Broad or narrow qualifications?

Post added by Amin Charkazov

The scope of qualifications is mainly limited not to economic policy priorities, but to resources available in a society to support learning of individuals. Decisions of either education authorities or training providers on broad and narrow qualifications depends on economic and education resources available in a society. Broad qualifications are most needed by businesses. Employers want more complex trained staff and are usually tended to hire workers, who are able to perform various tasks.

Is this what the society wants to and can afford?

Mason-plasterer-painter or Painter?

Hairdresser-makeup artist or Hairdresser?

Narrow specialisation can lead to deeper competences, but have a risk of future unemployment. Broad qualifications are believed to be useful in terms of labour market mobility, bailout from potential unemployment and to bring economic benefits (in terms of higher labour productivity). Are economic benefits true for the nationwide/global level?

If a person is educated for hairdresser-makeup artist and if he/she uses both competences throughout the working life then the costs spent in education/training are efficient. But what about if he/she works as a hairdresser and never uses competences in makeup? Skills not applied by a person for a long time are either lost, or changes in technology and work methods make them obsolete. Therefore, the usefulness of broad qualifications is not necessarily true when these qualifications are either not used or underused. If we calculate efficiency of investments in education/training in a certain field, we simply sum income gained throughout working life of that person, or products/services produced in the field and subtract costs spent on education. Why then we do not quantify in monetary terms years of working life, when the acquired qualification is not used (or rarely used) and subtract from the benefits? If we do so, we will see that losses of the society are not only the costs spent for education. We should not neglect alternatives, i.e. resources wasted for a formal qualification (or part of it) not used in the labour market could be spent on skills to be successful in the workplace.

What about focusing the systems on narrow qualifications and lifelong learning competences and opening doors largely for upgrading education/skills development, so a person can acquire additional specific competences whenever needed?

As a conclusion, education policy makers and education managers need to closely consider pros and cons and find a compromise securing an affordable supply of education/training that serves the needs of enterprises and broader competences useful for as many occupations as possible.