A question about living wages in "STEM" jobs

There's lots of ink spilled and policy rhetoric swirling around "STEM" these days (in fact, its been years, but it's reached a fever pitch recently), which is a catch-all term for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.  Many critique the acronym for being meaningless, and if you think about what "technology" means or about the many disciplines and sub-fields in "science" then I think these critics have a valid point.  Of course, adding an "A" for arts to make it "STEAM" makes it even more meaningless, unless one is merely trying to simply convey a collaborative of disciplines in one fell swoop.  So instead of saying mechanical engineering, physical chemistry, theoretical mathematics and genetics, I'll just say STEM to capture this broad swath of fields, just like the term "humanities" encompasses many unique disciplines.  That makes some sense. 

But it becomes problematic in my view when the acronym is used, as it commonly is, to speak about things where nuance and specificity is required in order to maintain any semblance of coherence or realism.  And when one speaks of "STEM jobs" I think coherence flies out the window.  To their credit, scholars such as those out of the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce make the point that "there is a great variety of STEM occupations" in their report titled "STEM." According to their projections, in 2018 about 51% (or 4 million) of the "STEM jobs" will be in computer science, 28% in engineering, 13% in life and physical sciences, 6% in architecture, and 2% in mathematical sciences.  This report is actually one of the best in drilling down into the specific competencies required for various occupations and offers a fairly nuanced discussion of the issues.

But my issue with the term "STEM" as it applies to jobs is twofold.  First, in the field of practice (e.g., job sites, college classrooms) when I mention the term "STEM jobs" I get blank looks and requests for specificity.  In the non-policy or non-research world you've got to be specific and talk about welding or PLC (programmable logic controller) design.  Otherwise, you're talking gibberish, or worse, ivory-tower-ese. 

Second, depending on how one slices and dices the world (i.e., defines the term) one can get high-wage jobs, middle-wage jobs, or low-wage jobs into your definition of "STEM jobs."  My impression is that most people equate "STEM jobs" with high-wage jobs such as robotics engineering, stem-cell biotechnology research, and so on.  In my visits to advanced manufacturing sites around the state of Wisconsin I've been struck by the fact that yes, these jobs do exist, and many of them are held by people with advanced degrees in fields such as engineering.  But a company of say 100 people may only need 1 or 2 of these people.  Many, many more who are operating CNC machines or welding parts are making between $19 and $22 an hour.  Now that is a decent wage and nothing to sneeze at, but it certainly isn't comparable to what the quality control engineer upstairs is making.  But aren't those jobs in that company "STEM jobs?"  They require technical skills in programming, mathematical skills to do the welding or machining, and more. 

The problem is, according to the folks at MIT's Department of Urban Studies, where they study living wages, $19 to $22 an hour is just at the living wage for a family of 2 adults and 2 children where one person is the sole earner (see here).  It is clear that some of the "STEM jobs" provide far more than a living wage, but let's be clear (and honest with the students who are being encouraged to pursue STEM) - within this catch-all term there are a host of different fields and occupations and earning potentials.  It isn't a get-rich quick pathway and I wonder if the bulk of the jobs in "STEM", if one defines the term to include CNC operators and the like, are on the lower end of what some consider to be a living wage or a wage sufficient to enter and remain in America's middle class.

New publications out from the study

So the long-awaited (and long worked on) policy brief is available.  It took awhile to get acquainted with the literature, analyze the data, and develop some preliminary conclusions and arguments about the whole thing.  The policy brief is available here at the WISCAPE website.

Since the editing process ended up slicing much of the original text, I've also published the brief in its longer form as a WI Center for Education Research Working Paper.  The abstract is below and the full paper is at the WCER website.

ABSTRACT: Wisconsin and the nation are struggling with how to address persistent unemployment and an economy recovering too slowly from the Great Recession of 2008. While economists point to a host of reasons for sluggish growth, including low aggregate demand, outsourcing, spending cuts, and so on, some argue a principal culprit is the "skills gap." Based in part on this interpretation of the causes of slow economic growth, the policy response at national and state levels is increasingly focusing on the educational sector as a way to cultivate more skilled workers. Yet important questions about the nature of employer expectations and the subsequent implications for the nature of educational programming and curricula remain unanswered. In particular, notwithstanding the ongoing debate about whether a skills gap exists at all, empirical evidence does not support the assumption that employers' primary need is technical training of potential workers. In this working paper I analyze Wisconsin's education and workforce development policies in light of the research literature on the topic, along with data from a survey of 181 Wisconsin-based employers who were asked about the types of skills they found lacking among job applicants in manufacturing. The results indicate that employers are seeking new hires in a variety of job categories such as skilled labor, engineers, and welders, each of which have distinct requirements for training and skill sets. Employers report that work ethic is the most important skill or applicant attribute lacking in the labor market, followed by technical skills, math skills, and social skills. These results highlight the fact that employers seek such a variety of skill types that a sole focus on technical or vocational training will not provide students with the types of skills that will make them competitive in the job market. The evidence also suggests that the effects of current policies that tend to remain silent on non-technical skill development could be enhanced by adopting a more comprehensive notion of skills, as well as creating programs and curricula that cultivate these multi-faceted skills in 2- and 4-year college and university classrooms.

The primacy of work ethic

One of the over-riding concerns expressed by HR directors, CEOs and shift supervisors in our dataset as well as with others was problems with what they called "work ethic."  I put the term in quotes because it means different things to different people, so making assumptions that it means the same thing across the board is a poor assumption.

That said, one VP summed it up nicely: "I'd rather have a B- student who knows how to interact with people and will show up for work, than an A student who is a jerk and has lots of excuses about missing work."  These results are consistent with a recent analysis I did on surveys from 181 manufacturers, as well as interviews I'd done this past summer.

News: expansion of the study

Long time no posting here, but there's good news to share.  We've received support from the National Science Foundation to expand our study to encompass the entire state of Wisconsin, and by the end of the study (sometime in 2015) we'll have conducted over 200 interviews with employers and educators in 6 regions of WI.

Next week is the first week where my colleague and I will start data collection in earnest.  Also, within the next couple of weeks a policy brief will be published based on the early stages of data collection and policy analysis from this study. 

So stay tuned.

The purpose of college
When I initiated this study one of the issues I hadn't anticipated coming up was the big and persistent question of the purpose of college.  No less than 4 books on the topic have recently been published (WaPost review of 4 books on the purpose of college - behind paywall) on the topic, which has become the topic of innumerable news articles, academic studies, and blog posts, largely due to the increasing costs of attending a 4-year college or university and the poor jobs outlook for graduates.   Re-thinking the once unassailable notion of the value of getting a 4-year degree raises the related question of which field to major in?

For better or for worse, the answer is often a STEM major if in a 4-year institution, and one that has a direct link to the marketplace - think electrical engineering rather than theoretical mathematics.  Further, some are wondering whether or not students would be better served by just attending a 2-year institution and obtaining an associate's degree or professional certificate in a high-demand field such as nursing or software programming.   ( For more on this complex topic see "Hard Times" by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, which is an excellent resource in general and a treasure trove of information and solid analysis (Hard Times report).

As I write up the policy brief that summarizes the first wave of this study on the skills gap, this question of the purpose of college simply has to be acknowledged.  No real answers are provided, as that is beyond my pay grade and honestly, my answer would be a very unsatisfying "it depends" or "yes, but...."  But the territory that I do stake out is a critique of blanket statements about the uselessness of college, the absolute necessity of college, and so on.  Also, the overall debate about the "skills gap," as long as educational policy is implicated in the matter (which it seems to always be, especially in Wisconsin), needs to be situated within this broader context about the purposes of college. 

As my thinking evolves on the matter, it seems that college graduates would be best served if they graduated (from both 4-year and 2-year institutions) with a combination of "hard" or technical skills that would directly serve them in the marketplace upon graduation (e.g., accounting, programming, writing) and "soft" skills that would serve them immediately as well as throughout their lifetime (e.g., the ability to work in groups).  This issue of skills sets to secure that first job vs. skill sets to continually learn, evolve, and stay employed is rarely discussed, and it seems to me that if students aren't given both a set of marketable skills in ALL fields (not just STEM) as well as the ability to become lifelong and adaptable learners, then we do them a disservice.

It's been a while since I've posted about this study, largely because I'm preparing a policy brief on preliminary findings from the study for WISCAPE.  This should be ready for release in the next several weeks. 

But an interesting news item came across the transom today about a skills gap in construction in Madison, WI! Construction skills gap  The gist is that there is a boom in construction with a subsequent increase in demand for workers with building skills, but a limited supply of these workers.  Sound familiar? 

So it seems that every day a new report or policy or media item comes out that addresses workforce skills-related issues.  Yesterday saw a report from Texas about the wages of students coming out of 4 year v 2 year colleges in their first year after graduation, and the main headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education was: "Tech training may provide fatter paychecks than 4-year degrees, study finds."  http://chronicle.com/article/Tech-Training-May-Provide/138831/?cid=pm (behind a paywall)

Of course there are details to consider, such as students with cosmetics certificates don't end up with the wages of someone with a certificate in network design, and importantly, the long-term income of students with either type of degree is not tracked.  Such a longitudinal study of students that tracks not only wages but also which types of skills are providing to be most useful in their careers is sorely needed.  Mmmm, perhaps another idea for a study.

Anyways, I think the take-home from a study like this is that some sort of postsecondary and/or professional-vocational education is a good idea for kids if they want to have a decent income throughout their lives.  That much is indisputable. See reports by the College Board  While people can debate about whether the societal push towards "college" rather than the trades is a good idea or not, even if students are destined for a career in manufacturing or farming, some sort of post-high school training, whether it be a formal apprenticeship or a 4-year degree, is critical.  My growing conviction is that the rhetoric against "college" is counter-productive, and all students should be encouraged to acquire some sort of certificate, training, or degree after high school. 

Back in the saddle again after a brief foray into my other study on curricular decision-making in higher education (http://tpdm.wceruw.org/) and am now preparing a Policy Brief on preliminary analyses for this study.  The brief will be distributed via the WI Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (http://www.wiscape.wisc.edu/) where I've written a couple of pieces on teaching and learning issues.

This brief will describe the lay of the land regarding the skills gap debate on a national and state level, with an analysis of the pros and cons of existing datasets and educational policy that is being developed based on the skills gap idea.  I'll then present preliminary findings from a nice batch of surveys conducted with manufacturers around the state as well as some data from my interviews with HR directors and CEOs.

Ideally, the brief will re-frame the discussion surrounding the skills gap from one that has a single policy solution to a more nuanced view that takes into account the importance of both "hard" and "soft" skills and how the development of these skills is the province of both vocational and liberal arts/college prep education. 

Insights from the field

I've just wrapped up a handful of site visits with companies in southern Wisconsin, speaking with HR managers, CEOs and some employees about the "skills gap."  After early rounds of data collection and studying up on the issues, it's clear that the broader issue of the skills gap is far more complex than is often portrayed in the media.  There's a host of issues that employers have with the applicant pool that goes beyond a simple presence/absence of technical skills, or the ability to run a new-fangled laser-directed fabrication machine.  There's the work ethic issue - how about showing up on time for work?  There's the drug test issue - can't have someone with a blood alcohol level of .08 operating a $1m machine (true story!).  There's the inability to work in teams issue, lack of people who work with their hands, and so on.

This last point is really interesting, and I'm hearing from a number of people in industry and academia that they really miss farm kids.  That is, people who grew up working with their hands, working long hours and generally with a solid work ethic, and have the ability to trouble-shoot on the fly.  For the lack of farm kids and general work ethic shortcomings, can there ever be a policy answer to this seemingly cultural set of issues? 

Another insight from the field is that these issues aren't plaguing companies, at least ones that I'm seeing data on, at all levels of the organization.  Hiring management, HR directors, and other similar white collar type of professional positions is a different story than skilled labor.  So the take-home for me at this early stage of this study is that discussions of the skills gap should be far more nuanced and careful than they currently are.  Employers are definitely seeing something in the applicant pool for skilled labor that they don't like - even with the limitations of interviews and anecdotes, that much seems to be clear.  It's also clear that work ethic and communication issues are a major issue, perhaps more than technical abilities or aptitudes. 

And emergent questions that I'm going to pursue include: are these issues common to all job categories?  which types of skills can be addressed by education?  what are the implications of lecture-based or overly didactic instruction for workforce development issues - or, are students who are being trained by teachers adept at inquiry-based instruction going to be in a better position in the job market?

New Walker Workforce Development Bill

Here in Wisconsin the "skills gap" is not just an abstract idea bandied about by pundits and policymakers, but it is having some profound impacts in the statehouse.  This week Gov. Scott Walker signed a $132 million bill centered on workforce development issues that include developing a new labor market data system, $15 million for workforce training grants, increased support for the state's technical college system, and high school apprenticeship programs.  Unlike many things in Wisconsin government, the bill passed with bipartisan support. 

This new push for workforce development was largely informed by two reports that came out last year. The first, the "Be Bold 2" report was sponsored by Competitive Wisconsin and prepared by the Manpower Group: Competitive Wisconsin Be Bold 2 Study.  The second, "The Road Ahead" which is more commonly known as the Sullivan report, was authored by Tim Sullivan, former CEO of Bucyrus International: The Road Ahead Report.

One of the main arguments made by the state government and these reports is that high unemployment is directly attributable to the "skills gap," or the lack of skilled workers available for businesses to hire to do their work.  Some have taken issue with this causative link, such as economist Mark Levine at UW-Milwaukee, whose recent report on the skills gap is sub-titled "Separating Fact from Fiction": UW-Milwaukee Center for Economic Development

And you can see in recent news reports that the back and forth about the skills gap, its existence (or not) and what it should be telling policymakers (if anything) is becoming a hot news item: "Walker signs bill to close 'skills gap'"

For the purposes of this study, I'm not interested in discerning whether or not a skills gap exists, or whether or not it is the reason why the state (and nation) has a persistently high unemployment rate.  I'm not an economist and can't pretend to know my way around labor statistics or theory.  Similarly, I'm not a business owner and don't know the ins and outs of the marketplace.  But what I can, and am doing is talking to people to find out what is going on in the businesses, colleges, and universities across the state.  Ideally, I can straddle a line between what the statistics say and what people in the field are saying, to have something constructive to say about workforce development policy.

Welcome to the WI Skills Gap Study blog!  Stay tuned to this blog for developments on this study, as well as ruminations on skills gap/workforce related issues, which seem to be in the news on a daily basis these days.

But first, some background on the study:

This study is motivated by the widespread idea in the media and policymaking circles that high unemployment is largely due to the gap between workers’ skills and employers’ needs.  The common view is that states such as Wisconsin face a shortage in the number of capable workers who can fill vacancies in certain sectors of the economy, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) related fields.  Various reasons are provided for the existence of the gap including an aging workforce, outmoded or ineffective educational programs, a lack of employer training programs, ineffective hiring policies, and so on. Given that the idea of a skills gap is informing public policy at the state and national levels, with increased emphasis on technical colleges, differential tuition for fields perceived as “job-ready,” and critiques of the value of a liberal arts education, it is important to develop a rigorous understanding of precisely what the nature of this skills gap is and if it exists at all.

While a significant amount of research exists using large data-sets to explore these and related issues, outside of newspaper and magazine articles, little empirical work exists that is based on the actual experiences and perspectives of business owners, educators, and workers.  Indeed, some argue that researchers and policymakers should get out and talk directly with employers and workers, and in this study I adopt that position while also drawing on the research literature and other documentary evidence to answer the research questions. 

This study will examine the nature of the skills gap among four fields (i.e., mechanical engineering, metal manufacturing, network and software development, and biotechnology) in a single state in order to provide an in-depth empirical analysis that can help inform the debate about the skills gap and its implications for workforce development, economic, and education policy.  This study is being conducted with funding support from the Center for Education and Work at UW-Madison.