The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation publishes content on postsecondary education and related issues. Find and access current and archived items in our database.
The Institute for a Competitive Workforce assembled the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Task Force on Student Aid to develop a set of core principles that represent the needs of the business community when considering the redesign of federal financial aid, and to contribute to the public debate by offering observations about the shortcomings of the current system and discussing ideas for experts to consider.
A newsworthy number came out of McKinsey & Company’s recently released report Education to Employment: Designing a System That Works: according to estimates by the International Labour Organization, 75 million young people are unemployed worldwide. When taking into account the number of young people underemployed, 75 million triples to an even more astounding 225 million.
Usually this time of year, we dedicate this space to our annual plea to Santa Claus with all the things we had hoped to find under our tree. Despite being good boys and girls for several years now, our list is still mostly untouched and unfulfilled. Since Santa is apparently a selfish bloke, we’re taking our wish list to a slightly less miserly entity—Congress.
In the November 2011 State of Young America poll conducted by Young Invincibles and Dēmos, half of Americans aged 18 to 34 surveyed said they expected to be worse off than their parents. Even more disconcerting, more than three-quarters of those surveyed believed that the American middle class was disappearing. The bleak moods behind these findings are unsettling at best—alarming at worst—and are underscored by the latest Center for Labor Market Studies research indicating that teen and young adult employment rates have dropped to a new post-World War II low.
Economists Robert E. Martin of Centre College and R. Carter Hill of Louisiana State University, sought to quantify the impact of two largely accepted principles that drive costs at universities. The first—called “Baumol’s cost disease”—argues that increased costs are driven by the macro economy, since colleges are service-heavy entities and service industries are more sensitive to wage increases.
We recently survived another campaign season in which we saw rigorous battles for President, Congress, Senate, and state legislative races across the country. Record money was spent, the ads were negative, and tensions between both parties remain at epic levels. The time for rhetoric is over, especially when it comes to establishing important public policy to solve the skills gap and crafting a workforce development strategy that keeps the United States competitive in the global marketplace.
We’re at a critical time in higher education. More of our students must earn higher degrees than ever before. The United States boasts some of the finest institutions in the world and, further, by some measures, stands as an international leader. By other measures, however, there is cause for concern. Currently, only a little more than 50 percent of all students who start a four-year degree program earn their degree within six years. In Texas, it is even less.
Regardless of how you might feel about the outcome of the Presidential election, the sheer scope and size of running such a campaign is absolutely remarkable. With moving pieces all over the map and variables galore, you cannot help but be impressed by anyone—whether it was George W.
In education, it’s pretty easy and uncomfortably common to see the finger of blame get pointed in someone else’s direction. Here’s how it usually goes: colleges blame high schools for not getting students prepared to succeed. High schools blame middle schools.
High-tech manufacturing companies like Boeing are concerned about the United States’ ability to sustain its leadership role in technology and innovation. The state of American education—and even the academic rigor required to earn an engineering degree—has become a frequent talking point at the national level. Some even mistakenly theorize that our students are not up to the challenge of studying engineering, math, and science because it’s just too hard. The answer to this national crisis lies not in changing the engineering, math, and science curriculum but in changing learning environments and how these subjects are taught.
