Recent Accomplishments.

The last time we posted an update, we had just been awarded a supplemental grant from the National Science Foundation, we were doing analytical coding, and it was very cold.  Not only have we accomplished a lot since then, but was almost 70 degrees outside this week! 

For example, we are working on a book deal, with a final draft due in Spring of 2016 (a quick turnaround, right?).  While the book will focus on the question of how educational and industry fields align in preparing students for successful lives and careers, it will also concentrate on a few talented instructors with whom we have interacted across the state.  The aim? To highlight their curricular, instructional, and advising practices and better understand how they cultivate valued competencies in the classroom.  The book will also generally emphasize the importance of partnerships between educators and employers. 

Besides the book deal and the supplemental grant, the team completed the herculean process of analytically coding every interview from this study (over 150 people talked to us).  Analysis of ALL of the free list data has started, and we have outlined the first paper to come out of the study – actually, parts of it have already been composed!  

We are looking forward to sharing more with you as we continue to develop our findings.  In the meantime, we will keep on analyzing, writing, and disseminating our results in a variety of ways.

We are making some serious progress!

Inside Higher Ed Op-Ed.

We had an op-ed published in Inside Higher Ed today!

The intention of the piece is to get more people to think about the current rhetoric surrounding the “skills gap” as well as subsequent policy responses at the state and national level.  We argue that Governor Walker and President Obama’s approach to the “skills gap” is problematic, bolstering our case with a sneak peek at data we have collected in the field over the last year and a half.  Since this is the first time we have publicized results, we are anxiously awaiting feedback and comments.  (In fact, you should probably go read the article and leave a comment right now).

As you’ll see, the article discusses some of our more surprising findings.  For example, educators and employers believe that “work ethic” plays a very significant role in workers’ success.  Employers and educators alike also cited an interesting suite of skills as being important for success, including so-called “hard” skills like technical knowledge or technical abilities, and “soft” skills like lifelong learning, communication, and teamwork.  While the data in part confirms recent trends, our unique methodological approach will allow us to better understand how key stakeholders look at these important issues.  Participants said some pretty fascinating things about these skills and the roles they play in success.

We conclude the piece, first, with three important recommendations for business and postsecondary leaders: (1) appreciate how a liberal and general education prepares students for the workforce, (2) support educators in using active learning techniques in the classroom, and (3) create opportunities to foster partnerships between educators and employers.

We also end by pointing out that the current debate would benefit from a much more open discussion of one important question: what is the purpose of higher education in the United States of the 21^st century?     

What do YOU think?

Supplemental Grant Awarded!

In the grayest and snowiest of times here in Wisconsin, some exciting news hit our inbox yesterday from the National Science Foundation.  Our study was awarded a supplemental grant that will extend our current project to include focus groups with students and new hires.  Given that the current project is looking at education-workforce pathways and alignment issues between educators and employers, it makes sense to speak with those who are actually moving between these sectors.  Also, few studies have utilized the voices of students and new hires when investigating the skills gap, so this addition to our study should prove fruitful for our findings.

We have been in the thick of analysis for about two and half months now – in other words, we have been spending lots of time both in NVivo coding and in meetings discussing emergent themes.  We thought the study was exciting before, but now we have some pretty incredible data to back that feeling up.  Once it is in better shape, we will share some highlights!

Besides coding, we have begun the groundwork for the first peer-reviewed paper coming out of the study – a summative piece reporting the findings from the project as a whole. 

With piles of blankets and lots of hot tea and coffee, we continue to move forward! 

More to come.

Updates and What Is Coming!

It’s been months since our last update, and we have a lot of news to share! 

The first year mark of the study (October 1) has passed, and during that time we have accomplished a lot.  In our travels around Wisconsin, the three members of our team have chatted with over 150 individuals who are working in manufacturing or biotechnology businesses or related initiatives or who are teaching or advising students on pathways into these industries.   We conducted many shop floor and laboratory tours and learned more about the factors that shape hiring, that affect curriculum and instruction, and that influence the formation of partnerships between higher education and the workforce.  We also gathered some very interesting data concerning the “skills gap” and what our participants thought of that phenomenon…

In terms of publications, we released a report on the conundrum concerning what STEM jobs actually are and what that means for subsequent labor market analyses.  A proposal regarding work ethic in the classroom has been accepted for a poster session at the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in Chicago, so we will start sharing our results on that front at that conference in the spring.

In November, Matt and I traveled to Washington DC to the Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE).  I presented a paper on undergraduate study habits (an idea that we are hoping to loop into workforce development), and Matt and I met a variety of interesting people working on higher education-workforce development projects.  We were excited to see the field embrace this line of research, and we enjoyed the models and ideas that others put forth.  A high point for me was attending a panel about the mis-specified STEM crisis that grappled with questions that were relevant to our study and to the report we just released.

So what lies ahead during the chilly months of December and January?  We are in the thick of our analysis now and are exploring every detail that our participants shared with us.  The coming months will be a carnival of analysis, interpretations, meetings, discussions, more analysis, and RESULTS!  As we march on, we promise to post more frequent updates with interesting findings and relevant stories. 

We will also pursue our in-depth follow-up interviews and observations in the coming months.  We’ve just selected around six postsecondary education instructors to closely follow and analyze in order to better understand their curriculum design, teaching, advising, and their partnerships with industry.  Their interesting and unique stories will bring to life some of our most important findings.

Lastly, please feel free to share your thoughts and experiences in the comments or contact us directly with your insights.  If anything, our fieldwork has taught us that collaboration and teamwork is key, and we would love to hear from you!

Thoughts from the field: Training a business major to run AutoCAD

Just got back from more fieldwork in Western Wisconsin, where I and a member of the research team hung out at the local community college, 4-year university, and lots of factories.  One of the enduring impressions of my time there was an interview and shop floor tour with the Director of Tooling at a mid-size company that made mostly automotive parts.  Upon answering my question about the applicant pool for recent openings, he bemoaned the fact that the local community college graduated so few students in his area (i.e., tool and die), but really, what he needed was people with a strong work ethic, a good head on their shoulders, and a willingness to learn.  This was largely due to the fact that they had to train people anyways on their own machinery and in-house processes.  In fact, he noted that sometimes experience (whether on the job or in school) was a negative, as this meant people came into the company with ideas about how things should be done.  In other words, a complete newbie could be molded to fit the organizational culture and workflow.

This was clear when he mentioned that two recent hires were business majors looking for work, and who were hired to do design work, mostly using AutoCAD software.  They trained the new hires to use it and after a couple of months they were off and running.  Sure, it would have been ideal to not have to spend the time doing that training, but the guy I was talking to observed that the skills and aptitudes that got these people through college - hard work, good reasoning abilities, willingness to learn - were in the long run more valuable than an abridged training period. 

While we have many results and findings coming out from this study, this one is rising to the top because we're hearing it across the state and across sectors.  Since our focus is on how classroom teaching and training programs can be designed to meet the needs of both employers and educators, the question becomes one of how to leverage the expertise and insights from instructional designers (especially in the learning sciences, and also in STEM education circles) to help people design their curricula and organize their classrooms.  But, it also points to the fact that, because these aptitudes are learnt from childhood and strongly molded in the home and community, that the answers to these issues are not solely to be found in our schools, colleges, or universities.

Can "soft skills" be taught?

This is one of the recurring questions that comes to mind as we enter the mid-point of this study.  Raised by some employers and educators, this question gets to one of the biggest areas of need we are seeing in the workplace - the ability to communicate, reason, problem-solve, and be a team player.

Unsurprisingly, many people have thought long and hard about this, and here is a nice post from the Workforce Solutions group at St. Louis Community College.  A key idea is that:

"By the time students show up at an institution of higher education, they have been socialized to a large extent. They come with habits, preferences and behaviors deeply rooted in their personal experiences. So, the likelihood that a college student will be able to demonstrate acceptable non-cognitive behaviors in class is more of a function of what they learned from their parents, K-12 education and other experiences."

The author then goes on to state that this doesn't mean the postsecondary teacher is off the hook, and we are collecting some very nice examples of course curricula and classroom techniques that teachers (mostly in community colleges!) are using to explicitly cultivate the so-called "soft skills."  I call them so-called because it's a pretty awful catch-all term, especially since it is intended to capture some behavioral norms that are culturally embedded - something the term "skills" doesn't really capture.

In any case, figuring out how to cultivate these aptitudes and skills in students seems to be something that would benefit not just the workforce, but the students themselves as they embark on their careers and lives.  Figuring out just how to do that is turning out to be one of this research program's primary areas of inquiry. 

Lots of news about the workforce and education

This seems to be a good time to be thinking about these issues, or depending on your perspective, perhaps an unfortunate time.  In any case, the past 2 days have seen a few noteworthy developments on the topic being addressed by this study: the relationship between employer expectations and what educators are providing to students.

First, President Obama highlighted these issues in his 2014 State of the Union.  Some choice selections include:

"So tonight, I've asked Vice President Biden to lead an across-the-board reform of America's training programs to make sure they have one mission:  Train Americans with the skills employers need, and match them to good jobs that need to be filled right now."

"That means more on-the-job training and more apprenticeships that set a young worker on an upward trajectory for life. It means connecting companies to community colleges that can help design training to fill their specific needs. And if Congress wants to help, you can concentrate funding on proven programs that connect more ready-to-work Americans with ready-to-be-filled jobs."

"Of course, it's not enough to train today's workforce. We also have to prepare tomorrow's workforce, by guaranteeing every child access to a world-class education."

Second, in Waukesha today the President, continuing on this line of thinking, made it clear what types of postsecondary degrees and training he felt would lead one to a fruitful, middle-class, family-supporting career:

"A lot of parents, unfortunately, maybe when they saw a lot of manufacturing being offshored, told their kids you don't want to go into the trades, you don't want to go into manufacturing because you'll lose your job.  Well, the problem is that what happened -- a lot of young people no longer see the trades and skilled manufacturing as a viable career.  But I promise you, folks can make a lot more, potentially, with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree.  Now, nothing wrong with an art history degree -- I love art history.  (Laughter.)  So I don't want to get a bunch of emails from everybody.  (Laughter.)  I'm just saying you can make a really good living and have a great career without getting a four-year college education as long as you get the skills and the training that you need. "

Finally, a report came out of Bentley University (in MA) called the Prepared U Project which is about the types of skills students need to succeed in today's workforce.  The data released this week are based on 3,149 respondents (corporate recruiters, biz executives, college students) and there's a lot of good stuff in there.  One being that 19% felt that "hard" skills were essential, 14% felt that "soft" skills were essential, and 66% said both.  That's a topic that we're addressing directly in our own study, and its great to see others are tackling this issue, in part to counteract some of the more simplistic ideas about what constitutes a skilled workforce or marketable skills that are out there.

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.