The U.S. economy continues to sputter along in its recovery from the Great Depression, but while most turn their gaze to the unemployment percentage or how many jobs government and private corporations added/subtracted over a given month or quarter this focus is misdirected. Unfortunately most people do not consider the type of jobs that are driving the “recovery”. Most of the job gains are lower paying service and healthcare jobs, which exist near minimum wage salaries and part-time work. For example 19.1 percent of employees work part time (fewer than 35 hours a week) versus 16.9 percent when the Great Recession started.1 Note that while some may mitigate the absolute percentage change consider that this percentage encompasses over 150 million people, thus the percentage change involves millions.
Most commentators believe that these lower paying near-minimum wage service jobs and other part time work are a byproduct of the general lack of education of U.S. citizens. The common counter solution is rhetoric extolling the need to invest in education. Basically these individuals are lamenting that if only the general citizenry were more educated then most of the problems surrounding under and unemployment would be significantly alleviated. Therefore, the key to re-energizing the economy is widespread focus on and reform of education. Believers attempt to support this position by citing the numerous unfilled jobs that various companies have had open for months, if not years, due to a lack of appropriate candidates. Unfortunately this evidence damages the simplistic education argument in that it exposes more of the complexity of the modern relationship between the work force and quality jobs.
The principle reason why most high quality jobs remain unfilled over years is a lack of experience not a lack of education. Excluding this element from the economic issue is especially troubling because some pundits seem to assume that if a person has a college degree they will get a job, a reality that is illusionary. The quality job issue boils down to education and experience. When some comment about the lack of qualified individuals to fill all of these open positions in science, engineering and manufacturing they neglect to discuss the required experience only focusing on the education requirement. For example most of these job openings read something like this: company x is looking for an engineer with a Masters in electrical engineering and has 10 years experience in MEMS, not company x is looking for an engineer with a Masters in electrical engineering only. There are plenty of individuals with Masters in electrical engineering, but few individuals with that education and 10 years experience in MEMS. The principle reason for the lack of quality candidates is that over recent years most companies have cut back significantly on the number of entry-level positions they hire.
Unfortunately this reduction has created a form of negative feedback loop because if one is not hiring entry-level positions then those individuals who would take those jobs are not acquiring appropriate experience and are instead gaining experience in something else or nothing at all. Thus, this “redirection” of experience reduces the amount of individuals with requisite experience limiting the pool of candidates for companies to draw from when they require someone with certain experience. At present this experience pool for science, engineering and other high quality non-financial based jobs is so diminished that most companies have trouble filling these “experience required” positions almost requiring them to poach these qualified individuals from other companies, which does not solve the overall problem just the problem for company A while creating a new problem for company B (the company that loses the employee). Instead companies need to train for these positions by increasing entry-level hires versus looking for one who already has the experience.
Filling these higher quality jobs is important because they have a higher probability than most jobs of being both high paying and long lasting. This long lasting element is one commonly missed by those championing the Green Job revolution for most of those jobs are transient being temporary construction and manufacturing jobs. Also the supporters of the Green Job revolution forget the aspect of skill mismatch in that constructing a wind turbine is not equivalent to fixing a roof. Thus individuals without proper experience in construction and manufacturing will not be able to take significant advantage of any Green Job-type revolution. Even if the millions of jobs promised by the supports of the Green Job revolution were an accurate appraisal of the scenario, those jobs would not go to millions of different people, just the same general pool of hundreds of thousands of appropriately qualified individuals.
Another problem is that education needs to be more focused because not all education is created equal when it comes to employment. Pharmaceutical majors and philosophy majors may both receive an excellent education, but what they can do with that education after college is vastly different. In addition corporations need to restore confidence that university distinction is nominal in the selection process. Clearly there is a significant difference in the rigor and education one is expected to receive from John Smith State University versus Stanford, but the difference between a university like Purdue and Stanford is far less. Unfortunately employers do not honor the notion that education and other non-tangible characteristics (leadership, etc.) are what matter instead allowing nepotism, favoritism and connections to win out in the end, elements that are more easily acquired at Ivy League institutions over other high-ranking schools.
It is also worth noting that Ivy League graduates have higher salaries versus other universities over the initial stages of their careers regardless of career choice and despite a lack of demonstrated superior ability.2 If this problem persists then no amount of “education reform” and/or additional access to education will change the quality job concern because these “top-tier” schools have had declining acceptance rates over the last few years, thus the enhancement strategy would simply leave more people with an education, but no job adequate for it and some unnecessary amount of debt.
Two key steps to addressing this experience/quality job shortfall is that corporations will have to start expanding entry level hires and generate more advanced and extensive training methods. Basically corporations have to stop waiting for someone else to solve their problems (company a hires and trains individual A who is later poached by company b) and start solving it themselves (remember corporations are legally people now) by spending some of that billions in profit they have accumulated over the last few years since the Great Recession. Corporations must also form more cooperative relationships with universities establishing more paid internships linked to graduation credits. While rather obvious this relationship will help enhance early experience and enlightened students regarding the compatibility of actually career operation to their interests.
Overall there has been a shift towards part time work over full time work in recent years driven by two elements beyond the circumstances of the Great Recession (which should not be utilized as a excuse anymore). First, creating an efficient schedule organizing appropriate time for all full time workers requires sophisticated math or software scheduling versus a much more simplistic scheme with part time workers. In some respects laziness is carrying the day and augmenting the “advantages” of having part time workers. Second, the concern of increased health care costs, which will be born from the healthcare reform legislation of 2009 (the Affordable Care Act) that demands corporations employing at least 50 full-time employees in the previous calendar year provide health insurance for all or face penalties. Hire a lot of part time employees over a smaller number of full time employees and avoid the mandate.
Society must determine whether it is more appropriate for various industries to have numerous part time workers or a slightly smaller number of full time workers. If the latter wins out, yet corporations are unwilling to address that desire then government will have to pass legislation limiting the percentage of part time workers that a corporation can hire for most part time worker strategies are executed solely for the company’s bottom line and not for the health of society or the employees.
--
Citations –
1. Rampell. C. “Part-Time Work Becomes Full-Time Wait for Better Job”. NY Times. April 19, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/business/part-time-work-becomes-full-time-wait-for-better-job.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&.
2. 2012-2013 Payscale College Salary Report. Payscale.com http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2013.
Showing posts with label Experience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Experience. Show all posts
Monday, April 29, 2013
Friday, January 28, 2011
Diagnosis and the Internet
A recent article in Time Magazine discussed the issue of patients taking the initiative to look up symptoms online prior to visiting a physician and then using the information collected online to suggest possible causes and treatment regiments. The article author argued in favor of this behavior using a single cherry-picked example where a patient’s research had shortened the diagnosis process.
Sadly such simplistic examples are consistently used as backbones to these types of arguments. The author goes on to suggest that any debate surrounding the issue is absurd because patients are already performing research in an attempt of self-diagnosis before visiting a physician. This argument is flawed because the position taken is, that if a group of individuals are engaging in a particular task one should not question whether or not they should engage in that task; that conclusion makes no logical sense. However, regardless of that initial argument the author misses the most important element in the discussion regarding the use of the Internet in self-diagnosis.
While the author does suggest that patients should be given the tools and resources to better understand their condition and the potential treatment options, he neglects to identify the issue of neophyte-expert. The principle reason most physicians get annoyed by patients engaging in self-diagnosis using information from the Internet is that people can look at expertise as an issue of information instead of information and interpretation. Regardless of whatever tools are made available to these patients, they are still neophytes when it comes to using that information to accurately determine whether or not a particular condition is a reasonable cause for their symptoms.
Unfortunately there are a number of individuals that value their inexperienced opinion at the same weight versus the experienced opinion of a practicing physician, especially when it comes to probability arguments. Based on this mindset there are patients that will demand a specific test to rule out a one-in-a-million probability disease when a much more likely and common candidate is available; this testing demand spawns specifically from simply learning about the existence of the disease rather than understanding the disease. This neophyte element is clearly demonstrated by the ‘stack of papers’ which characterize these patients, they bring every possibility not the most likely possibilities.
The ease at which the author, a physician in his own right, dismisses the experiences of medical school and medical residence is almost insulting to the medical profession when suggesting that patients should familiarize themselves with the best sites to extract diagnostic information. Any belief that patients would develop diagnostic abilities similar to licensed physicians by simply viewing information from reputable sites alone is stretching the imagination. This nonchalance is especially troubling when considering that issue that it is highly likely that more patients will focus on end stages for a potential condition over the probability of actually acquiring that condition in the first place making more believable diagnosis more difficult.
However, this attitude is subjectively prevalent throughout the article. Taking an objective observation at a WebMD ‘analysis’ of a given group of symptoms should demonstrate that it is very easy for an inexperienced individual to become mislead by superfluous information even from a reputable site. A big error in analysis made by the author is the belief that most individuals are rational and logical actors when it comes to their health, thus research is always suitable.
It is understandable that patients want to have some measure of control in not only their medical care, but also what condition may trigger the need for that care; however, these patients must also understand that their expertise is lacking compared to the treating physician. A patient may attempt to come to reasonable conclusion regarding his/her condition, but must understand that the physician has the experience to more effectively determine the most probable cause from the available information and that the opinion of the physician should supercede the opinion of the patient. Without this understanding patients will not be ‘doing the absolutely best thing for themselves by going online before the office visit’, but instead will more than likely simply be complicated their office visit.
However, it also must be noted that physicians must understand that they are fallible as well and if the patient has information which contradicts their conclusions a more accurate diagnosis should be developed. While physicians are fallible it is important for patients to realize that in the web community rarely do message board posters and chat room participants report physicians being right in the diagnosis, instead they simply carp about those instances when their physicians were wrong and their own personal research assisted in deducing the proper diagnosis. In these web communities physicians are frequently treated like the CIA in that you rarely hear about their successes, but frequently hear about their failures. Physicians may not have superior intelligence all the time, but they do have superior experience and patients need to respect that experience. Overall physicians must work hard to be cordial to the questions of their patients and in return patients must not be argumentative to the answers or conclusions provided by their physicians.
Sadly such simplistic examples are consistently used as backbones to these types of arguments. The author goes on to suggest that any debate surrounding the issue is absurd because patients are already performing research in an attempt of self-diagnosis before visiting a physician. This argument is flawed because the position taken is, that if a group of individuals are engaging in a particular task one should not question whether or not they should engage in that task; that conclusion makes no logical sense. However, regardless of that initial argument the author misses the most important element in the discussion regarding the use of the Internet in self-diagnosis.
While the author does suggest that patients should be given the tools and resources to better understand their condition and the potential treatment options, he neglects to identify the issue of neophyte-expert. The principle reason most physicians get annoyed by patients engaging in self-diagnosis using information from the Internet is that people can look at expertise as an issue of information instead of information and interpretation. Regardless of whatever tools are made available to these patients, they are still neophytes when it comes to using that information to accurately determine whether or not a particular condition is a reasonable cause for their symptoms.
Unfortunately there are a number of individuals that value their inexperienced opinion at the same weight versus the experienced opinion of a practicing physician, especially when it comes to probability arguments. Based on this mindset there are patients that will demand a specific test to rule out a one-in-a-million probability disease when a much more likely and common candidate is available; this testing demand spawns specifically from simply learning about the existence of the disease rather than understanding the disease. This neophyte element is clearly demonstrated by the ‘stack of papers’ which characterize these patients, they bring every possibility not the most likely possibilities.
The ease at which the author, a physician in his own right, dismisses the experiences of medical school and medical residence is almost insulting to the medical profession when suggesting that patients should familiarize themselves with the best sites to extract diagnostic information. Any belief that patients would develop diagnostic abilities similar to licensed physicians by simply viewing information from reputable sites alone is stretching the imagination. This nonchalance is especially troubling when considering that issue that it is highly likely that more patients will focus on end stages for a potential condition over the probability of actually acquiring that condition in the first place making more believable diagnosis more difficult.
However, this attitude is subjectively prevalent throughout the article. Taking an objective observation at a WebMD ‘analysis’ of a given group of symptoms should demonstrate that it is very easy for an inexperienced individual to become mislead by superfluous information even from a reputable site. A big error in analysis made by the author is the belief that most individuals are rational and logical actors when it comes to their health, thus research is always suitable.
It is understandable that patients want to have some measure of control in not only their medical care, but also what condition may trigger the need for that care; however, these patients must also understand that their expertise is lacking compared to the treating physician. A patient may attempt to come to reasonable conclusion regarding his/her condition, but must understand that the physician has the experience to more effectively determine the most probable cause from the available information and that the opinion of the physician should supercede the opinion of the patient. Without this understanding patients will not be ‘doing the absolutely best thing for themselves by going online before the office visit’, but instead will more than likely simply be complicated their office visit.
However, it also must be noted that physicians must understand that they are fallible as well and if the patient has information which contradicts their conclusions a more accurate diagnosis should be developed. While physicians are fallible it is important for patients to realize that in the web community rarely do message board posters and chat room participants report physicians being right in the diagnosis, instead they simply carp about those instances when their physicians were wrong and their own personal research assisted in deducing the proper diagnosis. In these web communities physicians are frequently treated like the CIA in that you rarely hear about their successes, but frequently hear about their failures. Physicians may not have superior intelligence all the time, but they do have superior experience and patients need to respect that experience. Overall physicians must work hard to be cordial to the questions of their patients and in return patients must not be argumentative to the answers or conclusions provided by their physicians.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
A Question of Credentials
Last week Michael Bloomberg nominated Cathleen Black, a well-noted publishing executive, to be the city’s new school chancellor after Joel Klein left the post. The nomination has raised the issue of credibility in that Mrs. Black has no direct educational-related credentials to demonstrate that she would be a competent chancellor, let alone a high quality chancellor. Some argue that Mrs. Black’s lack of educational experience invalidate her ability to be an effective chancellor. An adjunct to this argument is that even if she could develop into a quality chancellor in time, the appropriate amount of time to foster this development is not available amid the current financial crisis facing the education sector as well as the complexity surrounding the educational reform movement.
The other side argues that Mrs. Black’s success in the publishing industry should demonstrate that she has the necessary raw skills to succeed as chancellor after ironing out some of the rough edges. These individuals believe that the chief element required to be chancellor has nothing to do with teaching experience, but instead the ability to manage and delegate. Individuals that hold this view also add that current teacher training and accreditation have been suggested to be an ineffective methodology for the current education requirements and climate. However, unfortunately for Mrs. Black supporters but not surprisingly, the changes that are suggested from these evaluations, which focus on more in-class training and experience over educational theory to develop more relevant skill sets are also not possessed by Mrs. Black, thus even mentioning these new required skills is completely irrelevant. Sadly such a strategy is commonplace in what society wants to refer to as ‘debating’.
Discrediting the legitimacy of educational experience is a desperate strategy because Mrs. Black supporters do not seem able to provide elements in her character or experience, which will translate to a high probability of success for her potential career as the chancellor. Instead they attempt to devalue the credentials of possible adversaries thus reducing the debate to ‘well she is just as good as that person because their educational credentials are not valid.’ Unfortunately this strategy is flawed because teaching methodology is not the only useful characteristic that can be derived from teaching and educational administration experience. There is something to be said about understanding the nuances that go into teaching and how effective management and emotional linking can facilitate more streamlined changes within schools. Basically without hands-on experience it is difficult to empathize with the difficulties, joys, frustrations, etc. experienced by a teacher, thus impacting the ability to drive necessary changes. Look at it this way, if the ‘right’ way to do something was always effectively implemented simply through a logical perspective and argument a vast number of the problems facing society today would not exist.
Other Mrs. Black supporters cite the fact that Mr. Klein needed to acquire the necessary ‘experience’ waiver to take the position in 2002 and his efforts dramatically changed public education in New York for the better, right? While the purpose of this post is not to rationally evaluate the tenure of Mr. Klein as chancellor, the overall conclusion of how effective his tenure was seems to highly diverge based on whether one speaks to a Klein supporter vs. a Klein detractor. Normally such a divergence is to be expected, the fact of the matter is that most of the points raised on both sides have some kernel of truth, but the overall impression left on a neutral arbitrator is the testing inflation scandal which reported artificially increased test scores making New York public schools ‘appear’ at a higher quality level than they actually were.
With all of that said the biggest problem is that people continue to speculate on what strategies Mrs. Black would undertake to improve the educational environment in New York instead of simply asking her. Clearly Mrs. Black has to have some level of interest in becoming the chancellor or she would have simply turned down the offer for the position. If she is interested then it makes logical sense that Mrs. Black would have some well thought-out proposals regarding what changes she would like to see in the educational sector, what benefits those changes would bring relative to their detriments and what methodology she would implement to bring about a reasonably smooth transition from the current system to her envisioned system. This being the rational order of events why not ask Mrs. Black what these ideas are before issuing the waiver? If the ideas are of merit then she will have afforded herself the opportunity to attempt their implementation to see if they are as effective as thought and if they are not of merit then she should not be given the opportunity, for the implementation of bad ideas simply wastes time and resources.
The other side argues that Mrs. Black’s success in the publishing industry should demonstrate that she has the necessary raw skills to succeed as chancellor after ironing out some of the rough edges. These individuals believe that the chief element required to be chancellor has nothing to do with teaching experience, but instead the ability to manage and delegate. Individuals that hold this view also add that current teacher training and accreditation have been suggested to be an ineffective methodology for the current education requirements and climate. However, unfortunately for Mrs. Black supporters but not surprisingly, the changes that are suggested from these evaluations, which focus on more in-class training and experience over educational theory to develop more relevant skill sets are also not possessed by Mrs. Black, thus even mentioning these new required skills is completely irrelevant. Sadly such a strategy is commonplace in what society wants to refer to as ‘debating’.
Discrediting the legitimacy of educational experience is a desperate strategy because Mrs. Black supporters do not seem able to provide elements in her character or experience, which will translate to a high probability of success for her potential career as the chancellor. Instead they attempt to devalue the credentials of possible adversaries thus reducing the debate to ‘well she is just as good as that person because their educational credentials are not valid.’ Unfortunately this strategy is flawed because teaching methodology is not the only useful characteristic that can be derived from teaching and educational administration experience. There is something to be said about understanding the nuances that go into teaching and how effective management and emotional linking can facilitate more streamlined changes within schools. Basically without hands-on experience it is difficult to empathize with the difficulties, joys, frustrations, etc. experienced by a teacher, thus impacting the ability to drive necessary changes. Look at it this way, if the ‘right’ way to do something was always effectively implemented simply through a logical perspective and argument a vast number of the problems facing society today would not exist.
Other Mrs. Black supporters cite the fact that Mr. Klein needed to acquire the necessary ‘experience’ waiver to take the position in 2002 and his efforts dramatically changed public education in New York for the better, right? While the purpose of this post is not to rationally evaluate the tenure of Mr. Klein as chancellor, the overall conclusion of how effective his tenure was seems to highly diverge based on whether one speaks to a Klein supporter vs. a Klein detractor. Normally such a divergence is to be expected, the fact of the matter is that most of the points raised on both sides have some kernel of truth, but the overall impression left on a neutral arbitrator is the testing inflation scandal which reported artificially increased test scores making New York public schools ‘appear’ at a higher quality level than they actually were.
With all of that said the biggest problem is that people continue to speculate on what strategies Mrs. Black would undertake to improve the educational environment in New York instead of simply asking her. Clearly Mrs. Black has to have some level of interest in becoming the chancellor or she would have simply turned down the offer for the position. If she is interested then it makes logical sense that Mrs. Black would have some well thought-out proposals regarding what changes she would like to see in the educational sector, what benefits those changes would bring relative to their detriments and what methodology she would implement to bring about a reasonably smooth transition from the current system to her envisioned system. This being the rational order of events why not ask Mrs. Black what these ideas are before issuing the waiver? If the ideas are of merit then she will have afforded herself the opportunity to attempt their implementation to see if they are as effective as thought and if they are not of merit then she should not be given the opportunity, for the implementation of bad ideas simply wastes time and resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)