Recent comments about the need for more entrepreneurship education caught my attention. Experts at the Australian Financial Review Higher Education Summit this month argued that a different style of entrepreneurial education is needed for a new generation of start-ups.
This column has long argued that Australian universities collectively are not doing enough to help students create their job. Too much learning is geared towards students applying for a job, even though fewer full-time graduate jobs will exist, in their current form, in the next 10 years.
![Tertiary studies the way we always have needs to change, including the 'when'.](/web/20161126121007im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/q/q/v/n/3/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gswar5.png/1479942794997.jpg)
It seems fashionable to question whether traditional university learning structures still suit a rapidly changing labour market as the New Machine Age takes hold.
But too much of this debate is about the WHAT. That is, what we should teach students so that they are better equipped to move between industries, start ventures or do both.
![Is the oft-touted "glut" of law graduates real? The statistics suggest not.](/web/20161126121007im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/s/r/r/n/y/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gswar5.png/1479942794997.jpg)
More thought is needed about the WHEN. That is, when students should undertake the bulk of their university learning. Doing years of study upfront, for jobs that might be radically different within five to 10 years, makes less sense.
Also, we need to ask the right questions before getting bogged down in possible answers. No question is more important than: "How do we encourage a culture of lifetime learning"?
A culture where students are motivated to undertake formal study throughout their career, combining full-time work with some part-time study, or studying between jobs.
A culture that recognises the value of agile university or vocational education; where students choose courses to fill skill gaps in real time; apply that learning as they go; and see a university education as something that is completed over years or decades.
A culture that sees learning as more parallel (study and work combined, at least in the early part of a career) and less linear (study, then work).
I'm all for university education and still believe it is the best investment most people make. But doing so much study upfront, when many students are not ready for it or unsure about their career, is antiquated.
Universities, to their credit, are providing more options to condense courses or offering options for intensive "bootcamp-style" learning. It's good stuff, but only part of the answer. Perhaps we should think about how to speed up some parts of university courses and slow down others.
Or in other words, help students to "learn fast and slow".
The degree's second half is slowed down and ideally completed on a part-time basis and tailored to full-time work over several years.
For argument's sake, consider a different learning model where students in a generalist undergraduate degree, such as business, complete 12 subjects in a year (over three semesters). Achieving a sufficiently high grade point average qualifies them to be awarded a Provisional Bachelor of Business Degree from their university.
They get a certificate, a short ceremony and have a recognised qualification – enough to meet with graduate employers. The catch is the remaining 12 subjects must be completed within six years (or less, if a student is motivated) to achieve the full degree. Failure to complete the second half of the course within the allotted time means the degree is rescinded.
Under this model, the first half of the course is sped up and undertaken on a full-time basis at university.
The degree's second half is slowed down and ideally completed on a part-time basis and tailored to full-time work over several years.
The student has enough upfront learning to get started in their career. Twelve subjects in many generalist degrees is more than enough, given content repetition in business degrees, for example - and sufficient for recruiters to spot top students.
Granted, this is only one model and it would not work in all fields. Nobody wants to be treated by a doctor with a provisional medical degree or rely on a bridge that was designed by engineers with half a degree. But this model could work in many generalist areas.
A range of stakeholders would need to work together for this model to succeed. Industry recruiters would have to see value in students with provisional degrees and feel confident they are sufficiently trained to perform their roles.
Government would have to change funding models for some traditional university courses, to incentivise universities to offer such courses (and forgo more funding upfront).
Universities, too, would have to challenge traditional course structures, delivery and accreditation. They are not set up to deliver undergraduate courses that extend over longer periods, but could be with some forward planning.
This type of thinking could change the relationship between students and their university. I see a future where more kids have portfolios of project-based jobs or ventures, or both. Many will move from one job to the next at a speed older generations can barely comprehend.
Universities can become a "safe haven" for young people who are between jobs or ventures. When a job ends, they go back to university to complete more subjects, reconnect with peers, learn new skills and regain their confidence. Then go again for their next job.
The same applies with ventures. A young entrepreneur starts a venture, fails, goes back to university for a few subjects, consolidates their on-the-job learnings, and launches his or her next idea. Universities, in a sense, fill in the gaps for students between projects and help ensure they are "learning or earning".
That has to be better than a failed young graduate or entrepreneur spending their days on X-Box between jobs or blowing their remaining savings on overseas travel. They have a purpose to complete their degree and more incentive to do so in the required time.
Industry could benefit by getting graduates in their workforce sooner and having greater input into their future learning. For example, a graduate being groomed for a marketing role could be encouraged by their employer to study marketing subjects part-time. The student, through the loan system, pays for this education rather than the employer.
Business, too, might pay lower salaries for those with provisional degrees compared to undergraduates with full degrees. Recruiting students earlier, at less cost, and having greater scope to tailor learning to the employer's needs, is a benefit for industry – provided companies are willing to step up, take greater responsibility for on-the-job training and pay students what they are worth when the full degree is awarded.
Universities, too, could benefit by having a longer-term relationship with students, not just churning them through a system for three or four years, losing contact or making a feeble attempt through alumni associations. Instead, a genuine relationship where students turn to their university over many years and keep coming back to it to learn new skills.
This model and others like it have plenty of challenges and complications. But so do traditional models that require years of upfront education for jobs that may no longer exist.
As global business and careers become more agile, so too must education. Models that encourage students to learn fast and slow, combine full-time work and part-time study, and learn at university and on the job, are needed.
It's one way to help develop a culture of lifelong learning.
0 comments
New User? Sign up