ABC News has this interesting perspective on US issues associated with immigration of skilled workers and the national skill base:
The State Department might sound like a strange place for the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to hold a listening session with the heads of foreign companies that invest in the United States, but hearing their comments it all made sense.
The business executives said they want to invest more in the United States, but cited ongoing concerns about weak U.S. infrastructure, their difficulties in finding a skilled workforce and resolving issues with visas for their employees.
“The issue that we have is finding skilled workers,” said Christian Turnig from ThyssenKrupp, a German company.
According to Turnig, his company had to send hundreds of employees from its new plant in Alabama to Germany for several months of training. He said his company would have preferred to do the training in the United States, but it was unable to get visas for their German employees to enter the U.S.
And on skilled workers (emphasis added):
Martin Daum, the head of Daimler Trucks North America, told the gathering that he felt he had better skilled workers at his plants in Mexico than in the United States, where some workers have to be taught proper math and writing skills.
He said that America produces highly educated professionals, but knowledge can be lacking when it comes to hiring for vocational jobs. According to Daum, the better skill sets of Mexican workers makes it easier to ramp up production at his company’s factories in Mexico than those in the United States.
“We have to bring in educators,” he said.
Meanwhile in Florida
Governor Rick Scott seems to have heard these sorts of messages and suggests a remedy:
[Gov.] Scott said Monday that he hopes to shift more funding to science, technology, engineering and math departments, the so-called “STEM” disciplines. The big losers: Programs like psychology and anthropology and potentially schools like New College in Sarasota that emphasize a liberal arts curriculum.
“If I’m going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I’m going to take that money to create jobs,” Scott said. “So I want that money to go to degrees where people can get jobs in this state.”
“Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don’t think so.”
I think that STEM vs. liberal arts is to miss
the real problem here.
10 comments:
I still think some of the problem is that evenly skilled workers in Mexico still provide cheaper labor costs than in the US, and less OSHA worry (unfortunately).
On the one hand, you could say that if the "Supply" of like-skilled US workers were higher, these issues would go away, but these potential workers still have to overcome issues of (desired salary/benefits, desired location, desired hours, no travel, etc.)
Whereas a lot of business headed to Mexico will locate where the workers are, many companies in the US expect the job-seekers to come to them. My father worked as a 'skilled laborer' for 30 years at a company in Massachusetts. The company was sold to a new owner who summarily relocated the company 30 miles to the west. The reason: To shorten HIS commute :)
To your other point: STEM vs. Liberal Arts ... I'm a little confused as to what the 'real problem is', if it's not the deficit of skilled labor or the 'interest' in skilled labor among our employable citizenry.
-1-Salamano
Just quickly, neither STEM nor liberal arts majors are necessarily "skilled".
Ah, I see what you're saying.
We run a 'career/classifieds' segment on our morning news(TV), and there are often job postings for machinists, masons, mill-workers, etc. that say: "We're looking for someone with at least 1 year of experience or a relevant college degree."
I wonder if that becomes counter-productive for people who can't get the job straight out of a vocational high school because they need to go to college to earn a degree that doesn't exactly provide the most relevant additional training, and at $40K/year. I suppose a trade-school may count, but would be a lot more confining than having a BS in "anything" (pardon the pun) because many employers seem to be willing to work with whatever's written on that slip of parchment, so long as it exists.
Actually, Roger, I disagree a little. Somebody who's taken a science major with a well designed lab component probably does learn good lab. tech. skills.
20 years ago we would have worried that we were turning out BS chemists who were little more than lab. techs. I beginning to think we should be happy we're turning out BS chemists who are good, competent lab. techs.
:-)
Roger,
you say,
'Just quickly, neither STEM nor liberal arts majors are necessarily "skilled".'
Maybe, but the Daimler executive clearly states,
'...he had better skilled workers at his plants in Mexico than in the United States, where some workers have to be taught proper math and writing skills.'
so at least this person feels comfortable making a connection between 'writing and math skills' and some of his 'skilled workers'.
Now I think you are, and have been, raising an interesting question as to how to match the available manufacturing jobs with 'skilled' labor, but your being fairly nebulous with the definition of 'skilled'.
To me, a person with a undergraduate degree in physics/engineering will clearly have the 'skills' to work for Daimler. I think others can be 'skilled' as well, but I would hazard a guess there is a strong casual correlation between STEM skills and the skills discussed above.
The real questions, to me at least, is how much money will a college graduate in engineering make in such a position and will the satisfaction they get from the work overcome the failing feeling they have associated with their status as a college graduate working in manufacturing?
-5-maxwell
Thanks for your comment.
In general through thee posts I have defined "skill" in terms of vocational skills -- shop class skills. As indicated in the excerpt above, this is the focus: "He said that America produces highly educated professionals, but knowledge can be lacking when it comes to hiring for vocational jobs. "
That said, as an educator who has the luxury of picking and choosing among hundreds of applicants each years to our graduate program from students in a range of disciplines (STEM, liberal arts), it is a rare student indeed who has _both_ writing and math skills. One or the other is far easier to find. I'd imagine that the same problem exists for the vocationally educated as well.
Thanks.
I'd argue that the prospective anthropology major is less likely to be able to succeed in a STEM major, so maybe they stay out of college entirely. That obviously doesn't solve the basic problem that the executives were talking about, but at least it doesn't waste the student's time or anyone's money.
The bit quoted says that the people in the US were lacking basic 3Rs type of stuff, not actual vocational skill or experience. Many universities have also lamented this.
I suspect that most stuff you need in a factory can be learned fairly easily. This obviously excludes the CNC programmer type of jobs (discussed here on another thread). But if you have trouble reading, writing or doing simple math, you may be beyond the reach of on the job training, and you've probably also developed an anti-skill as far as being able to avoid learning.
Matt said... 7
The bit quoted says that the people in the US were lacking basic 3Rs type of stuff, not actual vocational skill or experience.
This goes back to the premise of 'tactile/Kinesthetic learners'.
Here is an interesting article by a Canadian School principal explaining the problem
http://www.cpco.on.ca/News/PrincipalConnections/PastIssues/Vol11/Issue4/dramatic_strategies.pdf
However, in the average junior level classroom the breakdown is roughly as follows:
40% Kinesthetic Learners - they learn by doing it.
35% Visual Learners - they learn by seeing it.
25% Auditory Learners - they learn by hearing it.
When students leave elementary school, 30 per cent of them are still primarily kinesthetic learners, which is strikingly similar to
the provincial drop out rate in high school.
Yet most of elementary instruction in literacy is auditory first, visual second and no kinesthetic. emphasis mine
The lack of kinesthetic education appears to show it's ugly face all over the place.
Shop class used to be a good tool to teach tactile/kinesthetic learners basic geometry and physics.
Here's a piece put together by the Georgia Department of education on learning styles and career choices including a 'self assessment'-
http://www.gsfc.org/main/publishing/pdf/taa_activities/6_Learning_Styles.pdf
I'll second Harrywr2 on kinesthetic education, at least for physical activities. I can't do a racing flip turn, although I wasn't a bad swimmer. I couldn't do a layup in basketball even though I'm 6'4" tall and I couldn't do vibrato playing a violin. Apparently everyone seems to think that you can learn to do all these things just by watching someone else do them. Not me.
“Clearly, people have distinctive abilities and aptitudes. Some people have higher visual ability, and some have higher auditory ability,” said UCSD professor Hal Pashler, lead author on the report. “But the question is whether that predicts anything about the most effective way to teach them. … There is a complete lack of evidence of the sort.”
Researchers Question Learning Styles Theory
I heard this on the radio recently, "adding the Arts to STEM to make STEAM!"
Post a Comment