21st Century Careers

...now browsing by category

 

The ACM Computer Programming Competition: Lessons for America and from IBM

Sunday, August 28th, 2011

My previous blog, The United States’ Clogged Technology Education-to-Employment Pipeline, provided a number of examples of how U.S. students, from K-12, to college to grad schools), are falling behind their counterparts in other countries across virtually all segments of STEM education. Although these deficiencies are troubling in their own right, they only begin to suggest a much bigger, much more troubling problem for the U.S. economy.

The educational system is, after all, the primary pipeline through which corporations receive the steady flow of talent they need to keep America competitive in a global economy. And since this competitiveness will be based on innovation, this talent must be fluent in the language of innovation. STEM is that language.

Although I have spoken with many people and have read and written much on the challenges facing U.S. STEM education, I never really had a chance to see the manifestation of these challenges for myself. Therefore, I was happy to travel to Orlando Florida to learn about and see the world finals round of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) International Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC).

This blog briefly describes the contest and its outcome, and provides my view of the implications for the U.S. Its primary focus, however, is on corporate support of these competitions and on their role in supporting the recruitment activities of their sponsors—in this case, IBM:

  • Why, for example, has IBM sponsored and funded this competition for the last 15 years, and why it has committed to continuing to do so for at least the next 5 years;
  • What value does IBM get from this generosity and what is it doing to maximize the value it derives from it; and
  • What are the implications and opportunities for other tech vendors that hope to promote STEM education and improve their own chances of recruiting the most promising graduates?

The ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest

The contest is a multi-stage competition that started with more than 300,000 students. It begins with dozens of local competitions, and progresses through six geographically-aligned regional competitions (this year, with 24,915 contestants from 2,070 universities and 88 countries). It culminates in a final competition that, this year, consisted of 315 students on 105 teams.

These teams compete not only with each other, but also against tight time constraints and limited resources (one computer and three calculators per team) in an attempt to solve eleven real-world problems. They must often deal with ambiguity, exercise judgment to assess when to submit an answer (to avoid penalties for incorrect submissions) and continually reassess their strategies to determine on which problems to focus their energies. Success, therefore, depends not only on speed and accuracy, but also on teamwork, resource prioritization and allocation, quick thinking, and adaptability.

The questions are designed with varying levels of difficulty, from a couple that require relatively moderate skills to a couple that would challenge many of the best, most experienced programmers in the world. In the end, after five hours of intense work, ten teams answered seven questions correctly, and two teams managed to answer eight, an impressive feat for college students, especially under the constraints imposed by the rules.

As has been the case in most years since the competition went international, this year’s winner’s circle was led by teams from Russia (four of the top ten teams) and China (two of the top ten, including 1st place Zhejiang University and 3rd place Tsinghua University). In fact, combined, these two countries represented half of the top 26 teams (7 for China and 6 for Russia), with two other perennially strong countries, Poland and the U.S., taking two spots apiece and another, Ukraine, capturing three.

U.S. schools, who typically make quite respectable showings, qualified 18 teams for the finals. One, North American regional champion University of Michigan Ann Arbor, took 2nd place in the world finals and three others (Carnegie-Mellon took 13th, MIT 32nd and Princeton 48th) in the top 58 (all of whom had at least 4 correct answers). The remaining 14, each correctly answering fewer than four questions, received Honorable Mentions.

As would be expected, men overwhelmingly dominated the competition, with women accounting for fewer than 10 of the 315 contestants. This year, however, a woman was part of the Zhejiang University championship team. (As I discussed in my previous blog, U.S. women, while expanding their inroads in science and especially medicine, are poorly represented in math, engineering and IT.)

Challenges for the U.S.

Although one must not try to read too much into the results of one competition, Russian and Chinese (and more broadly, Eastern European and East Asian) schools are traditionally among the winners. U.S. teams, meanwhile, typically do make quite respectable showings. Approximately 20 U.S. schools typically make it to the finals, and in eight of the last 15 years at least two U.S. universities have won medals (i.e., placed among the top 12). In fact, at least three U.S. teams medaled in four of the last 15 years, with one winning the championship and five placing second.

Respectable: yes. But as the results of this competition (not to speak of the educational statistics cited in my July 31 blog) make clear, companies that need access to the best talent must look well beyond U.S. citizens and U.S. schools. After all, non-U.S. universities, as is clear from the competition, already contain much of the world’s best programming talent. (Meanwhile, some of U.S. teams, including the Number 2 University of Michigan team, included students from other countries.) These non-U.S. students and schools promise to become even more competitive as Asian schools, in particular, continue to improve, attract more world-class professors and become more attractive destinations for the world’s most promising students.

Meanwhile, as discussed in my July 31 blog, U.S. students (with the notable exception of Asian-Americans) are moving away from STEM disciplines and U.S. universities now count on non-U.S. citizens for rapidly growing percentages of their undergraduate science and engineering classes–259,000 new undergraduate students in 2009/10 alone (not to speak of an absolute majority of their PhD candidates).

That creates a problem: The U.S. is producing fewer of its own world-class programmers and IT engineers. Meanwhile, U.S. companies are finding it increasingly difficult to bring world-class talent from other countries into the U.S. Where then will these companies find the talent they need to grow?

This brings us full-circle back to the ACM competitions, and specifically to IBM, which sponsors the competitions.

Opportunities for IBM

IBM has been sponsoring the ACM competition for the last 15 years and has just committed to extending this sponsorship for at least the next five years. Why does it devote so much money and so many of its people to this work? It hopes to:

  1. Recognize and spotlight STEM skills;
  2. Inspire more students to study and develop their problem-solving skills in these fields;
  3. Encourage and facilitate cross-cultural exchange among schools and students; and
  4. Identify some of the best STEM talent in the world, expose them to IBM and the types of problems they would work on at IBM and improve IBM’s ability to recruit these people.

IBM, as exemplified by its rapidly expanded focus on donating money, products and expertise to educational institutions, and as demonstrated by programs such as its Academic Initiative and its newly announced P-Tech high school partnership with New York City, is deeply committed to encouraging students and helping all levels of schools to improve STEM education.

But for all of its philanthropic efforts, IBM is also intent on reaping its fair share of the rewards from such efforts. It wants the best and brightest of these graduates to join IBM. This is more of a challenge than it may appear. True, IBM is clearly one of the leading and most diversified IT companies in the world. It is also consistently rated as one of the world’s top brands and one of the best companies for which to work. Still, it is generally less visible to students than are more consumer-facing brands, such as Microsoft and Google and does not offer the type of pre-IPO lure of companies such as Facebook and Twitter.

The ACM competition provides IBM with a unique opportunity to meet and to present itself to many of the most promising college-age programmers in the world. It is, therefore, no surprise that IBM leverages the competition to introduce itself to these students. It provides demonstrations of some of the company’s cutting-edge technologies and research, and populates the conference with a number of IBM employees who are alumni of the ACM competition and of some of the schools represented in the contest.

It has also set up a separate recruiting process, separate from but coordinated with the company’s primary recruiting efforts, to learn what interested contestants are looking for in their careers and to help identify how they can accomplish their goals at IBM. This year, the company went a big step beyond recruiting. In addition to monetary rewards (of up to $12,000 per team) from ACM, IBM, this year, made open job offers to the top 12 placing students—three members from each of the Top Four teams in the competition. The company will offer them jobs or internships in whichever IBM group (IBM Research, Software Group, etc.) and whichever country (subject to IBM operations in and government permissions) they choose.

IBM’s partnership with ACM provides yet another example of how a company can do well by doing good.

Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility, IBM, IT Industry Role in Education, STEM Careers | No Responses »
Tags: , , , ,

The United States’ Clogged Technology Education-to-Employment Pipeline

Sunday, July 31st, 2011

We are being continually bombarded with news of the failures of the U.S. educational system. Although concerns span virtually all subjects, they are particularly severe in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)—the language of technological innovation and the foundation of most of the country’s competitiveness in global markets.

The problems, particularly for U.S.-born students (with the sole exception of Asian-American males), seem to compound at every step of the educational ladder and are now beginning to profoundly affect the workplace

Primary and Secondary Education Shortfalls

These shortfalls begin in our elementary and high schools. Consider, for example, that:

  • The 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress exam found that fewer than one-third of elementary and high school students have a solid grasp of science. Worse still, students are falling further behind each year of study, with only 34% of 4th-graders, 30% of 8th-graders and 21% of 12th-graders being proficient or advanced;
  • The OECD’s 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) found U.S. 15-year-olds near the mean for test scores and below the median ranking for each of the three tested areas, ranking 16th of 30 in reading, 21st in science and 29th in math;
  • The New York State Education Department found that only 37% of all students who entered high school in 2006 graduated with math and English scores high enough to qualify them for college. The figure was worse in most cities, where 21% of New York City, 14.5% of Yonkers and 6% of Rochester students would qualify.

These primary and secondary education system shortfalls in science and math education flow inevitably upward, through all levels of college and university education. And this was all before the current slashing of public education budgets, teaching staffs, school hours and classes—cuts that span all levels of the education spectrum, from K-12, to community colleges, state colleges and even Tier-One public research institutions, like the University of California at Berkeley.

College STEM Challenges

Although the percentage of high-school freshman who actually graduate from high school is falling, there are indeed some positive trends among those who do graduate. First, the percentage of high-school graduates who go directly to college is steadily increasing (from 57% in 2000 to 63% in 2008). Even better, the percentage of incoming college freshman who plan to major in STEM-related fields has recovered from a decline in the 1980s and ‘90s, to approach Cold War levels, reaching 31% in 2004 and 34% in 2009. Amazingly, these percentages are almost identical among Whites, Asian-Americans, Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans. In fact, the only major demographic group that is underrepresented in the “quantitative sciences” is women.

This is where the bad news begins. Among those freshman who initially aspire to a STEM degree, fewer than one-third actually graduate with these degrees within five years. Most of these entrants either drop out of school, change majors to less demanding disciplines, or take longer to graduate.

These are multiple reasons for this fall off. Many who did well in high-school classes (especially those who were not enrolled in AP classes) find themselves ill-prepared for the rigors of a STEM education. Many have to take remedial courses before ever getting to degree programs. Fewer still are prepared for the demanding workloads or are willing to accept the lower grades these courses typically produce. As we have seen in study after study, the U.S. educational system—from elementary schools through universities—is migrating to fewer classroom hours, less homework and easier grading. College students, in particular, increasingly view college at least as much of a social opportunity, as an educational opportunity.

It is in this period, between entering college and graduation, that demographic differences become pronounced. Although similar percentages of all racial groups initially aspire to a STEM degree, the differences in the percentages from each group that actually earn these degrees in five years are huge:

  • 42% for Asian-Americans;
  • 33% for Whites;
  • 22% for Latinos; and
  • 18% for African Americans.

Meanwhile, women, who now account for 58% of all U.S. college students, and an even larger percentage of honors degrees, are increasingly opting out of quantitative disciplines. True, they do (at least as of 2006) account for a majority of bachelor’s degrees in sciences including psychology (78%), agriculture (51%), biology (62%) and chemistry (52%) and are well-represented in some emergent engineering disciplines, such as environmental and biomedical. They, however, represent only small—and declining—minorities of quantitative degrees. As of 2006, for example, women earned only 20% of engineering, 21% of physics and 22% of computer science degrees. Their participation in computer science, in particular, plummeted from 37% to 22% over two decades (1985 to 2005).

And this does not even begin to assess the many problems that are plaguing the nation’s community college system—a system that is required to provide the skilled labor required to assist engineers and to produce and service innovative products. (See my series of blogs, beginning with The Community College Contribution.)

U.S. Graduate Schools as Magnets for Foreign-Born STEM Aspirants

These trends are further magnified in graduate STEM programs—but with another, big, new wrinkle.

U.S.-born racial/ethnic minorities and women have long accounted for small minorities of U.S. STEM graduate classes. Although U.S.-born minority students are gaining some ground (from 29% in 2000 to 34% in 2007), most races continue to be greatly under-represented as a percentage of all graduate students. For example, as of 2007, only 8% of all African American, 12% of Native American and 13% of Latino graduate students are enrolled in engineering, physical sciences, and biological sciences programs.

Whites are also increasingly under-represented in these programs, accounting for only 16% of total U.S.-born White graduate program enrollees. The big gainers, not surprisingly, are Asian Americans, with 29% of all of those enrolled in U.S. graduate programs studying in engineering, physical sciences, or biology.

Although women are also gaining some ground in quantitative graduate programs, their numbers and percentages remain small, accounting for fewer than 10% of all U.S. PhDs in electrical, mechanical and aeronautical engineering. (They do, however, represent more than 25% of chemical and industrial engineering doctorates and more than half of all social science and biology PhDs.)

Although U.S. born Asian-American males are rapidly ascending the STEM educational ladder, even they are being overwhelmed by Asian-born, naturalized U.S. citizens and especially by Asian citizens who chose to study in the U.S. In fact, while 90-95% of all STEM bachelor’s degrees are now awarded to U.S.-born students, 55% of all STEM PhDs now go to foreign-born students.

Although some of these foreign-born candidates are naturalized U.S. citizens, the number of foreign citizens studying in U.S. STEM graduate schools has exploded. The number of STEM doctorates awarded to temporary visa holders, for example, grew by 50% (compared with 18% in those to U.S. citizens and permanent visa holders) between 2003 and 2008 and now account for 38% of total degrees.

Even these totals, however, are dwarfed by numbers in specific fields. Visa holders, for example, now account for 45% of all physical science doctorates and 57% of all engineering doctorates awarded by U.S. universities. (A 2010 Congressional Research Service study suggests that even some of these percentages may be too low. By the time one combines those in the U.S. on permanent, as well as temporary visas, 67% of all engineering PhDs are granted to non-U.S. citizens.

Where Do We Go From Here?

This all sounds very ominous. It appears, from the numbers, that the U.S. is rapidly losing its ability to produce its own technical talent and that we will be forced to rely on “imports” for the scientists and engineers that will be required to rejuvenate our economy and compete in an increasingly technology-driven, global economy.

But is the situation really this bleak? What is the current state and the future of the U.S. technology workforce? What can U.S.-based technology companies do to address the nation’s and their own talent requirements? What role can non-U.S.-based companies play in addressing our talent shortages? Can the U.S. government help, or should it just get out of the way.

I will address these and a number of related issues in my next several blogs.

Posted in 21st Century Careers, STEM Careers, Workforce Trends | No Responses »
Tags: , ,

The Governmental Mandate of Shared Value Creation

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

My February 6 blog (Shared Value Creation: The Next Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility and of Capitalism) explained the many benefits that corporations can achieve through a new, more business-aligned approach to corporate philanthropy. This approach, which is called Shared Value Creation, consists of “policies and practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the social and economic conditions of the communities in which it operates,” It is a concept, which as Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter explains, is becoming more than a corporate opportunity—it is practically becoming a corporate mandate: a form of “self-interested behavior” that creates economic value for the company, by the very process of creating societal value.

As Porter described in his January 2011 Harvard Business Review article, when applied effectively, shared value creation can burnish a company’s brand, attract new customers and help a company recruit employees and improve employee commitment to the organization. This, however, is only the tip of a value proposition that can go much deeper. It can directly help the company enter new markets, improve economies in existing markets and create totally new business opportunities—generating cost savings, as well as revenue gains.

While the HBR article and my February 6 blog focused on the opportunities for corporations to benefit from Shared Value Creation, a January 2011 Accenture study, New Waves of Growth: Unlocking Opportunity in the Multi-Polar World, effectively suggests ways in which shared value creation can help communities and countries, as well as companies.

Capitalizing on the Four Waves of Growth

According to the Accenture report, governments that hope to create significant growth in GDP and jobs over the next decade must capitalize on what it identifies as four major waves of growth. These waves are based on opportunities being created around:

  • The “silver” economy. The graying of the population, as through initiatives in areas including connected health, health and welfare products and services, lifelong finance and new products that are optimized for older people;
  • The resource economy. The providing of more reliable and cleaner sources of energy and other types of increasingly scarce resources (land, water, food, minerals, etc.), including the need to build and manage intelligent infrastructures and processes (as for energy, buildings, water and land management and so forth);
  • A multi-technology future. The rapid adoption and increasingly integrated roles that new technologies (such as superfast broadband, cloud computing, sensors, analytics, mobility and security) will play across all industries and processes and as integrated with traditionally distinct disciplines to create new fields such as bio-informatics, micropayments and manu-services;
  • The emerging-markets surge. The rise of a multi-polar world in which economic activity and resources are increasingly gravitating toward emerging economies and rapidly growing urban centers and creating new opportunities for all types of low-cost goods and services, citizen services and smart infrastructures.

Countries that effectively capitalize on these waves can, according to an Oxford Economics’ analysis commissioned by Accenture, gain huge benefits. The U.S., for example, could add 0.7 percentage points to its otherwise anticipated 3.1% average annual GDP growth and create 9.7 million additional jobs by 2020—a level of economic output and job growth equivalent to the current size of the entire U.S. auto industry. Other countries could achieve correspondingly similar gains. Germany, for example, could boost average GDP growth by 32% and employment by an additional 3 million, United Kingdom by 24% and 2.6 million and India by about 9% and 37.5 million jobs.

The Government Mandate

Although Accenture paints an encouraging picture for countries and societies that can effectively ride these waves of growth, accomplishing these results will take years of hard work. Strategies must be developed, smart infrastructures built, business environments enhanced and most critically, millions of people must be educated, trained and retrained to create and effectively utilize new capabilities.

This leads to the biggest challenge and the biggest opportunity of all. For better or worse, no single company, government or sector of society has the resources, the skills or the reach required to define comprehensive national strategies for, much less create the foundations for capitalizing on these waves. Positioning a country to capitalize will require entirely new levels of cooperation and coordination among all types of businesses, all layers of government and many different non-profit organizations (especially schools and universities).

This is a challenge in that so few countries have seriously attempted to foster this type of cooperation (and in that many attempts to do so have failed). It is an opportunity in that there has never before been such an urgent need to do so. Emerging countries must do so to address the rapidly growing aspirations (not to speak of the expectations and demands) of their citizens. Developed countries must find ways of compensating for relative declines in economic power and security and especially for preparing their citizens to compete and thrive in an increasingly global workforce.

The good news is that there are a growing number of examples in which corporations, schools, foundations and government entities are cooperating to address common needs. These, as discussed in my last two years of blogs and reports, include Microsoft’s Partners in Learning Program, IBM’s Academic Initiative, Intel’s Teach and Entrepreneurship programs, General Electric’s Ecomagination program (see my forthcoming March blogs and report) and IBM’s Smarter Planet and Cisco’s Smart+Connected Communities initiatives (see my forthcoming April blogs). Not to speak of Accenture’s own Skills to Succeed program.

But as effective as some of these and other industry efforts have been, and as promising as some of their prospects, most address only specific, often local elements of huge, multi-faceted national problems. Large-scale success will require thousands of such initiatives and increasingly formal coordination among them.

There is, however, precious little evidence that most countries are prepared for such efforts. The U.S., in particular, has a fundamental and very vocal disagreement as to whether such efforts will indeed help or harm the country. But disagreement notwithstanding, President Obama is intent on creating foundations for such cooperation. He has, for example, engaged foundations in his effort to enhance community college curricula and graduation rates and has recently enlisted two high-profile business executives to chair groups that are intended to align public and private-sector efforts around initiatives to prepare the nation for the future (and incidentally, to capitalize on Accenture’s waves).

In January 20011, he named General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as chairman of his new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness (whose mission is described by its name) and Steve Case as chairman of Startup America (whose goal is to promote entrepreneurism and high-growth startups). Both are likely to enlist other executives into their efforts and coordinate their efforts with other business constituencies. Immelt is likely to draw members and ideas from groups to which he belongs, such as the Business Roundtable and the Business Council. Startup America, meanwhile, has already won support of and about $400 million in funding from IBM, Intel and Hewlett-Packard. Both groups will at least formalize private sector inputs into critical government decisions. Ideally they will do more, such as usher in an era of cooperation among public, private and non-profit sectors.

After all, as Accenture explains, no one segment of the economy controls all of the levers required to mobilize all the country’s efforts. “Coordination among the three sectors—business, government and non-profit—will no longer be a bonus, but a necessity.”

Posted in 21st Century Careers, Corporate Social Responsibility, Technology's Impact on Job Skills | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Elementary, My Dear Watson?

Sunday, February 20th, 2011

Don’t get me wrong. There was absolutely nothing elementary in IBM’s phenomenal work on Watson. The public debut of the machine (actually the real “magic” was in the software, rather than the hardware), was a triumph in a world that had been claiming, as far back as the 1980s, that “artificial intelligence” was just around the corner.

Still, there is indeed something about Watson that is clearly elementary: something that should give us great hope for the future—both Watson’s and ours.

The “Jeopardy Challenge” , in which IBM’s “Watson” computer handily defeated the two highest winning players in Jeopardy history, was only the latest in a series of Grand Challenges, in which IBM pushed the envelope of computer science to perform tasks that were previously considered beyond the realm of computers—the use of IBM’s Deep Blue in beating the world chess champion, Blue Gene’s role in decoding the human genome and even IBM’s role in enabling the U.S. the land a man on the moon.

Watson, however, went an order of magnitude beyond these previous triumphs of computer power. While the computer’s encyclopedic database and computational power certainly enabled its success, these capabilities were already available on off-the-shelf IBM hardware (2,800 cores and 15 TB of memory in 90 of its Power 750 servers and 20 TB of disk storage linked in a cluster).

Its real accomplishment was in its ability to interpret not just natural language, but the types of puns, metaphors and idioms that have come to characterize Jeopardy. This was enabled by a combination of off-the-shelf hardware and especially the secret sauce embedded in the Jeopardy-specific algorithms over which IBM researchers wrote, tested and tweaked over the last three years. And don’t forget the confidence rating and wagering algorithms which, while resulting in numbers that may have sounded strange to humans, were based on calculates of the odds for all types of contingencies.

Will the Real Watson Please Stand Up

Watson was certainly not perfect in its victory. In the first night’s contest, Watson modestly bested the score of one of its human competitors, and only tied that of the other. Night two, in the first round of Double Jeopardy, things got downright scary, with Watson being the first to buzz for, and correctly answer 24 of the 30 total questions. Watching the frustration of the helpless humans, one could be forgiven for thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey’s HAL.

Then, with its blunder on its first round Final Jeopardy (Did Toronto recently secede from Canada and join the U.S.?) and its “merely human-level” performance (although it did reach a number of correct answers, but not in time to beat the other contestants) in round two, I got really scared. I began asking myself whether Watson consciously “backed off”, avoiding running up the score, either out of empathy for its flailing competitors, or out of fear that a machine that so dominated humans would be feared and shunned by society. While Watson did end up winning the three-night competition, the ultimate outcome wasn’t really determined until the last Daily Double, and the wager (that ensured it could not loose) that it made on the last Final Jeopardy question.

Why did I find this so frightening? Because I, who have been in the IT industry for more than 30 years, actually began to attribute human feelings to a hunk of silicon!

It is Indeed, Elementary

But I digress. As I discussed above, there was absolutely nothing in IBM or Watson’s Jeopardy performance that was “elementary.” It was, by any account, a stellar achievement.

So, what was so elementary about Watson’s triumph? The comparison of its success in winning a television game show, to:

  • The enormous challenges that civilization faces (and, not coincidentally, that IBM is attempting to address with its Smarter Planet initiatives); and
  • The contributions that Watson technology and learnings have the potential of making to addressing these challenges.

First, let’s recognize—Watson is a room size machine, residing in a specially designed and extensively cooled data center and that even its off-the-shelf components (without even accounting for the cost of developing the algorithms that were so fundamental to its success) cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, as Computer Intelligence guru Ray Kurzweil explained in his February 17 Wall Street Journal editorial, at the current rate of computer price-performance advances, Watson’s power is likely to fit within single server in about seven years and within a PC in a decade.

Just as importantly, a “real-life” system would not have to contain the sum total of world knowledge. These systems will be:

  • Tailored to the needs of a specific discipline (such as medicine or finance) or the needs of a specific company;
  • Will have access to the Internet, third-party search tools and external databases, rather than having to operate as a self-contained unit; and
  • Will not be required to devise answers that meet its minimum confidence levels within the three seconds that are required for Jeopardy.

Watson-like capabilities, will, in other words, be available to the public (or at least some segments of the public) within the next couple years. Meanwhile, IBM has already partnered with Nuance Communications to bring speech recognition capabilities to Watson (initially, specifically for healthcare).

Watson’s Next Careers

After Watson’s first (albeit brief) stint as a television star, it is ready to explore more “mundane” careers. But what are these careers likely to be?

While the Star Trek computer was a model for at least some of IBM’s researchers, most of Watson’s opportunities will be much more down-to-earth. Many are based on the coupling of Watson’s “Deep Question Answering” technology and deep analytics in decision support applications. Possibilities—or indeed, probabilities—may include:

  • Customer Service, which could improve service time and quality while simultaneously disrupting a business model in which so many call center jobs have moved to low-cost countries;
  • Financial Analysis, such as in the combing of huge quantities of structured data and unstructured information to identify likely acquisition targets;
  • Travel, such as in a new-generation navigation system in which drivers can ask for best ways of avoiding traffic, or more interestingly, to suggesting routes from X to Y that take one past attractions that best meet your profile, such as museums, restaurants or wineries that make 90+ point wines; and
  • C-suite assistant, to identify and assess business trends, evaluate a broad range of contingencies or running what-if analyses, such as the impact different product and advertising mixes may have on revenue and profitability.

This leads to what is probably the most important and imminent of applications for Watson Technology—its use in health care. Although the potential applications are numerous, the first and highest-impact application is likely to be in diagnostics, such as where a doctor can input lists of symptoms, medical histories, and a broad range of other relevant information to identify possible illnesses.

Better yet, it could be used to review individual electronic medical records to identify symptoms that a doctor may miss or large volumes of electronic records to identify linkages that have not previously been discovered. Longer term, it could even be used to bring first-line diagnostics to remote, emerging country villages that do not have access to doctors, such as by allowing nurses or technologists to input systems into a computer, to a remote Watson-based diagnostic system.

Many potential applications, as in health care or engineering, could face big legal questions. What if Watson made a mistake in diagnosing an illness or in calculating tolerances for a bridge? Or what if Watson correctly suggested an option, which was dismissed by the doctor or engineer? Or have we taken the first step into the science fiction era, where computers may obviate the need for humans in even some of the most demanding of professions?

While the answers to such questions will have to wait, the application of Watson technology to these challenges will not. The day after Watson’s Jeopardy victory, Columbia University Medical Center and the University of Maryland Medical School announced a plan to work with IBM on health care analytics research, with a goal of launching a commercial diagnostic and treatment offering over the next 18-24 months.

We will have to wait to see whether Watson will be as successful in its future careers as it was in its first. My guess, however, is that Watson’s descendants will have as great an impact on society, business and the nature of knowledge work, as the Internet.

Posted in IBM, Innovation/Entrepeneur, Job and Career Opportunities, Technology's Impact on Job Skills | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

IBM Corporate Service Corps: Integrating Business Objectives and CSR

Sunday, January 23rd, 2011

This is a summary of my January 2011 report “IBM Corporate Service Corps: Integrating Business Objectives and CSR”. For more information on this report or to purchase it for $995, click here.

IBM has one of the strongest talent development programs and one of the strongest corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs in the technology industry. What do you get when you combine them? IBM’s Corporate Service Corps (CSC)—a great example of how companies can do well by doing good (see my May 2010 report for a view of another IBM initiative, this one or integrating its university CSR and internal talent development initiatives.)

IBM’s Corporate Service Corps is a leadership development program, inspired by the U.S. Peace Corps. It is intended to put IBM’s most valuable resource—its people—in places that can most benefit from their expertise, and provide these employees with experiences from which they can gain broad leadership and cross-cultural experience. It provides select, high-potential employees with intense experience in working with global teams on short-duration, high-intensity projects in emerging countries. It is also a big expansion of IBM’s CSR efforts that turns social volunteerism into a life learning experience.

CSC Objectives

The program, which was launched in 2008, deploys small, 8-12-person multi-disciplinary teams to provide pro bono consulting—helping emerging country government, nonprofit and non-governmental organizations develop specific plans for addressing some of their most pressing societal needs. These can range from upgrading a government agency’s IT environment and processes, to developing a supply-chain management process for getting agricultural products to market, to improving the quality of a community’s public water supply. While each project is different, each is intended to result in practical blueprints for solving problems that are limiting a country or a community’s growth and their peoples’ ability to contribute to that growth.

Although CSC is absolutely intended to deliver broad societal benefits to emerging countries, it is first and foremost a corporate leadership development program. Its goal, however, is not so much to teach specific business skills as it is to instill the qualities individuals require to become leaders in a globally integrated business. Participants are given deep, intensive exposure to emerging markets and diverse cultures and experience in forming and working in multi-cultural, multi-disciplinary teams. They are expected to return with improved cultural literacy, better appreciation for the strengths and limitations of different cultures and work styles, and especially greater adaptability and global teaming skills.

Although the program entails a lot of additional work (30-day in-country assignments plus extensive preparation and post-return requirements) in addition to the employee’s day job, participation is seen as both a privilege and a reward. It is a validation of one’s accomplishments in the company and as a steppingstone to advancement within the company. This makes the program extremely popular and selective—attracting about 10,000 applicants for the first 400 positions.

CSC Results

Although there is certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence to validate the program. IBM, being IBM, requires more formal evidence that its goals are being met. Harvard Business School assistant professor Christopher Marquis designed and conducted a formal survey of participants and recipients and evaluated the results as part of a case study on the program. His findings: CSC is “effective and executing on its goals and mission” (of providing a unique—and highly scalable and cost-effective—leadership development experience, societal benefits to emerging countries and improving employee’s perception of and commitment to IBM). IBM claims the program also delivers some additional side benefits, as in improving IBM’s brand in new and emerging markets and even in creating some new sales opportunities for the company.

In some ways, there is little that is really new in CSC. It combines two relatively common corporate practices—the use of overseas postings as an executive development tool, and encouraging and funding employees to perform volunteer work. The big difference is that IBM has integrated them into a fundamentally new form that delivers these experiences to far more executive candidates than would be previously possible, and does it in a cost-effective way that delivers additional benefits to the company.

CSC Futures

IBM will absolutely continue, and modestly extend the program. Its ultimate value, however, is likely to transcend IBM. Some of IBM’s customers, including Novartis, Federal Express and Dow Corning are already learning from and have begun to implement similar programs. Meanwhile, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with IBM to create the Alliance for International Corporate Volunteerism (ICV). The alliance will expand upon the CSC model to facilitate participation by many other companies and create corporate responsibility networks that integrate activities of corporations, governments, international organizations, foundations and other participants. USAID will also serve as a delivery coordinator for some of these projects, thereby increasing the chances that CSC’s consulting recommendations will deliver their intended value.

Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility, IBM, IT Industry Role in Education, IT Industry Trends, Skills Requirements, Workforce Trends | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Draws of Specialized MBAs and Business Masters Programs

Sunday, December 5th, 2010

My three previous posts on MBA programs examined the challenges that B-schools are currently facing, how a growing number of programs are responding to these challenges by developing specialized programs and then by drilling down into the ways in which some programs were migrating into increasingly narrowly defined sub-specialties as a means of targeting specific market opportunities and more effectively differentiating their programs from those of other specialized schools

The Growth in Specialized Business Masters Programs

This trend toward specialization continues to grow, with the vast majority of new degree programs now being specialized. While the trend, as suggested in the below Figure, is still growing in the U.S., it is already very well established overseas. (The University of Manchester, for example, now offers 26 specialized business masters degrees.) And interestingly, these programs appear to be more popular among women (48.4% in U.S. and 47.0% in international schools) than are the general programs (37.1% and 37.4%).

Figure: AACSB Member Master’s Degree Programs (2008–2009) number of schools offering at least one program in each category

Business Master’s Degree Programs U.S. International
General Master’s Degree (MBA) 454 160
Specialized Master’s Degree 298 140
Business Master’s Degree Enrollments U.S. International
General Master’s Degree (MBA) 151,215 89,200
Specialized Masters Degree 39,250 56,670
Source: Association to Advance Collegiate, Schools of Business

In fact, what began as a means by which small, second-and third-tier regional schools could tout pragmatic advantages relative to their larger, better known, more highly-ranked counterparts, has as discussed in my blog on sub-specialties, is even beginning to spread into some of the tier-one B-schools, including MIT, Carnegie-Mellon and Northwestern.

Why this growth? At a high level, business masters programs continue to be viewed as golden tickets to rewarding careers. The number of business masters conferred in the US has grown every year since 1969/70 (with exception of 1985/86, when the number slipped by 0.45%). When one digs a bit deeper, however, one finds that enrollment in traditional, full-time, two-year MBA programs has, at best, held its own over the last decade. All of the growth has occurred among non-traditional programs, such as part-time and executive MBAs, and especially specialized masters programs. Moreover, according to the fascinating new book, Rethinking the MBA: Business Education at a Crossroads, the health of full-time programs is effectively confined to the top 20-ranked U.S. B-schools. Full-time program enrollment in Tier Two schools (ranked 21-36) have fallen 17% over the last 8 years and lower ranked schools have fallen even more sharply. One-year degrees—driven largely by specialized programs—are already established as the de facto standard in Europe (although two-year programs continue to grow rapidly in Asia and Latin America).

Moreover, unlike the case in most recessions when MBA applications increase, applications are now falling. And so is demand for traditional MBAs. Hiring of new MBA grads has fallen dramatically during the recession and many of the traditionally favored employers (particularly financial services and consulting firms) have been forced to retrench. (Moreover, as discussed below, many of these firms had been reducing the percentage of MBAs in their hiring since long before the recession.)

Where is the growth? Canadian and European schools continue to see significant growth in applications and Executive MBA applications are up slightly. The real growth, however, is in specialized programs—especially those in accounting, finance and healthcare.

The Attractions of Specialization

This growth is largely a reflection of long-term global trend toward specialization. It is, however, being fueled by multiple factors affecting each of the three primary business education stakeholders: schools, employers and students. Schools (particularly local/regional schools and those below the top tier), are, as discussed in my October 24 post on B-School Challenges, are being buffeted by forces including falling enrollment in their core two-year programs, increased competition (both for applicants and for attracting qualified instructors) from European and Asian schools and challenges in placing graduates in attractive positions. As evidenced by their rapid adoption of specialized programs, they increasingly view specialization as the most attractive option.

Different schools, however, are taking different, and often multiple paths to specialization. Most programs, as discussed in my November 7 and November 14 posts, focus broadly on preparing students for jobs in traditional disciplines (such as accounting, financial management, IT management, brand management, supply chain management and human resource management) that are common across multiple industries and regions. New programs are being continually added (or existing programs tuned) to prepare graduates for the large numbers of jobs that are anticipated in fields including sustainability, compliance, risk management and business ethics. Other programs are targeted much more narrowly, as around the needs of specific and often local industries (including energy, wine, biotech and one of the most popular—healthcare).

Just as importantly, as explained by Michael Knetter, Dean of the Wisconsin School of Business, “the industry has been producing too many generalists relative to what is needed.” “The student satisfaction ratings and placement outcomes that we saw out of our specialized programs were far superior to what we found in our general management program.”

A growing number of prospective employers appear to agree. Although many companies do not yet understand or recruit from these programs (which I will discuss further in my upcoming December 19 post), some of those that do see much value in graduates that have specific education, proven interest, hands-on experience (as through internships) and, in some cases, deep technical and analytic skills, in specific industries and functions. This allows these graduates to make immediate contributions with little additional training—a particular value to companies (especially smaller and mid-size companies) that rely on “just-in-time” hiring for a specific job, rather than bringing in large classes of new graduates. These companies are also attracted by these graduates’ salary requirements, which are often closer to those of a bachelor’s degree in business, than those with a full, two-year MBA.

The Value to Students

Schools are looking to specialized business masters programs to attract more and different types of students (and better appeal to recruiters) while employers view them as a means of filling current openings with moderately-priced people that can deliver immediate value. In the end, however, for these programs to succeed in the market, they must attract students.

As I discuss in my next blog, the jury is still out as to whether these programs do or will yield better placement rates (much less cost/salary tradeoffs) than do more traditional business programs. However, they do present a logical and compelling case for improving a graduate’s prospects relative to less specialized and intensively trained (not to speak of higher priced) MBAs and less intensely focused (albeit lower priced) business bachelor degrees. This is particularly true since many of these programs tend to provide greater opportunities to balance theoretical education and real-world engagement (both through more hands-on and experiential courses and highly targeted internships and work/study programs) than to other business programs.

Just as importantly, specialized masters degrees also dramatically lower the financial bar for obtaining a graduate degree. They often cost less than half as much as a full MBA from a comparable school and slash the opportunity cost from two years to one. Such considerations can be particularly compelling both to students and their parents—especially during a recession and painfully slow recovery

Although such programs are definitely not for everyone (again, see my next blog, they do hold particular appeal, and promise particular value to certain types of students. Examples include:

  • Students with clearly-defined career objectives and self-starters who want the opportunity to chart their own paths;
  • Early-or mid-career employees looking to change careers (such as by leveraging math or IT skills into financial analysis), deepen skills in their current industry or function (such as brand management in specialty retail) or leverage technical careers into more generalized management career paths (as with the many business programs tailored specifically to the needs of mid-career scientists and engineers);
  • Undergraduate business students looking to deepen their technical skills or undergraduate technical students looking to integrate a management perspective atop their technical skills before entering the job market;
  • Students with less-than-stellar undergraduate records who may not qualify for top-tier MBA programs and will find it easier to distinguish themselves in a more differentiated, often less competitive environment; and
  • Those looking to complement current or contemporaneous masters degrees (general MBAs as well as degrees in fields ranging from education and architecture to sustainability and IT) as a means of improving or focusing their career prospects.

While all specialized business master programs have their own specific draws, proponents and detractors, two of the first, most proven and still most popular specialized business master programs—those in accounting and finance—offer particularly demonstrable benefits:

  • An MS in Accounting, for example, provides a means by which aspiring CPAs can bridge the gap between their undergraduate coursework and the 150-credit-hour requirement for the CPA;
  • An MS in Finance can provide the technical and analytic skills required to land a highly competitive position in financial services. These programs have also been instrumental in helping mathematicians, computer scientists and physicists leverage their skills into new careers as “quants” (quantitative financial analysts).

But for all the attractiveness and potential benefits of specialized business masters, they are not, as mentioned, for everyone. Many of these programs also have some serious drawbacks. These are the topics of my next post.

Posted in Job and Career Opportunities, Universities and Grad Schools | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Preparing B-Schools for the Challenges of the 21st Century

Sunday, October 24th, 2010

If student interest and enrollment is the criteria for the success of business schools, B-schools are on a role. Business, which has been the most popular college major for the last 15 years, continues to grow in popularity. It accounted for more than 21% of all bachelor’s degrees conferred in 2007–2008—twice the percentage of social sciences and history, the second most popular major. The MBA, meanwhile, has become the second most popular masters degree, accounting for 25% of all those conferred in 2007-2008. MBAs trail only masters in education, with no other discipline even close. And that was all before the recession—a condition that typically lead to a surge in college and especially graduate (particularly B-school and law school) applications.

B-Schools’ Growing Identity Crisis

But for all the student interest in B-schools, these institutions are facing something of an identity crisis. First, even business degrees are not protecting graduates from the ravages of the recession. Many graduates cannot find jobs at all and many of those who can are forced to take low-level positions far outside their desired fields and without the career or salary tracks they anticipated. They are struggling to repay big loans and, according to a study by Yale economist Lisa Kahn, most are unlikely to ever catch up with colleagues who had the good fortune to graduate in better times. Worse, the longer a new grad goes without a career-track job, the more difficult it will be to compete with more recent graduates for new positions.

With a recent Businessweek survey finding that only 38% of college seniors majoring in business having job offers, B-schools are going to incredible lengths to help their graduates find jobs. For example, they are scouring alumni networks, distributing tips via Facebook and Twitter, counseling students on resume writing and search and interview techniques and even teaching business dinner etiquette. The schools’ challenges, however, go deeper then the needs to address the immediate challenges of the recession. They are, for example, simultaneously struggling to retain their relevance, as by ensuring that:

  • Their educations remain relevant in an era where the nature and requirements of virtually all jobs—and therefore of education required to prepare graduates for them—are being fundamentally transformed by forces including technology, globalization and demographics (see a number of my previous blogs for fuller discussions of these new skills and education requirements);
  • Their pedagogies adapt to the rapidly growing need for managers and executives to think globally, transcend cultures, contribute to the success of teams and embody inter-scholastic, as well as inter-disciplinary perspectives;
  • The schools retain their attractiveness in an era where growing percentages of applicants —both foreign- and U.S.-born—are applying to increasingly credible European and Asian schools to prepare for overseas postings and increasingly global careers; and
  • The fundamental nature of a B-school education is being called into question by the ethical lapses that contributed to the financial crisis and growing calls to establish management a “self-policing profession”, like medicine and law.

So, in a period in which B-schools might otherwise be celebrating their popularity, they are instead being forced to rethink the entire nature of business education and their role in preparing graduates for a very new age. Not surprisingly, different schools are coming to very different conclusions:

  • Some B-schools, especially local and regional schools, are effectively narrowing their focus and converting traditionally broadly-focused programs into highly specialized curricula intended to prepare students for specific jobs;
  • Others, especially many of the world’s leading B-schools are redefining their curricula to provide much broader, much more holistic educations that are intended to prepare aspiring executives for a totally new era of management.

My next two posts provide overviews of each of these two trends and their prospects for addressing the challenges that are facing business educations in general and B-schools in particular.

Posted in Job and Career Opportunities, Skills Requirements, Universities and Grad Schools | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , ,

Accenture Contributes Its Professional Development Skills to Non-Employees

Sunday, October 3rd, 2010

Accenture has always considered professional development to be one of its core competencies. It recruits tens of thousands of new employees each year, puts them through intense training programs and follows up with ongoing, career-spanning, personalized professional development and mentoring regimes. In 2009 alone, it dedicated nearly $800 million to these efforts.

The company is now extending its commitment to and skills in training and professional development beyond the walls of its own company to thousands of people—250,000 by 2015 to be exact—who do not, and probably never will work for Accenture. Its newly announced Skills to Succeed initiative is intended to help disadvantaged people from all around the world to develop the skills they will require to get good jobs or to start and build their own businesses (and thereby create jobs for themselves and others).

Accenture, both itself and through its foundations, is funding this initiative through a commitment of more than $100 million in cash, in-kind donations and employee time, over a three-year period. It considers this effort to be so important that it has developed a global operating model to align all aspects of the company and foundations’ corporate citizenship efforts around Skills to Succeed. In fact, it has established a goal that 80% of all the company’s corporate citizenship activities will be aligned around this initiative by the end of 2010.

However, while Accenture itself manages and delivers training to its own employees, Skills to Succeed training will be delivered almost exclusively through independent non-profit partners that have proven skills in and share Accenture’s commitment to skills training, and that can “drive change and achieve scale” across multiple countries and continents.

Building the Skills to Succeed Initiative

Accenture launched the first stages of this program in mid-2009, with a $48.3 million contribution—primarily of in-kind skills (such as consulting, hardware, software and office space), secondarily cash and, to a small extent, pro bono contributions of employees’ time (as in teaching, mentoring and so forth). It aligned its efforts around three primary objectives:

  • Employment Building, which is the initiative’s primary focus and is intended to train and prepare disadvantaged people for secure jobs that pay well above local average salaries. It begins by providing training in skills required for these jobs to employment-ready individuals (generally, from high-school juniors and community college students to unemployed workers who are looking to be retrained for new jobs and industries). While much of this training focuses on IT skills (an area in which many NGOs have current programs and skills), Accenture plans to address many types of skills that are “at the intersection of business and technology”. These may include IT operations, programming, engineering drafting and accounting/finance. The program also helps prepare these trainees for actual jobs (such as by placing them in part-time jobs or internships while they are still in school) and actually capture new jobs (as by helping them develop resumes, plan job-search campaigns and secure and prepare for interviews).
  • Business Building, which is intended to help entrepreneurs create new employment opportunities such as by helping them strengthen their leadership skills, develop business plans and strengthen capabilities including financial operations, hiring and customer service; and
  • Market Building, in which Accenture helps governments, NGOs and companies build access to markets where current market infrastructures are not sufficient. Examples include a partnership with the U.S. Agency for International Development to improve rural farmers’ access to information on agricultural and marketing practices.

One of the first and largest efforts was in Brazil, where Accenture partnered with two local agencies (Rede Cidada and the Committee for the Democratization of Information) to establish Conexão (the local membership organization of Youth Business International), which provides free technology training to unemployed people and free consulting to small, promising entrepreneurs. The program was a huge success, training 13,500 young people (3,500 of whom have already been hired) and supporting 124 entrepreneurs.

This success led to more than 80 additional programs so far, with more than 15 NGO partners in both developed and developing countries. Examples include:

  • United States, where Accenture is working with Genesys Works to train inner-city high school students in skills including IT, engineering drafting and accounting and is placing them in part-time jobs during their senior years. Accenture executives also teach business preparedness skills to students in community colleges;
  • United Kingdom, with Youth Business International, to help disadvantaged young people find and get appropriate educations or occupational training and mentor them on skills required to become successful entrepreneurs;
  • India, with the Dr. Reddy’s Foundation, to train disadvantaged young people in business process outsourcing and technology skills;
  • Philippines and Cambodia, partnering with Passerelles Numériques to help underprivileged students build the skills they need to obtain IT jobs; and
  • Several countries in Africa, where it is working with Enablis to build the skills of young entrepreneurs.

Accenture’s Objectives and Methods

The concept for Skills to Succeed was born about 18 months ago during a full-scale assessment of the company’s corporate philanthropy efforts. It was looking for a single unifying effort that addressed a critical, global societal need; that reflected the company’s values, culture and character; and in which Accenture had skills that would enable it to contribute unique skills and expertise, in addition to money.

Its initial efforts in partnering and launching the program, combined with the successes it achieved and the lessons it learned, validated its commitment to the initiative and prompted it to set an ambitious goal—that of training and preparing 250,000 disadvantaged people (anyone from high school juniors to older people who need retraining for or who hope to create their own sustainable, well-paying jobs). Although Accenture is open to all types of NGO partnerships and skills training programs, it assesses each opportunity in terms of its ability to:

  1. Cost-efficiently achieve significant, sustainable, demonstrable and measurable results;
  2. Harness the energies of Accenture and the enthusiasm of its people; and
  3. Be scaled to train large numbers of people and leveraged across multiple states and countries.

But while Accenture is open to examining many different types of programs and partnerships, one thing is not negotiable—its objective. Accenture and its executive committee are fully committed to Skills to Succeed. The company is wrapping virtually all of its corporate philanthropy programs and contributions into this program and is committing all levels of Accenture employees to actively contribute to these efforts. It is also beginning to engage customers and partners in this program, as by working with them to place interns and program graduates.

But for all of Accenture’s commitments and efforts, the company understands that that achieving its 250,000-person objective within five years is a big challenge. It is committed to investing $100 million or more of its resources and the capabilities of its people to the program and is rapidly scaling its efforts. It has, for example, already added 80 new initiatives and is actively evaluating others. The means of accomplishing its goals are flexible. The objective, of preparing a quarter of a million people for rewarding jobs, is not.

Posted in 21st Century Careers, Accenture, Community/Other Colleges, Corporate Social Responsibility, Education System and Institutions, IT Company Strategies, IT Industry and Companies, IT Industry Role in Education, IT Industry's Role, Skills Requirements, STEM Careers | 2 Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Community College Crisis

Sunday, August 22nd, 2010

As I discussed in my last blog (“The Community College Contribution”), the community college system plays a number of critical roles in the U.S. higher-education system, not to speak of the roles these colleges play in their communities and the broader U.S. society. The Great Recession has greatly expanded these roles and has prompted phenomenal growth in the number of applications to, and enrollment in these colleges.

The problem is that the rapidly expanding role of the system, combined with the need to accommodate growing numbers of students, has exposed a number of serious systemic cracks. Piling on on the impact and the financial cuts attributable to the recession has now brought the entire system to the brink of crisis.

Systemic Challenges

The community college system is already becoming a victim of its own success. Between 1998 and 2008, the number of students enrolled in the community college system exploded by 225%, far outpacing growth at four-year universities, whose enrollments grew 1.65 times. But while the number of students surged, the number of community colleges expanded by only about 16% (to a total of 1,045), far more slowly than the number of four-year schools and private, for-profit two-year schools (often called junior colleges). The results, most community colleges are terribly overcrowded.

Operating budgets are also growing more slowly. Public community colleges, for example, count on tuitions for only about 20% of total funding and sources including gifts and contracts with local businesses roughly another 10%. Governments account for the vast majority, with states contributing about 40%, localities about 20% and federal another 10%. The problem is that state and local government funding has been growing at less than the rate of inflation and has fallen way behind the growth in the number of students graduating from high schools and the percentage of high school graduates who are going to college.

Community colleges, meanwhile, capture far less than their fair share of federal government funding. While these schools enroll about 35% of all post-secondary students, they capture only about 20% of total federal tertiary education funding including 9% of federal campus-based aid, 14% of academic competitiveness grants and 30% in Pell Grants.

Some of this shortfall, however, is at least attributable to the colleges themselves. Consider Pell grants. Publicly-funded community colleges typically address the same market and recruit from the same applicant pool as private, for-profit two-year schools. But while these for-profit colleges (including those owned by Apollo Group, Career Education Corporation and ITT Technical Institute) enroll only 7.7% of total post-secondary students, they have become much more effective at qualifying for federal education aid— capturing almost 25% of all federal aid, with some counting on this aid for 90% of their total revenues.

These for-profit colleges have been particularly effective in winning Pell Grants, capturing more than $10 billion—more than all community colleges combined. Why? Numerous federal investigators and journalists have been asking the same questions. Suppositions include the ability of these high-priced, typically profitable schools to afford and incent recruiters to sign large numbers of students and train financial aid officers to help students qualify for federal grants and loans. But whatever the reasons, the Department of Education has just issued new rules that will dramatically cut aid to those schools whose graduates do not earn enough to repay their loans.

Limited funding, however, is only part of the explanation for community colleges’ traditionally poor financial position. While community colleges certainly get less funding than other types of higher-education institutions, they also bear disproportionately higher costs. For example, they are forced to spend an estimated $2 billion per year to teach remedial skills (especially in math, English and writing) that were not learned in high school. This remediation burden falls particularly heavily on community colleges. According to the U.S. Department of Education, about one-third of all the nation’s first-year college students require at least one remedial course—a figure that rises to 42% for two-year schools. Some states want them to go even further, taking over all GED education plus the remedial education traditionally offered by public four-year schools.

The results: Community colleges are being forced to pack more students into each class, reduce time in expensive facilities such as labs and cut back on “frills”, such as education and career counselors (see below). This, combined with their state-mandated open admission policies, results in more dropouts than graduates.

True, all American colleges and universities (except for the most competitive), have a dropout problem. An OECD study, for example, shows that while the U.S. sends the highest percentage of high school graduates to college of all member countries, it has the second lowest (next to Italy) completion rate. Publicly-funded community colleges perform worse than any other type of school. A 2009 St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank study, for example, found that only 35% of community college students complete one semester of study and that fewer than 50% end up completing any type of degree. Those who do go on to four-year schools are 36% less likely to complete their degree than are those students who started at a four-year college.

The worst part—this was all before the Great Recession.

Burden of the Recession

While the situation was bad before, it is much worse now. All state college systems face huge budget cuts, but California has become ground zero. Although all forms of public education are being decimated in California, public universities face the brunt of the cuts. The University of California and the California State University systems now face budget shortfalls totaling $940 million. They are being forced to slash salaries, freeze hiring and limit purchases to essential items. Worse still, tuition rates are soaring (up 32%), 200,000 students will lose Cal Grant tuition assistance (before the entire program is eliminated in 2011), and state universities are being forced to stop accepting applications for the 2010 spring term and cut total system-wide enrollment by 40,000 students over the next year. California community colleges alone had to turn away 140,000 prospective students this year.

The situation is even worse for the state’s 100+ public community colleges. Record percentage of high-school graduates, facing bleak employment prospects, have decided to attend college. Meanwhile, laid off employees, fearing that “their jobs are not coming back”, are looking to community colleges to help prepare for new careers. And then there are the hundreds of thousands of students who are being turned away from the state university systems. As if this weren’t bad enough, the state is cutting $630 million in funding for community colleges—about 9% of system’s total budget.

Although all California community colleges are in similar straits, City College of San Francisco has become something of a poster child for the crisis. The school which lost $13.6 million in state financing this academic year, has slashed spending and is trying to raise money in any way it can. It has held garage sales and flea markets, installed donation boxes in bookstores and cafeterias. It is now soliciting contributions from individuals—promising to name a class for any individual or company that pledges $6,000.

This creativity, however, has not been enough to stave off reality. It was forced to cancel its summer session and cut more than 900 classes over the year. Those students who can afford higher tuitions and lower subsidies must now struggle to get the courses required to meet major requirements, graduate or transfer to a university. One thousand six hundred and fifty-five of those students who tried to register in fall 2009 did not get into any classes at all, up from 635 in fall 2005. And when they try to ask a counselor for help, they learn that more than 10,000 counseling hours have been cut.

As explained by Michael Kirst, professor emeritus of education at Stanford and past president of the California State Board of Education, “The longer students cannot take the classes they want or need, the less likely it is that they will complete the program they want. They run out of money. They run out of time. They just give up at some point.”

How bad is this situation? Search Google for the term “community college crisis” and the first five articles focus on California. But, that’s California. What about the rest of the country. First, in terms of community colleges, one can almost say that California IS the country. More than one-quarter of all U.S. community college students are in California.

Facetiousness aside, the California case may be the highest profile and the most extreme. It is, however, far from unique. Virtually all states are facing huge financial shortfalls and most are making particularly large cuts in public education—especially higher education. And many experts expect the state fiscal crisis to worsen in 2011. Moreover, the current fiscal crisis only served to make a dreadful situation even worse. As discussed , the nation’s community college problems run much deeper than budgets.

Although the U.S. consistently dominates the ranks of the world’s best universities, its overall higher education accomplishments are far less impressive. For example, according to the OECD, although the U.S. already spends more than twice the share of GDP on higher education than does the European Union, it is typically in the middle of the pack (or lower) in areas such as International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) qualifications, science and math education and graduation rates.

So, what’s the answer? The solutions are even more complex than the problem. Although nobody knows all the answers, I will discuss some of the proposed solutions—and the ways of paying for them—in my next blog.

Posted in 21st Century Careers, Community/Other Colleges, Creating the 21st Century Workforce, Economic and Political Forces, Economic Forces, Education System and Institutions, Skills Requirements, Societal Forces | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Community College Contribution

Sunday, August 8th, 2010

As I discussed in my June 25 blog (Occupational Opportunities for the Next Decade), the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010 Occupational Outlook Handbook shows that 46 million jobs (30% of those in the U.S.) will soon require more than a high school education, but less than a four-year bachelor’s degree. The nation’s 1,200 community colleges are—and will continue to be—the primary source of this education as demand for individuals with two-year technical degrees grows faster than that for those with a full university degree.

These institutions, which enroll a total of 11.8 million, or 43% of the country’s undergraduate students, play five critical, but very different roles in our educational system, providing:

  • Transfer Education, for students that will transfer to a four-year institution to pursue a BS/BA degree;
  • Career Education, for those that will graduate with an Associate Degree and directly enter the workforce;
  • Developmental Education, remedial education for high school graduates who are not academically ready to enroll in college-level courses;
  • Continuing Education, which entails non-credit courses for personal development and interest; and
  • Industry Training, which is contracted for by companies to provide training for specific jobs.

Of the 930,000 students who completed formal courses of community college study in 2009, 65% graduated with Associate Degrees (which typically require the equivalent of roughly two years of full-time study). The other 35% end up with certificates, such as a GED (General Educational Development) high school equivalency or Industry training certificate.

Engines of Social Mobility

Community colleges, however, do much more than confer degrees or certificates. They are also one of nation’s the most effective enablers of social mobility. community colleges, for example, have open admission policies, offering degree-track admission to anyone with a high school diploma or equivalent, regardless of grades. And, according to data from the American Association of Community Colleges, tuition at public community colleges costs an average of 64% less ($2,544) than those for public four-year colleges and 1/10th to 1/20th the cost of many private four-year schools.

They also cater to disproportionately higher percentages of ethnic minorities (40% of total enrollment) and first-generation college students in their families (42%). And since they are so geographically widespread, with campuses or extension centers within an hour’s drive of more than half of the nation’s population, they provide a critical source of education and vocational training to commuters, those who live in rural areas and those who must work part-time. In fact, according to AACC, 60% of all community college students are enrolled part-time (with 89% of these working either full or part time) and of those who do attend on a full-time basis, 80% work (with more than a quarter of these working full time).

Those students who attend community colleges—and especially those who graduate—are generally rewarded with higher-paying and more secure jobs than those who with only a high school diploma. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, for example, show that those students who attend, but did not receive an Associates’ degree from a community college, typically earn 13% more than those with just a high school diploma. Those who complete a degree earn 21% more. Both are also correspondingly less likely to be unemployed. Those who take, and ideally earn certificates and degrees in technically-oriented math and science courses, earn significant premiums (about 14 percent for men and 29 percent for women) over those in less technical fields.

Local Economic Development Engines

These schools also play important roles in helping their communities develop their economies. They do this by upgrading the skills of their community’s labor force, both in providing remedial and vocational training to “traditional” students who have just recently graduated from high school, and especially to older, non-traditional students. These include those who return to school to freshen or sharpen existing skills, homemakers or welfare recipients who are preparing to enter the labor force, immigrants looking to improve their language skills and displaced or dislocated workers who are seeking to retrain for a new occupation that offers better employment prospects.

Since many vocational graduates tend to seek jobs in their own communities, most of these schools tend to be highly attuned to the needs of local businesses, tailoring courses and curricula to the needs of local industries and often partnering with specific companies to:

  • Provide customized or contract job training, as where they develop programs that are tailored to the needs of specific companies; or
  • Develop cooperative education programs that combine classroom learning and practical (typically paid) on-the-job experience.

These colleges can also play much more proactive roles, as by partnering with state and local governments to provide business development services. They may partner with the state to create and operate entrepreneurial training centers or government-funded small business development centers (SBDCs) or participate in the creation of regional economic development plans. Colleges also actively partner with government agencies and Chambers of Commerce to attract corporations to build or expand facilities in their communities, by serving as a third-party training arm to teach local citizens the skills required by these new employers.

They may also play much more defensive roles, as by contracting with cities and states to retrain plant-closing victims for new jobs in totally different fields. The State of Michigan, for example, provides tuition assistance to community colleges that retrain displaced auto workers for careers in other industries—especially health-care.

On-Ramps to Higher Education

Community colleges also play another critical role in society: that of a feeder system to universities. A large percentage of students enter community colleges with the express intention of transferring to four-year universities and the recession is prompting growing numbers of four-year students to temporarily “drop down” to community colleges to cut costs.

Overall, about 29% of all community college students end up transferring to four-year universities and 17% of all bachelor degree holders had previously earned associate degrees. These transfer and “step-up” processes are facilitated by the existence of “articulation agreements” that specify which courses credits will and will not transfer to four-year schools. With careful planning, students can transfer most, if not all their credits.

The result is millions of low-income, minority and late bloomer high school graduates who would not have been able to afford to attend or get accepted by four-year universities, end up with four-year, and in some cases, graduate or professional degrees. And with university costs doubling over the last decade and rising at twice the rate of those for health care (see my July 11 blog “Is College Still the Best Road to the American Dream?”), the role of community colleges as a first-step to a four-year degree appears likely to increase.

Too Much of a Good Thing?

Given the value community colleges provide, their popularity should come as no surprise. The growing demand for educated workers, combined with the rapidly growing cost of a four-year university education has led enrollment in these colleges to expand at about twice the rate as for four-year universities. Now, the recession is prompting more high-school graduates to enroll in college as a means of deferring entry into the job market, forcing more displaced workers to return to school to learn new skills, and enticing growing numbers university students to “drop down” from four-year to two-year programs as a way of reducing expenses and the long-term burden of college debt.

Total enrollment has exploded from 6.8 million to 8 million between 2006 and 2009 and applications for 2010 are likely to surpass those in 2009 to reach a new record. Unfortunately, this may be too much of a good thing. Unless something dramatic is done, the rapid growth of community colleges may well contain the seeds of the system’s destruction.

Posted in 21st Century Careers, Community/Other Colleges, Creating the 21st Century Workforce, Economic and Political Forces, Economic Forces, Education System and Institutions, Job and Career Opportunities, Skills Requirements, Workforce Trends | No Responses »
Tags: , , , , , , ,

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »