Future Graduates Will Need Creativity And
Empathy Not Just Technical Skills
Government Education Policy Focuses On The Importance
Of Hard Science, But Soft Skills Matter Too
Natalie Brett Thu 20 Dec 2018
‘Hard skills may help a student get a job in a particular industry, but soft skills will
help them disrupt it.’
Rapidly advancing technology, including automation and AI and its impact on
education, skills and learning in the UK, is a subject of much debate for universities.
How can institutions equip students with the skills they need to succeed in a
changing jobs market? It’s a valid question, though often the answers are the
problem.
Since technology is driving these changes, there’s an assumption that the
government should keep focusing on Stem subjects. These are often referred to as
“hard skills”, which are prioritised in primary school and right through to university
level. In the meantime, “soft skills” – which are already disadvantaged by the term’s
connotations – are being relegated even further down the pecking order in terms of
curriculum must-haves.
Value for money? What a grim, cold way to talk about universities
This is a mistake. Much evidence suggests that soft skills are far more beneficial to
graduates than is currently acknowledged. Research from Harvard University on the
global jobs market has shown that Stem-related careers grew strongly between 1989
and 2000, but have stalled since. In contrast, jobs in the creative industries – the
sector probably most associated with the need for soft skills – in the UK rose nearly
20% to 1.9m in the five years to June 2016. Soft skills are in fact increasingly in
demand in the workplace: Google cites creativity, leadership potential and
communication skills as top prerequisites for both potential and current employees.
So why, in an age cited as the “fourth industrial revolution”, are soft skills so highly
sought after? With the rapid evolution of technology, a focus on hard skills leaves
students vulnerable to change, as these often have a shorter shelf life.
According to research by the World Economic Forum, more than one in four adults
reported a mismatch between their skills and those needed for their job role.
Although technical skills, such as learning to code, can be taught and assessed more
easily and soft skills take time to develop and are more complex in nature, the latter
can turn out to be more beneficial in the long term. If taught well, these skills should
enable students to adapt to change more easily, gain a greater understanding of
people and the world around them, and ultimately progress further in their chosen
career.
Of course technical, practical and more easily quantifiable skills are important but
without the curriculum placing equal, if not greater, importance on soft skills, our
governments and education systems are missing a huge trick. Hard skills may help a
student get a job in a particular industry, but soft skills will help them disrupt it,
creating change for the better and achieving a wider impact in their chosen field.
the Google example, many of the company’s top “characteristics of success” are soft
skills: being a good coach, communicating and listening well, possessing insights
into other points of view, being supportive of one’s colleagues, critical thinking and
problem solving, and being able to make connections across complex ideas. It’s these
fundamentally human emotional and social skills which should be nurtured,
developed and celebrated as the key to future success for students and society in
general.
Many universities have embraced this, teaching students soft skills such as critical
thinking, idea generation and interdisciplinary ways of working alongside hard
skills. But the issue goes much deeper: it needs to be tackled across the entire
education system, so that by the time students reach university level they are already
familiar with the importance of, and the qualities needed to develop, these essential
skills.
With enrolment in arts and humanities degrees in decline and the government’s
continued focus on technical Stem subjects, the value of soft skills may be in danger
of being lost along the way. Perhaps a good place to start would be a reframing of the
language we use to describe these skills as, if the evidence is correct, they’re not so
“soft” after all.
https://www.theguardian.com