In terms of building a lasting, rewarding, and meaningful career, it can be hard to argue that the recommended “success formula” (at least in recent decades) has centered around obtaining a four-year college degree — and then moving on to secure a Masters or Doctorate degree (in many fields) to unlock even greater management and climb-the-ladder opportunities.
And yet, like many other industries out there ranging from taxicabs to music to retail shopping, the educational field is one that many observers have claimed is ripe for “disruption” of some kind. For years, critics have pointed out that traditional college degrees are not only prohibitively expensive, but don’t translate quite as automatically and seamlessly into lucrative post-college career roles as perhaps they once did. Last year, for example, an article by Brandon Busteed on Forbes.com predicted that:
“Instead of going to college to get a job, students will increasingly be going to a job to get a college degree. Today, the #1 reason why Americans value and pursue higher education is “to get a good job.” The path has always been assumed as linear: first, go to college and then, get a good job. But what if there was a path to get a good job first – a job that comes with a college degree? In the near future, a substantial number of students (including many of the most talented) will go straight to work for employers that offer a good job along with a college degree and ultimately a path to a great career.”
And even more recently, an article by Alex Glaubach in Medium.com (available here) pointed out that ”
“So who will be the agents of disruption and creative destruction? Will it be education tech companies who have already gained traction in the space: Udemy, Udacity, MasterClass and others? Or will it be large tech companies with massive cash reserves buying out distressed universities and offering an in-person and digital offering (e.g. Apple)? Or will the likes of Harvard, Princeton, Yale and other universities offer free tuition and charge recruiters at the end of the four-year experience to hire their students?”
Personally, I’ve long held the sentiment that the customary model of education and career advancement was overdue for rethinking, based largely on what I’ve perceived to be a growing gulf between what students are being taught and what today’s employers actually need. This is something of a generalization, I’ll admit, but in my work with quite a few recent graduates — as well as more experienced workers obtaining further education — I still find a surprising number of individuals unable to answer critical career-related questions such as:
- What specific kinds of problems are you able to solve for an organization?
- How confident are you that you could solve these problems with little additional training?
- Is the demand for the solutions you provide likely to grow or shrink in the coming years?
- What is the “going rate” for providing these solutions in terms of compensation?
Essentially, I think far too many workers today have lost touch with these core questions and are assuming that it will be an employer’s responsibility, not their own, to worry about such things, recognize their potential, and find a productive use for their talents. This thinking, to me, is risky. At the end of the day, the most successful people I come across, of all ages, are those who channel their energy into developing the specialized skills needed to solve a distinctive, clearly-defined set of challenges businesses/consumers are facing — and then monitor the future to update their capabilities and “course correct” for new risks, opportunities, and developments.
And don’t get me wrong here, I’m not just talking about high-tech careers. Far from it. The practical, market-driven career philosophy above is industry-agnostic and could literally apply to thousands of occupational paths. I’ve met plumbers, chefs, hair stylists, and copywriters, for example, who are incredibly devoted to their craft and who stay closely attuned to the changing needs of their market. In talking with them, you’ll find that they can address each and every one of the above questions without missing a beat, since their mindset is to not sit around waiting for an employer to tell them what to do, but to figure out what the needs of the market are and prepare themselves to meet them, profitably.
To these folks, education is a means to an end – not necessarily a destination in and of itself.
All of which leads me to my final point (sorry for burying the lead!) which is that I came across an article in INC magazine yesterday, suggesting that one of the world’s most powerful companies agrees with the notion that the traditional educational route has growing flaws — and is stepping up to do something about it. For better or worse, Google has just announced their own series of six-month certificate courses in several key subjects, claiming that they “will now treat these new career certificates as the equivalent of a four-year degree for related roles.”
This is big news. This is a major hiring entity basically throwing shade on the formal education system and announcing their plans to bypass it to a certain degree. It conveys the notion, that perhaps other employers share, that a mere six months of concentrated formal training in a specific problem-solving area is more valuable — from an employability sense — than four years of more abstract study in a college setting.
At any rate, you’ll find the full article by Justin Bariso here, if interested in reading it, and my sixth-sense is telling me that after years of speculation on the topic, this move by Google might go down as one of the bellwether events that “disrupts” the current career/education paradigm.
Time will tell, I suppose, and as always I welcome your views on the subject!
