Older journalists will recall cadetship programs and newsrooms stocked with copy girls and boys who ran errands. Some of these talented youngsters became editors, despite not having a university degree, such was their on-the-job training.Â
The same was true in law, accounting, nursing and many other fields that offered variations of cadetships. School leavers joined the organisation, worked and studied in parallel, and finished their cadetship with a qualification and years of precious experience.
What happened to cadetships for white-collar jobs?
Why do so many firms require school leavers to have years of university – and tens of thousands of dollars of student debt – under their belt before entering their chosen profession?
And how do we rebuild a culture of cadetships in white-collar professions?
These are important questions for school leavers, industry and the economy. University education is too precious to waste. Australia cannot afford to have students choose the wrong degree, study at the wrong time or take their uni course for granted.
Too many students spend years on degrees only to realise there is no job in their field at the end. Or they lose passion for their profession and move on to something else.
Nothing beats on-the-job training and many companies are ideally placed to offer it to school leavers, if only they can break the mindset that successful young people must have a degree.
Academic inflation only helps universities. A degree is no longer enough, so students do two, then a Master's. I'm all for education, but too much study upfront can be an inefficient allocation of resources and makes less sense in a fast-changing digital economy.
Does a junior marketing manager need three years of university study to perform their role? Does a young auditor need a business/law degree to perform a task that will be largely automated? Does a Public Service graduate need five years of an arts/law degree?
Universities will argue the degree helps students think differently, solve problems and stays with them for a lifetime. That's true, to a point.
My counter-argument is that education would more efficient, meaningful and impactful if spread out during the formative part of a career. Studying and working in parallel can create a higher return on investment than studying and working in a linear fashion.
I taught many students at university over almost a decade. Those who worked and studied part-time were almost always more impressive than those who studied full-time.
The part-timers valued their education and made personal sacrifices to earn their degree. Anybody who has trudged to boring night lectures in winter, after a day's work, or done assignments on weekends, knows that pain.
Part-time students related the learning to their job, used real work tasks for assignments and often achieved higher marks, possibly because their employer followed the results. They seemed more professional, mature and dynamic compared to full-time students.
Another advantage of combining full-time work and part-time study is the ability to make career "pivots". Doing a few subjects each year, rather than years of study upfront, creates flexibility to change courses if career aspirations change.
I liken it to "just-in-time" or "lean" learning – the ability to tailor subjects precisely to one's career and change quickly as circumstances dictate. It's a bit like lean entrepreneurship theory, where new venture creators get into the market quickly, rather than spend months or years planning a business, and learn to pivot the venture in real time.
Entrepreneurs knew that spending years on an idea and hoping there is a market makes no sense. Far better to get into the market early and adapt. Is it any different for school leavers who do years of study upfront, hoping there is a job?
Yes, some jobs require a lot of upfront study. Nobody wants to be treated by a cadet doctor or work in a building that is constructed by someone who is learning as they go. But so many jobs can be done with less study upfront and more along the way.
Youngsters pick up skills so fast these days. They do not need years in a university lecture hall being force-fed so much information. Far better to let them "pull" education when they are in the workforce and need it, rather than have it pushed at them.
My argument, of course, is based on students being able to get white-collar jobs in their profession after school, without a degree. This is where government and industry need to work together to find ways to rebuild a culture of cadetships.
Industry has much to gain. Hiring more school leavers and fewer university graduates means lower wages, at least at the start. My hunch is that employers who support young talent through part-time study, financially and with time off, will engender greater loyalty and commitment. Their young staff will be more skilled, mature and productive.
The economy will benefit from a workforce that has a stronger culture of lifelong learning and where the right subjects are chosen at the right time.
I never studied journalism at university, yet have worked in the industry for 27 years and had various editorships. Thankfully, I received terrific on-the-job training early in my career from editors who excelled at training young reporters and saw it as part of their job.
I studied along the way and the hard work paid off, just as it can for a new generation of youngsters who are far more capable for work and part-time study than their older peers.
0 comments
New User? Sign up