Closing the Gap between College Entry and Employment

Abstract

Developing “soft” skills.

Many of us in higher education are aware of the gap that can exist between the knowledge, skills, and abilities undergraduate students accumulate by graduation and what employers expect students will have mastered by the time they accept their first job. All too often faculty and staff working in postsecondary education rationalize poor results at graduation by claiming students are coming to us less prepared than previous generations. We see this differently. We believe that the widening gap is between entry to college and entry to the first job; while it's true most students entering college are less autonomous and emotionally mature than previous generations, an even bigger change is that most employers are expecting significantly more of our college graduates. We believe our profession has an opportunity to address this gap and simultaneously make a meaningful contribution to helping students’ accelerate their learning and development. We offer some suggestions for how we in higher education might do that.

Consider Phil Gardner's work at Michigan State. In an interview with Toni Vakos, he reports on his research in 2010 that shows that employers—just ten years ago—expected entry–level employees to be deep in at least one system and one discipline, including analytical thinking and problem solving. He dubbed this the I–Shaped employee. However, Gardner says that today's employer's expectations are T–Shaped. That is, employers now expect entry–level employees also to have soft skills and knowledge including communication, teamwork, networking, critical thinking, global understanding, perspective, organizational culture, and project management. The internship is now mandatory for most students, as it has replaced the first job where previous students gained these additional skills. We wonder how many current students would meet employer expectations of a T–Shaped employee by being able to follow simple bureaucratic processes, demonstrate strong communication skills, engage in effective problem solving, and understand organizational protocol.

While employer expectations of college graduates have expanded, many educators lament that students are coming to college less autonomous and emotionally mature than previous generations; evidence exists to support these claims. Of the many observations made about the current generation of traditional–aged college students, there are two, in our opinion, that would cause autonomy and emotional maturity to be less developed: (1) constant attachment to technology and (2) overprotective parenting.

Technology

We suggest technology has two effects. The first is that students tend to form many disingenuous surface–level relationships facilitated by technology, and are not usually held emotionally accountable for their statements made through texting and social networking sites. In her 2011 book Odd Girl Out, Rachel Simmons acknowledges that bullying, gossip, and relationship drama are nothing new, but their expansion into 24/7, non–face–to–face cyber–methods has significantly increased the damage they can inflict. If students are not present to see how their words and actions truly affect other people, what do they learn? When and where do the deep conversations occur?

The second effect of technology is that students take less time to think. In a 2002 About Campus article Robert Bonfiglio challenged us all to provide fewer programs because students were so busy they did not have time to reflect and make meaning of their college experience. Today that problem is compounded by students’ constant connection to sources of distraction (e.g., iPod, satellite radio, laptops, tablets, e–readers, smartphones, text messaging). Recent advances in learning theory have demonstrated the importance of time spent both simply thinking and sleeping. How often do we assist students in reflecting on their experiences or thinking through their problems and issues?

Overprotective Parenting

This generation of parents appears to inhibit their students from feeling disappointment and emotional pain. While well intentioned, these parents often prevent their students from facing challenges. Nevitt Sanford's challenge and support theory explains why this overprotective nature stunts growth. If students are challenged academically and personally and receive adequate support, their growth and development are maximized. If students are given too much support, or if challenges are removed or solved for them, growth and development are reduced. In more recent research, Barbara Hofer and Abigail Sullivan Moore concluded in their 2010 book, The iConnected Parent, that students who are “tethered” (i.e., have frequent contact with their parents) tend to grow up more slowly. Similarly, Allison Gopnik's 2012 Wall Street Journal article draws on results in neuroscience and cognitive and developmental psychology to explain how today's students are developing more slowly due to being more sheltered and having less responsibility than previous generations.

How can we help bridge this widening gap between emotional maturity and job–readiness?

Align learning outcomes and job–related skills . Career development staff and many academic departments have cultivated relationships with potential employers, which allows them to know the soft skills most needed. With those in mind, every area of the university can ensure their learning outcomes and assessments are correctly aligned. Ideally, these will also tie directly to general education outcomes. Student affairs goals usually overlap with general education outcomes, and we help ourselves by ensuring we are using the same language as the rest of the institution. For example, the University of South Carolina general education outcomes, the Carolina Core, include “global citizenship and multicultural understanding” as well as “values, ethics, and social responsibility.” Think about how much student affairs units contribute to these outcomes. By collaborating to ensure our goals are aligned, all oars can row in the same direction and all rowers can be part of the same team.

Utilize everyday experiences as opportunities for deeper learning . We also need to provide richer opportunities for student learning—something we can do by simply framing our work a little differently. For example, a student running for a student government position is practicing her persuasive communication skills when she prepares and delivers her candidate speech. Students meeting one another in their classes, residence halls, organizations, and so on are not only making new friends, but they are also developing networking skills. However, are we maximizing the learning potential of these situations? Helping students reflect on their performance is a great first step, but we must take full advantage of these experiences—not only providing constructive critique and appropriate praise, but also helping students recognize what they are learning. None of these steps require additional money, simply a reprioritization of our time and focus.

Balance compassion and accountability . As mentioned earlier, pre–college students are not being held accountable in the ways previous generations were. You may be the first person who has said “no” and meant it, which may evoke parental calls, too, but asking students to take responsibility for their actions is critically important. Even administrative processes can be learning opportunities as we hold students accountable and also support them. For instance, staff can hold students accountable by not signing off on the costs associated with a program until the proper paperwork has been satisfactorily completed. Coaching students on how to accomplish outlined tasks while at the same time empathizing when frustrations run high about bureaucracy and red tape can help the students and their programs succeed. But remember, our priority is student learning and growth, not ensuring a program happens.

Widen our teaching teams . Do the math. Whether public or private, a university's problem “is the very practical one of trying to break up its great masses into informal groups without adding too much to the cost of instruction”— an observation made by Robert L. Duffus in 1928. (Neither the name nor the year are typos.) Traditionally, the faculty has been the teaching team, but professional and student staff members can be contributing team members. We must identify the clerical, administrative, custodial, and maintenance staff who interact frequently with students so that we can provide training (as needed) in active listening skills, detecting warning signs of trouble, and referring to appropriate helpers. For example, custodians who notice a student is throwing up in the bathroom regularly could be trained to alert appropriate staff who can screen for a possible eating disorder, binge drinking, or pregnancy. Do we encourage all our staff to engage with our students? Do we encourage our students to seek mentorship with others in addition to the faculty? Compared to 1928, many more staff work on our campuses today and they can do more than simply support the teaching team; they can be contributing members in their own right. And indeed they must, if our students are to achieve the learning and growth needed.

Given all that happens in the undergraduate years, we don't need to provide students with more experiences. We need to engage students and increase the frequency and depth to which they reflect on their experiences, integrate that with what they already know, and apply their new knowledge. We must approach our work differently! Our education and experience have led us to conclude that by aligning our goals, fully capitalizing on everyday student experiences, holding students accountable, and widening the teaching team, we can help students close the gap between where they are and where they need to be.

References

Bonfiglio

R. A.

(2002). Doing less. About Campus, 6(6). 30–32.

Duffus

R. L.

(1928, January 8). The crisis in the American colleges. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times, pp. 4–5, 21.

Gopnik

(2012, January 28). What's wrong with the teenage mind? The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577181351486558984.html

Hofer

B. K.

, & Sullivan Moore

(2010). The iConnected parent: Staying close to your kids in college (and beyond) while letting them grow up. New York, NY: Free Press.

Sanford

(1967). where colleges fail. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Simmons

(2011). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. Boston, MA: Mariner Books/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

University of South Carolina. (2013). Carolina Core. Retrieved from http://www.sc.edu/provost/forms/CarolinaCoreChart.pdf

Vakos

(2010). An interview with Philip Gardner: Workforce readiness of recent college graduates. E–Source, 8(1), 14–18. Retrieved from http://www.ceri.msu.edu/wp–content/uploads/2010/01/ES_08_01_optimized–2.pdf