Science Careers relates a New York Times article on the increasing numbers of 2-year schools issuing 4-year degrees, including some in science and technology fields.  With the ability of 2-year schools to specialize and their experience in addressing the non-traditional student (who will be larger percentages of the total student body in the future), these institutions seem well suited to addressing skills needs and filling workforce gaps much faster than traditional institutions.  I think this should be encouraged, along with a similar process of traditional 4-year institutions issuing more 1 or 2 year degrees or certificates.  These kinds of programs can help address these gaps, and with enough participation from mid-career professionals, could help universities pay for programs (these or others) through tuition and fees.

Unfortunately, I see unfortunate resistance to these kinds of moves, such as the lobbying described in the articles.  There are assumptions behind what it takes to train scientists, technologists and engineers in this country that need to be questioned in a policy debate.  I submit that it is not necessarily more Ph.Ds in science and engineering fields, but more people trained in science and engineering fields.  Graduate education often runs the risk of workforce monoculture, with lots of one kind of ‘crop.’  We need Ph.Ds, masters degrees, bachelors degrees, certificates and 2-year degrees to help fill in the many different spots in the workforce field.  The sooner we take more aggressive steps to recognize and encourage this, the sooner the tired workforce arguments of the last few decades can be set aside, and the vast energies of science advocates can be focused on more effective efforts.