Does Academic Intelligence = Intelligence for Entrepreneurs?

Fraser Williams is an entrepreneur studying Management and Entrepreneurship at Lancaster University. His recent start-up company, Checkit Proofreading, is a service for students with the ethos that believes in assessment based on student subject ability and not on “painstaking elements of their English language”. It has gained prominence within the university and has partnered up with a number of departments and colleges to benefit student performance in academic subjects.

Here he tells us about his thoughts and misgivings about higher education as a key basis of our academic intelligence and its influence on our employability.

Higher education is seen as the end of our childhood. Something that acts as a ‘funnel’ to our hopeful career success. Ostensibly it is the essential step that must be taken in order to have a truly successful working life. But in a time of rapid industrial change, is it time we inspect the value that education can drive for entrepreneurs more critically? After all, these are going to be the people directing the companies of tomorrow, which every consumer will trust to run companies ethically and efficiently.

There is a paradigm within education that has puzzled me since I started my first year at University. I study Management and Entrepreneurship, and I pay around £9,000 per year to be there. That is cheap compared to the high proportion of international students that our University attracts with some paying much more than this sum. These are incredible amounts to pay to be at an institution to sit exams and study a specific subject, which is what a lot of students are exclusively paying for. The problem this creates is that we have students with degrees who have been entirely reclusive in their study of their subject, who by default outcompete people without degrees in the job market or even people with lower class degrees who have filled their time at university with extra curriculum activities. But I find myself wondering, which student would be more competent when faced with a real task in a company? Someone with ‘practical intelligence’ or someone with academic intelligence?

I would concede that this is not relevant to all subjects. Certainly, more vocational degrees such as engineering require a level of knowledge that is best learned through study and practical education. But for aspiring entrepreneurs, education beyond the fundamentals such as finance and accounting seems superfluous. No amount of PowerPoint presentations will form someone with empathy, interpersonal proficiency or the ability to deal with a situation where an angry client needs to be reassured. Short of a profound shift in the way we teach entrepreneurship, these skills come from dealing with real world situations head on.

So, can we change our perception of intelligence?

Ultimately, I think the issue lies in our employment system, which filters our judgment about how to assess a person’s skills. Some companies will disregard applications from anyone who doesn’t have a degree and rapidly this is becoming anyone who doesn’t have a Masters qualification, an increasing trend as we enter into a perpetuating spiral of ‘survival of the fittest’ (if everyone has a degree, no one does). Having met people who study incredibly difficult subjects (academically speaking) such as mathematics or science, I find it hard to support the view that intelligence is centered on academic performance, and how this somehow acts to define our competence in a potential job.

Sir Ken Robinson speaks about how in school we are benignly led away from ‘softer’ skills such as art, theatre or music, in place of what we view to be more academic, or even ‘useful’ skills. Contrast this with the fact that we no longer live in a society demanding managers and leaders to have the same skills that they needed in the post-industrial period, and where an understanding of art and culture is incredibly important to our society. Jim Davies writes in his book ‘Riveted’ that ‘the creation and consumption of art compromises a major portion of our lives. Young Americans spend about seven and a half hours every day consuming artistic media’. So overlook the ‘softer’ subjects and the skills that come with them at your own peril.

In my opinion the movement to a more holistic way of judging candidates such as test centers and personality reviews is a great thing. I can completely understand the constraints on companies’ cost, meaning ultimately candidates have to be axed by some objective measure, but I believe the real solution lies in finding cost-effective subjective judgment techniques, where we are able to include personal experience at the first assessment hurdle, instead of simply axing anyone without a degree.

In the current climate, it’s key that we continue to strive to do the best we can in university as we are ultimately forced to live in the paradigm that was created all those centuries ago. However, for entrepreneurs and managers (and I imagine for a lot of other future roles), we have to look further and think how we can generate real world experience that will truly improve our competence and intelligence.

By Fraser Williams

[Image Credit: Flazingo Photos]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s