The future of the “educated” person – From “their” brand to yours
Common: Assuming that a college degree offers the best and only path to a guaranteed job, more income, and a secure future.
Uncommon: The perception of an “educated” person will likely be very different in the future. For the past few centuries we have placed our faith in schools and universities to provide us with skills and information that will improve our lives. High schools and colleges used to offer graduates coveted badges of personal aptitude.
This model has worked for a long time. But times are changing.
As more and more people (employers and graduates) recognize that many degrees lack relevancy, they begin to question what a degree actually represents.
For this reason, the discussion surrounding conventional education is changing and intensifying. This is a good thing because as the price to value of education continues to diverge, people need to think seriously about their goals and how to best position themselves for a promising future. Conventional education may be one path, but it’s certainly not the only one.
We are currently experiencing an interregnum, a period of discontinuity or “gap” in our social order. And as we adjust to the new emerging landscape, I believe the way we define and recognize an “educated” person will also change.
A “degree” of intelligence:
One of the greatest assumptions supporting the current model of education is how we, as a global society, still equate a conventional education with intelligence. Proponents of conventional education are always quick to claim that this is just one measuring stick among many. However, as a general rule, I find the majority (society included) still uses a degree as the benchmark of intellect and qualification. But the inefficiencies of conventional education continue because of this socially symbolic perception of value.
Consider someone who accomplishes something great without a degree. The absence of the degree becomes the most impressive part of the story. Is a degree so significant that success without one makes him or her a phenom?
Let’s be real.
It’s time to reassess assumptions of the past that once framed our understanding of intelligence, ability, commitment, and accreditation. Many people and industries already are…
The age of free agency:
As best-selling author, Dan Pink, writes here and in his book Free Agent Nation, the way we work is changing. There are legions of Americans (in the millions) who are “declaring independence – becoming self-employed, independent contractors, and micropreneurs.” Whether you place yourself in these categories or not, these shifts also represent changes in the employee-employer relationship.
Fewer and fewer workers are viewing themselves as a consecrated extension of the company they work for. This means individuals are creating an independent personal identity as free agents (self-employed or not). With the uncertainty of the job market and the questionable future of many companies, this is a logical maneuver.
Although many individuals and employers still cling to educational institutions to define their personal brand, I believe this will become less propitious and also less prevalent.
In the future, motivated and educated people will care less about proving their participation in a recognized and structured system and more about how they use what they know to build personal brand equity through self-directed learning backed by past performance and reputation.
I am not referring to an accumulation of clever marketing prose in an inflated resume, but a showcase of relevant personal skills and past results (more on this shortly).
As we move into what some are calling the “creative economy,” the Internet and many other technologies are changing the way we assess personal aptitude. In this emerging world, creating and managing one’s personal brand will trump our past inclination to fervently associate ourselves with familiar and illustrious intuitions. It may help to do so, but it will become less significant in one’s path to success.
The opportunity cost of attending:
When people consider the opportunity cost of school, most automatically assume the cost of not attending. Educational institutions persistently force the same cliche statistic down our throats to maintain this perspective: “Those will a college degree make on average 1 million dollars more in their lifetime than those who do not.”
A little research into how this figure/statement is calculated shows extreme bias by omitting the opportunity costs of attending. Considering tuition, interest, lost income, lost work experience, and lost industry/company-specific relationship building (among other things), college can also be viewed as an extremely expensive opportunitysacrifice – something future students should seriously evaluate.
Some also say that part of college is not just receiving a formal education, but a chance to grow emotionally and socially. I don’t know why this cannot be accomplished outside of college as well, but this discussion digresses from the point at hand.
While conventional education can be a constructive experience for some (primarily trade and profession based industries), the value for the majority in terms of skill and knowledge is most often mediocre at best. Personally, college was one of the most overwhelming and understimulating experiences of my life. For the time and money invested, I feel like I received very little useful information and skill. The greatest value, it seems, came from the perceived brand equity the university held in the public eye.
Here is an excellent short video on the topic:
Many students hope to get a good “education” while at school, but it would be ignorant to think that most students aren’t also hoping their university’s brand complements their own. The question is, does six figures of debt justify the supplemental branding expensive universities provide? Hmmm…
Author and thought leader, Seth Godin asks some very important questions:
“It’s reported that student debt in the USA is approaching a trillion dollars, five times what it was ten years ago. Are those in debt buying more education or are they seeking better branding in the form of coveted diplomas? Does a $40,000 a year education that comes with an elite degree deliver ten times the education of a cheaper but no less rigorous self-generated approach assembled from less famous institutions and free or inexpensive resources?… The question is whether a trillion dollars is the right amount for individuals to spend marketing themselves. What would happen if people spent it building up a work history instead? On becoming smarter, more flexible, more self-sufficient and yes, able to take more risk because they owe less money…”
Building a personal brand:
As we move further into the 21st century, an individual’s future will depend less on a degree and much more on their propensity and creativity in applying what they know to differentiate themselves from the majority (the legions of graduates with similar and expendable degrees).
As many have recognized, individuals with degrees in conventional education are plentiful – something educational institutions are not discussing. But basic economics will tell that abundance decreases value and scarcity increases value.
Soon we will be forced to reconsider what it means to “be educated” – by students, employers, and the greater society. In the struggle to find work and build a career, more and more grads are realizing that it’s not the brand of a mass institution that will open the most important doors (there are always exceptions, but exceptions don’t make the majority). And even if a degree gets one’s foot in the door, it’s personal substance that keeps it open and builds future opportunities. For this reason, it’s the individual’s brand that’s becomes valuable, admirable, and distinguishing.
It’s not about degrees and diplomas; it’s about personal experiences, skills, past results, and a questing disposition to become more and learn more – a concept that has been overlooked for too long. As SkillShare says, “The pinnacle of education should revolve around learning and gaining knowledge, and not going to college.”
The collective college community has done an excellent job marketing itself as an essential ingredient to success – making individuals and society believe that without it, you don’t stand a chance.
In many cases, a degree is better than no degree. But most degrees do not accurately signify competence. Nor do they make an individual indispensable. I would argue that one’s real education begins once they step foot in the real world – not the surreal environment we call college.
In a world of merging borders, expanding education, and fast-growing workforce, creativity and originality are the antidotes to obscurity. It’s becoming more and more important to find ways to make yourself remarkable, indispensable, and irreplaceable – ways to differentiate yourself and bring something unique to the table.
UVP = Opportunity:
In a previous post I described a billboard appearing in Silicon Valley that read: “1,000,000 people can do your job. What makes you so special?” There isn’t a better way to put it. The upper hand is given to those who think ahead and think differently.
As we shift from an information economy to a creative economy, thinking differently has never been more important. There is immense value in being able to think and act independently in a world of conformity and convention – all innovation and novelty depend on it (see post on this topic here). After all, doing what everyone else does decreases value and increases competition.
Colleges have dominated the branding surrounding education and have controlled the social perception of what education means, but this is changing amidst the era of free agency. The path of the new-age “educated” person is industrious, explorative, experimental, and resourceful.
So, what are you doing to differentiate yourself? What is your personal brand? Why should people care? How are you using emerging technologies to take advantage of this shift?
Our brand, is constantly being shaped, for better or worse, regardless of where we are and what we’re doing. The question each person has to ask is, “Is what I’m currently doing the most effective way to build my brand in the near and long-term?”
It’s our actions that shape our brand more than anything else. And, it’s also our responsibility to make ourselves valuable and irreplaceable. Just as an enlightened business would do, individuals should craft and uphold their own UVP (Unique Value Proposition) as a way to spotlight their unique talents and dedication.
These distinguishing factors of personal aptitude are your most prized assets. They are embedded in your brand, which is also your professional passport. So respect it, build it, share it. This way, everyone wins.
Your thoughts?
What are your thoughts about the future of the educated person or of education itself?
Stay uncommon,
Thanks for reading. Hope to see you in the comments section below. For new & different content, let's meet here:
Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram
[…] perception of an “educated” person will likely be very different in the future. For the past few centuries we have placed […]
I agree with the post 101%. But there is an issue to it to.Since we were young parents have fed our thoughts with the importance of attending college and getting a degree, being well secured and to be on the safe side of everything. It surely is hard to get them to understand they way we think and want to do thing these days. Hopefully there’s a solution to this as no child ever wants to hold grudges with their parents.
Are our schools really producing these kinds of student when teaching is so closely tied to test scores. Educational pundits believe “success” is a measurable facy. In reality it is merely a perception.
Hi Kent, can I ask what was your reason to continue further study at university if all along you were thinking that the reward was not quite the sacrifice ?
Good question Anthony. I’ve struggled with the concept of conventional education for a long time and new that I’d like to participate in changing the system. However, I also knew my suggestions and comments would have more credence after passing through it myself. My last few semesters were largely an experiment to learn in more detail about how the system worked, chat with students and teachers, and test my own theories and study methods.
I agree with this post, but I also know a personal reality that doesn’t match up with it… My partner has a lifetime of editing and graphics experience, having learned the appropriate programs since their advent and growing along with them. He has life experience out the wazoo in any number of managerial and production positions in his fields. However, he can’t progress anymore in what he does best because he didn’t get a degree. His resume has been summarily shunted aside over and over again in favor of employers trying to narrow the field of applicants, and because of his lack of a degree he never meets their criteria. Regardless of his obvious life experience and practical application in the field, actually doing the work. It’s irrelevant to them. So my question is similar to Ms. Christiano’s–who are these employers that are hiring “outside the box”? Because I haven’t met any. It seems to me that potential employees can be as creative as they can be, but if they don’t have that credential, they’re not getting looked at.
Corey: Sorry to hear about your partner’s situation. This type of thing is partly what inspired me to write this post. It’s my hope and prediction that, in the future, experience, past results, and hard skill becomes more important than academic accreditation. I for one, place far more emphasis on personality, character, experience, past results, and hard skill than academics when hiring. To do the reverse seems near sighted. I may only be one person, one company, but I know I am not alone as I meet many business owners (relatively small or start-up type business) who do the same. Perhaps as the discussion about what “education” really means begins to expand and intensify, this shift in professional “qualifiers” will gradually start to take place on larger scale as well (excluding, of course, trade specific certifications, etc). To me, your partner’s situation is a very disappointing one. I can’t help but wonder how many great opportunities companies pass on because the applicant did not meet some illusive academic marker.
Some good thoughts, here, particularly that the world is changing and our definition of education must change along with it. Very true. And the opportunity cost IS becoming too high. But before we conclude that free agency is a good option or that the creatives have an advantage in this Brave New Economy, let’s ask some of the more difficult questions that will create a more complex, interesting and useful analysis of the situation. 1) What is our definition of ‘creativity’? This term is being bandied all about, lately, and sounds suspiciously like a fluffy marketing buzzword to me. In all of my experience, seeing the employment issue from a variety of angles, I have yet to run across even one instance in which the people who actually make the hiring decisions (not the people who make the slogans, but the HR mavens and supervisors who put their thumbs up or down,) advertise or solicit for something called ‘creativity’. Who are these people who are hiring the cultural mavericks? Which jobs are taking them in? And how many of these jobs are available? I’d like to see specific names, numbers and definitions, rather than general assertions that ‘this is so’. Can we start putting together a jobs network specifically BY creatives FOR creatives, to take in those who are looking for places to run with new ideas without having to start new businesses of their own? Not every creative wants to spend their time being the chief cook and bottle washer! If the freethinkers are so desirable, let’s give employers a one-stop-shop to scoop them up! There doesn’t seem to be anything like that out there, yet. Is it because it’s still too early, or are the employers really NOT clamoring to have the wild-eyed dreamers filling out customer purchase orders or asking if you want fries with that? Let’s agree on a definition and compile the data around it before we make a lot of sweeping claims. 2) Where is the data showing that the majority of people going into entrepreneurship are “freeing themselves” from regular jobs? This implies that they are making a choice from a field of relatively equal options. How many, though, are really making a free choice, and how many, like the majority of ‘entrepreneurs’ and ‘micropreneurs’ in my current home state if Idaho, are really just the jobless making one last attempt to create income when they have nothing left to lose? When jobs were plentiful and good, say in my father’s day, we had terrific growth and innovation, even while the majority chose to enter the “restriction” of a job. And there was still plenty of room for real mavericks to flourish on their own. I believe that a greater number of educated creatives had good incomes and life satisfaction then than they do today. So is all the new “freedom” from career identity, financial security, structured learning and traditional community really an unmitigated good for individual and society? Or is it more of an unintentional consequence of a mass social policy that puts the bottom line as the only goal worth pursuing? And are we are just trying to put a pretty face on the facts? Yes, there are always pros and cons, some who fit and some who don’t, and any one way is never THE right way, however, what bothers me is that we seem to be unwilling to address the cons of our new reality honestly. I would say that we need to begin asking the hard questions and drawing the complex data together to obtain a more clear picture of what is really happening and where we are headed. We can’t always trust our university professors to do that accurately and honestly (ask me how I know), but I would also challenge anyone whose main source of education is self-study with the Kahn Academy, to do the job, either!
Jennifer, you have some good thoughts. I am all about questioning statements, claims, and assumptions from all sources. Much of it leads to interesting and often useful ends. It seems where we might differ in our thinking is that I rarely seek statistics to verify or support what has worked for me personally or what I deeply care about achieving. You’re right in saying that free agency – and anything under this rather vague umbrella – may not be suited for everyone. People find fulfillment in many different ways and places and thus, there cannot be an impartial hierarchy of professions. But the desire for a clear definition of “creativity” and the interest in seeking supporting evidence is intriguing to me. The interesting thing about many “Mavericks,” as I have found, is that they’ve always cared little about the “odds” of success and more about reaching their unique goals. That’s what allows them to innovate. I am sorry to hear that conversations about creativity and testing the status quo have become a trivial, convoluted and perhaps impervious, but personally I continue to meet people who thrive due to their, sometimes stubborn, creative tendencies (one of whom, will be covering in my next post) – my own life included. Maybe that is a difference in social and professional circles. I for one, always require that my partners and employees use their creativity to question existing systems and discover new and better ways to do things. I am certainly not qualified to say that one path in life is better than another (free agency or otherwise) or even define what creativity should mean for the world – I doubt anyone is. In this instance maybe the subjective ruling on obscenity by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart may apply: “I can’t define it, but I’ll know it when I see it.” I see many people exercising “creativity” everyday – and that’s what matters. At least to me. You ask some challenging and deep-set questions that perhaps only an elaborate study could entertain, but I don’t think the “creatives” will be waiting for the results of these studies to continue forthright. As you say, “We can’t always trust our university professors to do that accurately and honestly, but I would also challenge anyone whose main source of education is self-study” then whom should we trust but ourselves? Who should we learn from other than life itself? Eventually, even the “facts” need questioning. I am grateful that despite the status quo, there are still people who strive to innovate regardless of how society endeavors to label them. These people may not make the majority, but they still make change. They also tend to skew the statistics. I have spent the last ten years seeking these people out and I have found that there are plenty of them… people who use their “creativity” to excel and add value. The beautiful and terrifying thing about life is that you tend to find what you look for.
Excellent, excellent post!
I never went to college, started work at 18 right out of high school. I feel I am more knowledgeable than my college-bred peers because of combined world experience and vested interest research of my own accord.
I would have loved to go to performance art school or an art college, but as far as academics, everything you need to know is free or low cost online and in your library/book store.
Great post. I think undergrads would just need to ask themselves, when is the last time they used anything they learnt at university at work ? I don’t think this change will happen as quickly as we might think though
As a society, we have great examples of this — some of the wealthiest individuals didn’t even finish their college education. Creativity, emotional intelligence and social and financial skills are often more relevant than any degree. In an age when people spend much of their time connected via electronic means, I see the need to implement environments where people may learn to interact with each other in more profitable manners – both for personal and professional satisfaction.
I highly agree. The popularity of sites such as http://www.khanacademy.org/ for free online learning and tutoring show that a large portion of the population feels the same.
This article is timely and on-target. We’ve been discussing this in our own household. Is it worth $200k over 4 years to have a degree but no skill? You have to have the degree to obtain an advanced degree which has a better chance of leading to work (law, medicine, business, etc). Do you start working at a low paying job now that requires no degree so the savings can begin to grow? I feel as if a general BS or BA is a very expensive gamble…
It’s good to see that you are discussing such things in your family. I think a lot of similar discussions are happening in other households. Times are changing.