Evaluation, statistics and OR

Graduate Skills Shortages

Very early this morning a story sneaked onto the BBC Education website, to the effect that while demand for graduates is increasing, 40% of employers aiming to recruit graduates were facing skills shortages.

Now I am used to sifting through employer surveys, looking at reasons why vacancies are hard to fill, and the standard responses for generalist surveys are always that potential recruits lack technical skills or that they lack suitable experience.  The former is usually a starting point for looking at skills shortage vacancies, the latter generally brings a response of how can people gain experience if you won't give them a chance?  Indeed sometimes when the experience issue is probed, what an employer is looking for is so specific to the company that you want to take recruiting managers out and give them a good talking to!!

This survey is rather different, in that it is looking at people being recruited into their first post graduation job, so you would expect those recruiting to be less worried about lacking experience.  The survey results also highlight that candidates are normally academically proficient, which takes care of the technical skills as well.  What they lack is soft skills.

To a certain extent, I would expect a new graduate to be a bit raw on soft skills, despite the key skills curriculum elements that may be included in school or college education, before higher education.  I think I would expect my potential graduate to lack team working skills to an extent (unless anything could be demonstrated from extra curricular activities like team sports, scouts, voluntary work and so forth).  I might also expect that they would not be the world's greatest communicators, unless they had done a communications degree.

The thing that brought me up short was that the soft skills were considered to include verbal and numerical reasoning.  Now to me, verbal and numerical reasoning are essential concepts of "graduateness" - no one should be able to pass a graduate level course without verbal and numerical reasoning (OK - some courses will be heavier on one than the other).

I was involved with one business degree course, where the university was considering making quantitative methods optional - and I was appalled, and said so very firmly.  Perhaps this is a first sign that numerical reasoning is no longer considered important in business, but to me, that is the scariest thought I have come across in a long time. 

Think about it - where are numbers not important in business?  Cost control?  Retail activity?  Wages?  Tax?  Production efficiency?  Activity monitoring?  I wouldn't be interested in a graduate that lacked numerical reasoning skills - would you?

Mumpreneurs and women in business

The Government has a Women's Enterprise Taskforce, with the Australian Glenda Stone as co-chair.  In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Ms Stone has said she wants to take women's enterprise from mainly cottage industry status to something that creates wealth and jobs, and makes a significant contribution to the economy.

Ms Stone has a mantra of "profit before passion", while it appears she finds the desire to do something emotionally and psychologically rewarding unhelpful unless it can also turn an exceptionally healthy profit.  She wants to see business support for women targeted at those who see their business as more than just a hobby.

This article got to me in a big way, and annoyed me.  Don't get me wrong - I am and have always been a fervent feminist, but one of the things that gave feminism a bad name was women bashing other women, and trying to be ballsier than the men they felt in competition with.  Here is a woman saying that in order to be a women entrepreneur, as opposed to a woman dabbler, you have to suppress those ambitions and aims that come from your nurturing and supporting side.  I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

While it is true that a substantial number of women start a small business as a way of getting back into working life following a career break to have and raise children, there are also a lot of women who go into business who do not have children, or who have not taken a career break.  Is money really the driver for every entrepreneur - male or female?  No.  Go back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs!!

Everyone needs to feel safe, warm, with adequate nutrition - these are basic rights and needs, and unless they are satisfied, they will dominate the activity of the individual.  But after that, why do we strive for more, to do better?  This is where things like quality of life and self-actualisation and self-worth come into play. 

For a number of years I was a public servant - I put in the hours and the miles to do what I thought would have a positive impact on the wellbeing of my fellow citizens.  I became a woman entrepreneur when I could see, with regret, that actually what I was doing was not making any difference, that I could feel little pride in what I was doing, that the long daily commute was doing nothing for my health or my personal life, and that most of the time away from work, I was too drained to make a positive contribution to my family or my community.

While I make a profit, I don't think I fit Ms Stone's entrepreneurial ideal, in that my way of working and what I do is designed to give me a feeling of pride, of a job well done, while at the same time, having the work/life balance right.  In addition, I do all that without the excuse of being a Mum. 

The other thing that worries me about all this is that it focuses on businesses owned by women - once you get out of the sole trader/company with single director model, there is a high likelihood that the business will be owned by a mixture of men and women.  Will the introduction of one man into the ownership or management mix of a company make that business more likely to succeed, be profitable, aim for growth, achieve growth?  I am not sure it will, but that one man will make the business invisible to the women's enterprise taskforce.

Basic Skills - who pays?

Last week Sir Digby Jones was interviewed on the Today programme about how to improve the skills of British workers.  Sir Digby is the Government's Skills Envoy, but has made it clear he will not compromise his views if they are not in accordance with national policy.

In his interview, Sir Digby quoted the standard, but no less scary for all that, statistic about 7 million Britons who cannot read, write and count.  That 7 million has been quoted for a number of years now, and is still regarded as current, even after nearly a million people have benefited from Basic Skills training funded through the Learning and Skills Council and other public bodies.

Sir Digby also noted that only about half of young people are achieving a Grade A to C in their English and Maths GCSEs - again, when you think about it, that is a pretty scary number as well.

It seems to me that Sir Digby is right in arguing that there is not only an economic cost to people lacking basic skills, but also a social inclusion issue.  If the number of jobs where you don't need to read, write or count are reducing, then those without those skills will need to get them, or will drop out of society.  The national statistics announced last week that while employment was increasing, and unemployment was decreasing, the numbers economically inactive were increasing could imply that this alienation from society is already under way.

So to my question - who pays?  In the end, we all lose out if a proportion of the community are excluded.  Should employers pay for the inadequacies of education policy over the years?  In a previous blog response, Marc Bayliss pointed out that employers should pay for the material benefits they received from improved skills from their workers (looking at a different set of skills and workers).  Evidence is that between 60 and 70% of employers provide training, but they are most likely to train those with high level skills already.

To be attractive to employers, a tax break for providing training to given standards and in given skills areas is surely the answer.  However I am pretty sure that employers would then argue that the tax break was an increase in red tape!! 

But then if the Government pays, we all pay - are we all ready to give up a pound or two to make a more inclusive Britain?  I know I am, but is that true of everyone?

Helping people learn English

Finally yesterday the BBC picked up on cuts in funding of English Language courses (BBC News/Education/Migrant English classes cuts row - pity the title is practically illiterate!).  Their story focussed on the fact that nearly 100 MPs have signed a motion complaining about proposals to change eligibility for free English Language classes.  Could it be because Boris Johnson MP is involved - always good for a news story?

This is an issue that has been rumbling along since around the time the British jobs market was opened to the Accession 8 countries or newly joined EU nations.  In part, as people came to Britain, and particularly England, the funding bodies were actually happy to ensure that funded places for learning English were available, as successful achievement of these courses helped them to meet their Government targets for Basic Skills achievements.

However, along with housing, medical facilities and schools, the providers of English Language learning have been caught out by the sheer volume of demand.  While willing to offer provision and to find ways around learners working antisocial hours, rotating shifts and weekend working, providers are currently facing a shortage of qualified teaching staff, and from August 2007, also face substantial changes in the funding regime as well.

With former colleagues at Mercia Research & Strategy, I have looked into this issue in several parts of the UK.  Ministers know that demand is huge, and believe they cannot afford to fund English Language learning at the level of that demand.  They have therefore prioritised funding to those on benefits and the unemployed.  They believe that employers and employees should pay their own way.

Our work has shown that many migrant workers are on the minimum wage, or even potentially on wages below that, while paying market rate rents as they are not entitled to housing benefit.  As they often work anti-social hours or shifts that British residents are unwilling to take, they have to have and maintain their own transport as well.  This leaves little enough over for living costs, so where do they get the money to pay for ESOL courses (probably costing up to £400 per year or a month's rent)?

There are some excellent employers out there, who when they recruit migrant workers, sometimes going to Eastern Europe to do that recruiting, ensure that language training is laid on for workers from arrival in the UK.  Sadly, it is my belief that these are in the minority, and most employers, some with particularly healthy profit figures, are more than happy for the State to pay for their workers to improve their English, and when the rules change on August 1st 2007, will NOT put their hands in their pockets and invest in their workforce.

Penny pinching on ESOL training will have one effect in my view, and that is to make it much more difficult for inward migrants to integrate into the community.  This will in turn breed resentment and misunderstanding, and could lead to social unrest, particularly if unemployment rates increase significantly. 

It would be nice to see the employers who can afford to train, but don't, named and shamed.  I know Sir Digby Jones has threatened that he might do this in other spheres, this might be a good area to start!

I want to communicate!

Today's title is not necessarily a yearning for someone (anyone) to read and respond to one of these postings, though that would be nice.  No, today it is about learning languages and why I get frustrated when people don't.

At school I learnt French, German and Latin.  At Polytechnic I learnt German.  A few years ago, I went back to my local 6th Form College and finally took (and got) an A-level in French.  So while my main educational achievements have been in the business and quantitative methods fields, I can also "do" languages.

Recently my husband and I drove around mainland Spain - our first visit to this totally fascinating part of the world.  I was so embarrassed at having only about 10 words of Spanish, and having to rely on the good will of locals to speak English at me or work with me on sign language. 

This feeling of frustration and embarrassment reached its peak in a small town in Andalusia called Baza, where I was really struggling with the lady who owned the motel we were staying in.  She was so sweet and they were so kind, and I wanted to explain in some way why we were there, but to no avail... until half way through dinner.  In appreciation of the lovely steak and chips that had been placed before me, all I could think of to say was "Merci".  Our hostess stopped for a moment, thought and then said "parlez vous francais?"  "Oui, oui" we enthusiastically responded, and the sense of relief at finding a common language and a way of communicating was extraordinary on both sides.

While we might think, in our English-centric manner, that everyone in Europe learns English as their first foreign language (apart from the English - and that will be a subject for another day), this is not the case.  We discovered that in many parts of Spain away from the coast, French was traditionally the first foreign language, as many Spanish expected to go to France at some stage in their career for work.

For the rest of our visit, I was careful to ask people about an array of languages, when looking for services or assistance, and found that being able to offer more than one got people smiling if nothing else (perhaps the best of all international languages).

It thus struck me that we are doing future generations no favours by removing the compulsion to learn other languages in school.  Yes it might be a bit more difficult than some other things, but it is learning for the future, learning for life, and learning to mix with other nations.  Surely the most important learning of all?

Before our next visit to Spain, I am determined to at least double my Spanish vocabulary!

Migrant Workers - where Migrationwatch got it wrong

Today Migrantwatch UK issued their briefing paper 1.15 on the Impact of Immigration on GDP per head - it got very prominent listings on the BBC website, and got a lot of people huffing and puffing about the figures presented.

The Migrationwatch paper itself is fairly thin, and in places relies on reports that are older than 2 years, which for the UK migrant worker issue is rather naive.  They also do some fairly classic "pick'n'mix" of the facts they like and the facts they don't like.  An example of this is where they identify the increased numbers of A8 workers arriving, but don't look at the age profile, so assume they will demonstrate the same demographic profile as the UK population as a whole.  From studies undertaken by Mercia Research & Strategy, it is clear that the A8 workers have a fairly narrow age profile (between 20 and 40 in general) and are unlikely to bring older members of their family with them.

There are some areas where they have not investigated however, which in my view mean that while in their terms their headline facts that each migrant worker adds 4p per week to the economy may be superficially correct, the fact that these workers underpin the economy is totally lost and could change the meaning of the impact.  Work done recently for Improve Ltd, the food and drink manufacturing sector skills council, showed that the Scottish seafish industry relies on A8 workers as do many other parts of the food manufacturing industry all over the UK. 

Migrant workers are taking the jobs that UK nationals are not keen to do.  These include jobs where the working hours are anti-social (how do shelves get restocked in supermarkets for Boxing Day?), the tasks are repetitive or unpleasant, the pay is at or near the National Minimum Wage, but that society demands are done, as we have got used to living in a 24 hour economy.

If we didn't have migrant workers taking on these jobs and those skilled jobs where employers can't find the workers in the UK (see the recent study in London), would the economy and GDP be growing?  Would we be seeing the increase in numbers of 16-17 year olds staying on in education?  Would we be enjoying internet shopping, low cost flights, food prices that are static in real terms and being able to eat out at restaurants with waiter/waitress service?  Or would the scarcity of people willing to take the jobs that underpin these services mean that they would not exist or would be a lot more expensive than we are prepared to pay for?

Until you and I are willing to either do these roles ourselves, or have members of our families do them, or value people who do these roles, let us not be churlish or xenophobic, but instead welcome those who are willing to do the things we don't want to do.

Defamed by statistics - the Euro at 5

Yesterday the Euro, as a currency you could put in your wallet, was 5 years old.  Happy Birthday the Euro!

Between Christmas and New Year, newspapers in England and France both merrily picked up on the story that the French were falling out of love with the Euro, as they believed it had caused substantial inflation.  Well on the evidence in my local paper (Le Courrier de l'ouest, 29/12/06), can you blame them? 

I'll explain - below are the figures used to "prove" the inflationary effects of the Euro - however as fair comparators, I disagree with a number of them.

Over the comparison period (January 2002 to October 2006), inflation in France stood at 9.1%.

• The price of a kilo of Sole increased by 31% (wasn't there something recently about the scarcity of fish?)
• The price of a litre of unleaded petrol went up by 24% (a small effect has to be expected from the international explosion in the price of crude oil, surely?)
• The price of a consultation with your GP went up by 20% (medical fees are set by law in France - hardly the fault of the Euro)
• The cost of calling in a plumber for an hour rose by 21% (in France, as in the UK, it is exceptionally difficult to find a plumber - that seems more like good old fashioned free market economics to me)
• The price of stamp went up by 17% (again due to Government regulation)
• The price of a woman's haircut rose by 8% (actually below the rate of inflation)
• While the price of a flat screen TV fell by 67% (the wonders of technological innovation)

Let's face it, for pretty well anything it would be difficult to put the blame for an above inflation increase in its price solely at the door of the Euro, but changing the currency was a highly visible step that affected everyone in France.  The Euro is an easy scapegoat for politicians and policy makers, and is another thing to attach Europe with.  What gets me is the blatant misuse of statistics to prove the case, when they can't.

What is transparent, following the introduction of the Euro, is how prices differ across Europe - such as a difference of about 20 cents a litre for diesel between France and Spain.  That is far more likely, particularly around the borders, to fuel resentment of the currency.