Education & Employment
Prof. Gourishanker
Hiremath, who teaches Economics at IIT Kharagpur, in his article in The Hindu (31/05/2025) has analysed and
listed the issues relating to the employability factor of people passing out of
our higher educational system. However, I am uncomfortable with his conclusions
and recommendations.
Prof. Hiremath correctly counter-balances his observation that the growth in enrolment in University level courses, “suggests a dynamic academic landscape full of potential”, with the fact that the “degrees are proliferating faster than meaningful job opportunities”! This is indicative of the reality that our society is either not creating enough jobs or our educational system is failing in transforming our youth for the kinds of available employment opportunities. Due to this many of the jobless are trying to kill time and delay the stigma of being considered jobless by enrolling in university level courses ("postgraduate degrees and PhDs are frequently pursued not just for intellectual fulfilment but as a refuge from the job market"). At the same time industry spokespersons keep lamenting that they find it difficult to find suitable persons for entry level openings in their respective industries.
The good professor goes on to mention that as per the Ministry of Statistics data, the unemployment rate tends to increase with higher education levels, which is indicative of the disconnect faced by millions of educated young people in translating their college degrees into productive and paying career opportunities. His take of this situation is that the way our higher education courses are designed and implemented emphasize rote learning over practical skills and the solution offered is to integrate practical skill modules in existing curriculum.
As an economist I am sure that Prof. Hiremath would be familiar with the work of A. Michael Spence who examined the reasons as to why people spend so much time and money to acquire a college education. As per Spence they invariably do so because they want good jobs, since most job openings make a college degree the minimum requirement for the job.
Spence was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 based on an essay which
he wrote in 1973. In this paper he explained why people spend so much time and
money acquiring education. His theory is that employers have no way of easily finding
out the skills and productivity of their prospective employees. Smart people
acquire education because they want to send certain signals about their skills
and productivity to their prospective employers. Employers who have no way of
ascertaining the capabilities of the people they hire, in turn, look for
precisely these signals.
Much before Spence wrote his celebrated essay, Ved Mehta published his
book Fly and the Fly Bottle (1963) based on his interviews
with a number of British philosophers. In course of his discussions, he
enquired as to why do some of the brightest students study Philosophy at Oxford
& Cambridge, and what kind of careers do they embark on. The
insight he got was interesting. It seems that such students go on to become the
best businessmen, the best politicians, and the best bureaucrats - very few become professional
philosophers or academicians. The reason given was that study of philosophy
helps in greatly training and sharpening the mind so that they are able to
excel in any profession they chose.
It is well known and acknowledged that university level education, irrespective of the subject studied, helps in developing critical thinking skills which can be widely applied in various areas of productive human endeavour. But such jobs are few in number. Even more pertinent, is whether widespread availability of critical thinking skills the need of our society and economy? Considering that our primary education system is in shambles and study after study have established that school level learning outcomes on the average are poor.
About 25 years ago, I noticed that most of the graduates from BHU-IT were
joining the IT industry, irrespective of their branch of specialisation – from
metallurgy, to ceramic, civil, electrical & electronics, to computer
science et al. I enquired from a very senior level IT professional as to the reasons
for their preference to recruit engineering graduates for entry level
positions. He started laughing and responded that it was not
because of their technical skills but the fact it is easier to teach
them coding. All new recruits were put to learning basic software
development skills and absorbed only after successful completion of their
training, which can last from six month or more. Those who could not come up to standards were let go (another
reason for the high turnover in the IT industry - but hardly ever
discussed or mentioned). There was no other way to evaluate the
learnability factor of new recruits and our higher educational system was just not producing enough number of young people with skills required by the IT industry. I am sure that the same
situation persists even today.
Spence’s theory of market signals does not rule out that education increases skills, but it argues that most people do not acquire education to acquire additional skills. People who are inherently more capable and smart, acquire higher education so that they can show that they are smarter than others.
The criticism of Spence’s ideas is that if education is just a signal, it
really is a very expensive and time consuming signal. Surely there should be
cheaper ways of sending this signal! It also seems that the cost of these
signals has been rising over time. For instance, certain jobs that were
earlier available to people with high-school certificate are not open to them
any longer - one has to be at least a graduate to apply for such jobs. So as
per Spence’s theory, smart people have to spend more time and money to prove
they are smart. Leading to a situation where a smart high school
educated person cannot apply for that job, whereas a stupid college graduate
persona can. Therefore, smart high school
students make sure that they acquire a bachelor’s
degree, otherwise no one will know how smart he or she is!
One solution to this seemingly impossible situation could be to have an all-India exam open to all who have passed their Class X or XII to ascertain their intelligence, aptitude, communication, numerical skills etc. Skills which an average university graduate is expected to attain. Anyone with a certain minimum cut-off score would be considered eligible for a job opening where a basic graduate degree is required. Or based on scores on different aspects, such as aptitude, communication or numerical skills, the industry can recruit them as trainees on a small stipend at a younger age bracket and confirm them as permanent employees after one to two years. Over this time, the worth and suitability of such trainees should become clear. Such a mechanism will not only save the humongous amounts of wastage of time, effort, and money spent by a large number of young people (and the government) trying to acquire a university degree, but also ensure a steady stream of suitable trainees for industry.