Poor choices in education can make you a statistic

'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics."

Many attribute this quote to British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli in 1894, but its origin is now widely disputed, which seems fittingly ironic. Likewise, the recent Statistics Canada report, Earnings and Incomes of Canadians over the Past Quarter-Century, has led to varying interpretations of the data. One of the most strident appeared recently in a newspaper with a headline screaming: "Rich get richer, poor get poorer."

In the hope of heading off class warfare in the streets, let's look at economic reality. A country's prosperity and standard of living are dependent upon the combined ability of its population to create wealth. Another way to think of it is that we can't collectively consume more than we produce ... at least not for long. But productivity really is at the heart of whether a nation's living standards rise, or fall. The Morgan formula for productivity growth is to encourage the activities that raise living standards and to discourage ones that have the opposite effect. When viewed through this prism, it means encouraging the knowledge and skills that fill the most pressing economic need; and that is all about educational choices.

The "Two stories behind the numbers" part of The Globe and Mail's May 2 response to the Statscan report clearly illustrated the income-limiting effect of educational choices.

The first example was about a 22-year-old graduate in film, communications and popular culture, unable to find a full-time job. The second featured a 34-year-old single mom, with an undefined university degree, a diploma in broadcast journalism and a certificate to teach English as a second language who, unable to find work using these skills, accepted a low-paying "administrative job." The tough question which must be asked is: did either consider the likelihood of finding a job that met their income aspirations before choosing those programs?

The hard reality is that a collection of degrees and diplomas in low-demand fields is likely to yield only a low-paying job.

Looking at the bigger picture demonstrates the problem. The fields most in demand, and therefore offering the highest paying jobs, include health care, engineering and applied sciences. The low-pay, low-demand fields include fine arts, humanities and those within the so-called social sciences category. Another Statscan report, University Enrolment by Field of Study, shows that in 2001 there were 70,600 students enrolled in engineering and applied sciences and 57,800 enrolled in health care professions - compared with 316,500 enrolled in fine arts, humanities and social sciences. Is it any wonder that, seven years later, high-paying jobs are going unfilled in the first group, while graduates from the second group are struggling to find any job and receiving subsistence wages? If our universities and colleges continue to allocate precious resources to training large numbers of young people in skills that aren't in demand in our economy, then the next Statscan report on income levels will inevitably show a negative trend.

There are many other career fields that offer fulfilling and financially rewarding opportunities. There is a growing shortage of skilled trades and vocations, yet students who are best suited to these fields end up taking unmarketable programs because parents want to be able to say their kids have a university degree.

It's crucial that parents and counsellors impress upon young students that choosing post-secondary education without reference to the economic needs of society and their own lifestyle expectations is likely to result in either low pay in their field of training, or low pay in a job that doesn't require post-secondary qualifications at all. In other words, a choice between underemployment and unemployment. This is a double waste, both for the lives of students and for taxpayers who fund the vast majority of the costs of their education.

Those who choose to learn skills that are in demand and who are prepared to apply their skills in a diligent and energetic way are going to be in the higher earnings category in Statscan's surveys. Those who ignore this reality will be in the lower earnings category.

Students have every right to ignore this reality in their career paths, but to later complain about unfairness is simply not legitimate. This isn't class discrimination. Everyone has the right to choose their career goals, and must live with those choices.

Canada's living standards remain among the very highest, offering what is arguably the world's best quality of life. Parents and counsellors need to help students make wise and realistic choices, while educational institutions must allocate resources to the training crucial to keeping our country strong through the productive skills of people.

Gwyn Morgan is the retired founding CEO of EnCana Corp.