First off this isn’t a rant against the employability agenda sweeping through higher education in the pursuit of making graduates more employable graduates. In principle that’s a good thing and is hard to argue against. In fact since the rise in tuition fees in England many institutions have received an increase in complaints from students regarding value for money which is a very commodity driven, market reaction.
So if students quite rightly pay (or shift debt) into their name they can quite legitimately expect or hope for a return on their investment. So does this represent a cultural shift amongst students, staff and institutions? I think so but I wanted to focus on one particular aspect. This is the drive to creating the employable graduate or super grad. Employers can quite easily and rightly reel off a list of attributes and attitudes they require of a graduate in order to A) pass their ATS systems and assessments and B) perform in the organisation and role. This list is fairly homogeneous and covers most sectors and careers. If you take a look at the CBI skills survey report from 2011 on page 23 those skills are listed and broken down.
Crucially these attributes and attitudes should be assessed and evidenced/articulated by the graduate which is why careers services have so much demand for help with paper based (CVs, cover letters) and online (Linkedin, personal statements, applications) methods of application and assessment. So students and universities logically want to do well in this process – as we are all benchmarked one way or another – and so we have the employability agenda driving change through the curriculum. The purpose of what is education for isn’t new. There has always been the long standing argument that tends to polarise opinion towards the purpose of education as being either the predict and provide solution for industrialised nations or a representation of the civilised world we are incumbent to supply in order to explore self-expression, self-actualisation and knowledge growth of the human race.
This got me thinking of a rather outlandish idea (and pays reference to the blog title) that if there was a pill that students could swallow that instantly and permanently enhanced desirable traits that employers valued would they take it? Let’s assume this is the year 2100 and this pill has got through all its efficacy trials! Perhaps this isn’t so outlandish after all given our preoccupation in film – think Gattaca as an example – of seeing progress of the human race as a removal of weakness whilst accentuating strengths.
If so, would some traits such as eccentricity, introversion and narcissism be excluded? (You may wonder why I included narcissism but this is often considered a trait prevalent in leaders. It is also a trait that creates divide and ambivalence. Whilst on the surface domineering and egotistical qualities aren’t revered they do seem to aid one’s career by helping certain individuals rise to the top and even lead to better interview performance).
The notion of a pill as a way to correct and enhance is really just an extreme variance of how society at large attempts to normalise and encourage selected behaviours. But I would like to think there is a place in the world for everyone’s uniqueness and individuality to thrive.
The world needs behaviours such as risk taking, introversion, narcissism and many other traits that never seem to end up in job descriptions, person specs and assessment centres. Wouldn’t life and the workplace be boring if we were all the same and good at the same things? There is a conformity to fit into the employablity agenda and become malleable to the needs of employers and society. This raises important questions.
In the pursuit of trying to create more employable graduates is it possible within the gains of this agenda there are also losses?
Specifically within the value of certain traits and how useful they are deemed and therefore valued.
Is there also a risk the individuality and uniqueness of the human spirit is lost within assessments, benchmarks, performance measures, employer wish lists and all the other terminology used in recruitment?
So where does the individual fit into this and have we now got a system that means doing well in the recruitment process can be compared to whom can best paint by numbers?
In the ever increasing competition for roles there is seemingly more investment and science placed in methods such as application tracking systems and an increased assessment inventory (psychometrics, group exercises). In essence it feels like these are just reductionist attempts to standardise and measure very narrow fields of a complex being which creates the potential for talent to fall through the gaps.
If you enjoy TED talks take a look at this one from Ken Robinson, it’s a heady mix of humour, enlightenment and perception but it also raises important questions on what education should be which relates to some of what I am trying to get at in this post.
So from cradle to grave we are assessed and probed and fairly soon it becomes ingrained into culture and the individual psyche. But if we stop and standstill just for one minute and think about what the hell terms like “talent acquisition” actually mean I’m fairly certain the process doesn’t fit the intention.
I’ll leave you with a quote that I think sums up what I am trying to say – some might say I could have just read the quote and not wasted my time with the preceding 800 words – it was attributed to Albert Einstein.