There are many sources which support the conclusion that college does not adequately prepare students for the work force. There are signification discrepancy between what employers expect from their employees and what colleges provide their students with. For example 80% of 2014 college graduates expect their employers to provide them with training. In reality 52% of college graduate did not receive training in their first job after graduation.  46% of workers who graduated college in the past 2 years say they as underemployed and are working jobs which does not require the degree they have. These are just some statistics compiled by the Accenture 2014 College Graduate Employment Survey.

These statistics are worrying. It reveals that the expectations that college graduates have upon graduation are not in line in reality. The solution for colleges to better prepare their students by: “hiring better-qualified career-center staff, stopping with the outdated advice, teaching students how to network, helping students understand that a degree alone won’t get them a job, teach students how to evaluate an employer, start talking about careers long before graduation,teach students how the interview process works, explain the supreme importance of working during college.” (Alison Green)

Graeme Codrington identifies six categories in work life balance: work time, work location, family, development, services and health. I believe that in order to achieve a proper work life balance, employers must offer their employees’ flexibility. Each person’s life is different therefore in order to tailor their work to achieve work life balance,  they must have flexibility. This includes flexibility in their working hours, in their work locations, etc. Workers understand their own limits and their own productivity better than anyone. Therefore a workplace where workers can work based on their own limits and time will breed greater productivity.

Many studies suggest that a diverse workplace breeds more productive and happier employees. A Forbes study found that “85 percent of respondents agreed that diversity is crucial to gaining the perspectives and ideas that foster innovation.” (Mulvey) This is why we need to end workplace discrimination to create a more productive workplace.

http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/insight-2014-accenture-college-graduate-employment-survey.aspx

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/2012/08/15/8-ways-college-could-better-prepare-students-for-the-job-search-

http://www.tomorrowtodayglobal.com/2009/08/14/challenges-and-solutions-to-work-life-balance/

http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/1200-workforce-diversity-good-for-business.html

One of the most important problems of workplace is the lack of experience and education of college students. According to Forbes, in 2011, around 53.6% of college graduates under the age of 25 were unemployed. Also, 48% of employed college graduates are in jobs that require less than a four-year college degree and one third of the graduate’s feel that they are not prepared to work. These statistics show that now, its not about how “book smart” you are but rather how much experience and skills you have. The focus of workplace seems to be revolving around experience and using the knowledge one received in their years as college students. In addition, I discussed in my previous post that many employers seek for workers that completed internship. However, compared to the percentage of employers seeking these graduates, there were significantly less students that actually completed internship. This difference shows that there is a need for students to focus on skills training. Therefore, with more experience, more graduates would be hired and unemployment rate will decrease as well.

In response to this problem, the possible solution can be enforcing experiences on college students. For example, similar to taking core classes for graduation, college should demand students to do some sort of hands on experience, including internship, research, or volunteering. Although college advisors recommend students to participate in such activities, no one is forced to do so. If this becomes a requirement, more people would be experiencing the environment of their future workplaces. They will also be better prepared for being in offices and working with groups of people. Moreover, the US News article explains the importance of internship in finding jobs. The article explains that more colleges are now pushing students to take internship and when internships are more marketed, there is an increase in students enrolling in internship. Such marketing can have a significant impact on students and if internship becomes a requirement, they will be well prepared for the future.

Furthermore, there should be more college classes that provide students with information that helps them find a career or a job they are interested in. Especially, classes such as the Future of New York City can broaden the perspectives of students. I personally learned more about entrepreneurship and the class widened my views of my possible future career. Also, learning about the problems of society and finding the solution is a way to step into the society before graduating college. College should be more than learning through books but working on the experience that one will face after college. An article in The Atlantic questions if college education is now seen as less valuable and the answer is yes. If more than half of college graduates are jobless, what is the purpose of college? As much as learning through textbooks are important, real-life experiences are important as well. Therefore, college should not only focus on education, but also preparing students by skills training.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/05/28/half-of-college-grads-are-working-jobs-that-dont-require-a-degree/
http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/04/15/when-a-degree-isnt-enough
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/

As was discussed in my previous post, in coming years, automation will slowly begin to encroach on service sector jobs; as the utility of robots increases to include jobs once performed solely by humans, many will find themselves bereft of employment. The issue then becomes how, if at all, do we, as a society, accommodate these technological advances.

To me, it seems there are three stances one can take on this matter; the first is a Luddite, anti-technology approach where the use of robots in the service industry is prohibited entirely by the government. Under the same clause the FCC and the FDA use to regulate and deny licensure to certain medical or communications instruments that might pose a risk to society, the federal government could easily establish a regulatory body that prohibits the sale and use of robots as replacement for human labor.

Now, while this might successfully solve the problem of humans slipping into obsolescence and loosing their jobs, it does have serious drawbacks. Since robots do not require health insurance, food, living accommodations, or compensation for loss of limb or life, their potential, in terms of economic output and GDP is incredible. Imagine a tireless work force, that can work at any hour and under circumstances where humans would never risk their own lives. So, those countries who are more apt to embrace technological developments in artificial intelligence will have a clear economic advantage. Should the U.S. adopt a Luddite-type policy, it would slowly see itself sink behind as the world pushes forward economically speaking.

The second approach to this issue is a gradualist accommodation of automated service-sector production by creation of initial restrictions which can be slowly lifted as the government scrambles to re-educate large portions of its working populous to do other occupations which are less vulnerable to obsolescence. This approach, however, also has its drawbacks; a gradualist approach necessitates huge administrative effort, not only in the areas of enforcement and regulation (as is the case with the Luddite approach), but additionally it requires  large scale education reform particularly in adult vocational schools to accommodate a massive number of people. So this method, although it allows us to enjoy the benefits of technology without causing severe economic harm to ourselves, requires the most resources of the 3 approaches.

The third method, which I will term “my solution”, involves a slightly different take on the issue. Instead of focusing recourses on government intervention, we could allow the employers to work with their employees in such a way that both parties profit from their position. That is to say, a law could be passed that makes it illegal to buy robots without specific licensure in the same way that only certain companies are qualified to buy stock directly from companies. When one buys a share of stock, there is a broker that acts as a middleman. In the same way that it is illegal to buy stock directly from a company, it should be illegal for companies to buy robots directly from resellers or manufacturers. Instead, to finance and purchase a robot, companies who wish to utilize robots for service sector work would need to distribute stock to do so. The stock represents part ownership of the lifetime labor of the robot and can only be offered to individuals who are licensed for that particular occupation i.e. company employees. So, as an example, let us say that a trucking company wishes to “hire” an automated, self-driving truck. To do that, the trucking company would need to sell stock to the drivers within the company at market value to finance the purchase. That way, the labor generated by the robots creates a secondary income, in the form of dividend payments, for the truckers. So, as the companies continually adopt a greater and greater number of robot workers, this type of financing would allow the workers of the company to effectively retain (or perhaps even increase) their income without actually working. Instead of working, they own “labor shares” which have dividends which they can subsist on.

One of the most controversial future of work topics is the efficacy of the traditional office environment with its practice of managers and meetings galore. The Centre for Social Innovation, for example, features an amazingly creative and friendly environment for their workers [1]. It is the complete opposite of the cubicle workspace design with its open areas, kitchen and homey feel. It isn’t hard to imagine how the space encourages productivity and innovation. Workplaces should feature a variety of spaces for individuals and groups to work, such as having open areas while also having private places to think and focus [2]. As James Fried discussed in the TED talk [3], managers should refrain from distracting their employees and implement a more effective system, where they can keep track of the work they are doing without intrusion. An example of such a website is Asana, which is an online platform for collaborating with your team [4]. It allow workers to complete their work on their own time and employers to assign and oversee tasks. Meetings should also be limited and shortened in an effort to save more time for actual work.

Although occupations that require a college degree are increasing twice as fast as those that do not, it is still difficult to remain optimistic about job options after college [6]. Students have to start thinking about opportunities outside of the traditional office workplace, in order to appease the competitive job market that they must face after graduation. This ties in to the whole idea of self-management – people should no longer expect to be taken care of by their companies. In this day and age, young adults will have to develop a sense of awareness early on and be flexible about moving from assorted types of employment. It is predicted that freelancers will make up 40-50% of the labor force by 2020 [5], and we can already observe self-employment becoming much more popular. Freelancers usually need to possess a larger set of skills and exercise flexibility in their job options. The main thing we can do is caution college students about the decreasing possibility of maintaining the same position at the same company for the rest of their professional life (of which I’m sure many students in this class, including myself, were unaware) and encourage them to participate in the new economy of self-management and entrepreneurial businesses.

There is not much we can do about the oncoming robotic age, or about robots taking over our jobs. However, people have to recognize that this spells an exciting future for us. Rapidly advancing automation and artificial intelligence will surely replace our middle-skilled occupations, but it will allow the human workforce to spend less time on menial tasks and more on meaningful jobs [7]. This will bring about an exciting age in humankind and possibly allow us to unlock our true potential as a species. Education will be crucial in a world of machines and of economies that consist of high-skilled, high-wage jobs and low-skilled, low-wage jobs.

[1] http://nyc.socialinnovation.org/the-space

[2] http://www.hawaiibusiness.com/which-is-better-cubicles-and-offices-or-open-workspaces/

[3] http://www.ted.com/talks/jason_fried_why_work_doesn_t_happen_at_work

[4] https://asana.com/

[5] http://qz.com/297041/the-three-essential-skills-youll-need-to-survive-the-future-of-work/

[6]http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/herman/reports/futurework/execsum.htm

[7]http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_mcafee_what_will_future_jobs_look_like?lang uage=en

[8]http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/robot_invasion/2011/09/will_robots_steal_your_job.html

The future of work in this country is unforeseeable. Problems that have plagued the job environment recently are only becoming worse and we need change. As I mentioned in my last post, the need to be proficient in “soft” skills is one of the biggest problem in the job market. Not having these “soft” skills is preventing recent college graduates from getting jobs and creating a never-before-seen rate of unemployment in this new generation of workers.

Investopedia defines soft skills as, “the character traits and interpersonal skills that characterize a person’s relationships with other people.” These types of skills are vital in the workplace as employers look at these as compliments to hard, technical skills. Without soft skills one would not work well in a collaborative work environment and as we move into the future, collaboration is becoming a very common and quite necessary practice.

In order to increase the amount of college graduates that get hired directly out of college we need to emphasize the importance of soft skills while students are still in school. My first solution that would do this would be to add a senior group project, something similar to a senior design project, as a graduation requirement. Senior design projects and theses allow for the individual to do research on something in the field they are studying. The student then either writes a paper or designs a project based on the research done. This is a great way to culminate all the technical skills learned throughout your college career, but completing this graduation requirement lacks the need for any use of soft skills. My idea would add a senior group project in which you do research and design a project as an assignment. You would work with members of the same major on a project that you come up with together. This allows for the technical skills you have learned to be put to use in a group environment where soft skills are necessary for success. A committee of professors and staff members from your specific major will do the final evaluation of the project as you display your presentation with your group members.

Now the senior group project will definitely help put together all soft skill necessary for a job in the real world, but I also feel we need more opportunities to learn these soft skills before the project. My idea for this would be to change speech class requirements in schools. It is common knowledge that one must take some sort of public speaking or speech class in order to graduate with any degree. I think that this class should be expanded, possibly given more required days to attend. With this extra time in class I think group presentations should be emphasized and focused on so that one may learn soft skills in a classroom setting. This would allow for one to gain the knowledge needed for the senior group project when it comes to working with others and would ultimately allow for better interpersonal skills allowing for better chances of being hired.

With the implementation of group projects and classes that focus on soft rather than hard skills the future of work can be saved for the recent college graduates that are looking for jobs. Many problems are arising regarding with the future of work, but if we understand the situation we are in, the problems can be stopped.

References:

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/college-admissions-playbook/2014/05/12/hone-the-top-5-soft-skills-every-college-student-needs

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/soft-skills.asp

In my previous post I discussed the “jobless future” of our workforce. As technology advances, traditional companies face the issue of being replaced by new alternative and “high-tech” companies, which would cause the loss of jobs. Technological advances also raise the probability of a very futuristic and jobless workforce, in which basic jobs such as taxi drivers and delivery people are done away with. Though there is little to nothing that can actively be done to prevent this, we could find other solutions to generate new jobs to make up for those possibly lost to technology. Entrepreneurship is a powerful driver of innovation, trade and creation. By increasing and promoting entrepreneurship, we can lower the risk of a “jobless future”.

The United States has long been viewed as having among the world’s most entrepreneurial, dynamic and flexible economies. The contribution of startups and young businesses to job creation has been significant over the past couple of years. Most business start-ups exit within their first ten years, and most surviving young businesses do not grow but remain small. However, a small fraction of young firms that do survive show high growth and contribution to job creation. (1) While researching, I came across an article that stated that net job growth occurs in the U.S economy only through start up firms. The article based its findings on the Business Dynamics Statistics, a U.S. government dataset compiled by the Census Bureau, which recorded that on average for the years between 1977 and 2005, existing companies are net job destroyers, losing one million jobs net combined per year. Starting companies on average created 3 million jobs per year.

Advancements in technology do not only have to be viewed as a negative impact on our economy. In reality, these advancements can cause our economy to grow and flourish. I found an article called “Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth: Evidence from GEM data” which correlates technological innovation and entrepreneurial innovation. As more technological advancements are made, more entrepreneurial advancements are made as well. (3) Instead of viewing entrepreneurship as a fighting force against the effects of technological advancements, we could view them as going hand in hand and balancing each other other.

Entrepreneurship has been increasing over the past couple years (3), but in order to combat incoming serious job loss due to technological advances, there needs to be even more start up ventures. In order to do this, I propose introducing teenagers and young adults to the idea of starting their own businesses at a young age. In my high school, I was part of a business program called “Virtual Enterprise” in which my classroom was a business office and my classmates and I all worked together as a start-up business. We learned the ins and outs of running a business and how to create a business plan. From my knowledge on the program, it is only available in select high schools throughout the United States and some colleges. I believe if we implement programs like this and other entrepreneurial awareness programs, we can see a major increase in start-up ventures in the near future and combat job loss.

Sources:

1. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.28.3.3
2. http://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/firm-formation-and-growth-series/the-importance-of-startups-in-job-creation-and-job-destruction
3. http://www.taranomco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/308.pdf

The problems I brought up in my last post were essentially loss of jobs due to technology, and the conflict between an employer’s expectations and the employee’s. In some ways these were problems even before the fears that technology would take our jobs away started to become more serious.

My solution to the problem of lack of jobs due to technology is widespread access to education and inspiration. While technology is quickly becoming able to complete tasks that we once thought were reserved for humans, humans are still very capable of creation, innovation, and discovery. As current jobs decrease in number as they are replaced by artificial intelligence, people will need the drive and inspiration to create new ones, and the intelligence to actually be able to accomplish those jobs. If the in the future all jobs really will be taken by machines, then we need people that can look boldly in the face of such a realization and be prepared to create a society in which work for humans is no longer necessary; one in which discovery and leisure are what we spend all our time doing instead of only a fraction of our free time. This makes the inspiration and drive component even more important than education. The level of creation and re-imagination required for such a task cannot be met if people of the future are too busy despairing over the fact that the job pool has been saturated with machines and are unable and too close-minded to think of new solutions to new problems.

Making education widely accessible isn’t as simple as making college free for everyone. That approach can actually have negative effects. Instead, focus should be placed on improving already existing education systems at all levels, and teaching students to implement actual problem solving long before they get to college instead of making them learn facts without much question and not really showing how they can be applied in real life. Parents and teachers will need to help foster inspiration and drive in students by making children see at an earlier age what a good education can make them capable of. As technology improves education, education should become cheaper, and thus the amount of people who have access to quality education should increase.

Most of the solutions I found for the conflict between employer’s expectations and employee’s quality of life ultimately still involve flexible work hours. The solution to the problem seems to really just be changing people’s mindset about work. Essentially, replace the current “9 to 5” mindset with one that is more similar to college classes, where you have the option of picking class hours to better fit your schedule.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/10/03/there-is-not-such-thing-as-a-free-college-education/2/

http://mercatus.org/expert_commentary/subsidized-loans-drive-college-tuition-student-debt-record-levels

https://hbr.org/2014/12/flex-time-doesnt-need-to-be-an-hr-policy

http://www.wmmsurveys.com/How_Men_Flex_Report_WMRI.pdf

http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/flex-work.htm

In my last post, I discussed possible problems that can be associated with the future of work. As I delved into the potential difficulties that our future of work may hold, I made note of the anti-social nature of many present day offices, the job security of the permanent worker, and the effectiveness of our education system.

Here, I would like to touch on the anti-social nature of offices. As time progresses, the traditional office setting and the social nature associated with it is diminishing. According to Global Workplace Analytics, from 2005 to 2012, the telework rate has grown 79.7% amongst employers. This growth statistic takes into account for-profit employers, non-profit employers, and local, state, and federal government employers. Roughly 1.5 million American employees have been removed from the traditional office setting and instead transferred to their own homes over this time frame. This is a problem as many bosses and managers no longer have a relationship with their employees. The same can be said for employee-employee relationships. How is a company supposed to thrive cohesively if its workers only maintain contact with one another primarily through a computer screen? Teleworkers or not, primary interaction amongst employees is done virtually now.

A solution that I propose to fix this anti-social predicament is for companies to designate a few days per month where all employees are mandated to come in, share ideas, give presentations, work in groups, and attain an understanding of their co-workers. Many employees have noted that they often feel unmotivated and complacent when working from home. Working from home offers a sense of comfort but also allows for several distractions. Performance is hard to regulate when on telework. If men and women were forced to come in to the office, give presentations on their work, and discuss with their colleagues the thought process going into each project and how they approached each problem, the company would thrive holistically. This would allow for employees to broaden their relationships with coworkers, and it would really force them to tackle their work more seriously. When giving a presentation, you need to know the ins and outs of your work. These designated days would serve as performance regulators along with social outings that would strengthen relationships that would benefit not only the company but also the wellness of each person. My parents have both been on telework 3 days a week for the past ten years. They have confessed to me that their performance on the job has suffered since they were moved home. They think that if they were forced to go to the office 5 days a week, they would be able to interact with coworkers on a daily basis and this would enable more creative thinking. Therefore, while 5 days a week in the office isn’t always feasible, mandating a few days per month promoting group work and creative thinking would benefit the current anti-social nature of many workplaces. This is a viable solution to a problem that has worsened over the years.

References:

1. http://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics
2. https://www.mobileworkexchange.com/mobileworker/view/1571

“The main problem with employing the NEXT generation consists of this fatal loop : You can’t get a job which you’re qualified for without experience – and nobody gives you a chance to gain any experience because you don’t have any previous experience !” [2]

This quote from a Czech student interviewed by the Generation Europe Foundation for their report “Employing the NEXT Generation”, portrays the paradox that my peers and I will be faced with in the coming years as we finish our undergraduate careers and make out way into the world of work [2].

While career services, at least at City College, offer important resources such resume and cover-letter critiquing, and job search engines, they cannot offer what companies want and students need; experience. In my opinion, if the four years of work I am putting into a degree in Biomedical Engineering is not enough to get me a job in Biomedical Engineering, something is wrong. But is it the fault of the companies or the school?

Suggestions have been made by students in the European Union to make an incentivized system. This includes tax breaks for companies who are willing to employ young graduates with minimal experience, or make a legal percentage of people within a certain age range that must be employed in large companies. While this is a good start, just as we discussed with policing problems, legislation is often not enough, and would be difficult and expensive to keep track of [2].

I think the solution can only come from a collaboration between universities and employers. Most universities are currently not doing enough to prepare their graduates for the actual work that their field entails, but just the factual background. In addition, the companies are not willing to hire those without experience. A formula such as the one imposed at Drexel University offers a collaborative effort between the universities and employers [1].

The school uses a rotation of six-month cycles that alternate between classes and full-time internship and work experience. During this 6-month internship period students are matched to over 1,200 employers and can make up to $16,000. Some students can have up to three co-ops throughout their time at Drexel [1]. What this means is that the school has a working relationship with employers that are willing to hire recent graduates. And more importantly, students are gaining hands on experience in their fields and creating connections and relationships with possible employers. Being that most of the internships are paid, this also means that the measly coffee-fetching, copy-making internships that while fill up a resume have no real significance to the student. In fact, many of the students are offered jobs by their co-op employers upon graduation [1]. In addition, the school itself is working toward a more experiential learning experience, and producing the students that employers want.

If work is changing, so much education. Although this co-operative learning structure may not fit the structure of every university, I feel as though this approach to education will have to become more popular as the nature of work continues to evolve.

[1] http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/drexel-university-3256

[2] http://www.generation europe.eu/assets/what_we_do/research_and_surveys/GEFWFEmployingNextGeneration2010final.PDF

In a previous blog post I discussed the problems with the future of work, specifically, with regards to the preparedness of the workforce and job security (whether it is due to other sources of labor or changing work environments). Finding solutions to these problems can be difficult because they are hypotheticals, based upon trends currently being observed. Although the problems have not occurred yet, it is important to be prepared with a plan.

The first alarming trend involves the increased dependence of companies on part-time and freelance work. A decade ago job security was a given and a trusted employee was less easily replaced. In the current age of technology and instant communication, access to potential employees has increased dramatically. Describing this situation in terms of the supply and demand model, the supply of employees has increased at a faster rate than the demand for these employees (in many occupations). When discussing this topic, it is easy to see freelance work as the problem because it is a contributing factor to decreasing job security. However, freelance workers provide an integral part to the country’s economy as well as providing a source of income for many Americans. In order to improve job security, while protecting freelance workers, the government can provide corporations with incentives to employ workers for long periods of time. One incentive can be a reduction in the amount that an employer has to pay towards the state unemployment tax. By providing workers with employment over long periods of time, these corporations are effectively reducing the unemployment rate [1], the same reason for the unemployment tax and thus making this reduction reasonable. In addition, regulations can establish a minimum percentage of workers that a corporation must employ full-time. This percentage can be on an increasing gradient based upon the total number of people that the company employees. Any company that does not meet their required quota of full-time workers would be subject to a new tax. The tax break and increased regulation both have the potential to greatly increase the job security of American workers.

A horrifying realization made by many recent graduates of American Universities is that they do not have the proper skill set to succeed in their intended profession[2]. It is a great failure to ourselves that the college model is so outdated and it must evolve in order to be effective. While many things are done right in higher education, a lack of emphasis on skills directly used in the workforce is disturbing. Many University presidents boast of their school’s production of well-rounded students who are ready to shape society, however, this is not entirely true because curricula have been set for years without change. One to plan to update this process is to increase the number of high quality adjunct professors. These industry professionals have the ability to share with students their experiences in the current professional working environment. This would require increased desirability for the position, which can be accomplished through increased wages. Currently, teachers at all levels are some of the most underpaid workers in America[3]. In addition, tenured professors should be held to the same standard of knowing knew developments in their field.

The third problem discussed was that of office place jobs, such as janitors and secretaries, decreasing with the reduction of traditional office environments. Since millions of Americans are currently employed in these occupations, even a small decrease in the number of offices would have large consequences. Most importantly, for the sake of the economy, these workers must not be left unemployed. I propose education stipends to workers in shrinking fields in order to quickly give these people a new job. These stipends would be towards formal colleges as well as vocational schools. Vocational schools are especially appropriate in this situation because they take less time than formal college four-year programs and provide students with practical knowledge about how to be a part of the workforce[4]. Even relatively small assistance may be enough to convince future unemployed people to enroll and reenter the workforce. This plan would further benefit from my second solution to combat the current state of Universities nationwide.

References:

1. http://www.accountingcoach.com/payroll-accounting/explanation/4
2. http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/tomorrows-college/lectures/rethinking-teaching.html
3. http://www.businessinsider.com/most-overpaid-and-underpaid-jobs-2014-1