This is what I get for writing while sick and not putting my usual call to spend more money upfront: my point is that I agree with both of you, John and Tom. The “RAPs are too hard conversation” is misplaced because growth isn’t happening because RAPs are hard, growth isn’t happening because we don’t spend the money or invest in infrastructure. As John’s Canadian friend said, we don’t have a system. We have an underfunded hodgepodge of programs, tied to a consumer protection device. As John said, I want the nice things and congress needs to step up and fund it.
That said, I also think that I would rather reframe registered as a place you want to go, not a place you have to start—which it isn’t supposed to be. And I think some of the employer conversation about register being too hard is misunderstanding RAPs and belies bigger problems in hiring and workforce in the United States.
I am with Tom Bewick. Many of Nick's specifics are on track, but the thrust of the article -- that we should be proud of our underfunded and under-sized apprenticeship system because it can keep the riffraff out — seems way out of sync.
Nick's review of the legislative history of the NAA is helpful because it points to the need to update the legislative basis of apprenticeship, not because we should conform expectations to a 90-year-old piece of legislation.
Nick is right that the registered apprenticeship is a marker of quality. And it should continue to be. But why must quality be the enemy of efficiency and scale?
Nick is right that our apprenticeship system is not really a system. As a Canadian friend of mine said to me, "The US doesn't have an apprenticeship system, so much as it has an apprenticeship situation." But is this really the best we can do?
And Nick is right that we systemmatically under-invest in apprenticeship. But I don't think we need to take the current $380 million appropriation as some divinely ordained upward limit. Other countries have rebalanced workforce and education investments to favor apprenticeship investments. I refuse to believe we live in a country where we can't have nice things.
I don’t agree with the premise of this article. Making something rare or elite doesn’t make it better. As other successful countries have shown, mass apprenticeships systems lead to higher productivity and better labour market inclusion outcomes (eg Switzerland). This narrative feels like an excuse masquerading as a theory for US underperformance! There are 3 reasons why the US trails world-class models: 1) The lack of a universal OJT funding mechanism, 2) The absence of occupational skills standards (that employers can choose as “products” in a marketplace) and 3) Not enough entrepreneurial intermediaries incentivised by points 1 and 2 above to go out and convert employers to provide more apprenticeship slots. If Congress/ Trump 2.0 addressed these three key issues, via a payment by results model, the US would have 2.5% of RAs in the workforce within 5 years. No doubt in my opinion.
This is what I get for writing while sick and not putting my usual call to spend more money upfront: my point is that I agree with both of you, John and Tom. The “RAPs are too hard conversation” is misplaced because growth isn’t happening because RAPs are hard, growth isn’t happening because we don’t spend the money or invest in infrastructure. As John’s Canadian friend said, we don’t have a system. We have an underfunded hodgepodge of programs, tied to a consumer protection device. As John said, I want the nice things and congress needs to step up and fund it.
That said, I also think that I would rather reframe registered as a place you want to go, not a place you have to start—which it isn’t supposed to be. And I think some of the employer conversation about register being too hard is misunderstanding RAPs and belies bigger problems in hiring and workforce in the United States.
I am with Tom Bewick. Many of Nick's specifics are on track, but the thrust of the article -- that we should be proud of our underfunded and under-sized apprenticeship system because it can keep the riffraff out — seems way out of sync.
Nick's review of the legislative history of the NAA is helpful because it points to the need to update the legislative basis of apprenticeship, not because we should conform expectations to a 90-year-old piece of legislation.
Nick is right that the registered apprenticeship is a marker of quality. And it should continue to be. But why must quality be the enemy of efficiency and scale?
Nick is right that our apprenticeship system is not really a system. As a Canadian friend of mine said to me, "The US doesn't have an apprenticeship system, so much as it has an apprenticeship situation." But is this really the best we can do?
And Nick is right that we systemmatically under-invest in apprenticeship. But I don't think we need to take the current $380 million appropriation as some divinely ordained upward limit. Other countries have rebalanced workforce and education investments to favor apprenticeship investments. I refuse to believe we live in a country where we can't have nice things.
I don’t agree with the premise of this article. Making something rare or elite doesn’t make it better. As other successful countries have shown, mass apprenticeships systems lead to higher productivity and better labour market inclusion outcomes (eg Switzerland). This narrative feels like an excuse masquerading as a theory for US underperformance! There are 3 reasons why the US trails world-class models: 1) The lack of a universal OJT funding mechanism, 2) The absence of occupational skills standards (that employers can choose as “products” in a marketplace) and 3) Not enough entrepreneurial intermediaries incentivised by points 1 and 2 above to go out and convert employers to provide more apprenticeship slots. If Congress/ Trump 2.0 addressed these three key issues, via a payment by results model, the US would have 2.5% of RAs in the workforce within 5 years. No doubt in my opinion.