@ IronOwl. Re: evidence
In the past decade, there have been many instances of corporations following the stated script. See for instance, this shocker from Disney.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.htmlIf Disney did not view their workers as an interchangeable resource, why would they do this? To even contemplate this action requires the outlook that employees can be seamlessly replaced without consequence, which is itself based on the idea that there can even BE a consistent baseline for an employee to begin with. Disney's action only makes sense if they:
1) believe that there is a universal baseline employee archetype
2) can get that archetype through outsourcing.
3) can tailor the new models with the needed industry culture through mandatory training by the old models.
4) can get the same level of performance as before, because the only difference between old and new model (after training) is the cost.
If those 4 things are true, then their strategy is great. However, none of those things are true, except item 1. they believe it, but that does not make it so.
It's not just Disney either.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/insourcing-american-lose_b_11173074I am picking on H1B abuse, because it is symptomatic of the pathological view I claim as central to the argument-- They want a universal employee, and are willing to implode their own businesses to get them. (Check HuffPo's list of cited companies, and cross check with how many of them suffered terribly in the resulting years.) They want the universal employee for fiscal reasons (they dont want to be stuck in a high wage region to get the staffing they need. The fantasy that they can get a universal baseline employee, then condition them for the role, is too compelling for them to let go of.)
Now, back to education.
A fresh highschool grad should be tabula rasa, right? Fresh faced, and eager to enter a career chain at the bottom? Not so fast; In order to meet the qualifications needed for the "universal employee" archetype, you have to be able to be trained in any direction that the employer deems suitable at that time. That means you have to meet "core competencies."
https://www.pdc.edu/about/assessment-research/general-education-core-competencies/Granted, that is for college students-- but then again, my assertion was that highschool was not delivering these, so this is fine to point out. Colleges are trying to deliver it. Why? Because industry is demanding it.
Going to college gives you an educator's attestation that you demonstrate these baseline qualities, and thus qualify as at least the baseline universal employee archetype.
With that in mind, take a look at this:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/competency.aspxThe previous model for highschool attainment was "total seat time." NOT "actual demonstration of ability". This is why highschools were not delivering the archetype, and why employers went to college degree requirements.
However, this new model still falls victim; it mandates that students attain at the levels cited, or they do not graduate. This does nothing good for the students, and only caters to the desire of industry for their "universal baseline competency" demand.
The system I suggested as more ideal would not be a "pass/fail" binary metric, it would be a matrix assessment metric, where each student has a unique skills assessment matrix, which is more meaningful, and more useful. That, coupled with a strong message to industry that "No, the universal employee is a myth, give the fuck up on that", would go a long way.