Economists, researchers, and educators from all over the country recently took turns here looking into a crystal ball with two urgent questions: No. 1, what job skills will employers need in the decades ahead? And, No. 2, are students getting the education they鈥檒l need to be employable?
As with most prognostications, depended on whom you consulted.
Ask Dixie Sommers, an assistant commissioner for occupational statistics and employment projections at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and she would tell you that, for example, from 2004 to 2014, 鈥攁 jump of 20 percent.
But ask Stuart W. Elliott, the director of the Board on Testing and Assessment at the National Research Council鈥攑art of the National Academies, a private, nonprofit quartet of institutions chartered by Congress to provide science, technology and health-policy advice鈥攁nd you鈥檇 get a very different answer. He鈥檇 tell you that by 2030, the question of what skills current employers might want could be moot for most jobs.
By then, according to , 60 percent of human jobs as we now know them鈥攊ncluding 74 percent of U.S. library, training, and teaching positions鈥攎ay disappear.
Or maybe both of those scenarios will happen. Or neither.
鈥淢y summary of what skills demands there will be is, 鈥榃ho knows?鈥� 鈥� said Harry J. Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University in Washington.
The important thing, all the participants seemed to agree, was that all those ideas got shared and debated.
Researching the Future
Admittedly, the agenda for the May 31-June 1 conference鈥攁nalyzing and assessing the wildly varying research methods that produce predictions as different as Ms. Sommers鈥� and Mr. Elliott鈥檚鈥攚as ambitious. After all, how many people in the 1970s could have correctly calculated which jobs would most be in demand by now, let alone how best to prepare for them?
But the stakes don鈥檛 get much higher. Considering the potential for computers鈥� widespread displacement of human jobs, the projected rise in career competition from highly educated immigrants, and employer expectations that new employees come to work already trained, there is 鈥渁 huge quantum paradigm leap in the way employers are thinking about work,鈥� said Peter Cappelli, a professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania鈥檚 Wharton School in Philadelphia.
A preliminary analysis suggests that computers will take over many of the current jobs in some employment sectors by 2030.
鈥淚f you鈥檙e a K-12 teacher, the workforce that you鈥檙e influencing is one that will exist several decades into the future, not the one that exists now,鈥� said Mr. Elliott. 鈥淵ou need to shift your focus into the future.鈥�
His projections for future work displacement were based in part on 鈥淢oore鈥檚 Law,鈥� the rule of thumb that the number of transistors鈥攁nd therefore the amount of computing power鈥攖hat can fit onto an integrated circuit chip doubles about every 18 months. If that rate holds steady, Mr. Elliott said, computers will be able to perform effectively all current human work by 2100, or even 2050.
That doesn鈥檛 mean that 60 percent of the workforce will necessarily be unemployed by 2030, he said鈥攋ust that 鈥渦nprecedented investments in education for both children and adults鈥� will need to be in place by next decade if a majority of workers are to stay ahead of computer capability.
鈥楽oft Skills鈥� Needed
Mr. Elliott stressed that the pilot analysis was a 鈥渃oarse approximation鈥� of the kind of full-scale, computer-science-based analysis of future job-skills needs he has proposed.
But in the room full of educators, it was his pilot鈥檚 projection that nearly three-quarters of currently configured teaching, training, and library jobs would be taken over computers that drew the most attention.
鈥淎 little absurd鈥� was how the projection struck Helen F. Ladd, a professor of public-policy studies and economics at Duke University in Durham, N.C. 鈥淲ho programs the computers on an ongoing basis?鈥� she wanted to know. 鈥淲e haven鈥檛 developed the software for what teachers do. It鈥檚 different from classroom to classroom.鈥�
There was broader agreement on the necessity for effective self-management, interpersonal and written communication, and other so-called 鈥渟oft skills.鈥� As several participants noted, employers are already decrying the lack of those attributes, particularly in science and software-engineering jobs.
鈥淲ork is in fact very social鈥攅ven engineering,鈥� said Beth A. Bechky, a professor in the graduate school of management at the University of California, Davis. Students at all levels get hit with plenty of core content, she added, but 鈥渢he things that students don鈥檛 get training in is, 鈥楬ow do you communicate?鈥� In science or sales, you need to know how to talk to people.鈥�
There was also, however, a broad sense of d茅j脿 vu on that topic. 鈥淚f you Google 鈥楽CANS鈥� and see what employers needed in the 1980s and 1990s, the skill list was the same as we just heard,鈥� said Thomas R. Bailey, a professor of economics and education at Columbia University鈥檚 Teachers College in New York City, referring to the U.S. secretary of labor-appointed Secretary鈥檚 Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.
The commission, which issued several reports from 1990 to 1992, routinely cited interpersonal skills, thinking skills, and personal qualities such as responsibility and integrity as must-have employee traits that schools were failing to teach.
鈥淲e鈥檝e been teaching these skills for 10 to 15 years,鈥� said economist and Harvard University education professor Richard J. Murnane. 鈥淲hat have we learned?鈥�
Into the Void
Not much, according to Susan Traiman, the director of education and workforce policy at the Business Roundtable, a Washington-based nonprofit association of chief executive officers that advocates maintaining a well-trained workforce.
鈥淚t鈥檚 obvious that we鈥檝e got learn to walk and chew gum at the same time,鈥� she said, referring to the need to teach both core-course content and the soft skills needed to make use of it. 鈥淯nfortunately,鈥� the former teacher added, 鈥渕ost teachers don鈥檛 know how to do that without lowering standards.鈥�
Others at the workshop suggested the blame lies elsewhere. 鈥淭hese kinds of interactive skills are not measured鈥� by the welter of content-based standardized tests for which educators must prepare students, Mr. Murnane noted. 鈥淚t often comes down to a drill-and-kill approach,鈥� he argued, 鈥渨hich is not good at teaching these skills.鈥�
Moreover, suggested Mr. Bailey, who also directs the Teachers College Community College Research Center and the National Center for Postsecondary Research, K-12 educators can only do so much to prepare their students for future needs.
鈥淚t takes 20 years or 30 years for what鈥檚 being taught to make its way into the workforce,鈥� he observed. Neither, he said, is clairvoyance about future work skills a prerequisite for good workforce development.
Community colleges, for example, 鈥渄on鈥檛 really need to have good forecasts,鈥� he said, 鈥渂ecause they have almost day-to-day contacts with local employers.鈥�
For all the data and discussion, the researchers and academicians inevitably found themselves at the lip of an abyss, peering into the as-yet-unbridgeable gulf between what鈥檚 known and what won鈥檛 be known for years.
In the end, said Mr. Cappelli, the Wharton School professor, the skills that might turn out to be most valuable for students to learn are 鈥渢he skills for managing uncertainty.鈥�
鈥淲hen you鈥檝e got major technology shocks and global warming and everything else, [the future] is no longer knowable,鈥� said Ms. Ladd, the Duke University professor, who also serves on a blue-ribbon commission on testing and accountability in North Carolina. 鈥淏ut that doesn鈥檛 mean we shouldn鈥檛 have these discussions.鈥�
