Approximately four in 10 employers avoid hiring Gen-Z candidates in favor of older workers, a new survey of 800 U.S. managers, directors, and hiring executives has found. In response to this dreadful statistic, some university professors have cited the “pandemic” and its distancing effect rather than higher education’s inability to adequately prepare students. A top-level executive at Education Design Lab, which works with employers to bridge the student-professionalism gap, condemns young employees for failing to be “self-directed” or to take “the initiative to learn about where they’re working.”
Taken at face value, this information paints a rather bleak picture of Gen Z’s career prospects and the ability of universities to steer their pupils back on course. As it turns out, however, this view substitutes a hasty generalization for a nuanced reality.
Contrary to popular belief, youth across developed nations are experiencing unprecedented employment and wage growth.Contrary to popular belief, youth across developed nations are experiencing unprecedented employment and wage growth. Americans aged 16 to 24 have seen a 13-percent year-over-year increase in hourly pay, marking the highest “young-person premium” on record. Moreover, Gen Z-ers currently boast an annual household income over 50 percent greater than that of baby boomers at a comparable age. Contrary to prevailing narratives, they spend a smaller proportion of their after-tax income on housing and education than did “under-25s from 1989 to 2019.” Of course, this economic success does not negate the need for young people’s improved professionalization during higher education. The question arises, however: Can universities take decisive action to enhance students’ workplace readiness?
The answer is a resounding yes. Universities have the resources to fund classes on public speaking, project management, leadership, team management, and even civil discourse. With career centers and counselors at every institution, it’s clear that higher education already has the capacity to prepare students for the professional world. After all, there is a reason why college has historically been viewed, to quote Dan Rather, as “the key to realizing the American dream.”
A separate question, whether colleges should make employers less wary of Gen Z-ers, necessitates an answer that accounts for both the culture of incivility on college campuses and the evolving job market. At present, most American universities are not fostering civil discourse on their campuses. Everything from the pro-Palestine protests at UNC-Chapel Hill and elsewhere to the shouting down of speakers at Stanford Law School and dozens of other institutions demonstrates this disheartening reality. Universities have taken the perplexing position of pushing students away from one another by adopting official political positions, creating divisive affinity groups, and implementing harsh speech codes. Though generally enacted with idealistic intentions, these programs serve only to cluster like-minded individuals in a manner wholly unrepresentative of the intellectually diverse work environments students will soon inhabit.
Some schools, like UNC-Chapel Hill, have drastically overhauled their approach to civil discourse and intellectual tolerance by creating civic-life schools and mandating courses in the discipline, but these programs are only in their nascent phases and have not yielded any meaningful results as of yet. The laudable development of such programs indicates that schools are getting serious about instilling students with intellectual humility. However, these initiatives will fall short of their goal of re-invigorating the American workforce with civil and hardworking employees unless some demand-side solutions are considered.
Employers perpetuate the problem they seek to snuff out by constantly rewarding students who lack relational dexterity.As noted previously, Gen Z-ers are in the midst of a period of significant economic luxury compared to generations past, largely owing to the growth of STEM opportunities and salaries. While undoubtedly lucrative, these professions often prioritize students’ so-called hard skills or technical expertise over their “soft skills” like teamwork, leadership, and emotional intelligence. Rather perplexingly, employers have begun to chastise universities for not preparing students for the workplace despite the fact that the companies themselves handpicked their applicants over the course of rigorous technical interview processes. Questions of worker availability aside, employers perpetuate the problem they seek to snuff out by constantly rewarding students who lack relational dexterity.
While not a novel solution, it is clear that the only sustainable method for alleviating some of this animosity between universities and employers is to put these soft skills into practice. Instead of assuming a defensive position and blaming universities for their employees’ shortcomings, employers should consider looking inward by re-evaluating their hiring practices. Similarly, universities should continue expanding their civil-discourse programs to further cultivate soft skills within their students. In other words, the best way to bridge a gap in professionalism is for industry leaders and universities alike to cultivate the people they hope to attract.
Sherman Criner is a junior at Duke University studying public policy, history, and political science.