This paper examines the growing relationship between universities and corporations in the realm of workforce training and development. It explores cooperative education models, the rise of self-directed learning, and the adoption of distance learning technologies, while also analyzing how business principles such as total quality management and reengineering are being applied within higher education institutions. Drawing on research from the United States and Canada, the paper argues that universities benefit financially and academically from corporate partnerships, while corporations reduce training costs and gain a better-prepared workforce. The paper concludes that closer ties between academia and the corporate world are likely to deepen as technology continues to reshape both learning and the workplace.
The paper effectively uses the "problem-then-solution" rhetorical structure at multiple points. For instance, it identifies the problem of students working while attending school and the associated academic costs, then pivots to cooperative education as a mechanism for converting that liability into an asset. This technique keeps the argument forward-moving and practically oriented throughout.
The paper opens with a broad framing of the university-corporate relationship, then narrows to specific mechanisms: cooperative education, self-directed learning, and distance learning. It then widens again to examine how corporate principles are being adopted by universities themselves, before closing with a synthesis conclusion. This funnel-and-expand structure is appropriate for an applied policy or business education topic at the undergraduate level.
Universities have become more enmeshed in corporate training by providing both undergraduate and post-graduate training for corporate employees. At the same time, universities have learned from this training and have begun applying elements of that discipline to managing their own operations as institutions. The technological revolution has added to the need for more intensive training for corporate employees in order to keep up with new developments, and has also contributed to certain types of training delivery, such as distance education.
Corporate training has become an important element within the university — a way of preparing students for the corporate world and a way to address the needs of business simultaneously. The corporate world has come to recognize the value of such training for its future workforce and is making increasing use of training programs to cut its own costs, both by hiring graduates who have already received relevant training and by funding programs that are seen as more cost-effective than in-house or on-the-job instruction. Corporate training at the university level can often include on-the-job components, as universities provide educational expertise for executives who attend classes as part of continuing education programs.
Direct partnerships between universities and corporations are identified as cooperative education, with the corporation providing some funding while the university supplies the teaching facility and training expertise. Such training has been offered for many specific aspects of corporate operations, and many programs have been created in recent years to address the particular training needs brought about by the growth of technology in the workplace. College classes are clearly a way for executives and other employees to learn more about these technologies and how they fit into current and future corporate operations. In cases where employers do not see the need to conduct such training themselves, it has been noted that "corporate spokespersons concerned about skill development have decried the necessity for employers to conduct education in basic academic subjects and have focused attention on improving schools" (Adler, 1992, p. 151).
Adler also states that the basic view has been that school simply precedes work and that the two are essentially separate. This idea is changing so that, more and more, work and school go together, with many students working part time while attending college. Some see this as a problem that can limit motivation and performance:
"Students who have spent the previous evening at work are sometimes tired in class the next day. Concerns about work may distract attention from school demands. Students who go to work every day do not have to rely on teachers to tell them what the outside world is like, and may therefore be more resistant to teachers' authority. There is evidence that students who work during high school get less postsecondary schooling… although they earn more money after they leave high school… This and other evidence caused Greenberger and Steinberg (1986) to warn that paid employment for students may make them 'economically rich, but… psychologically poor'" (Adler, 1992, p. 161).
However, Adler sees cooperative education as a solution to this problem, noting that the fact that most students are working can be seen as an opportunity to "situate" more learning in the practical context of their jobs:
"For instance, the vocational academies described previously arrange summer jobs for students that are related to the course content they have been studying. This kind of connection reinforces students' motivation at school, and enriches their experience on the job. If such connections were to occur more often, the fact of students' working could be converted from an educational liability to an asset" (Adler, 1992, p. 162).
Many companies have found that some form of continuing education is necessary for employees to keep current with the latest data and methods. Some companies try to provide such training in-house, though this can be costly, and many others have developed cooperative ventures with academicians. Some have called for increased corporate support for education. Two decades ago, some 1,200 cooperative education programs were found to be operating in the United States (Marsh & Roth, 1990, para. 4).
Guglielmino and Murdick (1997) note that the American corporate world spends approximately $59.8 billion each year to offer formal training and development courses to 49.6 million employees, suggesting a need for a better approach to achieving these goals. One such approach is self-directed learning (SDL), used increasingly by U.S. companies for reported savings of twenty to fifty percent. SDL is defined as a process in which "individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies and evaluating learning outcomes" (Knowles, 1990). Such learning can be more effective than classroom learning because the individual participates more directly and takes command of his or her own learning experience.
However, this approach is not ideal for everyone and may be more effective as a secondary element — one that complements what the student learns in a formalized training setting. Peregoy and Kroder (2000) note the growth of distance learning, meaning learning delivered via the Internet, television, or similar technology. One approach is used by a Graduate School of Management founded in 1966 with a target market of employed professionals:
"Eighty percent are full-time workers, while 20% are full-time students, mostly international. During the past 33 years, the school's educational scope has broadened to serve a wider student clientele with 12 different programs, domestic and international partnerships with corporations and other universities, and a larger student and faculty population. It is no stranger to distance learning, having started broadcasting courses in the late 1960s" (para. 2).
Such a distance learning program serves the needs of corporate training by reaching out to employees in different parts of the country. The school reports that this approach is especially effective for the current generation of workers — people who have grown up with technology and who adapt readily to tools like the Internet.
Managers note that today's business environment is rapidly changing. Technology has entered the workplace to a degree never before seen, and the interaction between humans and machines is changing the very nature of work. Increasingly, machines are being used not only to perform tasks that are dangerous for humans, but also tasks that cannot be done as quickly or as effectively by human beings. As a result, today's workers differ from those of the Industrial Age in their knowledge, skills, and expectations, which means that different approaches to management are necessary and that managers now face new challenges. The workforce is simply too vital an element in any business to be given secondary status. Large businesses demonstrate that they recognize the need for better training and orientation, and that developing a more skilled workforce is a key to strategic success. Small businesses should embrace the same recognition, even if the workforce consists of only one or two people. The skills of workers are what the public sees and what the public relies on for better products, better service, and more.
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.