Vocational training

(Written circa 2011)

(As A-Level results have just been released, perhaps it is a good excuse for me to release this thing I wrote last year:)

What’s on my mind though, is how higher education tries to “meet demands” of skill and labour in industry. The courses and programmes try to advertise how their graduates are in demand in the industry and job market (i.e. high salaries). It seems to completely miss the point that the institution is supposed to be creating value for society as a whole. Otherwise why would the government spend billions of dollars in subsidizing and funding higher education?

There is a subtle but important distinction between being in high demand, and being valuable. In a perfect world, they are exactly the same thing. But reality, being in high demand usually simply means being in position to exploit fluctuations from equilibrium in the job market.

Unfortunately, the market always tends towards an equilibrium state, so after a while students find themselves in a less favorable position than promised by the sales department of their faculty.

In fact it is a common feature in Hong Kong that people choose university programmes based on perceived demand of the graduates. While it is undeniable that (for example) my university classmates1 probably have much better career prospects than graduates from a random programme in a less prestigious university, it’s usually not the programme that counts. Of course, some so called “professions” promise great financial rewards by maintaining a monopoly over the market, but generally, in the long run, one’s remuneration is linked with the economic value that they can provide – whether it be special skills and knowledge, leadership and management abilities, unique insights, desirable social traits, etc. And by the way, in this “information age”, monopoly of pure information itself does not work so well. Monopoly of certifications might still work to some extent, but I predict they will succumb to market forces soon.

And think about it, what does a degree give you? A prima facie representation by the university to potential employers of your ability, and a few years invested in specializing in a certain set of skills and knowledge. Some programmes advertise themselves as providing knowledge that is “highly valued” by potential employers, which, I believe, is utter hyperbole when information can no longer be monopolized. Even the arcane mysteries of law are being slowly becoming available, explained and dissected online. Not much is left in shrouds unless you’re aiming for a career in intelligence agencies.

Some people claim that it’s OK to study a “useless” subject in university – I can’t say I agree with that. I do believe one should be very concerned about the value of their knowledge obtained in university education – 3 or 4 years is really a lot, whether in terms of years in one’s life, or of the monetary opportunity cost (even assuming minimum wage of HKD$28/hour, it’s at least $60, 000 a year, adding up to $240,000 for a 4 year degree, factor in the tuition fees, and the sum is definitely non-trivial). Such a cost cannot be wasted in exchange for “useless” knowledge.

But of course “usefulness” has a meaning beyond the salary one can demand. I’d say knowledge is “useful” if one is inspired by it and is happier in life than without it. I’d say knowledge is “useful” if one discovers their true calling, even if be so “lowly” as flipping burgers or cleaning toilets. It may be that such useful knowledge aligns with personal interests, and indeed often so, but I can’t say it’s 100%. Sometimes there’s a difference between a hobby and a sustainable vocation.

What really surprises me is how people jump right into society without understanding its economics. They know, superficially, their job and career prospects, they know good pay from bad, they know their related industries, they know the people, the companies, and markets. And yet I have a feeling that not many of them really understand the economics that define their very own value to their potential employers and to the society at large. It seems that for a lot of people, the concern is more of “how to get better pay” instead of “how to make myself more valuable”. Very roughly, the two things are the same, but the former puts a lot more focus on short term rewards, whereas the latter on long term sustainability. I can’t say we shouldn’t be thinking about the former, after all, having no formal qualifications (I know how this feels like) and poor performance in job interviews can hurt even if in fact you should be “valuable” to your employers. But ignoring the latter simply makes you, literally, worthless. I still sometimes think that a lot of people don’t really know why they are getting a pay check.

It’s also interesting that some people seem to think that:

Not that I am a genius in having an innate understanding of all this – must admit that I was particularly struck by Adam Smith’s treatment of the economics of job markets…

The sad fact is, you can be 100% diligent, and you will generally be slightly above the average – whether in economic or social status. Anything beyond that requires extraordinary sacrifice, or extraordinary luck, whether it be circumstance, genetic advantages, or a combination of both.

The ultimate hyperbole are the “formulae to success”. Sorry for my extreme cynicism, but they should be called “formulae against failure” – and sometimes you can’t even prevent epic failures when some deity decides you don’t deserve it.