Most people I know rejoice when they hear about students engaged with experiential learning, but what does that term mean and how far should it go? Ronald Reagan was largely responsible for making it less affordable to attend colleges and universities, and when he did many cynics muttered about industry and their political party lackies wanting cheaper, more subservient labor. This purposeful dumbing down of our society is having grave consequences, and not just in one spot on the political spectrum. Backlash is occurring, but not the kind of backlash you might hope for: increasingly close relationships between industry and university systems. Industry hungers for skilled workers. And so, we are witnessing the rise of the trade school. Well-run trade schools could nurture collaboration, fostering Democracy, but this runs counter to oligarchical aspersions of the 1%. How will we solve this tension?

California’s Public Institutions of Higher Learning

What is the difference between the 4 different public institutions of higher learning in California: the 116 “community colleges,” 3 “polytechnic state universities,” 20 other “state universities”, and 10 “UC’s?” Community colleges are sorting machines to bridge the ‘better’ students into higher division courses at the other institutions. Around 20% of lower division students in California’s universities drop out; to keep the machine running, there must be replacements in line –community colleges produce those replacements. The “mission of the California Community Colleges is to advance California’s economic growth and global competitiveness through education, training, and services that contribute to continuous work force improvement.” In other words, community colleges are the first step for students entering trade school in California’s higher education system. As such, community colleges are primarily designed to feed students into the polytechnic universities, the purest type of university trade school. The term ‘polytechnic’ refers to vocational training, aka “trade school.” For administrative efficiency as well as similarity of mission, California’s 3 polytechnic universities are administered by the California State University (CSU) system. The other 20 CSU’s are a bit more abashedly also trade schools. The UC’s are clearly distinct from trade schools by their promotion of teaching theory and nurturing critical thinking, conducting research that advances theories, not current practice – they eschew applied research.

The Danger of Trade Schools in California

Trade schools are often proud of experiential learning, a key component of skills-based training. Industry saves money if the State spends the money building skills in the soon-to-be workforce. The current overrated excitement about training grade school students in STEM is a symptom of this thinking. Skills based training, including STEM training, is a big problem when things change as rapidly as they are changing. Most skills we teach to make widgets today are not the skills that will be needed a short period of time. Despite this, trade school curricula leave little room for elective courses. By their sophomore year, students must define their major, and to succeed at that declared major a student has no room in their schedule to explore other subjects. On top of this, trade schools are teaching a narrow set of ‘soft skills,’ related to obedience to process: students who can navigate the bureaucracy are the ones that succeed. The result of this system is an emerging workforce trained narrowly in already irrelevant job skills excepting the skill to navigate protocol.

Faltering Trade Schools

Years ago, California’s trade schools hired professors with experience in private industry. After Reagan gutted public higher education funding, competition increased between colleges and universities for other revenue sources from skyrocketing student fees, public:private partnerships (industry funding), and alumni donations. This competition led trade schools to attempt to become more like UCs: “top-tier” universities. And so, trade schools turned changed the old model of hiring professors experienced in “real world” industries to hiring the same types of professors UC would hire. Lucky for them, there is a glut of academically aspiring PhDs. Trade school administrators increasingly apply the screws to faculty, who are caught in demoralizing  stress. Professors at trade schools must teach as many tuition-paying students as possible: low faculty:student ratios are more profitable. To be successful these faculty must help with fundraising, meeting with industry officials to keep up reputations of building a skilled workforce. On top of those obligations, trade school faculty play the game of courting ‘top tier’ status for their university by somehow, miraculously wedging in time for publication-quality research.

Long-Lasting, Relevant Workforce Skill: Collaboration

Instead of, or at least in addition to, training trade school students on ‘how good are you at navigating protocol,’ trade schools might also focus on collaborative skills. What if experiential learning at trade schools focused on student engagement to solve real-world problems, interacting with real world stakeholders? In this case, faculty and students would interact with the stakeholders involved in any given issue…perhaps industry representatives, regulators, policymakers, financiers, interested citizens, labor leaders, etc. Students would be reviewed by their ability to critically evaluate situations and for the feasibility of their creative solutions. Faculty would be reviewed by the quality of their student mentorship on collaboration skills. Collaborative skill training would focus on power analysis, defining success, facilitating dialogues for mutual understanding, identifying gaps in knowledge, and identifying solutions of greatest benefit.

Contextual Shift

Training a future workforce skilled in collaboration would increase productivity while creating a more peaceful citizenry, but would also likely threaten wealth inequality…and so is a major threat to industry leaders. If those entering the industrial workforce understood the regulatory context of their work, they might favor solutions that meet regulatory expectations, rather than attempting to challenge or circumvent the rules. On the other hand, if those entering regulatory workforce understood industrial context of their work, they might be less likely to apply rules inappropriately in favor or in contravention of industry. In either case, accusations of a ‘dark state’ would evaporate and the people’s will for regulations would likely be more fully realized. Core to collaboration training is the idea that we can achieve more through collaboration than trade-offs faced with compromise. Those in power like the frame where the only pathway to solution is compromise because they think they always win as much as could be won. That mistaken assumption is evident in the politics of the USA.

DEI is the Answer

Even trade schools are teaching Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), which holds great promise as a back door to training in collaboration. The skills I outlined above are inherent to implementing a more DEI-oriented society. The question is…will DEI suffuse everything at trade schools (and beyond), or will it be siloed as yet another idea in the world of ideas? In some places, we are seeing an attack on DEI training…after reading this essay, I hope you can think more critically about why that might be.

I also hope you will consider the implications of higher education tilting towards trade schools, away from the humanities, history, critical thinking, and theory.

-this essay originally published in Bruce Bratton’s amazing BrattonOnline.com blog: sign up and get an email reminder to read each week. It is worth it…even if you donate a bit to help keep it running!