I read Jared Gould’s recent lament, “What’s Feeding the ‘Graduate Unemployment Crisis’?” and his follow-up about his youngest brother, “Against My Advice, My Brother Is Going to College.”

Let me provide a different view of new graduate employment issues from my 30+ years of experience in the corporate world, which included hiring and developing many new graduates.

For many years, companies have noticed a decline in the quality of college graduates. My colleagues and I began to notice a decline in the quality of BS grads, as measured by GPA—usually on a 4-point scale—around the early 1990s. In choosing among a large selection of resumes, we had used 3.0 as the minimum indicator of the presence of intelligent life until we began to realize that we needed to limit selection to 3.2 minimum, eventually rising to 3.4. Today, I might be suspicious of a 4.0.

Many interviewees were surprised to find that I required what is known as a “whiteboard” Q&A during one-on-one interviews, as did most of my colleagues. Whiteboard sessions work well in chemistry discussions. The grads who did well on the whiteboard generally got offers; those who struggled did not. Those who had real research experience, such as working for a professor during the summer or during the academic year—I did both as an undergrad—generally did well; it was a differentiator. There is no substitute for real lab experience.

It amazed us how often new grad interviewees had no clue about our company, its business, or its technology. My preparation for my first interview, while nearing the end of my postdoctoral work, was very different and was something I knew I had to do to be properly prepared and demonstrate my interest in the opportunity. I spent many hours in the library studying the company’s patents. I went to the university business school and asked for any information they could provide on the company. The business school was wonderfully helpful. In fact, I think they were pleased that I thought of coming to them. This was back in 1980, so I did not have the benefit of the internet for easy access to technical and business information, as graduates have had for decades since. When I was asked during the interview process how my background and experience might help the company, I had a good answer. I am certain my knowledge of the company’s technology and business, along with my technical breadth, helped, as I received and accepted an offer. I was not the only candidate interviewed. My point here? Fortune favors the prepared mind. There is no substitute for the hard work of preparation and, of course, the knowledge that a parchment once signified but often no longer does. There is also no substitute for an appropriate attitude, work ethic, and initiative. After all, it was I who needed to convince my interviewers because they had the opportunity. Apparently, this approach to interviewing is not as obvious as it should be.

The job market has always been competitive. A year after I was hired, the job market for new grads in chemistry and chemical engineering tanked and remained that way for several years. Inflation was well into double digits back then, not the three to four percent people worry about today, and companies were very reluctant to expand headcount. Science and engineering periodically experience boom-and-bust cycles in the job market. Periods of low oil prices and small refining margins do not produce a good hiring environment in the energy and chemical industries. Marketplace disruption always affects employment somehow. Today, companies are well aware that a change in our government could lead us back down the green energy “transition” rabbit hole, recognized as a guaranteed economic loser by all but the ignorant, ideologically captured, or financially parasitic. Such uncertainty is never good for investment in people, and the government magnifies uncertainty since everyone understands that a single election can change everything. Businesses deal with uncertainty by conserving resources. Those that must invest heavily in uncertain times (e.g., Big Tech, which views investment in artificial intelligence (AI) as existential) must economize elsewhere.

As for layoffs, no company lays off significant numbers of employees without good reason. Corporate leadership must consider the business’s long-term health and growth prospects. Failing in this responsibility puts all employees at risk, as well as the capital of investors, including defined benefit pension funds—mostly public sector—and defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s—mostly private sector—that help provide a decent retirement for seniors. Companies that hire too freely in good times or place too large a bet on a particular strategy have limited flexibility to adjust to difficult or uncertain times. We live in very uncertain times.

Gould says he had been looking at reports about the job market for new grads. Perhaps he is familiar with complaints from the corporate world about the attitude of many new grad interviewees and new hires. The word “entitled” is a common descriptor. “Snowflake” was popular not long ago and remains germane. Couple this to rampant grade inflation and the endless list of degree programs best described as fake scholarship and intellectual nonsense that most universities are offering, and you get many new grads who have essentially nothing of value to offer to a business. Let’s admit it: a degree in the liberal arts or social sciences does not signify what it once did—working familiarity with logic and ability to reason based on facts and to think critically—and, based on what I see, may never again. Companies are becoming very selective, and, frankly, they not only can be but cannot afford not to be. What colleges and universities need to provide is not “the right number of graduates” but the “right kind of graduates.” Clearly, they are not doing this at the moment, although it should be obvious that this is job one. With the quality of K-12 education continuing to drop and an “A” meaning little, I see little prospect for change in the near term. The marketplace has spoken loudly. I see little evidence that universities are listening.  

Colleges and universities are customers of K-12 output as well as suppliers to the broader economy. Companies are customers of both K-12 and colleges and universities. Until recently, suppliers have taken their customers for granted. Some parts of both K-12 and university systems have expressed outrage that customers are unhappy with the product. Anyone with experience serving customers in the private sector will tell you that suppliers who blame the customer do not fare well in a competitive marketplace because the customer always has options: don’t buy or find better suppliers. Apparently, customers are not buying as freely today. And, emphasis on trades and programs requiring certification demonstrates that customers are finding what they want from other suppliers. Traditional suppliers had better pay attention. My response: Welcome to the real world. Deal with it.  

Now, what does “deal with it” mean? There are two parts to this challenge: (1) Fix K-12 and universities, and (2) figure out what we are going to do with a very substantial cohort of young people with either K-12 or K-12 plus a four-year degree that the job market sees as of little value.

I won’t say much about #1 since the National Association of Scholars (NAS) is doing some of the heavy lifting here, which is why I am a member. Equally worth mentioning are charter schools, good trade schools, and related organizations that provide effective alternatives to “traditional” education. It would be great if organizations such as NAS, major think tanks, and corporate leaders would spend more time talking to young people, preferably those just entering high school and university, about what the real world expects when recruiting young talent. Obviously, they are not getting such advice during their education or at home. It might help them think harder about the next step in their preparation for the real world of work. Absolutely nobody knows where the AI revolution will take us, but young people need to understand that there will be no substitute for knowledge, skills, and initiative coupled with a strong work ethic. Discovering this at graduation will be too late for many.

As for #2, we need a national discussion about what we are going to do with the millions of young people who came through K-12 or K-12 plus a four-year degree, with little of value to show for the experience. Perhaps Gould knows of someone talking about it, but I hear nothing, particularly about what to do about debt-laden young people with a degree in bogus scholarship who are angry and resentful about their lack of career prospects. They are part of the Mamdani/socialist voting bloc and, apparently, are not having children and are not planning to do so—take a good look at NYC, particularly Manhattan, demographics, and the persistent decrease in public school student numbers while the dog population grows. Perhaps you can ask what we are going to do to deal with this large and growing population. It’s a problem screaming for a solution, and at the moment, socialism is winning their hearts and minds.