You're a liability: on the job market and the ability to learn
Knowing how to learn is the most valuable skill, arguably.
Now I don’t know much about finance, but I have a theory.
This is something I’ve repeated a lot to my peers in both university and whatever place of work I had been in is that people in the job market are no different than items on a balance sheet: they’re either assets or liabilities.
Essentially, academia at large is still trying to solve a problem that has not been a problem for a while, I would say since search engines became a commonly used tool, and that is the lack of knowledge. As I observe around me, I do not see that the people that know the most end up being successful. Sadly, straight As don’t mean much if I can only define a software requirements specification and can’t do anything beyond that. That is why, in my theory, students and fresh graduates end up making up most of the liabilities entering the job market. Not because of any individual issue on their part, but because of the aforementioned systemic issue of academia. Students are graduates of a system that places dots on their blank pages without telling them how to connect it; churning out knowledge without really teaching them how to use it.
People who are aware of this issue transition to becoming assets of the market. They say the first step of solving a problem is acknowledging that there is a problem, and that is also applicable here. However, assets are either depreciating or appreciating, so how does it transfer here?
You see, depreciating assets are individuals in the job market that actually figure out that they have these dots of knowledge they don’t know how to connect and get really good at one way of connecting them, and that’s it. The depreciating asset is a person that learned a skill really well, but doesn’t have the capability of learning much else. They are talented, but just at XYZ and there is no capability to learn the rest of the alphabet. What happens in this scenario is that the job market eats them up for a few years before their specific skillset retires and is no longer needed, and accumulated depreciation diminishes their value.
“So, now skills don’t make me valuable in your theoretical balance sheet? What do I do?”
In my opinion, it is not simply the fact that you have a lot of knowledge or know how to do one or two things with that knowledge (i.e. created a currently relevant skillset) that would create long-term value for you. It is the fact that you know how to learn, which I would argue would be the only skill you need to create value on a professional or personal level. Individuals who have the skill of learning are the appreciating assets in this analogy. The fact that this given individual has the ability to learn means they can employ their knowledge to create different skillsets to accommodate with any changes and fluctuations, which does sometimes translate into personal resilience too, can grow and support growth within their team, organization, or personal circles.
This does not mean that this is your sign to drop out of college, I can’t really handle the burden of embedding that thought in anybody’s head, but this is your sign to take ownership of your learning. College, for me, was a cool experience; if it weren’t for college I think I would be lacking in the communities and experiences I had and currently have. It gave me leeway to pursue and fail because “I’m a student”. But that all happened because of how I took ownership of the experience, it was nothing college really offered as an institution; in fact, the meritocracy in college was quite the opposite of that, it was about how well you did what you were told. My experience just happened to be what it is, which is clearly a sign that even if college is doing something right, its a design flaw that resulted in that happy accident.
Now, where is the artistic component of this entire monologue?
Artnet, a reputable art world news source, asked the question of whether you need to go to art school to become a successful artist or not. With its research it concluded that even amongst professionals who attended art school, the purpose they serve creates a never-ending debate on whether it serves as cultural resistance against capitalism or creating more commodities and dismantling creativity in a way that suits the system. Essentially, giving artists the illusion that the investment they made in their art guarantees them a flourishing career when that requires, say it with me, a great deal of ownership and confidence in your practice.
On art schools, Gallery owner Catinca Tabacaru states that the reason she visits art schools in search of talent is that she feels that their enrollment in art schools shows that they’re willing to put in the time and effort to hone their craft. A fact supported by Artnet’s study that states that 12% of the 500 most successful artists globally are self-taught, that includes Basquiat, Frida Kahlo, Keith Haring, and Henri Rousseau to name a few. In fact, this statistic is challenged by the regional equivalent as of late, especially of the younger generation of artists.
What is labelled “outsider art”, art made by self-taught artists, has been sold with massive ticket prices and garnered a large audience. Often praised for not following the rules and being produced with pure creativity. Deborah Solomon, a NYT arts journalist, wrote that the expansion of art schools and artists with advanced art degrees (MFAs) showed a decline in the quality of art. Barbara Rose, an art historian, supported her claim by stating that art produced by art school graduates often times looks like “homework” (following the rules, predictable, etc.).
It should also be noted that not all art education has been created equal, according to Artnet’s aforementioned list nearly 10% of all artists on the list got their degrees from Yale Graduate School of Art. Rhode Island School of Design, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and the Royal College of Art.
In conclusion, the same conclusion made about academia in general can be said for the art schools as well. It’s about how you learn and what do you do with it after (also, who you meet). So, take ownership of your education, and exploit the design flaw; that can do wonders for you inside the classroom and on the field. I know I’d love a great art school education, but I’m privileged to have had the awareness I’ve had before enrollment into any program, I feel like that might make me more attentive to my needs and what I’ll bring back to the field of arts over here.
Signed,
Sarah
Note: you might’ve noticed my biweekly posting schedule, turns out consulting gets wild pretty fast, I’ll slowly get back to weekly but simply focusing on being as consistent as I can while managing my energy dedicated to the newsletter, taking that time also to flesh out the writing so I hope you’re liking it.
Further Reading:
Artnet - Do I have to Go to Art School to become a successful artist?