Key ideas

Critique of human capital theory as it pertains to adult education and role of adult educator

Well known proponent of the Human Capital Theory is the Nobel prize winning economist T. W. Schultz (1961; 1981). In the sixties, dissenting with then popular doomsday scenarios proposed by scientific groups such as the Club of Rome, Schultz heralded the advent of a new age in economics. He objected to the Malthusian view of ever diminishing resources, and of a world doomed for lack of unlimited natural capital. He did not subscribe to the entropic view of human economics, where human survival was linked the direct exploitation of the finite resources of the natural world. Instead, Schultz (1981) proposed that the key to economic growth lay in the “quality of the population” that comprised the economic unit. In Schultz's view, human beings themselves represent the greatest potential for economic prosperity.

“Increases in the acquired abilities of people throughout the world and advances in useful knowledge hold the key to future economic productivity and to its contributions to human well being (…) Investment in population quality and in knowledge in large part determines the future prospects of mankind”.

Very difficult to predict future needs

Moving from task specific definitions of training needs → generic views of employee qualifications

Target transferable competencies (given #1), however which?

Generic skills not new idea - industrial revolution, generic competencies were experience based, “mechanically inclined”.

Later, “being bright”, “problem-solving abilities”.

Now, “reponsive to technological change”, “interested in seeking out flexible organizational alternatives”.

“Generic skills” moved from experiential, to cognitive, to cultural/affective dimension

Can't keep up with pace of change, learning on the job might be more important. Must change from “dispensers of knowledge” to places “where people learn how to negotiate the paths of fluidly changing information and meaning”.

Because of tech revolution? But things are getting easier, not harder - idea of every kid having to learn programming in school.

But largest growth in job opportunities has been service sector, food preparation etc. Upskilling small percentage of population, deskilling larger portion.

Maybe employers aren't matched with employees because

• labor market dynamics
• structural discrimination (race, gender etc)
• employee self-selection (“that job is not for me”)
• demographic shift (fewer youth)

Cannot consider labor market as any other market - employment is key to people's identity.

Educational inflation.

Reification and legitimization

By embracing “training-as-panacea” government is shifting blame for unemployment, stating that you could have that job if only you had more training.

Training is a scarce commodity - much like the jobs it is supposed to give access to! Thus, the focus shifts from the lack of jobs to the lack of training. In other words, using that logic, it is quite legitimate for employment to be unavailable for people who do not have the requisite amount - or the right kind of - training.

3 spheres:

• individual learners, in helping relationships aimed at facilitating self-actualization
  • learning as empowering process, John Dewey and Eduard Lindeman
• workplace, reconcile divergent needs of individuals and organization
• social responsibility to basic values