We heard and read it again recently:
“Students need to have exposure to soft skills in addition to the content knowledge…”
“Yes! Soft skills are definitely important…”
“Show me those soft skills in your résumé…”
But enough with the term “soft” already. Authors like Seth Godin have been challenging us to stop with the soft for the past five years (Godin, 2017). We appreciate pieces like “Future-Proof Your Graduates” where Steven Mintz states the importance of “so-called soft skills” (2021). On one side, our field of higher education is finally acknowledging that a baccalaureate degree is about more than content. On the other, by using and reiterating tired terms, we neglect the fact that words matter. They set a tone for internalizing meaning and giving power, value, and priority. “Soft,” as opposed to “hard” or “technical,” implies skills like communication, teamwork, ethical reasoning, critical thinking, and leadership are less than. Squishy. Optional. Easy.
If these skills are so soft, why is it so hard to stop talking about them? More so, why is it hard to stop using the term?
What’s in a Name?
The terminology of soft skills likely first appeared in United States Armed Forces training materials in the 1970s. Since the skills did not entail the use of machinery, they were deemed soft. The military both then and now realizes that these skills are important and necessary for success. Tech juggernaut Google shifted its hiring practices after learning how vital non-technical skills are in managers and with its teams like Project Oxygen and Project Aristotle. The leaders of the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) were not surprised, as they have measured the skills employers are seeking in candidates beyond technical/field specific skills and have continued to demonstrate value for decades (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2021). The American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) regularly researches projects that inform our understanding on the impact of non-technical skills and perceptions of employers (Finley, 2021; Finley & McConnell, 2022). The recent Boyer 2030 Commission report The Excellence/Equity Imperative describes this as “world readiness” and calls for institutions to integrate skills within general education and other curricula for an improved democracy (2022).
So enough with the word “soft.” But if not soft, then what?
Some lines of rhetoric involve referring to these as power skills instead. The reasoning is that they help students and employees “power-up,” much like Mario encountering a mushroom in the popular Nintendo video game series, where he grows to tackle more difficult challenges. The idea is that power skills can also transcend any one job or occupation and support the notion of the “T-shaped” professional where skills and knowledge are both deep (technical) and broad (practical) (Bierema, 2019; National Academy of Engineering, 2004; Rogers & Freuler, 2015).
Aside from these workforce- and industry-focused points, we argue that broad and holistic skills are drivers of equity and education as a public good for a functional democracy. Thus, the word “power,” especially with the reckoning of systemic intergenerational and racial inequities, prompts another option. Instead of “soft,” what about “essential?” When our new majority college students from backgrounds of lower socioeconomic resources are able to broaden their options, raise the income level of their households, and bring resources into their communities, this is education fulfilling its most basic and essential functions. The conventional wisdom of separating hard and soft skills sends a message to students of what is and is not beneficial: do not waste your time or if your time is limited, just focus on the hard skills. We acknowledge most individuals who describe certain skills as soft do not intend to do harm or diminish their worth. As Karamo Brown shared in a NASPA keynote in March 2021, intention does not dismiss impact. Where do we subtly give power, value, and importance, thereby relaying the essential? How do our words impact students directly and indirectly through how we construct learning opportunities, encourage engagement, and allocate resources?
If we re-frame the “soft” as “essential,” it allows us to shift our mindsets to create educational systems that advance all students (Ludvik, 2019). As multiple researchers and educational leaders have indicated, we must stop approaching our higher ed work as if students are at a deficit (Davis & Muses, 2019; Shukla et al., 2022). We need to examine ourselves and mend what is broken within the systems we created and/or inherited. While colleagues creating co-curricular opportunities are helping students connect their experiences to essential skills (Peck & Preston, 2017), the co-curricular cannot be the only place connections are being facilitated. We must look to the curriculum and high-impact educational practices to ensure every student can learn, practice, reflect, articulate, and translate essential skills. And yes, this strategy can be undertaken alongside typical academic content. Instead of following the “either/or” model whereby we force ourselves to choose between skills *or* content, we need to adhere to a “both/and” model that eliminates the false choice.
Curricular Connections
The role of deans and academic leaders is vital in leading the integration of essential skills with academic programs and courses. For instance, if you ask any professor if she teaches critical thinking, she will likely respond in the affirmative. Yet ask her where in the class she has intentionally designed critical thinking activities and how she shares this intentionality with her students, and she will usually need to pause to think it through. The same goes for teamwork, ethics, and other areas. Good teaching should also involve the reflexive act of pulling back the curtain and letting students know why we ask them to engage in certain learning-focused tasks rather than simply going through the motions of submit work-get grade-repeat. As tools like the aforementioned AAC&U studies and Boyer 2030 Commission report show, faculty need academic leaders that support them in moving from the career-focused as optional to the essential.
As those who work to provide a holistic education, we frequently perceive disconnects between what courses provide, students need, and employers want. While economic and government leaders engage in an ongoing conversation about skills gaps even for those with college degrees, it is well-documented that the aforementioned essential skills are highly desired as equity drivers. They improve employment satisfaction and outcomes and support social mobility (Venator & Reeves, 2015). Having an essential skills academic mindset and curricular approach allows us to equip all students – not just those with know-how for finding and engaging in the co-curricular – with the ability to tell the story of their trajectories: how the courses they have taken and the experiences within and outside of the classroom have made them into the best candidate for that fellowship, research opportunity, internship, job, admission to graduate or professional school, and more.
Essential skills might seem harder to measure in an academic setting, but that is not an insurmountable deterrent. It may be easier to evaluate a student on his creation of a pivot table than his application and ability to make meaning from it in a real-world context, but we cannot assume students are making these connections on their own. By creating the bridge from theory to practice more apparent for students, promoting integrative learning, and valuing equitable practices and teaching, we can make all of higher education more high impact, even at the course and assignment levels (Hobbs & Kropp, 2018; Winkelmes et al., 2019).
Higher education’s commitment to its students – especially new majority college students – cannot just be reserved for those who opt-in to an already opt-in environment, as data from the National Survey of Student Engagement continues to show (Kinzie et al., 2020; Kinzie & Franklin, 2020). When equity and lifelong learning are the drivers, we shift the conversation from soft to essential skills for all students. Intentionality and minor shifts in pedagogical practices, transparent assignments, and course design will advance these aims.
While Gen Z, or post-millennial, students may be on track to be more diverse and educated than previous generations, essential skills must be more than soft (Fry & Parker, 2018). Students want to integrate content knowledge with real-world, professional experiences. To embrace the “both/and” means we are more likely to help all students make connections to support continuous and lifelong learning, reflection, and application. This shift in approach will help students far past the years they attend our institutions as the sectors of work evolve, a gig economy intensifies, and we project what may be around the next workforce bend.
How to get started or accelerate this needed change? Don’t just ramp up out-of-class programs for students. Start with us as academic leaders. It does not take multiple years and meetings of curriculum committees to shift the soft to the essential. We need to remove the mystery and remove the pause in our thinking on exactly where we teach and make students aware that they are practicing critical thinking and other world readiness essential skills. Create clear connections. Scaffold learning and articulate the why of teaching and learning. Provide space and time for students to practice translating essential skill to other environments. Embrace the “both/and.”
References
Bierema, L. L. (2019). Enhancing employability through developing T-shaped professionals. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2019(163), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20342
Boyer 2030 Commission. (2022). The equity/excellence imperative: A 2030 blueprint for undergraduate education at U.S. research universities. Association for Undergraduate Education at Research Universities. https://ueru.org/boyer2030
Davis, L. P., & Muses, S. D. (2019, July 26). Identifying and disrupting deficit thinking. Spark: Elevating Scholarship on Social Issues, National Center for Institutional Diversity. https://medium.com/national-center-for-institutional-diversity/identifying-and-disrupting-deficit-thinking-cbc6da326995
Finley, A. (2021). How college contributes to workforce success: Employer views on what matters most. AAC&U. https://www.aacu.org/new-report-employer-views-higher-education
Finley, A., & McConnell, K. D. (2022). On the same page? Administrator and faculty views on what shapes college learning and student success. AAC&U. https://www.aacu.org/research/on-the-same-page
Fry, R., & Parker, K. (2018, November 15). Early benchmarks show ‘post-millennials’ on track to be most diverse, best-educated generation yet. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/11/15/early-benchmarks-show-post-millennials-on-track-to-be-most-diverse-best-educated-generation-yet/
Godin, S. (2017, January 31). Let’s stop calling them ‘soft skills’ It’s Your Turn. https://itsyourturnblog.com/lets-stop-calling-them-soft-skills-9cc27ec09ecb
Hobbs, P., & Kropp, E. (2018, October 15). Leveraging high-impact practices at the course level. Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/leveraging-high-impact-practices-at-the-course-level/
Kinzie, J., & Franklin, K. (2020). Twenty years of NSSE data use: Assessment lessons for the collective good. Assessment Update, 32(2), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/au.30206
Kinzie, J., McCormick, A. C., Gonyea, R., Dugan, B., & Silberstein, S. (2020). Assessing quality and equity in high-impact practices: Comprehensive report. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. https://hdl.handle.net/2022/25712
Ludvik, M. B. (2019). Looking below the surface to close achievement gaps and improve career readiness skills. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 51(6), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2019.1674106
Mintz, S. (2021, January 26). Future-proof your graduates. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/future-proof-your-graduates
National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10999
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2021). What is career readiness? https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined/
Peck, A., & Preston, M. (2017, August 1). The value of engaged students. National Association of Colleges and Employers. https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/the-value-of-engaged-students/
Rogers, P., & Freuler, R. J. (2015). The “T-shaped” engineer. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WA. https://peer.asee.org/the-t-shaped-engineer
Shukla, S. Y., Theobald, E. J., Abraham, J. K., & Price, R. M. (2022). Reframing educational outcomes: Moving beyond achievement gaps. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-05-0130
Venator, J., & Reeves, R. V. (2015, March 18). Building the soft skills for success. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/03/18/building-the-soft-skills-for-success/
Winkelmes, M.-A., Boye, A., & Tapp, S. (Eds.). (2019). Transparent design in higher education teaching and leadership. Stylus Publishing.
