers working within a particular in industry or function. These collaborations solve the skill gap at a sector level; by splitting costs among multiple stakeholders (educators, employers, and trainees), investment is reduced for all.
  • Take a high-level view of education. In practice, this might mean creating the role of a ‘system integrator’, who works with education providers and employers to develop skill solutions, gather data and identify and disseminate positive examples. The integrator can be defined by sector, region, or target population.

 

To this we could add: encourage students and parents to self-inform more. The internet is full of information, but it can be hard to track down helpful information. Instead of allowing our students to go to learning organisations largely in ignorance of job expectations and in the dark about what their futures might be, help them to think more strategically about their careers from an early age. That will help them choose their course in an informed way, plan their student years more effectively and have an eye on what they want their key outcomes to be when they graduate.

 

The conclusion from the McKinsey work is that successful programmes do things differently. They ‘step into each other’s worlds’. Employers might help to design curricula. They might offer their employees and faculty, and they might let students spend as much as half their time on job sites. They might then get them hiring guarantees. The best programmes work with their students early and intensely. They avoid the linear obstacle-path of enrolment, skill-building and job offer by treating the education-to-employment journey as a ‘continuum’ in which some employers even commit to hire youth before they are enrolled in a programme to build their skills.

 

And finally, to adapt the structures of traditional business education to a more fully-aligned model. Get students to spend more time trailing employees in organisations. Integrate internships as part of the degree, not an add-on or something for graduates to organise for themselves once they leave university. Have more in-university training, as well as academic education. Have more lectures from organisation employees during the course of the degree – current doers, not people who used to be doers or who watch others doing.

 

In short, make education less passive. Make it the platform from which graduates can step seamlessly into their first role – not a launching pad that requires a leap of faith that can seem daunting and hard to attain for many of today’s students. It’s achievable, but not easy. But today’s students will, increasingly, demand and deserve it.

 

Sources

 

http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Education-to-Employment-exec-summary_FINAL.pdf

 

https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/HRDI.Editorial.pdf 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2015/07/14/the-just-in-time-education-revolution/2/#208d36215c75

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2015/07/29/e-portfolios-competency-marketplaces-for-colleges/#78f3be736186

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2015/09/30/coursera-udacity-and-the-future-of-credentials/2/#412d79326d95

 

 

 

Millennials: why are they different?

The current generation of college graduates have very different expectations and hopes from their predecessors. Those expectations are attached not only to their education provider but also their eventual employer. And yet, both employers and universities often respond to today’s students with out-dated models – treating them in much the same as the generation before them, and expecting the same behaviour and results in return.

 

This is a mistake. To maximise performance from millennials, it’s vital for organisations and universities to speak to them in their language, package experiences for them in ways they relate to and identify with, and create an environment that will resonate with them.

 

So how can prospective employers and education providers do this? Let’s start by looking at some background. They key difference for today’s graduates is their digital native status. Millennials born after 1990 – the ‘Generation Z’ that comprises our current crop of graduates – have enjoyed an unprecedented level of technology as they’ve grown up that sets them apart from their predecessors. Generation Z cannot imagine life without the internet or mobile phones, and they have less willingness to accept social injustice. A 2012 Net Impact survey discovered that 88% of millennials see a positive culture as vital to their career and 86% stated that they needed to find their work interesting. Other research has indicated that more than 50% of millennials say they would take a pay cut to find work that better fits their values, and 90% want to use their talents for the greater good.

 

Writing in Fast Company, Paula Davis-Laack quotes a recent report from the International Consortium for Executive Development Research (ICEDR) which suggests there are five key principles for getting the most from your millennials’ mindsets. They are:

 

  • Know me. Invest the time to understand the student as a person and what interests them both inside and outside of work.
  • Challenge me. The student wants to have continued opportunities to learn and grow.
  • Connect me. Relationships are important – the student wants to interact and collaborate with a wide network of people.
  • Inspire me. Students want a sense of meaning from their work.
  • Unleash me. Students want to take ‘good risks’ and have autonomy over their time and projects.

 

These five points have been written with a focus on female millennials. But as Davis-Laack goes on persuasively to point out, they chime rather neatly with suggestions from two other experts. She points to ‘centered leadership’, which consists of these five dimensions:

 

  • Meaning
  • Framing (adapting to change and building self-awareness)
  • Energising (tapping into the our natural energy reserves and rhythms)
  • Connecting (interacting and collaborating with a wide network of people)
  • Engaging (taking good risks and using your voice).

 

And these five are not too far away from the PERMA model of well-being, developed by Martin Seligman:

 

  • Positive emotions
  • Engagement
  • Relationships
  • Meaning
  • Achievement

 

Davis-Laack’s point then, is that meeting the needs and expectations of millennials is not as complex or as alien for older generations to understand as might have been supposed. All these models chime with each other – and an underlying principle of all three is emotional resonance. The above lists are not about targets, or climbing pyramid hierarchies. They are about personal development and learning outcomes.

 

If we were to examine these lists more closely from a management point of view, we might want to see more emphasis on skills-based learning and a focus on aptitude. If we add these points the mix, there is a valuable lesson to be learnt in how to respond to millennials – and how to get them to respond to you.

 

A different mindset

Millennials have little interest in a job for life (a sea-change from the baby boomer generation’s worldview); have high ethical and responsible concerns when choosing the company they want to work for; and want their work environments to be attractive, comfortable and stimulating. Perhaps with this last point in mind, millennials are most attracted by tech companies, with Google, Apple and Facebook very clear winners when millennials are asked which companies they would like to work for.

 

In aggregated research from the Brookings Institution, Goldman Sachs and Nielsen, published in GSV Tomorrow, Google gained 19.7% of the ‘where do you want to work’ vote, Apple achieved 12.7% and Facebook 8.9%. In other words, over 40% of millennials want to work for a leading tech company. It’s not until you get to the fourth-rated choice, the State Department, that a non-tech organisation appears, with 7.9%.

 

According to figures quoted in Forbes Magazine, 62% of millennials believe they can make a difference in their local communities and some 40% even believe they can literally change the world. Millennials are not willing to play the game and climb the corporate ladder as past generations. They are doers, and they expect companies to change in line with them. If they don’t, they are not afraid to jump ship and take risks.

 

Erika Janovich, Marketing Co-ordinator for the StressCrete Group, spent time working with millennials when she went back to college as a mature student. Writing in The Evolllution, Janovich presents five conclusions about the values that millennials place highest faith in.

 

  • Confidence in your convictions
  • Technologically savvy
  • Engagement is important in learning
  • You can be a ‘me first’ team player
  • Flexibility is the new secure

 

Let’s consider these in turn. ‘They spoke back to teachers without any concerns for retribution,’ Janovich says, contrasting this with her own upbringing where ‘I had to express [my opinions] in a way that was still respectful of my elders. There were times I admired their sheer guts for speaking their minds and fighting for what they wanted.’

 

Perhaps the key distinction of the millennial generation, ‘their knowledge of technology was incredible. Any time I ran into technological issues, all I had to do was ask any of my younger classmates. They were happy to share their knowledge, and often looked at me with confusion wondering how I survived my teens without a computer.’

 

Time and again, engagement emerges as a vital quality to get the best out of millennials. ‘I’ll never forget the term coined by one of the baby boomer professors: “Educainment”.’ Students needed to be continuously entertained and stimulated in class. ‘If not, they’d find what they needed on their laptops or phones. Teachers fought to make the information more exciting and attempted to relate the lessons to students’ lives.’

 

Millennials are less willing to suppress their emotions in the workplace. ‘They were more “touchy feely” than my generation… My classmates wanted to be the best, but not at the expense of others,’ Janovich says.

 

An interesting job, a sense that they are doing something good for wider society and a stimulating place to work are the values millennials place most emphasis on. Janovich’s assessment is that ‘they wanted flexible working hours, a fun work environment and an enlightening experience. When they were done with the experience, they would move on to a new one… they made me see that work-life balance should be a major consideration.’

 

Breaking the myths

And yet, not all millennials meet the stereotypes. Research by KPMG (itself a company with nearly 60% of its workforce composed of millennials) in association with Brad Harrington, executive director of Boston College Center for Work & Family, garnered evidence that bucks some of these trends. Interviewing 1,100 millennials, Harrington found that ‘60% said they plan to stay in their jobs to advance, versus 25% who want to get ahead by moving from employer to employer.’ Harrington agrees that there is no ‘job for life’ – ‘fewer organizations offer lifetime job arrangements… and the world has moved away from the idea of long-term job security. But… at a rate of two to one, millennials prefer to stay, and that was surprising.’

 

Harrington’s figures also agree that millennials feel strongly about work-life balance. ‘The majority felt that their lives outside of work were much more important to their sense of identity than their careers. Few – approximately 20% – were willing to pursue these goals at the expense of their personal lives.’

 

The KPMG/Harrington research did not find, as expected, that socially conscious attitudes figure highly in millennials’ set of values. ‘ “How much I am helping others” and “contribution to society” were among the lowest ranked items in importance of career success measures for the millennials surveyed,’ writes Stephanie Vozza, quoting the survey in Fast Company.

 

And although the millennials were as comfortable with technology as expected, this doesn’t make them people-averse. ‘When we asked how they found their most recent position, instead of saying “social media” like we expected, the number one answer was that they were referred by a friend, relative, or another connection,’ Harrington is quoted as saying. ‘They are using the tried-and-true method of networking.’

 

There are lessons here for both millennials themselves and for the companies recruiting them. One of the consequences of growing older is that you know your own mind more – or, to put it less kindly, you become more set in your ways. One of the joys of youth is that you are still open to new ideas, your opinions are still forming and your view of the world is not set in stone. A fallout from this, when interviewing millennials about what they expect from university and work, is that their opinions are still in a state of flux. That makes it harder for people writing about millennials to come to hard and fast conclusions about them.

 

Looking to the future

What, then, do learning institutions need to do differently? The first lesson is to understand the millennial mindset, and this primarily involves understanding the principle of co-opting. Millennials are not materialistic, and they share rather than accumulate. UK newspaper The Guardian recently reported that average material consumption fell from 15 tonnes in 2001 to just over 10 tonnes in 2013; a huge reduction. In the same article, climate change author Chris Goodall, added that people now spend more on services than physical goods.’ Millennials are less interested in possessing; rather than store thousands of emails, they use Snapchat and delete instantly. Instead of hoarding photos, books, CDs and DVDs like their predecessors, everything is accessed online and there is little sense of possession in the traditional sense of the word.

 

This change has caused a psyche shift as well. They co-create businesses together. They buy houses together. This co-operative shift makes the education dynamic suddenly very different. Classes where students team up are more likely to generate innovative thinking than individual study. Problem-solving can be done more quickly in groups rather than separately. So the insight is, enable students to work together more. Enable them to spark ideas off each other, to come to new conclusions and reach new insights. Let them learn together and the results can be surprisingly effective.

 

Embracing the technology, rather than resisting it, is also essential. Philippe Caignon, a 3M National Teaching Fellow, argues that digital learning can innovate and enrich teaching, and is an addition rather than a replacement for classical teaching methods. ‘Digital learning is the means through which professors can enhance their teaching strategies and adapt their pedagogy to the ever-changing needs of their students,’ he says. Quoted alongside Caignon in How to teach millennials? Embrace technology by Sara DuBreuil is Dr. Nancy Acemian, a professor in the Department of Computer Software and Engineering Department at Concordia University. ‘It is a win-win situation,’ she says. ‘Profs have more fun in class, students have more fun and are more engaged with the course content, which is the first step in learning.’

 

What we can be sure of is that if you respond to millennials in the language they understand – enable them to work with the technology they are familiar with, and treat them responsibly, they will enhance the organisation and hopefully won’t jump ship at the first opportunity. Millennials will make up 75% of the working population by 2025. It’s their world now, and it’s the older generation who need to adapt to them; not the other way round.

 

Sources

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/deniserestauri/2015/08/30/millennial-handbook-lesson-3-only-i-can-create-this-opportunity-for-myself/#d60164350117

 

http://gsvtomorrow.com/market-commentary/the-tattoo-generation/

 

http://www.fastcompany.com/3056674/the-future-of-work/no-millennials-dont-need-special-treatment-to-thrive-at-work

 

http://www.fastcompany.com/3054158/the-future-of-work/8-myths-about-millennials-at-work-that-need-to-die

 

http://evolllution.com/opinions/lessons-millennials-adult-students-reflection/

 

http://www.fastcompany.com/3046989/what-millennial-employees-really-want

 

http://www.concordia.ca/cunews/main/stories/2015/01/21/2015-winter-teaching-and-learning-festival-to-teach-millennials-embrace-technology.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/29/uk-consumes-far-less-ons-crops-energy-metals-average-material-consumption

 

http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/tomprof/posting.php?ID=1047

 

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/may-june-11/teaching-the-millennials.html

 

 

 

Why we need a new education model

Higher education is in crisis. Companies aren’t getting the employees they expect, and are discovering that graduates aren’t fully prepared for roles once they are in place. At the same time, students have different expectations of what they want from their learning providers. Generation Z are no longer passive learners. A combination of seeing themselves as customers, alongside an expectation of personalisation and instant feedback from their experiences as digital natives, creates a very different landscape for education providers.

 

Compounding this is a crisis in funding. Student fees are multiplying, and for many higher education students, fees are reaching a tipping point – the debt can become higher than their projected income expectations, making them question going to university at all. Those from less well-off households are hit particularly hard as a result. The global recession has fractured higher education, as described by David E. Shi, a former president of Furman University in South Carolina. This has led a situation ‘fragmented between haves and have-nots,’ he says in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

 

This perfect storm of company discontent, student expectations and financial considerations makes it pressing that traditional models evolve. The rise of MOOCs, boot camps and distance learning is quietly, but pervasively, pressing on the prestige and ubiquity of traditional universities. Things are changing, and with employers less focused on traditional degrees and more interested in what potential employees can bring to the business, this shift away from traditional pedagogical approaches is only going to continue.

 

A powerful way forward is to offer hybrid models – revolutionising the classroom-only model and augmenting it with online modules, in-work internships and guest lecturing from business leaders, directors and managers, as well as academics. A hybrid model can be visualised in the following way – a rich balance of the best of classical models, but incorporating disruptive innovation and advances in technology too.

 

Hybrid models can offer advantages for students over traditional universities in five key ways, as this article will explore.

 

Bridging the gaps

First is the ability to better match graduates with employers. Hybrids have the potential to be the bridge between the academic and the corporate worlds. By having options that include – for example – formal working relationships with corporate affiliates, in-work placements and a focus on guest lectures from business leaders, directors and managers, hybrid models give the graduate a better understanding of the workplace and can identify where they need to fill gaps in experience, in addition to their academic training.

 

Paul LeBlanc, president of Southern New Hampshire University, says that ‘what we’ve been historically good at for a very long time is telling the world exactly how long someone has sat at a desk. But we’ve been much less precise in saying what people have actually learned.’ LeBlanc asserts that in the past, a college degree was ‘a proxy for certain things: the ability to think critically, the ability to write well, the ability to present well.’ Today, however, LeBlanc argues that ‘when I meet with employers, I will sometimes ask them, “Have you hired someone with a college degree who doesn’t write well? Have you hired somebody with a college degree that you wouldn’t put in front of a group of customers to make a presentation, who can’t understand a balance sheet?” And it’s like touching a nerve.’

 

Ryan Craig, Managing Director at University Ventures and a former McKinsey consultant, takes up this point. ‘The national skills gap is well documented in the mainstream media and a top priority for policymakers and CEOs alike.’ And yet, ‘our system of higher education produces only one STEM graduate for every 2.5 job openings.’ The numbers are even worse for women, ‘who earn just 18% of computer science degrees.’ And although there are in excess of five million STEM job postings annually, ‘fewer engineering degrees are awarded today than in the early 1980s.’

 

For Craig, too many students graduate without the right skills to match what employers want. His argument is that ‘talented students from many institutions need to be trained for and matched to many employers.’ This is a role that coding bootcamps and staffing companies like eIntern can fulfil. They will ‘come to campus and provide a clear pathway to a career’ and will also ‘provide valuable no-risk training to specifically prepare students for the high-risk problems employers are trying to solve.’

 

There will always be a time-lag between what can be taught on courses, and what companies need and want their new employees to be able to do – especially in, but not limited to, the tech field. Teachers can only teach what they know, and syllabuses have to be agreed and approved well in advance of students being taught. Yet this only proves the need for some kind of shift in education, towards courses that are more closely aligned with, and actively influenced by, real-time organisations. In response, Southern New Hampshire has developed ‘College for America’ to address some of these gaps between what universities are offering and what businesses want to see. That’s why I think it has had such a great response from large-scale employers,’ Paul LeBlanc says. Namechecking other early starters in this area – Excelsior College, Western Governors University, Charter Oak State College in Connecticut for example –he argues that College for America is ‘the first that has been fully untethered from the traditional course.’

 

Matching capabilities to work

The second element is that hybrid programmes lend themselves better to a competency-based approach. In Education Dive Keith Button writes, ‘advocates say competency-based education puts the focus on students’ capabilities rather than how many hours per week they spend in the classroom.’ In the US, at least 200 institutions have competency-based education programmes – and yet ‘the U.S. Department of Education has been slow to process the applications of colleges and universities seeking approval to receive federal financial aid’ for these programmes. This is an issue that is being addressed, but by no means resolved – perhaps because of the prestige factor associated with traditional university models. Button continues, ‘the benefit for employers,’ [advocates] say, ‘is that prospective employees can be judged more easily, based on their demonstrated competencies rather than guessing how their grades will translate to real-world work.’ LeBlanc adds, ‘You’re going to see more competency-based programs coming and I think they’re game changers.’

 

It is true to say that employers are changing their approach to what they expect from their graduates, and it’s even possible to question whether traditional university models are still fit for purpose. Witness Penguin Books, the global publishing empire run by Pearson, which recently announced it was lifting its requirement for employees to have a traditional degree. A self-aware and ambitious student can recognise that the tide is changing in the corporate world, and increasingly choose the university course that best suits them; rather than feeling that the name of the university is the most important thing.

 

Rethinking the campus

Third is customisation. Students get a more personalised experience, and this has notable positive effects on achievement. The ‘hands-on’ element of hybrid models is analogous to an apprenticeship model – internships or similar work experience inside real-life organisations give students a much better grasp of what employers expect. ‘Many of today’s rewarding and well-paying jobs do not require a university degree, but do require some form of post-secondary training,’ says Nicholas Wyman, CEO of the Institute for Workplace Skills and Innovation. Arguing that ‘vocational education is smarter than you think,’ Wyman says that ‘the focus on college preparation often fails to make one important connection: the connection between school to the world of work.’ Wyman here is talking about work that does not require an academic qualification, yet benefits from in-work experience and along the way gives workers the social skills they need to thrive in a work environment. But the principle can be applied squarely to hybrid models at universities. If we want our students to succeed in the workplace, they need to know how that workplace operates – it is not simply a case of transferring academic knowledge, but adapting it.

 

The fourth key advantage is an enhanced experience. Hybrid models can stimulate students’ learning by being modular: one-on-one sessions one day, maths on another, visiting lectures on a third. The approach might be a linear stream, rather than a series of courses. Or consider TEx, an initiative by Texas University. The ‘Total Education Experience’ enables students to learn ‘through simulations, team-based projects and clinical experiences.’ Ensuring that the content can be delivered by mobile phone – ‘to meet students where they are, with the technology that they are used to,’ according to Marni Baker Stein, chief innovation officer of the Institute of Transformational Learning, ‘a student’s path through a course is automatically personalized to his or her needs and learning style.’

 

TEx is the kind of innovation that makes the delivery of hybrid models a reality. ‘Beyond fully online courses, TEx is designed to support a wide range of innovative teaching methods in classrooms, laboratories and in the field that ultimately will provide richer and more accessible content for students while preserving the quality of a UT degree.’ In other words, personalisation enabled by technology – a compelling proposition for today’s graduates.

 

Thinking too far outside the box?

It’s not too much of a leap from seeing the benefits of hybrid models to ask – do we need universities at all? Campus models are based on the principle of scarcity, as Peter Smith explores in his book Harnessing America’s Wasted Talent: A New Ecology of Learning. In an age where reams of information are available at our fingertips online – ‘abundant information,’ as Smith defines it – is there a need for students to attend classes at all? ‘Abundant information – in its many, divergent forms and uses,’ Smith writes recently in Educause Review, creates ‘a new ecology’ that consists of ‘three big changes, unleashed by technology and the global economy, which affect education. They eliminate scarcity as we have experienced it.’ Two of those changes are ‘unlimited content and unlimited access.’

 

The rise of MOOCs bears witness to this shift in thinking. Many – but by no means all – of the courses described as competency-based are purely online offerings. But here it’s time to sound some warning notes. Yes, MOOCs can offer outstanding learning opportunities for those unable to attend university courses – whether for reasons of finance, location, disability, family circumstance or other reasons. But the evidence consistently indicates that without an element of classroom-based learning, students will not reach their full potential. We could make a similar point about coding bootcamps. They work best as a top-up; not a replacement.

 

Perhaps the most obvious argument against Smith’s ‘abundant information’ model is that someone needs to curate that information, make sense of it and teach it – in ways that are absolutely no more or less central to student success than they were before the internet developed. Yes, students can access huge amounts of information and universities no longer have the monopoly on scarcity. In fact, there’s no such thing as scarcity any more. The problem now is that there is too much information, and the academic institution’s role is that of shaper and guider.

 

Institutions that can offer a mixed portfolio of lecture, seminar, online add-ons and in-work placements are best placed to meet the needs of both students and companies – needs which fluctuate depending on the individual student and individual organisation. For tech companies in particular, there is the added complication that there will inevitably be a time-lag between what is taught on a university course, and what businesses need their graduates to know when they start work – simply because of how quickly technology changes.

 

Make sure the student gets the job

The answer to the deliberately provocative question ‘do we still need universities’ is to challenge the disconnect between the university experience and the job offer at the end of the process. Ryan Craig quotes Mike Fishbein, a marketing guru who has discussed what such ‘full-stack’ education companies might look like. ‘Fishbein’s view is that the goal for the end-user is not a quality educational experience, but rather a job: “Jobs are the top of the education stack.” According to Fishbein, “a full-stack education company might not look like a school at all. It could look like an employer, a lender, a school, and/or a recruiter all rolled into one” – because the point is to provide all services required to get the student a (better) job.’

 

In other words, for Craig, ‘if you’re going to go to the trouble of creating a product to improve higher education, and if you’re going to devote your life to a company to advance that product, you might as well make sure the student gets a job at the end of the day.’ Otherwise, the experience of university is all the student is finally being rewarded with – and in an age of increasing fees and commoditisation, that’s where many universities are, it could be argued, heading in the wrong direction, exposing themselves to attack from vocational courses and MOOCs as a result.

 

For Craig, writing in a separate article in Forbes, the key is to link performance to the job offer. ‘Expect to see some colleges offer a performance-based value proposition: pay tuition only once you achieve the desired outcome. For most students, that means a job – either a new job or a promotion, but definitely higher remuneration than the status quo.’ This kind of performance-based college will be, for Craig, ‘a full-stack higher education enterprise, in that it will take a strong interest in what you study, and in making sure you get the job.’

 

On the money

There’s one more key benefit that hybrid models bring. As fees rise, higher education ‘is increasingly being commodified, and its access restricted’ writes Ethan Miller in the Huffington Post. Many students begin to feel priced out of the market, and higher fees can in some cases prevent highly able and gifted students from participating in the higher education that they deserve. Miller quotes stark figures – ‘in the last ten years, tuition and fees increased 66 percent beyond inflation at public four-year institutions and 26 percent beyond inflation at private not-for-profit institutions’ (figures based on US institutions). ‘Nationwide, total student debt has surpassed one trillion dollars and the average student with debt owes about $26,600.’

 

Hybrid models can disrupt these ballooning figures, as they can be more economically viable by running on a lower cost base than traditional, exclusively campus models. The model at College for America envisages education as an ‘on-ramp’ – ‘to more stable work, an on-ramp to further study.’ Identifying that one of the key barriers for their target audience is cost, LeBlanc aims to make it ‘ultra-affordable, which is why our program is out in the market at $2,500 a year.’ College for America focuses on working adults, who according to LeBlanc are ‘the majority of today’s college students’ but who are ‘often least well-served by the traditional higher ed industry.’

 

Students have changing expectations from their learning providers – and businesses want changes too. Traditional universities need to wake up to this change – and there are key opportunities for hybrid models to steal a march in the new competitive age by giving learners, and organisations, offerings that are more attuned to their needs.

 

Hybrid models – the key benefits

 

  • Better match graduates with employers
  • Competency-based approach
  • Customisation
  • Enhanced experience
  • Ensure there is a job at the end of the process
  • Economically viable

 

Sources

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/18/penguin-ditches-the-need-for-job-seekers-to-have-university-degrees

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2015/04/03/a-new-generation-of-engineering-schools/#484764ed2923

http://evolllution.com/opinions/how-we-got-here-is-not-what-will-get-us-there/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304561004579135253438812772

http://evolllution.com/opinions/meeting-students-are-critical-success-developmental-hybrid-programming/

http://chronicle.com/article/A-Crisis-of-Confidence/127530/https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429376/the-crisis-in-higher-education/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-miller/the-crisis-in-higher-educ_b_2727653.html

http://www.utsystem.edu/news/2014/11/03/university-texas-system-makes-bold-move-competency-based-education

http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/11/the-coming-era-of-personalized-learning-paths

http://www.educationdive.com/news/7-competency-based-higher-ed-programs-to-keep-an-eye-on/328382/

http://www.educationdive.com/news/will-the-internet-remove-traditional-higher-eds-prestige-factor/413466/

http://chronicle.com/article/MIT-Dean-Takes-Leave-to-Start/235121

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vocational-education-smarter-than-you-think-nicholas-wyman

http://evolllution.com/opinions/audio-revolutionizing-competency-based-education/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2016/01/07/revolution-on-campus-no-risk-pathways-to-high-value-careers/2/#255e91e220e9

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2015/06/10/performance-based-college/#311aa816567a

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2015/05/26/the-full-stack-higher-education-company/#5c6af7be459d