Professor: Competency-Based Education Will Stratify Higher Education.

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Lerner, Feb 19, 2016.

Loading...
  1. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Professor: Competency-Based Education Will Stratify Higher Education.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/02/01/competency-based-education-threatens-further-stratify-higher-education-essay

    In commentary for Inside Higher Ed (2/1) Steven C. Ward, professor of sociology at Western Connecticut State University, writes that the notion of competency-based education has been “resurrected from the archive of failed education experiments,” owing to support from such sources as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and “a somewhat hesitant thumbs-up from” ED. Ward writes that the “rush to emphasize marketable skills over a deeper liberal knowledge content” is “forging new barriers and strata in an already highly stratified higher education system.”
     
  2. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Employers want marketable skills. The culture of employers has shifted drastically over the past few decades. Years ago, employers cared about things completely unrelated to what you did at the office. I speak with some of my older HR colleagues who tell me of preferences for people who were active in their churches (showed that they had values and subscribed to an ethical system), had physical hobbies (showed that they took care of their physical selves as well as maintaining appropriate work/life balance), and had a spouse and children (showed that they had support at home for a guy to further his career as well as an incentive to work hard so you can provide for them).

    I have no idea how well ingrained these Leave it to Beaver-style HR concepts were in the past. But we still see vestiges of them today. People didn't recently invent the concept of putting unrelated hobbies on a resume, for example. I was recently going through our archives and I happened upon some of our old job postings from the 1960's and 1950's as well as press releases and internal memos. It was pretty clear from reading these things, however, that we really wanted "renaissance men" in the office jobs. We wanted men who were well read, articulate and were basically jacks of all trades.

    I recall one posting for a business development representative (as we call them now, back then they were salesmen) which called for a man (remember, these are postings from the 50's and 60's), preferably with some college education, who had "worldly" experience, didn't mind travel, was proficient enough in electrical engineering to be able to discuss technical concepts. My personal favorite, this position also expressed a preference for avid golfers.

    So, they wanted someone who could talk the tech talk but could also take executive clients out for a round of golf to close a sale. No talk of experience requirements. No talk of an interest in sales. The qualifications were very broad and the actual selection was done at the interview for someone, they felt, could be trained to do the work.

    Compare that to our present posting which requires a minimum of 5 years commercial sales (B2B) experience with a proven track record of success, a bachelor's degree (Master's preferred) in business or related field.

    It's a very different hiring climate.

    So, back in 1953, you could have landed that job rather easily with a B.A. in Art History. In fact, it may have proven useful if you had to make a sale to an executive who had a snazzy art collection in his mansion. Now, we don't want a "renaissance man" we want a man or woman who can do the job. And we look for that candidate based upon experience, relevant education (wiggle room here) and how well they interview.

    That doesn't mean that there isn't a place for a liberal arts education. But, for a variety of career paths, it makes very little sense.

    Nursing is a prime example. You can become an R.N. by earning a BSN (four years including liberal arts requirements), an ASN (2-3 years including liberal arts requirements) or a Diploma (1 year, no liberal arts requirements). The latter is fading out of use (though is still an option in New York). Those liberal arts core requirements can, indeed, be useful. English Composition is something everyone can benefit from. Public Speaking is going to benefit more people than it will hurt. But higher ed also got incredibly lazy and decided to cater many of the other requirements to the interests of the student. Philosophy major? No problem, here's "Math for Liberal Arts Majors" or "The Philosophy of Physics."

    The point of liberal arts was to make a student more well rounded. But by easing requirements higher ed failed those students greatly. A philosophy major no longer has to put forth the effort to learn math. They can just avoid it rather than having to buckle down, study hard and "learn for the sake of wisdom."

    The result is that, today, we have bloated degrees filled with irrelevant coursework that is not benefiting anyone besides the institution collecting the tuition. And we have students showing up at HR's door with these degrees saying "Yeah, so I have absolutely nothing to offer your company, please pay me and teach me how to do something for a living."

    Perhaps the answer is simply to remove certain fields from the "liberal arts education" environment. Maybe a B.Eng. should be 3 years of just engineering education. Maybe we would be better served if a Bachelor of Accounting involved 2-3 years of learning nothing but accounting and related topics.

    But I'm not surprised that a professor of sociology seems to have a chip on his shoulder when it comes to programs that aim to build "marketable skills."
     
  3. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    In regards to Neuhaus' post above, my impression is that if you embark on a Liberal Arts education with no specific plan for grad school then you need to do the following:
    1) You need to understand that, in some ways, you're not preparing yourself for the present job market. This leads to
    a) resolving not to whine about the fact that, upon graduation, you're selling lawnmowers at Sears
    b) prepared to go to grad school at some point
    2) You need to approach the job market with a creative and perhaps somewhat aggressive attitude, preparing to sell yourself and your skills to people who may be somewhat skeptical of hiring a candidate such as yourself.
    3) If you want to avoid #1a then you may need to relocate
     
  4. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    "The times," Bob Dylan crooned, "they are a changin'."
     
  5. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    Other than WGU and maybe Hodges, the schools offering competency-based programs aren't really interested in offering degrees that teach marketable skills. They offer what is popular. Capella and Patten offer psychology degrees. Patten offers a CJ degree. CJ is supposed to be applied, but it teaches less marketable skills than psychology and is really just a social science. Almost all of the schools with competency-based programs offer some form of business administration or management. CJ and business administration have high underemployment rates. CJ has a high underemployment rate because the most abundant CJ jobs don't require a degree. Business administration has a high underemployment rate due to oversaturation. Also, when there is no concentration or only a management concentration in a business admin program, you don't really learn many hard skills. Business admin is too broad and shallow. Schools offer this degree because it's the most popular major. NAU offers a degree in liberal arts; I'm pretty sure they offer it because it is flexible and attractive to adult learners. University of Wisconsin offers a general associate of arts and science, and College for America/SNHU offers an associate's in general studies with a concentration in business admin and a bachelor's in communications. Communications is humanities, thus, a liberal art.

    There are liberal arts programs with higher employment rates than many of the majors offered as competency-based programs. How come they aren't offering degrees in mathematics, physics, and computer science? You could argue that physics is difficult to offer by distance, but what's the argument for computer science and mathematics? My theory is that they know that the types of students they attract are not going to want to major in mathematics or take calculus 1-3, discrete mathematics, and linear algebra for a computer science program. Either that or they know that these programs will require more instructor involvement than will be allowed by a competency-based program. Instead, these schools offer information technology and information systems programs.
     
  6. alzee

    alzee New Member

    I have to agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.

    I have 20 years experience in the IT field as a programmer, sysadmin, web developer, and more recently an android developer. I have no college degree myself, and in fact, I am a HS dropout with a GED. I somewhat lucked into my first job and have been relying on my resume ever since. In all this time, one constant has remained -- college simply does not prepare people for actual work in this field.

    We find experience (obviously) the most valuable asset, relevant 3rd party certs the second most relevant, and CS/IT degrees a very distant third only when the first two are lacking. In fact, demonstrable skills as a hobbyist are often worth more than a degree with honors from any school, no matter how prestigious.

    Hiring an apprentice and teaching him how to shoe horses or make wagon wheels works when you're the only farrier or wagon-wheel maker in the village. When there are 20 others, and you'll be out of business if you don't fill your orders promptly, you can't spare the time to train that apprentice.

    Every graduate coming out of college today with a 2 or 4 year CS degree is that untrained apprentice. Either colleges need to turn these degrees in a more CBE direction, or they need to accept the fact that those degrees are going to become less and less valuable.
     
  7. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    The thing is that competency-based programs aren't really good at teaching skills. They are best for adult learners who already have skills and want to use them to move through a degree program quickly and for self-directed learners. Take a look at WGU's IT programs and most of them will require IT experience, an associate's degree in an IT-related field, or a transferable IT cert for admission.
     
  8. alzee

    alzee New Member

    Even in cases where this assertion holds, you're saying the traditional approach *is* good at teaching skills? In the IT field, that's simply not true. Undergrads are coming out with a degree and a lot of memorized cruft that isn't relevant, but practical skills are severely lacking.

    CBE training programs that start from nothing do exist, usually direct from vendors, vocational schools, or private corporations who've made a business teaching some skill or other. The graduates of these programs are universally better prepared to work in the field than the BS degree holder.

    Honestly the best solution is probably for universities that don't want to become more competency focused in their CS and IT programs to just eliminate those programs. Offer the courses as electives, but don't offer degrees in the field. This would make Mr. Ward happy on the one hand, and it would stop wasting students time and money on the other.
     
  9. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    While experienced adult learners do indeed benefit from competency based systems, these programs rely on a demonstration of skill, not theoretical knowledge to complete a degree. If you come to the table with those skills, you progress quickly. If you don't then you need to learn those skills so that you can pass.

    In a traditional B&M undergrad business program you can go 4 years without ever preparing a business plan let alone a risk assessment. There are courses that are evaluated solely using multiple choice exams. Go to WGU and you can't really just "C" your way to a degree.
     
  10. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    Did you see that anywhere in my post?

    I'm a data person, so I would like to see the data for this. I'm not doubting it; I just don't take things at face value.

    I've been in a competency-based IT program that is similar to the WGU approach. WGU has projects (as do traditional schools), but they also have a lot of objective assessments. These objective assessments tend to be multiple choice. In the competency-based IT program I was in at Edmonds Community College and also at WGU, you can complete many competencies by passing certification exams. Most certification exams are mostly or completely composed of multiple choice questions. What I did was crammed at the last minute in order to pass the certification exams. This is something I could have done without enrolling at a college, but I wouldn't have gotten college credits. Anyone can self-study for IT certifications and many do. Competency-based programs that heavily rely on IT certifications are just adding another layer of verification of knowledge in order to award people a degree. You're still self-teaching. Before I dropped out of the program because I started working full-time and still needed to complete courses for my doctoral program, I was about to cram for the Javascript exam, which WGU accepts. I could have completed a programming competency by passing a multiple choice test.

    One could say that I'm doing myself a disservice by cramming for exams to earn credits, but that also applies to non-traditional programs. In competency-based and traditional programs, you often have to teach yourself or seek outside courses to make yourself more competent. This is just one school, but when I majored in computer science at a community college and had to take Visual Basic, we had to actually program something. This was no different from Edmonds Community College, except that Central Texas College doesn't award a bunch of credits for IT certs.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2016
  11. alzee

    alzee New Member

    No, but if your intention wasn't to contrast by implication, then what was it?

    I don't really know of any beyond my 20 years experience in the field, first and second hand. It's just one of those things "we all" know and agree on -- IT/CS graduates aren't being taught the skills we need in the industry, while vocational & certificate holding students are.

    Back in the early 2000s, before my resume was as "impressive" as it is now, I padded it with brainbench.com certifications in lieu of an education section.
     
  12. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    My point is that competency-based education may not be any better. The online student demographic is already skewed toward older people with work experience. When you look at competency-based programs, that demographic becomes even more skewed to older people with work experience. In order to do a fair comparison, you would have to find traditional-age college students with little to no work experience in their fields of study and compare them to the same demographic from traditional programs. So far, the only research I've seen on young people in online programs is that they tend to do worse than in traditional programs and have higher dropout rates whereas there is no difference for non-traditional-age students.
     
  13. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Thank you for sharing that experience.

    I never pursued a course of study in IT, so my experience has been only in business programs. Which, again, you're dealing with a lot of business plan development. There are objective exams. But they seem to be fewer than in the IT programs.

    My experience with IT is on the hiring side. I also earned the MCA designation, low level as it is, because I was beefing up my database chops. Then I got cocky and thought I would go on for the MCSA so I could start hanging out with those HR Data Science guys at SHRM. It's true, it's still an objective exam.

    But it would be a hell of an exam to try to pass without having work experience in that area. And that MCSA (less so than the MCSE, but still) is going to provide me with a credential that will look attractive on my resume and for good reason. Microsoft certs are attractive to many employers. And they aren't push over exams. The odds on you successfully passing MCSA or higher and walking away with zero skills because you simply studied for the test seem unlikely.

    My point is merely that competency based programs generally require the demonstration of an actual skill that is marketable in the job market. IT certifications, depending upon which one it is, can do just that even if its a written objective exam.

    I see from your later posts that you're saying that competency based programs may not actually be any better. And I absolutely agree with that point. I'm not trying to say that competency based learning is better. I'm simply saying that competency based learning is different and, unlike the good professor who wrote the above article, I think that's OK.

    If I earn a B.S. in HR, that's great. But it doesn't qualify me to do anything except take a very entry level position in an HR Department (HR Assistant, Staffing Assistant). The reason is because the degree provides me with a very high level theoretical framework for HR practices. That's great! But the program won't teach me how to screen resumes, interview candidates or administer a benefits program. Those are workplace skills that I need to learn on the job or through specialized training.

    To put it in CJ terms, it's the same reason why a degree in CJ doesn't exempt you from police academy training. Different skills. Different applications of knowledge.

    If a student went to WGU (or a WGU like school or program) as an experienced police officer or HR professional, they have skills which, traditionally, are not taught at a university. They are approaching those same topics from a different, often narrower focus. It isn't "better" it's just different. One goes from high level (in school) to narrow focus (in the workplace). The other does the reverse.

    My point is only that the professor is treating competency based learning as a "bad" thing because he views it as an effort to teach skills rather than impart a liberal arts education. My point is that, first of all, that might not be a bad thing for many occupations. But more importantly, that it isn't depriving a student of that liberal arts education just allowing for a different means of accessing it while capitalizing on the experience and strengths of a non-traditional learner.

    Or it provides quickie MBAs to the kid who locks himself in his room and cranks through a program in four months. But I'm confident in calling individuals who do that outliers.
     
  14. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    This is kind off on topic, but I've heard many people complain about the lack of skills possessed by computer science graduates. I've learned that this may be due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what computer science programs are. There is this elitist member of another forum who is out of touch with the mainstream, but he has a degree in computer science and works in the field. If there is one thing he might be right on, it is what computer science programs are designed to be. They are not IT or IS programs. After looking at the typical curriculum for a computer science program, it becomes apparent that it is a theoretical degree. That guy says it's a liberal art, and I agree with him. TESU treats computer science as a liberal art and so does Harvard. Many schools offer a BA in computer science whereas it's extremely rare to see a BA in any other STEM field other than the natural sciences and mathematics, which are liberal arts.

    The best comparison I can think of is a degree in chemistry or biology vs. a degree in medical or clinical laboratory science. While chemistry and biology graduates can work toward certification as a medical laboratory scientist, these programs are not meant for that. MLS/CLS programs require a practicum and some even include phlebotomy training. They are designed to prepare students for certification.
     
  15. alzee

    alzee New Member

    We're not on the same page. I was not comparing online to brick&mortar, but traditional (online or offline) to vocational (online or offline). A resume with magic words like CCIE, CISSP, or AWS CSA immediately goes to the top of the pile above all CS type degrees, all else being equal. If those types of certifications aren't present, then the vocational schools are next up; the ITTs etc.

    That may be somewhat true, but that misunderstanding is due to how those degrees are marketed. Those of us in the field aren't complaining that we're getting degree holding employees or interviewees without practical skills -- that's been well known for a long time now. We do think it's deceptive and even unethical that the schools target these programs to students who desire to work in the field, as if they're somehow relevant to that pursuit.

    Here's an example or two, from the first page of hits from a google search on simply "CS degrees" without the quotes. First up, the 2nd result, from a regionally accredited school:

    What Can You Do With a Computer Science Degree?

    Tell me this isn't complete deception on their part. Yes, it's factually true. Those are probably in fact the top 10 careers that CS degree holders have, and those are all jobs you can do with a CS degree -- they neglect to mention that they are all jobs you can do (cheaper and sooner) without wasting your time on that degree.

    Now, the first hit, from dice -- a longstanding IT worker job board.

    5 Things to Learn About Computer Science Degrees - Dice News

    It starts with a professor at Purdue saying there is a disconnect between the classroom and the workplace. 100% true. It goes on to talk about dismal pass rates and 4yr degrees taking most students 6yrs to complete, with a University of Maryland professor just categorically lying.

    Finally a bit past the spam, this infoworld (industry magazine) article from 2012 which just lets it all hang out.

    Is a computer science degree worth the paper it's printed on? | InfoWorld

    This guy is just telling it how it is. Skip the degree if you're getting it to work in the field, because it's a waste of time and money in pursuit of that goal. Take a vocational course instead, or just teach yourself.
     
  16. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    We are on the same page. You cannot do a comparison of two completely different student populations. Until you can find a study that compares the same types of students in traditional programs vs. competency-based programs, you can't come to the conclusion that one is better than the other. You cannot compare people with IT certs and/or years of experience in the IT field with 18 year old students who have no certs and no experience. WGU won't even allow people without certs, experience. and/or an IT-related associate's degree in their highly-technical programs. Edmonds Community College would only allow people without certs or experience in two of their beginners' programs. Their more advanced programs required certs or experience.

    Honestly, there aren't very many highly-technical, competency-based programs. Most of them are at WGU. Most of the other competency-based programs are in business with some having information systems concentrations that aren't very technical, and Capella and Patten offer several in psychology. I wouldn't be surprised if 3/4 of competency-based programs are in business, management, or leadership.

    By the way, Rasmussen College is a for-profit school. For-profit schools tend to spend a lot more on marketing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2016
  17. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Here's the problem with that argument; many employers want both.

    For me, I cannot hire a software engineer without a bachelors degree. It isn't an option. Our interim CTO and EVP of HR sat down and worked out the job descriptions. They decided where the lines would be drawn. They have decided where the exceptions will be made.

    I can hire a fully qualified engineer with a B.A. in English Literature but I cannot hire an equally qualified programmer who doesn't have a bachelor's degree at all.

    Unfair? Maybe. But it's a highly competitive job market. And, frankly, we're a very large company that a lot of people would kill to put on their resumes. So, if you have to have a degree and the skills that are demonstrated through certification then CS is a perfectly valid option.

    CS is definitely the most common degree I see among our incoming programmers and engineers. But degrees in software engineering are becoming more common. Degrees in IT are very rare among software development staff. They are the norm among our technicians, network specialists and database administrators, however.

    It isn't terribly surprising to find an older programmer with a degree in math. At a certain time, that was a reasonable path toward working in the field. Now, not so much. CS emerged as its own discipline. And CS was the norm for a while. Now we are finding specialized degrees and CS is sort of falling by the wayside for the average practitioner. But none of that changes the fact that many employers want a degree. Are there jobs where you can get a job in the field without any degree just by your amazingness? Yes. But you better be amazing to stand out. To tell a young person to skip college and just teach yourself to code to get into the field is a bit like saying "Nah, you don't need to go to Tisch, just throw your clothes in a bag, get a one way ticket to Hollywood and figure it out along the way" to a young person who wants to work in the entertainment industry in an unspecified role. It might work well. It might not work well. But that path you're poo-pooing isn't as useless as people make it sound.
     
  18. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Without diving down the rabbit hole, I just want to point out that I think we need to be careful in conflating the word "skills" with "technical skills." When we're talking tech, we inevitably end up back at IT and we're talking about the ability to write code, manage the network, optimize the database etc. These are technical skills that cannot be assumed just because a person holds a particular degree.

    The competency based business programs I dabbled in tended to focus more on soft skills and less on objective exams. I took courses at New Charter which required me to write job descriptions, a business plan and complete a risk analysis, for example.

    These are still skill based exercises. But they are more qualitative than what you run into in technical fields. If I write bad code, my program won't work. Or it won't run as efficiently as it might otherwise run. If I build my database with a sloppy schema, you might not be able to effectively query it or you might get inaccurate results. I might write a business plan that three people think is "bad" but another three think is amazing. My plan might be fantastic but I might turn off a person with poor formatting. These are skill based exercises whether they occur in the context of a competency based program or a traditional program.

    The professor who wrote this article seems to be bemoaning the focus on skills and I doubt he cares over whether those are technical skills or some of these "softer" skills that are useful in business. He wants the focus to remain on a liberal arts education. That's a fine position to take. But one must also acknowledge his bias in saying such. If we went to skill based models for most degree plans, people like sociology professors would be the first to be impacted by such a shift.

    I'm not saying that there is no place for a liberal arts education. Nor am I saying that a skills based education is better or worse. If anything, I'm just saying that there is, or should be, room for both in the world of higher ed.
     
  19. alzee

    alzee New Member

    I can and have reached that conclusion, without such a study. So has the industry as a whole, generally speaking. Anecdotal evidence is not invalid simply because it is anecdotal. When there is enough of it, no study is needed, and in this particular sector there is plenty.

    I certainly can compare them when they're both applying for the same job, that's how the hiring process works.

    ...at traditional colleges, online or offline.

    That neglected qualification is important, it's the entire point in fact. There are plenty such programs available through other channels, the industry is packed to the gills with them. Graduates of those programs tend to be the better choice when it's decision time for who to interview or hire, because they have practical skills the degree holders lack.

    Not really relevant. I didn't mean traditional marketing, but the word of mouth and off the cuff statements like those of the professors in the infoworld link. Potential students are being told that to work in the industry they need a degree in the field, or that such a degree will really help them get hired or advance, and it's simply not true.
     
  20. alzee

    alzee New Member

    This happens. It's far from the norm, but I of course have seen it. It doesn't affect my point though -- I didn't say degrees themselves are worthless for getting a job, they aren't, but the CS/IT/FotM degrees are no more valuable than degrees in underwater basketweaving. Most of the time this is true, as you pointed out yourself.

    Most of them are this way, in fact. Degree requirements are the exception, as you know if you're in the industry yourself. I've worked for a fortune 100 and a few fortune 500's as a developer, names everyone here has heard, without a degree. Degree requirements aren't common there, nevermind industry-related degrees.

    Excluded middle much? Teaching yourself is great, but what I've been saying all along is that a vocational degree/diploma or industry certifications are far more valuable in the industry than traditional degrees. Demonstrable skills are top dog, paid experience or not. Drop out of school? Absolutely. But then enroll in a different kind of school, like an 2-6 month private course in whatever you think you want to do. Get some certifications. Build some apps/sites/programs/whatever privately and create a portfolio.

    You'll have no trouble getting a job, and you won't have a mountain of debt.

    If this means there are a few companies (such as yours) that won't hire you, you have to decide if the place you really want to work is on that list. Most aren't.
     

Share This Page