Showing posts with label UWM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UWM. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Thursday, February 21, 2013
The Mythological Skills Gap
Beyond the anecdotes of local employers, the Wisconsin and Milwaukee labor markets show no statistical evidence of a skills shortage:
Wages: If Wisconsin employers were encountering a shortage of skilled labor, wages would be going up, but in Wisconsin real wages have declined since 2000. By contrast, in states such as North Dakota and Wyoming, where there really is demand for and a shortage of skilled labor, caused by a boom in the energy sector, real wages have jumped by double digits since 2000. Wisconsin wage "growth" also lags the national rate, another sign that there is no labor shortage here.
Hours: In contrast to states with tight labor markets such as North Dakota, there is no evidence that Wisconsin employers are adding hours to their existing workforce, to compensate for an alleged skilled labor shortage. Average weekly hours worked in Wisconsin are down 4.3 percent compared to 2000.
Occupational Projections: Although promoters of the skills gap idea claim that the skills requirements of future jobs will vastly outstrip the skills and education of Wisconsin workers, occupational projections for the state reveal that 70 percent of projected openings through 2020 will be in jobs requiring a high school diploma or less.
Underemployment and Workforce Overqualification: In reality, Wisconsin and Milwaukee suffer from the opposite of a skills gap: an economy that generates too few quality jobs and a labor market that is characterized by the underemployment and overqualification of skilled and educated workers. 25 percent of Milwaukee's retail salespersons hold college degrees (up from 11 percent in 2000); 60 percent of Wisconsin's parking lot attendants have had some post-secondary education. The "job gap" has created a skills mismatch of sorts in the Wisconsin and Milwaukee labor markets, but it is the inverse of the one commonly put forward: it is a mismatch of too many highly educated workers chasing too few "good jobs."
Rising Human Capital: Contrary to skills gap rhetoric, educational attainment has increased dramatically in Wisconsin and Milwaukee over the past decades. Nearly 90 percent of Milwaukee's adult population holds a high school diploma (up from 50 percent in 1970), and 31 percent hold at least a bachelor's degree (up from 11 percent in 1970). Gains in UW-Milwaukee The Skills Gap and Unemployment in Wisconsin 6 educational attainment have occurred for all racial and ethnic groups. All data point to consistently rising human capital formation in Wisconsin and Milwaukee.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Where The Bread Is Buttered
It seems blind faith and self-interest has paid off well for Michael R. Lovell, dean of the UWM College of Engineering and Applied Science. He was behind Carlos Santiago's growth plan and a supporter of "a massive infusion of investment dollars into his department." Now that Santiago is leaving, Lovell has been appointed interim chancellor. I guess the movers-and-shakers behind the growth plan feel Lovell knows the talking-points well enough to see this boondoggle through.
Professor Marc Levine, UWM history and urban studies professor, has shown that the entrepreneurial growth strategy centered on a university is largely an illusion. Yet, the Journal Sentinel is again pushing the idea that this initiative will be a huge spin-off and job creator. All based on purely anecdotal evidence.
The media and the well-connected always gripe about public spending, public employees, and any project that actually tries to do good and help workers and those in need. We can't do it. It's too much. We can't afford the debt. But when it's a playground for the rich, a research park, or some other speculative white elephant, we can't afford not to do it.
I'm all for the expansion and development of UWM as a university and research hub. But much of this growth plan should be tweaked, moved, or discontinued. Some of this funding could obviously be better spent, especially now, during these tough fiscal times.
For Further Reading:
College: Cash Cows?
Don't Stop Believing
Water Down Corporate Accountability
Professor Marc Levine, UWM history and urban studies professor, has shown that the entrepreneurial growth strategy centered on a university is largely an illusion. Yet, the Journal Sentinel is again pushing the idea that this initiative will be a huge spin-off and job creator. All based on purely anecdotal evidence.
The media and the well-connected always gripe about public spending, public employees, and any project that actually tries to do good and help workers and those in need. We can't do it. It's too much. We can't afford the debt. But when it's a playground for the rich, a research park, or some other speculative white elephant, we can't afford not to do it.
I'm all for the expansion and development of UWM as a university and research hub. But much of this growth plan should be tweaked, moved, or discontinued. Some of this funding could obviously be better spent, especially now, during these tough fiscal times.
For Further Reading:
College: Cash Cows?
Don't Stop Believing
Water Down Corporate Accountability
Monday, January 18, 2010
Don't Stop Believing
PBS recently broadcast Milwaukee Water 2015. Mike Gousha spoke with Mayor Tom Barrett and UWM chancellor Carlos Santiago regarding Milwaukee's water hub endeavor and economic development, in general.
Dr. Santiago expressed the opinion that anyone disagreeing with/questioning the "Milwaukee as a water hub" meme was not being helpful and is a pessimist who believes Milwaukee can't "turn it around."
It's not that such initiatives have not worked in the majority of other cases and therefore some are skeptical of Milwaukee/UWM putting all their eggs in this one basket. No, that's not it. These doubters just don't have hope. They don't believe in Milwaukee. They're unwilling to take a chance on Milwaukee.
Is this really the debate? Hope-ers versus Doubt-ers? Or is chancellor Santiago using childish smear tactics to avoid the well-supported critiques of the skeptics. He appears to be attacking the messengers and not their message.
It doesn't matter to Santiago that such initiatives don't work more often than they do work.
Maybe we should have a broader investment initiative, rather than just a few magic bullets prefaced on hope.
[I do agree with a Mayor Barrett regarding a framing issue: we should be labeling ourselves The Fresh Coast rather than allowing others to call us The Rust Belt.]
For Further Reading:
Colleges: Cash Cows?
Save Our City
Watering Down Corporate Accountability
Dr. Santiago expressed the opinion that anyone disagreeing with/questioning the "Milwaukee as a water hub" meme was not being helpful and is a pessimist who believes Milwaukee can't "turn it around."
It's not that such initiatives have not worked in the majority of other cases and therefore some are skeptical of Milwaukee/UWM putting all their eggs in this one basket. No, that's not it. These doubters just don't have hope. They don't believe in Milwaukee. They're unwilling to take a chance on Milwaukee.
Is this really the debate? Hope-ers versus Doubt-ers? Or is chancellor Santiago using childish smear tactics to avoid the well-supported critiques of the skeptics. He appears to be attacking the messengers and not their message.
It doesn't matter to Santiago that such initiatives don't work more often than they do work.
Maybe we should have a broader investment initiative, rather than just a few magic bullets prefaced on hope.
[I do agree with a Mayor Barrett regarding a framing issue: we should be labeling ourselves The Fresh Coast rather than allowing others to call us The Rust Belt.]
For Further Reading:
Colleges: Cash Cows?
Save Our City
Watering Down Corporate Accountability
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Save Our City
We are finally beginning to publicly discuss UWM's "entrepreneurial" strategy, specifically their proposed engineering school on County grounds near Wauwatosa. Too bad much of the dialogue is condescending and superficial. The cabal of power brokers hell-bent on pushing forward with the suburban location are rather dismissive and disdainful of anyone questioning such a move.
Their well-reasoned and sound analysis, supporting such a suburban locale, comes in such stellar verifications as, "may offer," "difficult to measure," and "there is no guarantee that new research will bear fruit." Alongside such airtight assurances, platitudes such as, "Milwaukee needs to take a risk," and "we have to get in the game," are paraded out by sympathetic cheerleaders.
The "long-term potential is very strong," claims Rita Cheng, UWM vice chancellor for academic affairs. Just saying so, they seem to feel, makes it so. And, in the same article, Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel reports Michael Lovell, dean of UWM's College of Engineering and Applied Science, agrees. What a surprise that the dean of an engineering school would agree with an massive infusion of investment dollars into his department.
Their sloganeering and incessant boosterism is reminiscent of the lottery: "You gotta get in it, if you want to win it!" The problem is, the chances of UWM and Milwaukee winning with this investment are similar to the odds of actually winning the lottery. Faced with an actual analysis revealing the experience of the majority of universities over the past few decades attempting an "entrepreneurial" strategy has been a poor return on their investment, the cabal, like Pollyanna, bury their collective head in the sand and reaffirm, Stick To The Plan.
For an urban university to march forward with expansion plans in the suburbs, in this age of environmental awareness, borders on criminal. Growing within the City and encouraging others to do such...talk about an opportunity to have a long-lasting, sustainable, and community-friendly impact.
There is nothing quite as intellectually dishonest as academics, supposedly schooled in the scientific method, showing an aversion to data collection and analysis, open debate, and allowing the research to lead us to the most optimal conclusions. No. The cheerleaders will have none of that.
The Journal Sentinel editorial, as usual, is right behind, beating the drum. They believe UWM is "right to stick to the plan." They never corroborate why UWM must stay the course, provide any research findings or data collection of their own, or quantify why this facility, at this location, is a can't-miss and a must-do for Milwaukee.
The Journal editorial is a collection of anecdotes. The Journal, along with fellow boosters, completely ignores the actual return other universities have experienced regarding such developments [not] initiating collaborative efforts and [nor] attracting venture capital. All this in addition to the fact that the other supposed outcomes these snakeoil salesmen are promising have not been the results for the majority of other universities.
This doesn't mean not to build new facilities somewhere, or that the programs are somehow undeserving of investment. But maybe they can be scaled back a bit. Let's possibly revitalize older buildings or blighted strips in older neighborhoods of the city. (Which could spur investment in the most needy areas of the city, while also moving the university forward.) The investment could also be spread out over more of the departments at the university, capitalizing on numerous strengths, rather than putting all the eggs in one or two baskets.
There are more options available. There is no need to rush ahead with the suburban proposal. The University and the City need to look at this a bit more carefully before they make any decisions that will affect our City and it's largest public university for many generations to come.
Their well-reasoned and sound analysis, supporting such a suburban locale, comes in such stellar verifications as, "may offer," "difficult to measure," and "there is no guarantee that new research will bear fruit." Alongside such airtight assurances, platitudes such as, "Milwaukee needs to take a risk," and "we have to get in the game," are paraded out by sympathetic cheerleaders.
The "long-term potential is very strong," claims Rita Cheng, UWM vice chancellor for academic affairs. Just saying so, they seem to feel, makes it so. And, in the same article, Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel reports Michael Lovell, dean of UWM's College of Engineering and Applied Science, agrees. What a surprise that the dean of an engineering school would agree with an massive infusion of investment dollars into his department.
Their sloganeering and incessant boosterism is reminiscent of the lottery: "You gotta get in it, if you want to win it!" The problem is, the chances of UWM and Milwaukee winning with this investment are similar to the odds of actually winning the lottery. Faced with an actual analysis revealing the experience of the majority of universities over the past few decades attempting an "entrepreneurial" strategy has been a poor return on their investment, the cabal, like Pollyanna, bury their collective head in the sand and reaffirm, Stick To The Plan.
For an urban university to march forward with expansion plans in the suburbs, in this age of environmental awareness, borders on criminal. Growing within the City and encouraging others to do such...talk about an opportunity to have a long-lasting, sustainable, and community-friendly impact.
There is nothing quite as intellectually dishonest as academics, supposedly schooled in the scientific method, showing an aversion to data collection and analysis, open debate, and allowing the research to lead us to the most optimal conclusions. No. The cheerleaders will have none of that.
The Journal Sentinel editorial, as usual, is right behind, beating the drum. They believe UWM is "right to stick to the plan." They never corroborate why UWM must stay the course, provide any research findings or data collection of their own, or quantify why this facility, at this location, is a can't-miss and a must-do for Milwaukee.
The Journal editorial is a collection of anecdotes. The Journal, along with fellow boosters, completely ignores the actual return other universities have experienced regarding such developments [not] initiating collaborative efforts and [nor] attracting venture capital. All this in addition to the fact that the other supposed outcomes these snakeoil salesmen are promising have not been the results for the majority of other universities.
This doesn't mean not to build new facilities somewhere, or that the programs are somehow undeserving of investment. But maybe they can be scaled back a bit. Let's possibly revitalize older buildings or blighted strips in older neighborhoods of the city. (Which could spur investment in the most needy areas of the city, while also moving the university forward.) The investment could also be spread out over more of the departments at the university, capitalizing on numerous strengths, rather than putting all the eggs in one or two baskets.
There are more options available. There is no need to rush ahead with the suburban proposal. The University and the City need to look at this a bit more carefully before they make any decisions that will affect our City and it's largest public university for many generations to come.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Colleges: Cash Cows?
Marc Levine (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee history and urban studies professor) has released a report, The False Promise of the Entrepreneurial University, questioning the validity, efficacy, and opportunity cost of UWM's 'university as economic engine' development strategy.
He is not stipulating that universities do not have any affect on economic development outcomes for their surrounding areas. As some have wrongfully, stunningly, and incoherently ranted. He merely shows the data which - when measured by a variety of socioeconomic indicators - exposes few of those whom have attempted such a strategy have reaped benefits to justify the cost.
John Torinus - Serigraph Inc. chairman and tax-avoider, and Journal Sentinel business-class mouth-piece - belittles the research. He sites Madison's University Research Park as one such 'entrepreneurial university' project that has worked, and therefore, forget the numerous examples and statistics that Levine has gathered, we should continue blindly moving forward, pumping money into ill-conceived, poorly planned, and empirically unsubstantiated ventures. Facts and well-reasoned discussion be damned!
John Wiley, chancellor emeritus University of Wisconsin-Madison, takes swipes at the research. Using much of the same anecdotal, status quo-clinging, vested-interest, economic development talking-points that have been mistakenly used over and over again in city after city.
I also see many commenters, whom I have to assume only bothered to read Levine's Journal Sentinel piece and not his full report, complaining that Professor Levine doesn't acknowledge UW-Madison's successes. Although, he mentions Madison numerous times in his report.
Simply wishing and hoping to be like another university (in this case, Madison) that has achieved entrepreneurial success, or throwing money at a "good bet," does not automatically make it happen. Taking risks can pay off. There are always risks in investing. But most want to minimize their risk and not just do something for the sake of doing something.
Also, I'm always a bit perplexed by those knocking the research of academics - the "cheap seats" as John Torinus put it. Or as one commenter said about Levine, "...directs a few campus centers and does not appear to have any major leadership experiences." Directing an academic center is not leadership? Who teaches those whom will become managers, executives and CEOs? Isn't it academics and professors? If professors don't know what they're talking about and they're not "leaders," why are we investing in the engineering and Water Institute professors? After all, they come from the "cheap seats," too.
Attack the message, not the messenger. If one can find holes in the methodology and analysis, fine, pick it apart. But to try and demean Professor Levine because he has raised questions regarding UWM's development proposal is childish and does nothing to substantively address the concerns he has documented.
UWM is on the right track in many regards. The University has made great strides in academics and in the community over the last few decades. But that doesn't absolve them from criticism and open discussion of their policies and community investment decisions.
Many detractors have made this into a Levine versus Santiago melodrama. That's too bad. The real point should be a discussion about what is the proper amount to invest, where, and toward what activities. Levine's research indicates we may want to look at other options for our limited investment dollars. We do not have to simply jump at any idea Mr. Santiago, his associated commercial interests, and the cabal of local power brokers pushes forward.
[Disclosure: I was formerly employed by the Center for Economic Development under the directorship of Marc Levine.]
He is not stipulating that universities do not have any affect on economic development outcomes for their surrounding areas. As some have wrongfully, stunningly, and incoherently ranted. He merely shows the data which - when measured by a variety of socioeconomic indicators - exposes few of those whom have attempted such a strategy have reaped benefits to justify the cost.
John Torinus - Serigraph Inc. chairman and tax-avoider, and Journal Sentinel business-class mouth-piece - belittles the research. He sites Madison's University Research Park as one such 'entrepreneurial university' project that has worked, and therefore, forget the numerous examples and statistics that Levine has gathered, we should continue blindly moving forward, pumping money into ill-conceived, poorly planned, and empirically unsubstantiated ventures. Facts and well-reasoned discussion be damned!
John Wiley, chancellor emeritus University of Wisconsin-Madison, takes swipes at the research. Using much of the same anecdotal, status quo-clinging, vested-interest, economic development talking-points that have been mistakenly used over and over again in city after city.
I also see many commenters, whom I have to assume only bothered to read Levine's Journal Sentinel piece and not his full report, complaining that Professor Levine doesn't acknowledge UW-Madison's successes. Although, he mentions Madison numerous times in his report.
Simply wishing and hoping to be like another university (in this case, Madison) that has achieved entrepreneurial success, or throwing money at a "good bet," does not automatically make it happen. Taking risks can pay off. There are always risks in investing. But most want to minimize their risk and not just do something for the sake of doing something.
Also, I'm always a bit perplexed by those knocking the research of academics - the "cheap seats" as John Torinus put it. Or as one commenter said about Levine, "...directs a few campus centers and does not appear to have any major leadership experiences." Directing an academic center is not leadership? Who teaches those whom will become managers, executives and CEOs? Isn't it academics and professors? If professors don't know what they're talking about and they're not "leaders," why are we investing in the engineering and Water Institute professors? After all, they come from the "cheap seats," too.
Attack the message, not the messenger. If one can find holes in the methodology and analysis, fine, pick it apart. But to try and demean Professor Levine because he has raised questions regarding UWM's development proposal is childish and does nothing to substantively address the concerns he has documented.
UWM is on the right track in many regards. The University has made great strides in academics and in the community over the last few decades. But that doesn't absolve them from criticism and open discussion of their policies and community investment decisions.
Many detractors have made this into a Levine versus Santiago melodrama. That's too bad. The real point should be a discussion about what is the proper amount to invest, where, and toward what activities. Levine's research indicates we may want to look at other options for our limited investment dollars. We do not have to simply jump at any idea Mr. Santiago, his associated commercial interests, and the cabal of local power brokers pushes forward.
[Disclosure: I was formerly employed by the Center for Economic Development under the directorship of Marc Levine.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)