Occupation-Specific Versus General Education and Training

John Bishop

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1998, vol. 559, issue 1, 24-38

Abstract: In this article, John Bishop summarizes research from many sources concerning the current debate over occupation-specific versus general education and training. He argues against a recommendation made by the Economist magazine that government scale back its support of school-based occupation-specific training and instead focus on academic education. Research shows, to the contrary, that productivity derives directly from social abilities (such as good work habits and people skills) and cognitive skills that are specific to the job and occupation, not from reading, writing, and mathematics skills. Old skills are becoming obsolete more rapidly, so new skills must be learned more frequently. This implies a greater overall need for occupational training, not a reduced need. The rise in job turnover has made employers more reluctant to hire inexperienced workers and provide them skill training, so the need for school-based vocational training has never been greater. Occupational turnover has been declining, so the payback period of occupational skills has been rising.

Date: 1998
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716298559001003 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:anname:v:559:y:1998:i:1:p:24-38

DOI: 10.1177/0002716298559001003

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().