Selecting Grads

Back in the early 1970s, two papers were published that still have significance for leaders. The Spence¹ and Akerlof² Nobel prize-winning articles described decisions under conditions of ambiguity such as employee selection. Michael Spence’s article describes how difficult it is to make employee selection decisions because “the employer cannot directly observe the marginal product prior to hiring. What he does observe is personal data” ^{1 (p. 357)} in addition to supporting evidence, like educational credentials. This means that it is only after the hire that the employer can confirm or deny the original assumption of the quality of the candidate.¹ A related concept is found in George Akerlof’s article, which describes the concept of information asymmetries. Information asymmetries exist when the buyer (i.e. employer) and seller (i.e. graduating student and new hire candidate) hold different knowledge of the candidate’s potential value.² The employer will attempt to plug the gap in information by using “institutional guarantees,” ^{2 (p. 499)} which serve as an external “endorsement” of the candidate’s worth. “The high school diploma, the baccalaureate degree, the Ph.D., even the Nobel Prize, to some degree, serve this function and certification.” ^{2 (p. 500)} Attending a brand name university also gives the candidate a leg up because of its reputation.²

The challenge for leaders, as described in previous posts, is getting the “right people on the bus,”³ and it begins not just with senior management but entry-level positions in which newly minted university grads are hired.

Today’s post is not based on a scientific study but rather my observations as a corporate executive, consultant and teacher in higher education for 12 years. While Spence’s concept of education as a signal of quality and Akerlof’s solution to information asymmetries remain cogent, there is a problem that has been evolving in higher education. Somehow, somewhere along the way, higher education has been reinterpreted as the earning of a piece of paper rather than what it is meant to represent. Students frequently say that “barely passing gets degrees,” and they have decided the documentation of a degree now exceeds the need for learning and mastery of reading, writing and critical thinking. For example, some students, when they find themselves in a demanding class, simply refuse to do the work or even quit. My observation is that only about 20% - 30% of students recognize a strong positive correlation between energy devoted to college studies and future career prospects. One student, lamenting about the papers he had to write, said, “I should not have to do this.”

Unfortunately, I think that universities, perhaps unintentionally, have been part of the problem. Some of the fault rests with the economics of universities and the need to keep enrollment from falling. In a Forbes ranking of the financial health of 925 four-year private not-for-profit colleges and universities, half have a “financial fitness [that] would be considered ‘C’ students or worse,” ^{4 (p. 86)} and 107 earned a “D.” Lowering standards is more frequently used to maintain attendance. Combine this with the way faculty are assessed for promotion and tenure, and the causal chain continues. Faculty should receive feedback from and students and peers, but when the university makes student evaluations prominent in the decision for promotion or tenure, faculty adjust classroom requirements to maintain and increase scores. “The problem is for the vast majority of colleges and universities, student opinion is the only means by which administrators evaluate teaching.”⁵ From a faculty perspective, there is no secret on how to increase ratings – relax grading, reduce rigor and treat students as customers. “There’s also a natural tendency to avoid delivering bad news if you don’t have to. So the prospect of end-of-term student reviews, which are increasingly tied to job security and salary increases, is another upward pressure on professors to relax standards.”⁵

Thus, the problem is compounded for businesses, because unless the student is from a top brand university the interpretation of the quality of the candidate becomes difficult. University administrations can solve this problem by establishing standards of rigor – a nearly impossible undertaking given the need for academic freedom. Further, any movement could cause the university to find itself in a prisoner’s dilemma; if one university raises standards while peer institutions remain the same, the peer schools will become more attractive. Likewise, faculty – who own curriculum – can unilaterally raise the standards, but arriving at a consensus among independent and autonomous individuals with the shield of academic freedom is probably unrealistic.

Therefore, I believe that a component of the solution of this complicated problem rests with leaders and employers. That is, beyond the signal from candidates of having a degree, employers need to start asking employee candidates different questions. If there is a collective change in how selection is conducted and what is asked of future employees, then backward in the chain universities will be required to react. Here are some ideas in addition to other standard hiring practices:

• Always close the information gap by seeking candidate transcripts. Look for evidence of excessive withdrawals and class failures; most students are afforded the chance to replace a “D” or “F” on a transcript by retaking a class.
  
• Only hire students with grade point averages (GPA) at or above 3.0; while this may be adjusted depending on the discipline, I have witnessed that when students are below a 3.0, they appear to be calibrating their effort toward getting by rather than devoting energy. Some may not have the capability, but this is an exception.

• Ask students what papers they have written during their academic life, as well as how many, and perhaps ask for a sample. "Lecture and memorization do not lead to long-term knowledge or the ability to apply that knowledge to new situations." ^{7 (pp. 91-92)} Writing assignments, essay questions on tests, case studies and the receipt of directive feedback are methods for increasing critical thinking.⁷ This is also a dilemma for faculty; writing is more difficult, time consuming and subjective to grade and can lead to claims of unfairness from the student, which can negatively impact evaluation scores. When students are asked to think through a problem, they often complain of how difficult it is – and it should be. Alternatively, multiple choice tests are easier to grade and not subjective; students may actually take more personal blame for failing a test – “I did not study enough” – preserving the faculty member’s evaluation scores.

• Look for at least one internship for credit and a project outcome from that experience that demonstrates a student’s ability. A strong Q&A during the candidate’s interview can be very informative about the student’s future potential.

• Ascertain if the focus of the program is on teaching content versus use of content. "[Faculty] must teach content through thinking, not content and then thinking."⁶  

• Look for voluntary community service (charity or on campus) and other extracurricular activities such as sports or clubs. However, the latter should not be in place of learning; a student who focuses on athletics to the detriment of academics may not be in college for an education.

Today, in my view, the quality of a candidate with a bachelor’s degree is more difficult to interpret by leaders and employers. That is, the state of higher education has succumbed to financial pressures, and the belief system behind the purpose of getting a degree has shifted; it is now about the documentation rather than learning and developing competencies in reading, writing, and critical thinking. Universities and faculty are caught in a prisoner’s dilemma. Therefore, a transformation must come from the very organizations that need the new talent from universities. Leaders and employers must ask the right questions, some of which are identified above; change can be forced backward in the educational system when employers demand different things.

The problems identified do not apply to all students and universities, but my observations suggest it is increasing. There is no single or easy solution, but this could be a beginning.

Feel free to respond.

References

 ¹ Spence, M. (1973). “Job Market Signaling.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), p. 355-374.

² Akerlof, G. A. (1970). “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), p. 488-500.

³ Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York, New York: HarperCollins.

⁴ Schifrin, M. (2013). “Colleges at Risk.” Forbes, 192, p. 84-90.

⁵ Asher, L. (2013). When Students Rate Teachers, Standards Drop. Journal, (October 27, 2013). Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304176904579115971990673400

⁶ Paul, R. (2004). The State of Critical Thinking.   Retrieved December 29, 2013, from www.criticalthinking.org

⁷ Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills.   Retrieved December 29, 2013