Are skills the opposite of education?

This blog was kindly authored by Professor Dame Athene Donald, Professor Emerita, University of Cambridge.

A recent HEPI blog by Josh Patel argued that ‘Skills discourses generally prioritise narrowly defined and short-term political ends.’ And that ‘The language of skills encourages a narrow focus on capacities linked to discrete tasks.’ Yes, that is almost certainly true if one is talking about training up a brickie or a plumber, but is really talking about skills in higher education necessarily done at the expense of ‘education’? Is it truly the case, as Ronald Barnett argued, that ‘In the skills discourse, there is typically no mention of education per se; and in the education discourse, there is no mention of skills per se.’?

I would argue, on the contrary, that the two ‘buckets’ (to use a word much being kicked around in the funding arena currently) substantially overlap, so one should not get hung up on semantics rather than content. Just as it is dangerous to consider the Arts and Humanities in opposition to STEM, because so many interesting things happen either at the interface between them or involving both, it is dangerous to behave as if the two words ‘skills’ and ‘education’ necessarily cover totally different ways of learning in higher education. In the sciences at least, I don’t believe this is a helpful approach.

If, for instance during a PhD, a student learns about project management, is that education or a skill? It requires plenty of logical and critical thinking, consideration, carefulness and other actions that Ronald Barnett saw as part of education. (Barnett’s list of words associated with education were: Wisdom, critical reflection, dialogue for understanding, care, consideration, carefulness, self-understanding, the world, Nature, dispute, antagonism, and mutuality.) But undoubtedly, project management is a skill that readily transfers to the workplace, for instance, in pharmaceuticals or at a national facility such as Diamond. You simply cannot carry out a research project, at any level from at least undergraduate-level upwards, in a STEM subject without a great deal of critical thinking – why is that always presumed to sit only within the purlieu of the Arts and Humanities or Social Sciences? This remains a position baffling to me as a scientist. Critical thinking in designing a problem, creativity in driving it forward, are necessary ‘skills’ which must be acquired in carrying out research, simultaneously with being educated in the correct methodological steps and contextual background to any experiment. In that sentence, I suspect I am using the words skills and education in exactly the reverse sense from Barnett.

Perhaps the objection to skills appearing in higher education discourse, arises because the authors come from a non-STEM background. I can imagine if focussing on the works of Balzac or considering the impact of the writings of St Augustine, skills as a term may feel jarring. Nevertheless, why is critical thinking put in the ‘education’ bucket and not ‘skills’? Why is being educated in how to turn a fine phrase not a useful skill to any future employment? Civil servants’ ability to write papers on any and every topic in lucid (one hopes) prose surely relies on such abilities.

Many years ago, I took exception to ideas expressed in Stefan Collini’s then recently published book, What are Universities for? He constantly separated out the scholars from the scientists, implying scientists could not be scholars, as if they could not think, reflect, be self-aware or enter into dialogue. This feels to me like the forerunner to the current angst over education and skills. As a scientist, I would like to claim scholarship, critical thinking and creativity as part of my education, as well as being some of the skills I apply in whatever research or task I approach. Let us have no false demarcations please.