The EU and China: The Race for Talent: The Relevance and Responsiveness of Education and Training

Talent

To be able to compete in a globalised economy, Europe’s strategic policy has focused for over a decade on upgrading the quality and innovative character of Europe’s production by enhancing innovation, developing knowledge-intensive economic sectors and producing high value-added goods. The quality and outcomes of education and training are key elements in reaching these goals. At the policy level, Europe is focusing on upgrading and updating Europeans’ knowledge skills and competencies to ensure that they can make a successful contribution to the quality of European society, economy and their personal lives. Moreover, in Europe there is an economic rationale for ensuring high quality education for all. As the European population ages, there is an urgent need for everyone to contribute high levels of employment and increased productivity levels in order to maintain the viability of the social ‘safety-net’ for individuals in economic down-turns. According to the Europe 2020 agenda, education and training are expected to contribute to the three pillars of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

In China, the focus on developing education and training should be viewed in the context of China’s 12th Five Year Plan (2011-2015). In this plan, China embraced economic restructuring and upgrading as the main priority for economic and social development. The objective of this plan is to move the country towards a modern industrial system characterised by advanced science and technology, rationalised structure, clean, safe and high value-added production, and a strong capacity to generate employment. Policy makers have publicly expressed a desire to move away from “made in China” to “designed in China.”

While in this study we consider the relevance and responsiveness of education and training to the labour market, we acknowledge that the quality of education cannot be reduced simply to how education and training systems meet labour market needs. Education and training have a much broader role in the personal and social development of individuals. China and Europe both recognize this reality. Nevertheless, we recognize that the transition from education and training to the labour market is an important rite of passage which education and training can prepare young people for. In Europe and China, there is an urgent need to bring the relevance of education and training into alignment with labour market realities.

Relevance and Responsiveness

In this study, the relevance of education and training is considered as the extent to which education and training systems help young people develop the knowledge, skills and competences that are needed in the labour market in the short term, and will enable them to keep on developing and adapting to new situations and requirements over time. While in the labour market, skill shortages are an immediate problem which impacts negatively on performance and productivity, the education and training systems prepare people not only for an immediate transition to employment but also for a long term professional pathway. This pathway may contain several transitions not only between employers but also between professions and economic sectors. Consequently, from the perspective of relevance, education and training is seen in a broader scope as one of the vehicles for innovation in the economy and society. In addition to giving young people the attributes which will make them more likely to think and act innovatively, it can also give them the opportunity to become familiar with recent technological and scientific advancements which they will be able to use in their professional activities but which are not yet perceived as gaps or shortages in the labour market.

To understand the problems encountered and the differences in relevance of education and training systems in Europe and China, this research interviewed people who are knowledgeable about: 1) the current labour market shortages in terms of professional profiles; 2) the type of knowledge, skills, competences and attitudes that graduates were lacking not only for their immediate jobs but also for their development; and 3) the differences in profiles in terms of competences and attitudes between graduates in Europe and China.

Responsiveness is understood to be the capacity of education and training institutions to adapt to labour market requirements now and possibly to anticipate them in the future. The focus of this study was on actions at the level of educational institutions and companies and the main goal was to identify what actions could be developed by the actors on the ground. The assumption was that responsiveness is a shared responsibility between the education and training institutions and the labour market actors (be it employers directly or their representatives) and that each has a specific role to play in this process. It cannot be expected that education and training will ‘supply’ individuals who will immediately have the competences of experienced professionals. There is a trade-off to be had between the role of education and training in preparing people for employment and also for social involvement and personal development and that of enterprises’ human resources policies and activities to recruit, retain and promote talent within an organisation. Therefore the topic of responsiveness was analysed from a micro-level from the perspective of higher education institutions and industrial organistions. Questions asked with regard to responsiveness concerned the following: 1) cooperation between education and training institutions and employers; 2) the role of learning methods, learning activities and of mobility in enabling learners to develop the appropriate competence-set; and 3) actions by employers to support the continuous training of staff.

Main Differences between Europe and China in Graduate Profiles

The people interviewed for this study were asked to reflect on the similarities and differences they perceived in knowledge, skills and competences between students and graduates from Europe and China. The interviewees from China and Europe had very similar perspectives on these issues. Both appreciated in the same way the strengths and weaknesses of education and training systems in Europe and China. In particular cases, of course, the distribution of knowledge, skills and competence differ radically from the generalized, somewhat stereotyped picture provided here, but few of the interviewees actually provided information that would contradict the general overall picture.

Knowledge within a Given Discipline

From early on, China’s education system emphasizes the acquisition of a strong foundation in quantitative skills and calculating solutions to complex problems. This is, in fact, an important criterion for further selection and access to higher levels of education. As a result, Chinese students tend to excel generally in theoretical knowledge in their discipline and have particularly strong foundations in quantitative and technical skills. They are proficient in calculating math based solutions to problems. Their quantitative knowledge is, in general, superior to the European students.

European students, on the other hand, tend to develop more specialized knowledge within a given discipline and have more opportunities to focus more closely on their individual interests. The Chinese higher education system is based on a more generalist approach which requires graduates to master a ‘standardized package’ of knowledge in a given field of study. Except in quantitative skills, the theoretical knowledge of the European and Chinese students and graduates is generally equally up-to date and broadly comparable.

The Application of Knowledge to Practical Situations and Problem Solving

European students and graduates show greater flexibility in finding appropriate ways to apply their theoretical knowledge to concrete operational problems. Chinese students and graduates are less flexible in moving from theory to practice. In general, students in China have fewer opportunities during their studies to apply the theoretical knowledge they learn to practice than their European counter-parts, though this is not the case as much in disciplines where laboratory work is a standard requirement. In addition, the European education systems seem to put less emphasis on memorization and rote learning. They give priority to the analytical process and the demonstration of results.

European students tend to demonstrate a greater facility for grasping situations with multiple unknown variables. Chinese students and graduates on the other hand excel in solving problems with which they are more familiar. They perform less well than European students when faced with new problems. Since the learning approach in China emphasizes memorization and problem solving exercises within a known framework, the Chinese students tend develop excellent skills and proficiency in solving theoretical and text-book problems when they have mastered previously the normative problem solving process for that area. They are often more efficient than their European counter-parts in problem solving for these types of problems.

Foreign Language Skills

Generally speaking, European students have better foreign language skills than their Chinese counter-parts. This is not surprising. Europe is a multicultural and multi-linguistic region where exposure to foreign languages (especially English) is greater than in China, Due to the strong emphasis on English teaching beginning early in compulsory education in China, Chinese students who have studied abroad develop a foundation for rapidly improving their English language skills. On the other hand, many European students struggle in their study of Chinese.

Learning to Learn

European students, though not given to memorization, develop a more analytical approach to learning. They are more likely to learn by doing or learning through dialogue. Chinese students, by contrast, have excellent memorization strategies and are very strong in rote learning. They demonstrate a strong willingness to acquire new knowledge by memorization and rote. This learning approach is at the heart of their learning process from early in primary school.

Soft Skills

Generally speaking European students and graduates have better developed soft skills such as communication, teamwork and management than their counterparts in China. European students are expected to be strong in communication and presentations skills. They learn collaboration and teamwork by working routinely in groups. They also have good preparation in negotiating skills, which are privileged in higher education throughout Europe. Chinese higher education has a strong tradition of written culture. Students have very few opportunities to develop their communication skills. Similarly, as they are required to work individually, Chinese students have very few opportunities to develop their collaborative and teamwork skills.

Autonomy and Related Management Skills

All the Chinese and European interviewees agreed that the system in European higher education tends to be more autonomous for students. In Europe it is not uncommon for students to work while studying which reinforces and strengthens their autonomy. Moreover, the teaching and learning approach encourages students to take the initiative autonomously for organizing their time and planning their learning. It has to be mentioned though that this learning style does not fit everyone’s needs. It may have a direct correlation to higher drop-out rates in Europe. In China, by comparison, students tend to work in a more clearly defined framework with clear tasks to do. Students in China are less comfortable working autonomously. As a result, higher education graduates tend to have less developed management skills in planning, communication and interaction with fellow employees.

Labor Market Demand for Employee Competences and Profiles

The situation with regard to shortages of qualified and/or experienced staff in Europe varies greatly across countries. In some countries, the difficulties in recruiting people with the right competences are rather low (for example in Ireland and the UK), especially in Europe’s “depressed” labor markets over the past few years. In countries like Poland or Romania, on the other hand, the availability of professionals is more problematic. When it comes to higher education graduates in Europe, the vast majority of employers are generally satisfied with the graduates’ competences. The competences that they value particularly highly include those discussed above: teamwork, sector-specific knowledge and skills, communication, adaptability (partly related to applying knowledge to practical situations) and problem solving. In addition, ICT skills and writing skills, which were not specifically discussed in the interviews carried out for this study, are highly valued. In Europe, there are shortages in certain economic sectors and professions (health care and engineering for example). There is a shortage of people interested in mathematics, science and engineering fields, which is not the case in China. This reflects the observation made above that many European higher education students are not as at ease with handling figures as Chinese students. At the same time, the shortages in certain sectors are only partly linked to the relevance of education and training system outcomes and are also influenced by the lack of attractiveness of given professions or working conditions.

In China, employers tend to value the same types of competences as in Europe. This is especially the case for multinational companies and joint ventures. There are some differences as to what competences matter for state owned Chinese enterprises, companies with foreign investment and Chinese privately owned companies. The latter have in general lower expectations in terms of transversal and soft skills than the other two groups. All three types of employers, however, report that the supply of competences such as working in teams, leadership, management skills, communication, problem solving or ability to innovate usually fall well below their expectations. The people interviewed for this study indicated their awareness of the following types of shortages in China’s labor market.

Senior managers: Lack of these types of professionals is also explained by the transformation of the Chinese labor market and the introduction of a meritocratic approach for promotion to management positions (rather than promotion based solely on seniority). Quite commonly, people who have the technical skills do not have the competence to effectively manage colleagues.

People to work in research and development centres: While the supply of people with excellent technical knowledge in China is good, work in a research and development centre of a multinational company requires more than the mastery of theoretical knowledge. It necessitates good communication with the other colleagues involved in the innovation process and the capacity to think about a given problem in an unconventional manner. Until recently, these skills were not being addressed in the Chinese educational system.

Employees with proficiency in foreign languages: Most interviewees mentioned that fluency in English and/or other foreign languages constitutes a good premium in the Chinese labor market.

Adequately trained skilled workers: Many companies that employ skilled workers mentioned that they must systematically offer workers in-house training because their vocational preparation remains too general. Foreign companies in China also seem to have higher expectations of skilled workers when it comes to their autonomy and capacity to cope with unpredictable situations.

Sales persons with good understanding of the product or technicians with sales skills: Sales professions require strong negotiation, communication and inter-personal skills that people with more technical profiles and a good understanding of technical products seem to be lacking.

These shortages partly mirror the observations made earlier about the competence areas where Chinese graduates are weaker than their European counterparts. These shortages also need to be put into the perspective that the economy in China and consequently the occupational structures are undergoing drastic and dynamic transformation. This transformation comes with different competence requirements than those that were considered adequate in China’s former centralized and planned economy.

Relevance of Teaching Content versus Relevance of Learning Process

Broadly speaking, there do not seem to be major differences in terms of the up-to-date character of the theoretical content of teaching in Europe and China even though differences may exist in certain fields of study and traditions such as medicine or pharmacy. Some differences exist when it comes to material equipment: many Chinese universities are very well equipped thanks to recent major investments in material. However, these differences are also important between universities within China as well as between universities within Europe. It is therefore very difficult to generalise as to the differences between Europe and China. Information about the latest technological and theoretical developments is in general accessible worldwide unless it is confidential.

The main issues when it comes to relevance of education and training systems does not seem to stem from the up-to-date character of the knowledge that students are expected to learn but from the learning process. The learning process is as important in competence development as the learning content. Students assimilate information in relation to other information and through a process of social interaction. The classroom environment and a model whereby the teacher delivers knowledge that the learner is expected to assimilate (in a context which is unrelated to the actual topic) are artificial and disconnected from what happens in society or in an enterprise. In ‘real life’ (and working life) problems are embedded in a context which is often ill-defined and open to more than one solution. To be relevant, education and training should therefore stimulate situations that are closer to real life than the traditional classroom environment and the traditional teacher-student one-way transmission. This principle is progressively becoming embedded in education and training in Europe. In fact it is at the core of education (sub-) systems in certain European countries, for example in the dual system of vocational education and training in countries like Germany and Austria. It has become increasingly influential the way teaching is done in higher education. Here again there are differences across fields of study: engineering or medical studies, for example, are traditionally much more practice related than the humanities in Europe.

Actions to Improve Responsiveness

The responsiveness of education to labor market needs can be tackled at several levels: the system level, the institutional level and the level specific programs and practice. Europe’s universities have more autonomy than China’s in defining the content of programs and modalities of learning. Therefore, responsiveness is primarily in the hands of the institutions. In China, by contrast, institutional autonomy in teaching and learning is quite varied. The top universities allow much greater freedom to their teachers in groups or as individuals in make innovations and reforms to the contents and methods of their teaching, but for the majority of China’s higher education institutions, standardised textbooks are still widely “recommended” for use everywhere from the institutional to the national levels. The positive aspect of this situation is that the central government has made a large investment to organise top-level scholars and experts to create state of the art textbooks in all major subjects and keep them updated to ensure their continued relevance to international standards. On the other hand, at the institutional or local level, the individual teacher’s initiatives are not being encouraged. Overall, though, despite continued central planning and control, the trend in Chinese higher education is to grant more autonomy to the institutions and teachers in teaching and learning.

At the system level, in both Europe and China, the system can require higher education institutions to put in place measures to ensure responsiveness to labor market needs as part of accountability measures. In European higher education, it has become common for the state to require universities to reflect on the profile of graduates from each education program they provide and on employment opportunities for students after graduation. This requirement is part of the accreditation process for internal and external quality assurance. While safeguarding the universities’ autonomy, this requirement underlines the responsibility of the universities to ensure that their students have the knowledge, skills and competences after they complete their studies to have access to real opportunities in the labor market.

The need for communication and exchange between the system level and the institutional level is being increasingly recognised in Europe. It has resulted in the establishment of national and regional networks and platforms. These networks and platforms involve a variety of representatioves from public authorities through education institutions and social partners to employer representatives but also non-governmental organisations. These networks support the dissemination of good practice and contribute to the development of ownership and bottom-up initiatives.

At the institutional level, the reality varies greatly from one university to another and one country to another. The paragraphs below, therefore, describe measures that have been taken in European and Chinese universities to ensure that they are delivering the knowledge, skills and competence that enable a person to actively meet labor market needs.

It is becoming more and more common for universities to exchange with employers to monitor their needs and to develop programs that reflect the demand for competences in the labor market. This is directly related to the system level requirements mentioned above. These exchanges have been traditionally strong in the areas where the link between the field of study and a particular profession is strong (engineering, medicine, etc.), but these exchanges now are becoming more generalised. Especially at the master’s degree level, this situation has led to the development of programs that move away from traditional mono-disciplinary and discipline-based education towards more multi-disciplinary and professional or sector oriented degrees. In Europe, this increased specialisation of masters’ degrees was facilitated by reforms related to the Bologna process. It has also become a means for universities to develop ‘niche-markets’ in areas where previously no specific qualifications existed. This development goes hand in hand with the increasing professionalization of occupations that marks a mature labor market. Since many people now have ‘generalist’ degrees, a ‘specialist’ degree can bring more value added and easily make a difference.

In China a lot of innovation in higher education has been stimulated by the international cooperation of higher education institutions. The development of joint-degrees and joint-ventures among European and Chinese universities is seen as part of a broad based initiative to improve the responsiveness of higher education. Cooperation with employers is now beginning and many multinationals operating in China are generally open to cooperation with universities (preferably in a quid pro quo situation). Compared to the huge demand, however, such internships initiatives are still woefully inadequate. Many of the Chinese and international employers interviewed pointed out to the intensity of competition for experienced competent personnel in the labour market. Increasingly, many large-scale Chinese enterprises also provide scholarships, joint research projects or competitive extracurricular entrepreneurial activities with universities.

At the practice level, giving students the opportunity to exercise what they have learnt and to develop their competences further through internships is accepted as a requirement. Some systems have developed and others are being developed for higher education approaches that alternate work-based and university-based learning. Practical experience is increasingly seen as part of the education program in higher education not just as a ‘summer-job’ or a ‘student-job’. In China, employers do not yet seem to support and fully appreciate the concept of traineeships linked to learning objectives. They continue to view internships as an opportunity to bring in ‘cheap’ support staff. Internships in general are difficult to find in China, let alone those that suit both the needs of the employer, the students and the higher education institutions. In China there is lacking still an integrated and open platform for the students to make well-informed choices from a good selection of internships. While in practice most graduates do an internship while they study, the quality and the duration of the experience often differ greatly. The lack of articulation between the program and the internship is relatively frequent. In some cases the traineeship is simply an ‘add-on’ and not organically related to the program.

In higher education, next to the system level and institutions level actions, the impact of international benchmarking on higher education systems cannot be neglected. The fact that responsiveness of education and training to labour market needs is not at all represented in the benchmarking criteria (strongly focused on research) is not supporting the policy efforts in this area. Higher education institutions in Europe as well as in China are shaping their practices to move up the ladder of rankings but the extent to which this is benefiting the learners in their employment prospects is unclear and questionable.

Laying the Foundations for Competence Development in General Education

In Europe, general education systems are undergoing profound reforms and the ideas of competence-based teaching and learning and of situated learning are progressively being introduced. Curricula reforms are moving away from traditional subject-based approaches to competence based approaches that provide benchmarks also for cross-curricular competences, such as creativity, entrepreneurship or learning to learn. New pedagogies are explored and tested and more empowering and individualised learning approaches are put forward based on latest research on the nature of learning. Some EU countries are very advanced in reforming their general education systems in line with this new theoretical framework and efforts are moving forward across the whole of Europe.

Changing the practice of thousands of schools and millions of teachers is not a task that can be done over-night, but the strength and success of the European approach to the reform of general education can be attributed to a combination of factors: theoretical and empirical research about learning processes and outcomes, policy vision and strategies, and engagement and commitment of practitioners. This applies to general education as well as to vocational and higher education. Education policy that is not grounded in evidence and coupled with practical solutions is met with suspicion by teachers, school directors and those who prepare teachers and directors. Bottom-up innovation which is not grounded in a rational and comprehensive policy meets with institutional obstacles when it comes to such factors as governance or funding. Sharing knowledge horizontally through networks of different groups (policy makers, researchers or practitioners) and vertically through platforms where the different groups meet, communicate and confront each other appear to be efficient ways to move forward ideas and innovations. Over the past decade, important education and training reforms have been launched in Europe and are progressively being translated into practice.

In China, the scale of the required change is even greater due to the country’s sheer size. In 2009, China had 201.5 million students and 11.5 million full-time teachers in its public primary and secondary educational institutions. It also seems that the current practice in general education is further away from the competence-based learning approach. The reforms of general education towards more problem-based learning is on-going, but the extent to which general education contributes to the development of such desired personal attributes better teamwork, communication, management and innovation skills has been frequently questioned by the interviewees for this study.

For the China’s government and people, the task of operating the world’s largest general education system across a land comparable in land area to the whole of Europe is formidable and challenging. Any reform of such a complex system has to be planned from a long-term perspective. The implementation of a new curriculum that brings in a number of innovations is expected to bring with it many changes to the general education system. The implementation of the new curriculum has met numerous difficulties, including inadequacies in teacher quality, resources, and reform of the paper-based national entrance examination to university which itself is not yet competence-based. Nevertheless, a national consensus has been reached that this curriculum reform, like Chinese education reforms in general, has to become an evolving process within the framework of far-sighted master plan. According to the Chinese saying, it is a process that “has no ending but only a beginning.”

“An Ideal Graduate”

We developed an image of the ideal higher education graduate through the interviews conducted in this study. The ‘ideal graduate’ profile is generally the same for Europe and China. The ‘ideal graduate’ has these qualities: 1) strong knowledge base in his or her professional area; 2) solid skill foundation, especially in terms of literacy, numeracy, and IT competence; 3) capacity to apply the knowledge and skills to concrete situations and problems that arise in the work environment; 4) competence to work with others and to efficiently communicate ideas; 5) the ability to leader or follow the leadership of others according to the situation; 6) autonomy in making decisions in accordance with his/her responsibilities; 7) international experience, combined with the mastery of at least one foreign language; 8) the ability to recognise new opportunities and to develop new offer of products or services; 9) the willingness to invest in himself/herself through further learning.

While the ‘ideal-type’ higher education graduate seems to be increasingly shared between Europe and China and most likely worldwide, it remains unclear whether employment structures and labor markets actually offer sufficient opportunities for people who possess these qualities. The European labor markets are mature: people with higher education qualifications are relatively well represented across all age cohorts of the labor force and the demand for labor has stagnated. Having a good combination of knowledge, skills and competence has become a ‘must’ in order to make a difference compared to other graduates in the recruitment process. This labor market competitiveness among graduates applies to most jobs where higher education qualifications are expected. European employers, therefore, expect ‘talent’ to be adapted as a baseline to specific sectors and countries. In contrast, the demand for large numbers of higher education graduates continues to grow.

Moreover, within this huge general demand in China, varied requirements and expectations have developed for different types of graduates as the higher education system has increasingly tiered and diversified. However, there seems to be a certain discrepancy between employers’ expectations in terms of profile. One new development in China is that higher education graduates’ expectations for wages and the nature of their positions are not in line with the reality of the tasks and responsibilities which they are being offered. Nevertheless, the interviews show that the personal attributes mentioned above are highly valued by multinational companies in China who have difficulties in finding people who match these characteristics. Those who fit the profile appear to be in an attractive position to take advantage of a broad range of opportunities.

Policy Recommendations

This joint study was commissioned by the European Commission and China’s Ministry of Education to develop recommendations that could improve education and training policies and promote mutual cooperation, especially in higher education. Tables 1, 2 and 3 summarise respectively the policy recommendations for China, the EU and the China-EU joint effort.