Why is there a gap between the skills employers want and the skills we develop in higher education? How do we build the organizational capacity for rigorous earn-and-learn opportunities? In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Annelies Goger, Fellow from The Brookings Institution. She highlights how states are scaling earn-and-learn opportunities, the value of skills frameworks, and the promise of a blended pathways model. She advocates for more rigorous apprenticeships, internships and experiential learning opportunities. To read more on Dr. Goger’s research, follow this link – https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-us-employers-and-educators-can-build-a-more-nimble-education-system-with-multiple-paths-to-success/
Matt Sterenberg (00:01.332)
Dr. Annelies Goger, welcome to the podcast.
Annelies Goger (00:06.53)
Thank you, it’s great to be here.
Matt Sterenberg (00:09.044)
So I want to dig into one of your papers that you wrote, how US employers and educators can build a more nimble education system with multiple paths to success. It’s a great read. You released it last May. Everything in it still feels very relevant. And I’m just going to start off with a quote from it because I think it’s really good. And I would just love to hear your response to get us started here.
A growing chasm between the education system and labor markets in the US is making it harder for employers to find and retain qualified talent. And it also is stunting the career and education options for Americans without a college degree. Doesn’t sound like good news on a lease. So tell me a little bit more about this paper, how it came to be and give us the summary of what you tried to tackle.
Annelies Goger (01:03.384)
Sure. It really emerged from a lot of conversations I had in my project with Alabama, Colorado, and Indiana about scaling earn and learn opportunities. One of the biggest barriers to scaling those opportunities is the lack of engagement and adoption from employers, particularly outside the skilled trades where things like apprenticeship have been
common for decades. When you get beyond those fields, like modern industries like tech or healthcare or cyber, know, cybersecurity is a good example where you really need hands on skills to do it well. But we don’t have institutions that do that in a formal way, all the way up to like masters or PhD level, which we’re going to need as you know, AI and quantum computing expand. We need more people that have
much more expertise, but also know how to apply it in specific industries, whether it’s finance or healthcare, whatever. And I think that we focus so much for so long on just send everybody to college and classroom learning as the ticket to opportunity. I think that we really need multiple pathways into those opportunities and some of them should be more hands on.
But in those hands-on pathways, if we’re going to say, a cyber expert at the master’s level, you can’t build that pathway without much more engagement from employers and from the people in particular sectors that need those skills. And the current higher ed ecosystem really doesn’t have a framework or a mechanism to incorporate employer input in a really like
strongly employer driven way for those hands on pathways. So what we start to see is that it takes two years to approve a higher ed accredited program. And you might have an employer advisory committee, who knows who sits on that, there’s not really, it takes a long time. And then by the time it’s approved, it may be out of sync with where the industry’s at. And so,
Annelies Goger (03:20.366)
I think we need a lot more of a responsive setup for especially those fields where employers are more heavily engaged when you’re doing hands-on work-based learning. And so we wrote the paper to think through, you know, what are the pain points that employers are having when they try to engage and provide feedback to this system, to the education system as a whole. And so that’s kind of where our thinking came about. I did it with
Katie caves from ETH Zurich, who’s an expert on on vocational and professional education systems globally. Switzerland is where she’s based, but she’s American. So I feel like she can bring some interesting third party perspectives to that. And then Hollis Salway, what used to work at CareerWise USA and reach university. So she’s she brings also some great great perspective working on the ground with employers. So
Together we kind of ideated on what are the pain points that employers have and how do we think about this not just as one particular problem, but actually like several layered issues that are kind of built into our institutions that are generating this chasm between employers and education systems.
Matt Sterenberg (04:37.34)
One of the interesting points you make is given the state of our country, it’s like the states really need, and I don’t mean that in any sort of political thing, but it’s just the power often sits at the states in order to make these changes with state universities, colleges, and just they have the governance in order to make some of these changes. Tell me about what you learned from the states that you studied, Indiana, Alabama, and Colorado.
What did you learn from how they were able to make meaningful change in these areas?
Annelies Goger (05:12.846)
Yeah, mean, exactly. The site of action needs to really focus on the states just because of how our federalist structure works. Every state is so different in terms of how its higher ed system is set up, how employers engage with that. And so in looking at these three states, what was really interesting to me is that they’re all really committed to expanding apprenticeship and work-based learning.
But they took completely different ways of doing that based on like how their state operates. And so you see in Colorado, it’s a really heavily local control state. So you see tons of innovation, especially at the local level where they’re doing super creative things in multiple arenas. But where they struggle is, know, having an overarching vision at the state level for how to scale those innovations. Like it’s hard to go from.
know, pilot program in this place to statewide system. And so it creates somewhat of a competitive dynamic between these different innovative strategies rather than an overarching vision where they all play a role. And indeed, I actually go to Alabama next, which is the opposite, I would say, where you had a lot of innovation coming from the governor’s office, right, from the top down, like really thinking about, like, we want to build systems that
connect people based on skills. So they did this talent triad where they’re really trying to use skills as a currency that connects employers and learners and also that higher ed could step into for like, what are the gaps here? What do we need to train people to do? And that’s super innovative. I’ve haven’t really seen that kind of comprehensive focus on skills based connection in the labor market.
Matt Sterenberg (06:40.5)
triad. Yeah.
Annelies Goger (07:02.678)
But then like their challenge is how do you get that deployed? How do you get buy-in from the employers in particular sectors? How do you get learners to really market themselves based on their skills and not just like kind of fall back on a traditional resume per se? So that’s kind of…
where they were coming at their reforms and then Indiana sort of in the middle of those two where a lot of the impetus for reform was coming from this sort of intermediary organizations, employer led intermediary organizations that were really thinking about how do you take innovation on the ground and push it up to the state and like bring it all together. And so,
I wanted these three states to engage with each other to see what they could learn from, even though they’re not going to necessarily copy and paste from each other. But how do you think differently about what you could be doing to learn from these states that have different strengths? so I guess what I’m saying is reform needs to be focused at the state level. But in the long run, we also have to think about what states can learn from each other and how they can also have a shared vision of where we’re going.
Because in the end of the day, if you have a really different way of doing this, like in terms of like, what is the outcome of an apprenticeship, like, or whatever. If that means, if a cybersecurity apprenticeship doesn’t mean the same thing in Indiana that it means in Alabama, that’s also problematic because it devalues that credential, right? And so we do need to have some national standardization of
even what these terms mean. What is an internship versus apprenticeship? What is a youth apprenticeship? What is a pre-apprenticeship? There’s all these confusing terms and if we don’t have some national standardization of what it means, then you start to get really confused when you’re trying to move between states or understand what somebody’s training actually means as an employer. it’s a bit of a…
Annelies Goger (09:09.144)
combined national versus state, at the end of the day, the reform really has to focus at the state level with some national role there as well.
Matt Sterenberg (09:21.0)
Yeah, I think the ability for it to mean something across state lines is incredibly valuable. We’ve seen this on other credentialing sides where a state system gets built and they love their system. let’s send this transcript as data for instance. And it’s like the minute that you try to send it out of state, it doesn’t have the same amount of value. And it’s like these, these walled gardens that we build. And part of that is intentional, right? Like we want to keep and retain talent here. So let’s just focus on.
what we do. And we actually had Nick Moore on the podcast a few months ago. So if anybody’s listening and they’re like, I want to learn more about the Alabama story, Nick dives deep into the talent triad and everything that they’ve done in Alabama. But I love that you’re highlighting these states as laboratories, you know, what can we develop and how do we make it work? you know, the response has been, and you highlight this in your report,
Annelies Goger (09:54.74)
great.
Matt Sterenberg (10:20.874)
You know, we have a wild west of non credit credentials, right? So the response has been less formal programs and more so on skills. How do we communicate skills? And you highlight that employers are really kind of confused about these new forms, non credit alternative credentials. How did those fit into?
the national qualification frameworks or a skills framework that you’re proposing.
Annelies Goger (10:54.048)
Yeah, so that when we say things like non credit, first of all, it’s one of my one of my pet peeves is that word in general is it already is undervaluing those things because it’s something that is a not something. And so I’ve argued that we need to not just put everything in one bucket and call it a not something.
Matt Sterenberg (11:12.198)
Yeah. Isn’t that funny that it’s like, could be a, it’s basically like, even though it’s not officially on your higher ed record, we are calling that out. It’s a really funny thing to your point to be able to say, Hey, it’s, it’s not a lot of things. We don’t need to name everything, you know? so yeah.
Annelies Goger (11:29.067)
It’s… yeah.
Annelies Goger (11:34.67)
Right, and you’re lumping like a six week, you know, certificate in with like a four year apprenticeship, but like, it’s the same. Yeah. Right.
Matt Sterenberg (11:46.152)
Right. And it’s also like not yet for credit because a lot of people are working on, know, prior learning or work-based learning. Like how do we eventually get this for credit? You know, it’s not yet for credit, but maybe it could be by some institution.
Annelies Goger (11:56.621)
Yeah.
Annelies Goger (12:00.266)
Right, so what I think we need to do is first we want to have some space for, you know, innovation where somebody is trying something outside the formal system that is novel and hasn’t yet been recognized by all the powers that be is learning. We do want to have non formal education, we only has always have that but what I think we’re missing here is that what we don’t what we haven’t been trying to do is is bring.
things like work-based learning, things like learning that happens outside the classroom or maybe through the military or maybe through volunteering or even the Girl Scouts or something like that. Those types of learning have meaningful value for employers and we don’t recognize that in our systems and that’s a really big problem. So a qualifications framework is basically an umbrella tool that helps you create
overarching categories for different types of learning, whether it’s classroom only, more theoretical on the one hand, or more applied and practical and hands-on in a workplace. Or it could be a combination of the two where like an apprenticeship blends some time in the classroom ideally with some time in the workplace, and then you’re kind of getting benefited of both worlds. A qual framework makes these distinguished
know, make distinctions between these types of learning, but also makes distinctions about the level of learning. So you have, you know, your very entry level training, which we might call non-credit training, but then you get, you know, at a higher level you might have, you know, what is the high school diploma equivalent across these. In some countries you…
when you do an apprenticeship, your diploma kind of indicates that you have your high school diploma, but it was through a more hands-on applied pathway. And then at the next level, what we might call community college associate degree, what is that level in an applied sense, you know, in a hands-on environment? And then at a bachelor’s or a master’s or higher. And so how do you set equivalencies? And it’s important really,
Annelies Goger (14:19.896)
for a lot of reasons, but one is that when you only say everybody go to college and then everything else is a non-degree credential, it erases those levels and just lumps it all together. And it makes it hard for someone, as you were kind of referring to before, like let’s say you did a nursing assistant credential and now you’re working as a nursing assistant, but really you want to be a nurse or really you want to be a radiologist, right?
you cannot easily move from what you have in your CNA license into a nursing program because you took it through a non-degree pathway. And that sets people up to fail. And so I think if a QAL framework could have a defined pathway where maybe you start with that CNA,
But then the next stage is that you become a medical assistant and then the next stage you choose between this more specialized path or that specialized path and eventually you achieve a higher level. That gives people a way to, maybe they spend some time gaining experience as a CNA but they have low wages because those are pretty poorly paid jobs.
But that’s a stepping stone. And then the next step is a little higher, and the next step a little higher. Rather than what we have now where you do it non-credit, and then you’re told, well, we have to go and retake this class in the credit side of that community college. and yeah. And then, well, you better do it at this schedule, because that’s when it’s offered. But you can’t, because your work schedule changes every week.
Matt Sterenberg (15:54.878)
Which is totally demotivating. Yeah.
Annelies Goger (16:05.038)
So you have all these barriers to moving along and achieving your goals. And what do people do? They tend to leave the profession. then you got to get a whole new crop of CNAs in the door. And that creates this dead end cycle. And so the Qual framework would provide basically the architecture that you need to say, OK, your hair at this level, you don’t have to start all the way at the bottom again if you pivot to an approved accredited program on the academic side.
And likewise, you can switch at any level ideally, which the Swiss folks would call permeability, right? You don’t wanna track people into the point where they can’t change their mind or if the field changes or your life changes, you can’t pivot and get credit for what you already did. And that’s, think the Qual framework helps create that architecture, like just kind of categories of things so that you can make sense of.
what you already have and where you need to go next if you want to achieve your goal.
Matt Sterenberg (17:08.874)
I’ve heard of it called on ramps and off ramps too. And the, what you’re highlighting, the, the framework you highlight that it’s a map. And I love this analogy because everyone goes, a map, great pathways. How do I go from here to here? But you make the point of a map is great, but if you can’t navigate it, you don’t have a car or you don’t have a means to go through it. So it’s not just creating the frameworks. It’s also giving
Annelies Goger (17:19.724)
Right.
Matt Sterenberg (17:38.25)
People like, let’s say we have the framework built. There’s no programs offered for me in my area. I can’t actually complete it. So it does take resources. We need to commit to it. We need to make sure that everybody’s bought in, terms of programmatically executing and reaching the people that want to do that navigation, I think is a completely underrated part of the story, right? We can build the framework and agree to it, but how do we actually get people?
Annelies Goger (17:58.925)
Yeah.
Matt Sterenberg (18:07.762)
on their journey is a whole different challenge.
Annelies Goger (18:10.912)
Right, and to me, that’s a huge challenge because what we’ve funded through federal resources so far, you have this bifurcation where you get a lot of entry level trainings that are short term, you know, and then there’s not much in the middle, and then there’s degree programs. And what you see on the ground is that in a particular community college, you’ll have this siloed situation where you have all your non-degree credentials in this side of the house is the term that I use.
And then your credit programs on that side of the house and never the two shall meet like how do get people from you know from that More applied segment into the degree it’s seen as like a separate thing and that’s you know That’s really and not just separate but unequal right one is more heavily funded and the other isn’t and One is recognized for credit and one isn’t
And so I think that it really, you know, we really, if we want to create opportunities and recognize that people learning in the workplace is a valuable thing that employers need, then I think we need to really rethink that separation.
Matt Sterenberg (19:26.716)
So last episode we had Beth Merenstein on from Central Connecticut State University. She’s doing a lot of work with experiential learning. And one of the things we highlighted too was the value of work-based learning, experiential learning, take away the preparedness part and like employers really want these types of experiences. But from the learner’s perspective, being exposed to these things early,
in terms of the on ramps and off ramps, like, Oh, it turns out actually don’t like being a nurse, you know, like, how are we going to know that unless we give people these experiences, it’s almost like you’re gradually ramping up into these experiences rather than I have to enroll in this program. It doesn’t take anything I did into account. It’s creating these binaries where it makes it difficult for students to switch and navigate. And how do you know what you want to do?
Annelies Goger (20:01.74)
Right. Yeah.
Matt Sterenberg (20:25.386)
if you don’t have any apprenticeship work-based learning and you haven’t been exposed to it. Like we joked around that in college, was like, I worked, but it was like, I worked for my dad’s company. was like, I have no idea what real jobs are. You know, I was like, uh, what is a business degree? I honestly have no idea what it tangibly means. And we do this in secondary ed, right? We try to get you in the classroom as early as possible so that you get exposed.
Annelies Goger (20:40.706)
Yeah.
Annelies Goger (20:46.359)
Yeah.
Matt Sterenberg (20:53.578)
to whether or not you like kids or not. We do it in some industries, but in others like cybersecurity, or it’s like, I wanna go into marketing, be like, do you really? Do you know what marketing is? And how do we expose you to these experiences early on?
Annelies Goger (20:55.939)
Yeah.
Annelies Goger (21:05.581)
Right.
Annelies Goger (21:09.004)
Yeah, I like to call that the experience gap. So people talk about the skills gap, but I think if you really are concerned about the skills gap, what you should be concerned about is the experience gap because you learn skills through experience predominantly. Some of those skills you learn in the classroom, but you apply them in the workplace. And so I think that we are doing not just
learners a disservice by not exposing people to that experiential learning earlier, but also employers because employers really benefit from, you know, getting young, young talent out into their workplace and giving their fresh perspective on, you know, what they’re seeing. And sometimes it’s funny, like I talked to employers that have hosted apprentices and they’ve rotated them through different stages of
the company or whatever. And because they’re seeing it from soup to nuts and the individual employees might be in just one piece of the company, sometimes they come up with solutions that the employees never would have come up with because they’re looking at it from fresh eyes. They’re sort of looking at the whole system and saying, well, why is it done this way? And that can actually bring value to the company. And I think that culture of learning and the culture of new perspective
We have Gen Z folks that really want to get their hands on into things and don’t want to wait like another four years before they get out into the real world. And I feel like we why aren’t we giving why aren’t we meeting that need and that demand? You why aren’t we giving people that chance to get out and like see what cyber looks like? Maybe they do it in finance and they realize like finance isn’t their thing, but health care might be more interesting. Or maybe they want to their parents say we want you to be
a doctor and then they go into the hospital and they’re like, you know what, like I kind of want to be a PA instead of a doctor, a physician’s assistant, right? yeah. Yeah. And it rather like less schooling and you know, less like paperwork and, and insurance company stuff and more time with the patient. Okay. So it’s like those kinds of things where we, have to question the conventional wisdom about
Matt Sterenberg (23:08.564)
Yeah, all the doctors I worked with yelled at me. I think I would rather, yeah.
Annelies Goger (23:28.962)
you know, do you tell your kids to do to be successful? be a lawyer or a doctor. know, maybe that doesn’t fly anymore. Maybe we have to give people a chance to experiment and get out there and talk to people and figure out where they gravitate to. And that helps them decide where to go to college if they want to go to college. Or it helps them decide if college really isn’t for them and they want to do something more hands on. And so on the one hand, I think we need to close that experience gap.
On the other, we need to really formalize some pathways in that applied experiential learning so that if you do pursue it, it’s not like a separate thing from education. It’s part of education.
Matt Sterenberg (24:12.318)
Yeah. And you’ve got a great, I guess infographic in your report that shows kind of the traditional model, the blended model of how we can actually stop thinking about, I don’t know, like basically we, feel like we hold it sacred, the higher ed experience of like, you’re going to go for four to six years and now it’s your time to go out into the real world and other countries don’t view it that way. Like you, you share the example of Switzerland and how it’s
I’m going to school, I’m working, it’s a blended model. They have partnerships together or collaboration. But I do think there’s a little bit of this high-red, this four years is sacred. And then it’s your time to go out. This isn’t, I have no research to back this up, but just, I think there is a sense of that. And I think high-red, not all institutions. think there’s some institutions that care passionately about connecting.
Annelies Goger (24:53.59)
Yeah.
Matt Sterenberg (25:09.384)
and creating credentials of value. But I think there’s others that might say, yes, we want our students to get a job, but it’s not our responsibility in a sense. Like we’re developing them kind of broadly, which I do think is important. I don’t think we should just train you for your next opportunity. I think there’s a lot of value in having a broad-based education. But the whole idea here is how do we create
Annelies Goger (25:25.196)
Yeah.
Matt Sterenberg (25:35.444)
partnerships and have a different level of ecosystem. And I wonder if there’s going to be some folks in higher ed that would push back of just saying, listen, our job is to educate broadly. We don’t work for IBM. You our job is not to fill their talent pool in a sense, even though we want our graduates to be employed, obviously.
Annelies Goger (25:43.278)
Yeah.
Annelies Goger (25:55.478)
Yeah, and I think there is a culture of, you know, sacred, you know, cultural experience of going off to college and having that college experience. And I think that that’s important. I agree. think that, you know, we do we do need like the especially, you know, we need our brightest minds to have access to some of the most cutting edge theory, the cutting edge thinking and problem solving and analytical abilities that you can get.
And our higher ed system is one of the best, if not the best in the world for developing that. Yeah, it is. It’s critical for innovation. It’s critical for being on the cutting edge. And what I’m arguing is not to get rid of our academic spaces where that magic happens. My argument is that we also really need, especially as AI is deploying and technology is changing really fast,
Matt Sterenberg (26:29.352)
It’s our greatest export, right? Yeah.
Annelies Goger (26:53.74)
we really need like a paired pathway that is applied in order for innovation to really be unleashed. So in Switzerland, we talked about having these blended pathways. So you can go into the applied university system there. You get your degree in chemistry in the applied university system. What that means is you didn’t just study chemistry theoretically like we might do in an academic pathway.
you actually spent time in industry, in industry, deploying that knowledge in, in practice. And there’s some forms of innovation that really can be jumpstarted from being exposed to, those types of work-based problems and coming up with an innovative solution and then taking that to market. And that’s where I think that from a
country’s point of view, think higher ed could benefit from being part of that process of, you know, having programs that require, like, you kind of see this a little in engineering, for example, like, you know, some require practicums and like actual experience, but why aren’t we thinking about that much more broadly where that’s also like part of, you know, an apprenticeship in high school leads to an applied
masters, right, really think about it systematically and think about ways that that could lead to innovation also and that there’s a role for higher ed. So in other words, apprenticeship would no longer be just something over here outside of higher ed. It’s something that you get a degree in. It’s a degree apprenticeship. And I feel like that could not just open up, you know, opportunities for universities to reach students they otherwise wouldn’t reach.
because they can’t afford to not do something paid. But also for students, gives them, if you’re more of a hands-on learner and you don’t like sitting in the classroom and reading a book, I I liked reading books. I’m a theory person. I got my PhD, right? But my dad did not like sitting in a classroom and yet he’s now like a business owner and he’s much better at building things than I am.
Annelies Goger (29:12.522)
And there’s all kinds of talent and there’s all kinds of need for talent. And so we can’t just push everyone into a square hole with a square peg. We have to recognize that having these multiple types of engaging talent is good for both employers and for learners. And so you could go through that applied chemistry and really get paid on the one hand, but you really get hands on exposure to chemistry, not just the theory.
And that’s something that could lead to new products. like another example I like to use is like, you know, if you’re trying to fix your house and you look at the plumbing, usually it’s like German, German products. And why are faucets, you know, like coming from like Germany, because they have this apprenticeship system where people are trained in this very rigorous way on how to, you know, do those things. And that leads to product innovation.
It leads to high quality things that people around the world are using. And so, you when you look at Switzerland, they have the highest innovation rates in the world, partly because of the supplied system helps commercialize ideas that may be developed in an academic sphere. So I feel like you need both. You need that interplay between practice and theory that really in this now in this world with rapid AI acceleration. That’s the answer. And I think higher ed could
play a role in that and not just be seeing it as a competitor, if that makes sense.
Matt Sterenberg (30:44.746)
And as we think about the world of credentialing, if you have these embedded within higher ed apprenticeships and partnerships of what this apprenticeship means or what this work-based learning experience is, when we issue a credential as someone navigates that pathway, because we’re in partnership, we know that that’s going to be a credential of value. They’re recognizing, they’re acknowledging what is within
this credential and you can start to develop a taxonomy, for instance, of what each stage means and we can better communicate to each other because you highlight this and so many others have highlighted this. have kind of the proliferation credential inflation to a degree. We’re pro credentialing on the podcast, of course, but in order for them to have value, they have to be understood. And so if we’re just developing these in a silo, then
Annelies Goger (31:30.284)
you
Annelies Goger (31:35.597)
Yeah.
Matt Sterenberg (31:40.394)
You know, you send it to someone, you’re like, I’ve got this, this badge and you’re like, what does this mean? I click? see it’s a badge. I click on it. And it’s like, no, when you click on it, it’s got the skills be like, but who validated these skills? I don’t know if I trust it. And so if we’re working in tandem, as you’re saying, I think it only adds another seat at the table for the people that are ultimately on the consumption end of these credentials. Florida Gulf coast, we had them on the podcast a few weeks ago and they.
Annelies Goger (31:44.75)
Exactly.
Matt Sterenberg (32:10.548)
talked about their micro credential program and it has teeth in it, which I really liked, like in order to, like not everyone gets to get into the program. And then when you complete the program, you get a guaranteed job interview with a regional employer. I think it was Hertz or maybe it was a medical company. But the point is that they acknowledged that this credential means something will give you a job.
job interview because we know what’s embedded within it. And there’s not enough of that. If we’re going to communicate what these things mean, they need to be part of the build.
Annelies Goger (32:50.198)
Right, exactly. And that’s true for learners. Like if I’m going to put money into something and time into something, I want to know that it’s going to be useful after someone’s going to see it and know what it means. And it applies to employers because then they see all these credentials in someone’s resume or ideally in the future, a digital wallet of someone’s learning record. And they’re like, well, what is like, they like an
Matt Sterenberg (33:04.328)
Yeah.
Annelies Goger (33:18.806)
entry level Python person or they like how advanced is this and I feel like that leads. Yeah.
Matt Sterenberg (33:25.054)
Did they just watch a few videos? did someone see them code? Yeah.
Annelies Goger (33:30.382)
Yeah, and we don’t have a lot of mechanisms for validating learning that is applied or in the workplace or through these types of credentials. In other countries, you have multi-employer groups that come up with the assessments, and you don’t pass that module in the apprenticeship unless you pass that assessment. It could be a hands-on assessment. It could be a
exam and you’ll keep taking that module until you you and that’s set by the standards are set by the employer group and not by an academic institution and so it’s I think we need to start to build that musculatory of like how do we how do we deploy and assess skill and in a hands-on way.
And we don’t have those types of mechanisms yet. And I feel like that’s part of our paper is we need to start building the organizational capacity that we need to be able to do those things for being able to say, is a rigorous program. This isn’t just like somebody did something on YouTube and now has a bad, right? Nothing against YouTube. because some things on YouTube are great.
Matt Sterenberg (34:50.696)
Love YouTube. Yeah.
Annelies Goger (34:52.312)
But then how do you differentiate between the things that are great and the things that are not?
Matt Sterenberg (34:58.568)
It’s kind of funny, like information, we have an information overload. You could pretty much learn anything you want, just, but the application of it is really the critical thing. Like I could learn a lot about something on YouTube to your point, but it’s like, could I, I could watch carpentry videos and I do, but I’m like, I don’t know fully how to do that joint. You know, I’ve never actually done it. I couldn’t build you a canoe if you wanted me to. So.
The application is ultimately critical, especially in this ecosystem. I will put a link to the paper in the podcast description. Check it out. I thought it was really interesting. Is there anything else that you want to highlight or something I should have asked you before we wrap up?
Annelies Goger (35:44.142)
Well, the main thing I want to say, and you might be listening to this later, but today is National Apprenticeship Day and the Trump administration released an executive order calling to scale apprenticeship. I just want to say, I think it’s great that we have bipartisan agreement to scale apprenticeship.
But I fear that these executive orders aren’t going far enough to address some of the more systematic barriers that are there, the ones that we’ve been talking about around recognizing learning and the ones around, you know, the cultural issues that you started to raise, you know, like if you say, for example, I want to study abroad in college because I want that experience, like, do we have a way to think about, well,
you know, if you’re doing a banking apprenticeship in the US, you could do a study abroad in another country in a banking system, right? To get like a, you know, in the London or whatever, and just see how does the banking system there differ from ours? And I feel like we have to think about these cultural barriers just as much as some of the sort of policy and system level barriers, because until we can give, we have to make it attractive for people and give them
the kinds of experiences they’re seeking in their career development, but really in their life journey. And if we really wanted to have the status and the rigor that we associate with traditional higher ed, then we have to start to think about those pieces as well. so I hope that if we are implementing these executive orders, we’re thinking about quality,
rigor and status and how this is not just like the old school tracking, But you want to build quality experiences, not just for the apprentices, but because the employer wants to know that they’re getting something of value when they’re hiring that person with that qualification. so.
Annelies Goger (37:55.532)
I just want to emphasize that these are systems level changes, cultural changes that take time. But there’s a lot of people on the ground that have been fighting this battle for a long time. And I think that we’re getting really close to a point where I think we could be ready to have that conversation about systems level scale. But it’s not going to be quick. And it’s not going to be easy.
Matt Sterenberg (38:19.955)
you
Matt Sterenberg (38:23.4)
Annalise, thank you so much for joining me.
Annelies Goger (38:25.74)
Yeah, thanks for having me. It’s been a pleasure to talk with you.
