From Manufacturer to Coder: How Is The United States Preparing Its Workforce For The Professions Of The Future?
October 09, 2017
By Juan Diego López Rodríguez
With this prospect for the U.S., the audience has turned to the education sector to inquire how it is preparing its workforce for the jobs that students will hold in the future. This is a difficult task, when it is uncertain what professions, jobs, or even skills will be needed.  Although projections changed in terms of what skills will be necessary for the future, it seems that digital literacy will become more important, that teachers want to be trained in it, and that it will improve business.  This motivates the question of what are public and private initiatives doing to embed digital literacy in schools and training programs. Although the push for apprenticeships of the current administration might seem troublesome for preparing its labor force for the future—if these are mostly in the manufacturing sector—another public-sector initiative, the 2016 National Education Technology Plan, has yielded positive results in digitalizing more classrooms and teaching, having students become comfortable with the use of technology. Furthermore, there is a predicted rise in private sector education-technology investment, which will give more opportunities for students to develop digital literacy.
The model of the economy influences the type of jobs that become available for students. The past two administrations expanded funding for apprenticeships, which last usually for two years or longer and give on-the-job training. This might be worrisome since, as Thomas Friedman has pointed out, going to school for a few years and be prepared for the next 30 is outdated.  Currently, the most common professions for apprenticeships are electricians, plumbers, carpenters, and construction workers. Last year the investment was $250 million and this year, there was an increase of $200 million in new funding for apprenticeships in fields like healthcare, information technology and manufacturing.  Although apprenticeships are becoming more involved with technology to what extent are they preparing workers for rapid technological advancements, where the competencies that they have might not be useful in less than a decade?
Enter basic education initiatives. The 2016 National Education Technology Plan (NETP) has promoted the use of technology for education in the U.S. There has been an increase in the number of schools that have access to broadband in their classrooms, in a greater variety and lower costs of technology, on data security and digital citizenship, in the arrival of new research on the use of technology by early learners, and professional development for teachers in technology before they enter the classroom.  All in all, the NETP aims at preparing future high-school graduate to be more attuned with technology than they were years ago, which will make it easier to adapt if professions require the use of digital literacy. Another big player has been private initiatives, where there has been surge in investment in education technology.
The graph above demonstrates the increase in investment that educational technology has experienced in the past decade and a half.  There was a surge for PreK-12 and Post-Secondary Learning Technology in 2015, and forecasting seems to say it will increase in the near future.  It is supposed to grow $252 billion globally by 2020.  These investments have developed personalized and adaptive technologies, solving the renowned problem of providing individual feedback so that students can be taught differently. Some of these personalized improvement practice programs have increased productivity significantly.  In general, again, the idea is to get students to be more attuned with technology.
In higher education, an initiative from the private sector to incentivize the entry to technology apprenticeships has been the “skills-based” approach in hiring. Supported by Microsoft, the idea is that employers don’t hire over college degrees, work history, or personal references, but over skills. These websites train workers on specific skills, and also filter employees based on this.  In IBM, for instance, a third of the new hires don’t have four-year college degrees.
Both the public and private sector are reacting to the demand of digital literacy in education. Apprenticeships for technology have increased, more technology in the classroom is already a reality, and new training for teachers on technology is a way in which digital literacy will continue to improve to prepare workers for jobs for the future—If jobs exist in the future.
Student Blog Disclaimer
The views expressed on the Student Blog are the author’s opinions and don’t necessarily represent the Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative’s strategies, recommendations, or opinions.
Picture this: you’re tired of the spam in your inbox, so you download a new app for your browser that blocks it. While downloading, the Terms of Agreement pop up, and you click ‘Agree’ – because why wouldn’t you? Unbeknownst to you, while you are now enjoying your spam-free email, the Slice Technologies app is analyzing your emails for purchase receipts and selling this anonymized data to hedge funds. Is that an invasion of privacy? Not quite, as you agreed to the terms. But why would hedge funds, and other investment advisers, want this information? Well, with this kind of alternative data, investment firms can make much more accurate predictions about a company’s sales revenue and its health. This new world of alternative data poses incredible alpha-creating potential for investment advisers, as well as new legal concerns for the courts and regulators.
American law enforcement agencies are advocating that technology companies be forced to compromise the encryption used in their products, to facilitate ongoing investigations. Encryption is the computational tool used to protect every American’s digital communications and data from eavesdropping and tampering, and it plays a vital role in our economy and national security. A misguided attempt to weaken encryption would only damage our national interests, both with respect to economic wellbeing and business security. Hackers and foreign nations will target the introduced weaknesses, domestic firms’ ability to build and export security innovations will decrease, and the American competitive advantage in the technology sector will be lessened.
The legacy of the Silk Road is acting as inspiration for what President Xi Jinping calls the “project of the century.” Yi dai yi lu, or “One Belt One Road” (OBOR), is Xi’s signature foreign policy enterprise: a commitment of more than $1 trillion for Chinese development banks to invest in a sweeping Eurasian and African infrastructure initiative. OBOR operates both as a result of recent economic trends in China and as a milestone in Chinese foreign policy. The plan creates an outlet for Chinese products which are outgrowing domestic demand, but also has significant geopolitical potential. This article will examine OBOR and its consequences on Chinese partnerships across Eurasia and Africa and also how the results of this project relate to US foreign policy.
Where Do You Draw the Line? Exploring Antitrust Enforcement and the Regulation of Big Business in Modern AmericaIn towns and cities across America, mom and pop shops seem to be closing down at a rampant rate. It is no secret that as America moves further into the 21st century, consolidation is placing more power in the hands of fewer companies. With billion dollar companies becoming the norm and giants like Target and Walmart seemingly on every corner, it becomes hard to understand the dynamics of today’s complex economy. There is a strong argument against big businesses; it is bad for the average consumer and allowing companies to grow only allows them more ability to exercise their advantage and prey on consumers. On the other side, there is compelling theory that with healthy competition, big business expedites innovation and optimizes production in ways small companies cannot, which results in lower prices and a more efficient consumer experience. Within this environment, the regulation of big business is known as antitrust law and as the economy grows more complex, so does the enforcement of these laws in America.
Land-use regulation usually comes in the form of permits or codes, and is intended “to ensure [that] private use of land resources [is] aligned with policy standards.” In other words, it is a way for the government to control how certain privately-owned areas are used. There are clear benefits associated with these permits and codes – for instance, they may help ensure the preservation of a particularly historic area of a town. That said, land regulation also triggers some economic collateral concerns that are often overlooked, such as lost business profits and a widening income gap.
The 2000 presidential election posed countless issues, including butterfly ballots, partially punched cards, four to six million lost votes, and outraged citizens across the political spectrum. These issues led California Institute of Technology president David Baltimore and Massachusetts Institute of Technology president Charles Vest to approach the election technology failure more scientifically. With a team of computer scientists, mechanical engineers, and political scientists, they reimagined—and reengineered—the election process. Although Baltimore and Vest pioneered advancements in the election process, the reliability of voting infrastructure today still remains questionable. As we approach the upcoming election cycle this Fall, policy and technology experts must come together to rectify a failing system.
Despite a modest decline in private vehicle ownership in the last four years, many Americans still employ cars as their primary mode of transportation. Comparisons among census trends in the past few decades indicate that private vehicles amassed popularity among American households following more extensive car-centric city planning beginning in the early 1960s.
At the end of the last century, the digital revolution ushered in technological advancements that most consumers would not want to live without. Information and communication technology (ICT), such as computers, cell phones and the Internet, have proliferated worldwide entering our homes, offices and classrooms.  However, while the expansion of this technology has been impressive, it has not been even. At both the national and global levels, access to ICT is still far from universal and its disparity reflects and exacerbates the inequalities that exist offline. According to the International Telecommunications Union, the Internet user gender gap was as high as 31% in some developing countries and 12% globally in 2016.  As ICT becomes increasingly important, those left behind face growing socioeconomic barriers. This is what is known as the digital divide. People unfamiliar or unable to access ICTs are disadvantaged when trying to enter higher paid jobs, join solidarity networks, utilize educational information and accrue cultural capital.
Kaylee Heffelfinger of Arizona and Shahriar Jabbari of California had sued Wells Fargo for opening seven unauthorized bank accounts in their names, but their lawsuits were dismissed due to analogous mandatory arbitration clauses. Their cases were part of a larger scandal in which Wells Fargo opened at least 3.5 million unauthorized accounts on behalf of their customers but then astonishingly held those customers to the mandatory arbitration clauses they had signed for their legitimate accounts. Given the harm that mandatory arbitration may cause consumers, it is critical for policymakers to consider the implications of mandatory arbitration.
In June of 2016, former Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter removed one of the final barriers to military service by announcing new rules that would allow transgender individuals to openly serve in the military. Prior to this, transgender people would have been discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for their gender under Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 6130.03: Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services. Just one year later, in July 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted that the U.S. “will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military” because the military “must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail”.