On Friday I was on an unusual schedule. I worked from home and took the train in for a Dr's appointment for 1pm instead of commuting in at regular hours. I actually enjoy running on an "off" schedule as it helps me change my frame of reference, working while others aren't and vica versa.
After my doctor's appointment I was walking to the office and came up to the train station that I normally get off at and witnessed to men (perhaps boys) get off the train. They immediately piqued my interest as they were wearing fairly extreme attire. One was "sagging" as much as one can sag without exposing their junk (actually it was quite impressive that the person could actually move without their pants falling off). The other had bleached white hair that was cut into a very low trimmed mohawk. Both were fitted with usual "street" wear that screamed "I'M A BADASS GANGSTA!!!". As they walked by, with lit cigarettes hanging out of their mouth I noticed on the back of one of their shirts the saying "Gangster is as gangster does" and two things when through my head.
1. Hey! That's grammatically correct!
2. Stay in School kids.
And it made my think.... Would "staying in school" really help these two individuals? and why do we assume "staying in school" is the path to "staying out of trouble" or "a good life"? I really think that the whole "Stay in school" philosophy is old and is not much more than a fear tactic. I think of the TEDTalk "The danger of a single story" where people often hear one idea and immediately conjure up a stereotypical story about a person, a group of people or even the idea itself.
In this case someone says "stay in school kids" usually when referencing someone who isn't fitting the normal mold in life. Someone who is not wealthy, or behaving respectfully, or in a state of despair. I'm sure almost everyone remembers some point in their childhood walking past a beggar in the streets, or sitting next to an addict on the bus and their parents, chaperone, friend, or collegue pointing them out and saying "stay in school kids". As if the absence of school was the single contributor to these people's woes. The lack of reading and writing skills led to addiction. The lack of health class led to a person becoming schizophrenic or not attending math class made someone choose to drop out of school and pursue life outside of academia.
I really think that using this phrase "Stay in school kids" is dangerous. Our educational paradigms are being challenged. With the introduction and growth of the internet and smart phones and other mobile devices, we no longer have to rely on schools and educational systems as being the only avenue to information. 20 years ago, conducting research was something that usually had to happen in close proximity to a library. Now that literature and information is at your finger tips. Getting an "advanced education" involved paying thousands of dollars to a university or college, committing day time hours to attending classes and ensuring you were in good political standing with your professors. With the invention of Edx, MITx, iTunes U, and Khan Academy this level of education is free, available in whaterver timeframe you want and doesn't require kissing a professor's ass to get a good grade... I even question if grades are really relevant anymore. Are they?
We used to use degrees, grades, certificates as a way of proving someone had a minimum level of knowledge in a specific area. That they could apply critical thinking skills. We still do. Employers still demand higher levels of education, but I wonder if they're getting the return on investment. I often see employment ads that state "Must have a bachelor's degree." It doesn't state what relevant field of study they're looking for only that the person has a bachelor degree. When I asked hiring managers what skill or qualification they were hoping the degree would prove I often get shrugs and puzzled looks. They don't know. Most cannot translate how a "degree" will demonstrate the job performance they're looking for in that particular job.
I then start to ask "What was the education path for successful people?" and what I find is that a lot of people didn't "stay in school". Einstein, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs are classic examples of those who didn't stay in school. I do not see anyone accusing them of being unsuccessful. However, they are just a few (and I realize they are extreme cases). Interestingly enough, 2 of those 4 are still alive and I wonder if it's the start of a trend. Others who did finish the formal path of getting degrees only view the academic portion as one element to their success. Seeking and getting the right experience and mentoring were critical elements to their success. Also having a passion for their field was huge.
(Please note.... I have not done extensive interviews with thousands of people. This is just casual conversation and reading I've done. Ironically, I'm sure the academics who read this will want to tear my thoughts apart with arguments like "you haven't done proper research" and "where's the peer reviewed documentation to prove your theories?")
So I question.... is the saying "stay in school kids" outdated? cliche? even dangerous?
Are people starting to realize that formal education is not the best (or only single) path to "success"?
Should we be showing there are more ingredients to "success" than just education?
Should we be telling our kids "stay in school.... and make sure you get out and experience the world!"?
Are employers missing out on opportunities by excluding hiring informally educated individuals?
Are employers missing out on diversifying their talent pool by only hiring formally educated individuals?
How will employers gauge this in the future? What will employers ask for instead of "a degree"?
how will educational institutions deal with this trend? As most of them focus their marketing on "get your degree here! Our degrees are the best!"
After my doctor's appointment I was walking to the office and came up to the train station that I normally get off at and witnessed to men (perhaps boys) get off the train. They immediately piqued my interest as they were wearing fairly extreme attire. One was "sagging" as much as one can sag without exposing their junk (actually it was quite impressive that the person could actually move without their pants falling off). The other had bleached white hair that was cut into a very low trimmed mohawk. Both were fitted with usual "street" wear that screamed "I'M A BADASS GANGSTA!!!". As they walked by, with lit cigarettes hanging out of their mouth I noticed on the back of one of their shirts the saying "Gangster is as gangster does" and two things when through my head.
1. Hey! That's grammatically correct!
2. Stay in School kids.
And it made my think.... Would "staying in school" really help these two individuals? and why do we assume "staying in school" is the path to "staying out of trouble" or "a good life"? I really think that the whole "Stay in school" philosophy is old and is not much more than a fear tactic. I think of the TEDTalk "The danger of a single story" where people often hear one idea and immediately conjure up a stereotypical story about a person, a group of people or even the idea itself.
In this case someone says "stay in school kids" usually when referencing someone who isn't fitting the normal mold in life. Someone who is not wealthy, or behaving respectfully, or in a state of despair. I'm sure almost everyone remembers some point in their childhood walking past a beggar in the streets, or sitting next to an addict on the bus and their parents, chaperone, friend, or collegue pointing them out and saying "stay in school kids". As if the absence of school was the single contributor to these people's woes. The lack of reading and writing skills led to addiction. The lack of health class led to a person becoming schizophrenic or not attending math class made someone choose to drop out of school and pursue life outside of academia.
I really think that using this phrase "Stay in school kids" is dangerous. Our educational paradigms are being challenged. With the introduction and growth of the internet and smart phones and other mobile devices, we no longer have to rely on schools and educational systems as being the only avenue to information. 20 years ago, conducting research was something that usually had to happen in close proximity to a library. Now that literature and information is at your finger tips. Getting an "advanced education" involved paying thousands of dollars to a university or college, committing day time hours to attending classes and ensuring you were in good political standing with your professors. With the invention of Edx, MITx, iTunes U, and Khan Academy this level of education is free, available in whaterver timeframe you want and doesn't require kissing a professor's ass to get a good grade... I even question if grades are really relevant anymore. Are they?
We used to use degrees, grades, certificates as a way of proving someone had a minimum level of knowledge in a specific area. That they could apply critical thinking skills. We still do. Employers still demand higher levels of education, but I wonder if they're getting the return on investment. I often see employment ads that state "Must have a bachelor's degree." It doesn't state what relevant field of study they're looking for only that the person has a bachelor degree. When I asked hiring managers what skill or qualification they were hoping the degree would prove I often get shrugs and puzzled looks. They don't know. Most cannot translate how a "degree" will demonstrate the job performance they're looking for in that particular job.
I then start to ask "What was the education path for successful people?" and what I find is that a lot of people didn't "stay in school". Einstein, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs are classic examples of those who didn't stay in school. I do not see anyone accusing them of being unsuccessful. However, they are just a few (and I realize they are extreme cases). Interestingly enough, 2 of those 4 are still alive and I wonder if it's the start of a trend. Others who did finish the formal path of getting degrees only view the academic portion as one element to their success. Seeking and getting the right experience and mentoring were critical elements to their success. Also having a passion for their field was huge.
(Please note.... I have not done extensive interviews with thousands of people. This is just casual conversation and reading I've done. Ironically, I'm sure the academics who read this will want to tear my thoughts apart with arguments like "you haven't done proper research" and "where's the peer reviewed documentation to prove your theories?")
So I question.... is the saying "stay in school kids" outdated? cliche? even dangerous?
Are people starting to realize that formal education is not the best (or only single) path to "success"?
Should we be showing there are more ingredients to "success" than just education?
Should we be telling our kids "stay in school.... and make sure you get out and experience the world!"?
Are employers missing out on opportunities by excluding hiring informally educated individuals?
Are employers missing out on diversifying their talent pool by only hiring formally educated individuals?
How will employers gauge this in the future? What will employers ask for instead of "a degree"?
how will educational institutions deal with this trend? As most of them focus their marketing on "get your degree here! Our degrees are the best!"
