While many college students would argue that their main goal in getting a college education -- at least academically as opposed to socially -- is to receive the “credentials” necessary to get a well-paying job once they graduate (i.e., the degree and diploma, 4.0 GPA, etc.).

However, academics like me try to convince them as just as important, and perhaps even more important, is the goal of learning how to think -- acquiring the skills necessary to organize your time, problem-solve, collect and analyze information and data, write effectively, etc.

As it turns out, according to new research from a national survey of employers, managers and executives in the corporate world seem to agree with us -- they tend to value skills over credentials:

Overall, 65 percent of those surveyed believe that new graduates of four-year colleges have most or all of the skills to succeed in entry-level positions, but only 40 percent believe that they have the skills to advance. . . .

The employers were asked to rank new graduates on 12 key areas, and the grads did best in teamwork, ethical judgments and intercultural work, and worst in global knowledge, self-direction and writing. . . .

What the employers appear to want are intensive, personally evaluated projects, not more testing. . . . Forty-six percent said it would be very effective and 70 percent said it would be very or fairly effective to have students complete an advanced project as seniors, demonstrating knowledge in the major and in problem-solving, writing, and analytic skills.

And 69 percent said it would be very effective and 83 percent said it would be very or fairly effective to see an evaluation of a supervised internship where students apply college learning in a “real-world setting.”

The results appear to contradict statements from Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and many politicians that the business community is demanding tools that allow for comparisons of colleges on how they perform in certain areas.

The other key point to appreciate from the article is that, in addition to valuing skills over credentials, the employers also noted that in terms of assessing student skills, they value substantive, in-depth evaluations over “standardized” tests that the current administration favors.

In short, these are two areas in which we academics have been emphasizing all along. Hate to say it, but we told you so . . .

Scholars from many different disciplines note that national aggregate-level statistics still show that unfortunately, as a group, Blacks still trail other racial/ethnic groups in most measures of socioeconomic success. However, the real question is, which deserves more of the blame for this situation -- racism and racial discrimination, or Blacks themselves?

As the Pew Research Center reports, their data shows that not surprisingly, a solid majority of Whites and Latinos say that Blacks themselves are to blame. However and perhaps somewhat surprisingly, a majority of Blacks agree that rather than racism, Blacks are responsible for their own condition:

I think it’s rather unfortunate that Asian Americans weren’t included in the survey, but nonetheless, as a sociologist who studies issues such as this, I would have answered that it is not simply one or the other, but rather both that are responsible.

Nonetheless, it is a significant finding that apparently, most Blacks agree that when it comes to not getting ahead, Blacks should first look in the mirror to find someone/something to blame. That is quite an interesting sociological finding by itself.

Here’s a little bit of data that many might find a little surprising, especially those who are vehemently anti-illegal immigrant: as reported by the Pew Research Group, 64% of all Americans (including 61% of Whites and 74% of Blacks) agree that immigrants work harder at low-paying jobs than do Whites:

In addition, Pew reports that their results show “both whites and blacks are more likely to say that whites are outworked at low-wage jobs by immigrants than to say that blacks are out-worked at such jobs by immigrants.”

The actual results are pretty clear and unequivocal, but their interpretation is likely to be debated. That is, some might say, “Well, Whites don’t work as hard in low-paying jobs because those jobs are beneath them -- as the richest racial group in the U.S., they’re used to having better paying jobs than everybody else.”

On the other hand, another interpretation might be, “This goes to prove that immigrants, including illegal ones, are more than willing to take jobs that other Americans simply don’t want.”

What’s your take on what these results mean?

The conventional thinking among sociologists and, I would guess, many corporations is that diversity training is ultimately beneficial for their company or organization -- that it results in greater workplace harmony, more opportunities for advancement for women and racial/ethnic minorities, and more productivity for all their workers.

However, as the Washington Post reports, a new study by Sociology Prof. Alexandra Kalev at the University of Arizona shows that when attendance at diversity trainings is mandatory, rather than voluntary, it is likely to lead to counterproductive results:

A comprehensive review of 31 years of data from 830 mid-size to large U.S. workplaces found that the kind of diversity training exercises offered at most firms were followed by a 7.5 percent drop in the number of women in management.

The number of black, female managers fell by 10 percent, and the number of black men in top positions fell by 12 percent. Similar effects were seen for Latinos and Asians.

The analysis did not find that all diversity training is useless. Rather, it showed that mandatory programs -- often undertaken mainly with an eye to avoiding liability in discrimination lawsuits -- were the problem. When diversity training is voluntary and undertaken to advance a company’s business goals, it was associated with increased diversity in management. . . .

Several experts offered two reasons for this: The first is that businesses are responding rationally to the legal environment, since several Supreme Court rulings have held that companies with mandatory diversity training are in a stronger position if they face a discrimination lawsuit.

Second, many companies -- with the implicit cooperation of diversity trainers -- find it easier to offer exercises that serve public relations goals, rather than to embrace real change.

Honestly, I am disappointed but not completely surprised to hear that most diversity training programs are actually counterproductive. But I am not surprised at all to hear that the main reason is because companies are motivated by covering their butts from a legal perspective, rather than embracing a genuine change toward greater diversity.

Prof. Kalev’s research actually meshes quite well with what I wrote earlier about how other scholars argue that true diversity is ultimately beneficial for any type of organization because diversity leads to innovation and therefore, a competitive edge.

In other words, the take home message here is that the goal of diversity (and therefore diversity training) is fundamentally sound -- it’s just that in order for such goals to be realized, organizations need to accept and internalize them as part of their mission, rather than just using them to go through the motions in order to satisfy legal requirements.

As our nation celebrates the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. today, it’s appropriate that we reflect on the state of his quest toward racial harmony and equality in contemporary American society.

Specifically, in this day and age, racial/ethnic relations seem to influence many of the most controversial and hotly-debated issues in modern American society. This includes immigration (especially illegal immigration), racist imagery such as recent noose incidents, and most recently, issues surrounding Barack Obama’s campaign.

With that in mind, I think it’s useful for us -- or at least for me as a sociologist -- to try to take a step back and look at these issues from a more institutional or contextual perspective. In other words, to understand each of these specific issues that I just mentioned better, I think it’s useful for us to first understand the social context which forms the framework within which each issue unfolds.

With that in mind, the results from two national-level surveys have just been released to try to give us this larger, societal picture of the current state of racial/ethnic relations. Specifically, studies conducted by the Pew Research Center and New America Media each provide data and insight on attitudes toward and between different racial/ethnic groups in America. So let’s take a look at each to see what they say and how they can help us understand American racial/ethnic relations better.

The Pew Research Center study generally concludes that among Whites, Blacks, and Latinos, large majorities of each group report that they get along “pretty well” or “very well” with members of the other groups. However, there are some differences -- Black and Latino seem to be slightly less positive:

While 70% of blacks say blacks and Hispanics get along very or pretty well, just 57% of Hispanics agree. Meantime, some 30% of Hispanics say blacks and Hispanics get along not too or not at all well; this is the most negative assessment registered by any group in the survey about any inter-group relationship.

It’s important to note however, that although this 57% of Latinos who report good relations with Blacks is lower than what Blacks report themselves, it is still a numerical majority.

The Pew study also reports that generally speaking, those with higher education and income tend to report better cross-racial relations. Perhaps surprisingly, Blacks living in rural areas tend to report better relations with Whites than Blacks who live in urban or suburban areas. Also, there were no significant differences in terms of attitudes by region of country. Finally and perhaps on a discouraging note, younger Blacks report worse relations with Whites than older Blacks.

In general, I found the Pew study informative but with one significant drawback -- they chose to exclude Asian Americans from the study.

In my opinion, this omission is absolutely inexcusable in this day and age when the Asian American population is close to 15 million, in which Asian Americans are some of the most socioeconomically successful ethnic groups in the U.S., and when Asian Americans increasingly make up large proportions of the population of many states and majorities in many cities.

I am extremely disappointed that an organization as otherwise professional and well-regarded as the Pew Research Center chose to exclude Asian Americans from this important study.

To remedy that, let’s turn to the other national study on racial attitudes, from New America Media (NAM), in conjunction with Bendixen & Associates. This survey included Asian Americans, Latinos, and African Americans, but because it focused on attitudes among and between racial/ethnic minority groups, the study did not include Whites.

Similar to the Pew study, I am a little disappointed that Whites were not included, but in relative terms, there is already a sufficient level of racial attitude data that exists among Whites, but much less so when it comes to data on racial minorities, especially Asian Americans.

Also, I am impressed that the NAM study was conducted in multiple languages to maximize its overall validity and generalizeability. A Powerpoint presentation of their major findings is also available for download. To summarize, the study notes:

[The poll] uncovered serious tensions among these ethnic groups, including mistrust and significant stereotyping, but a majority of each group also said they should put aside differences and work together to better their communities. . . .

Predominantly immigrant populations - Hispanics and Asians - expressed far greater optimism about their lives in America, concluding that hard work is rewarded in this society. By contrast, more than 60% of the African Americans polled do not believe the American Dream works for them. . . .

[Regarding tensions and mistrust], 44% of Hispanics and 47% of Asians are “generally afraid of African Americans because they are responsible for most of the crime.” Meanwhile, 46% of Hispanics and 52% of African Americans believe “most Asian business owners do not treat them with respect.” And half of African Americans feel threatened by Latin American immigrants because “they are taking jobs, housing and political power away from the Black community.” . . .

[Nonetheless], the poll found “a shared appreciation” for each group’s cultural and political contributions. “Hispanics and Asians recognize that African Americans led the fight for civil rights and against discrimination, forging a better future for the other groups,” she said.

“Asian Americans and African Americans say Hispanic culture has enriched the quality of their lives. African Americans and Hispanics perceive Asian Americans as role models when it comes to family and educational values.”

Generally, I am saddened -- but entirely shocked -- to hear that apparently, there is still a lot of racial tension and suspicion between Asian Americans, Latinos, and African Americans. I agree that important issues need to be addressed for these stereotypes to eventually be disproved.

Nonetheless, I would point out two points in regard to this NAM survey. The first is that as the Pew Research Center study generally showed, more educated and higher-income respondents are likely to be more positive about cross-racial attitudes and experiences.

With that in mind, it appears that the NAM survey did not disaggregate its responses by social class, instead lumping everyone from all kinds of educational, income, and occupational backgrounds together within each racial/ethnic group. This is disappointing and unfortunately, distorts the findings a little bit.

But perhaps more importantly, I am disappointed in some of the wording of the questions in the NAM survey. For example, it asked Asian and Latino respondents whether they agreed with the statement “I am generally afraid of African Americans because they are responsible for most of the crime.”

I must say that I finding that wording to be a biased, leading, and confusing, based on conventional sociological methodologies and guidelines of creating empirically valid surveys. First of all, it asks two questions in one -- whether they are afraid of African Americans, and two, whether they agree that African Americans commit most of the crime. One of the key rules about questionnaire design is that you should only ask one question at a time.

Second, presenting the statement that African Americans “are responsible for most of the crime” is leading -- it should have just asked the question, “Do you agree or disagree that African Americans are responsible for most crimes committed” would have been less leading and more direct. The distinction between the two is subtle, but empirically valid.

Another example of a poorly-worded and misleading question is “Latin American immigrants are taking away jobs, housing and political power from the Black community,” asked of African American and Asian respondents. Again, the problem here is that there are three questions combined into one -- whether Latino immigrants take away jobs, take away housing, and take away political power are all three distinct issues and questions that are unfortunately all rolled into one.

Take together, I would argue that these two questions may have distorted and exaggerated the overall level of racial tension between Asians, African Americans, and Latinos, especially considering most of the other findings in the NAM study, which generally showed a high level of willingness to cooperate with each other.

Specifically, 86% of Asians, 89% of African Americans, and 92% of Latinos agreed with the statement, “African Americans, Latinos, and Asians have many similar problems. They should put aside their differences and work together on issues that affect their communities.”

Ultimately and in my opinion, that is the probably the most significant finding from the NAM survey -- although some tensions and stereotypes still exist between Asians, Latinos, and Africans Americans (although the true extent is still unknown because some of the questions asked were biased and misleading), overwhelming majorities of each group are willing to work together to address issues of discrimination and inequality that they have in common.

To conclude, both the Pew and NAM studies stand as useful examples of both useful and interesting data, but also how shortcomings in their fundamental design unfortunately compromised their overall value.

As sociologists and as Americans in general, these are the kinds of institutional issues we need to keep in mind when we try to apply them to better understand specific issues.

You don’t need me to tell you that affirmative action is still one of the most controversial and divisive issues in American society. I am on record as saying that I support affirmative action as a means to achieve racial/ethnic diversity within a particular institution. Of course, many people feel differently and I respect their opinion in opposition.

Recently, the New York Times interviewed Scott E. Page, a professor of complex systems, political science, and economics at the University of Michigan, on his new book The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies in which he argues that programs such as affirmative action that increase diversity in any organizational setting are ultimately beneficial for society (quotes from Prof. Page):

Diverse groups of people bring to organizations more and different ways of seeing a problem and, thus, faster/better ways of solving it.

People from different backgrounds have varying ways of looking at problems, what I call “tools.” The sum of these tools is far more powerful in organizations with diversity than in ones where everyone has gone to the same schools, been trained in the same mold and thinks in almost identical ways.

The problems we face in the world are very complicated. Any one of us can get stuck. If we’re in an organization where everyone thinks in the same way, everyone will get stuck in the same place. . . . [Affirmative action is] a flat-out good because, as I said earlier, it makes everything we do more powerful.

From what I hear, Prof. Page is using the idea that diversity and heterogeneity in any organization leads to innovation and ultimately produces benefits the entire organization to support the fundamental principles behind affirmative action. He also argues that diversity can come in many different forms, not just simple racial/ethnic identity.

From what it sounds like, Prof. Page is arguing in support of holistic admissions, something that I posted about earlier that used Oregon State University’s admissions guidelines as a model for how affirmative action can be put into place for everyone’s benefit, not just underrepresented racial/ethnic groups.

Prof. Page’s book may or may not lead people to change their mind in support of affirmative action, but at the least, it is another resource that supporters like me can use to bolster the case for affirmative action.

A colleague send me this YouTube video link, entitled “A Land Called Paradise.” It’s a short video montage based on the following: In December 2007, over 2,000 American Muslims were asked what they would wish to say to the rest of the world:

I found it very touching and another example of the fact that, in contrast to the stereotypes that all Muslims are terrorists, most Muslim Americans think the way most other Americans think.

As we move forward into the 21st century, I, like many other observers, predict that there is likely to be more cross-national influence and collaboration between Asian countries, similar to what the European Union has done. Previously I’ve written about some examples of this, such as closer cooperation among ASEAN countries and Korean culture becoming trendy and fashionable in China.

But this trend sometimes produces some unexpected results. Case in point, as the New York Times reports, Japanese are increasingly turning to India as inspiration to improve their own educational system:

Despite an improved economy, many Japanese are feeling a sense of insecurity about the nation’s schools, which once turned out students who consistently ranked at the top of international tests. That is no longer true, which is why many people here are looking for lessons from India, the country the Japanese see as the world’s ascendant education superpower.

Bookstores are filled with titles like “Extreme Indian Arithmetic Drills” and “The Unknown Secrets of the Indians.” . . . At the Little Angels English Academy & International Kindergarten, the textbooks are from India, most of the teachers are South Asian, and classroom posters depict animals out of Indian tales. . . .

Viewing another Asian country as a model in education, or almost anything else, would have been unheard-of just a few years ago, say education experts and historians. . . . Much of Japan has long looked down on the rest of Asia, priding itself on being the region’s most advanced nation. . . .

But in the last few years, Japan has grown increasingly insecure, gripped by fear that it is being overshadowed by India and China, which are rapidly gaining in economic weight and sophistication. The government here has tried to preserve Japan’s technological lead and strengthen its military. But the Japanese have been forced to shed their traditional indifference to the region.

Grudgingly, Japan is starting to respect its neighbors.

As explained in the article, the only reason why folks like me see this as a surprising development is not because I question India’s educational excellence. Scholars already know that India has some of the best colleges in the world and as I’ve written about before, plenty of American universities are looking to tap into that educational talent.

Rather, what is surprising is that, as the NY Times article clearly notes, Japan has had a history of being rather nationalistic, chauvinistic, and perhaps even arrogant in regard to its attitudes toward its Asian neighbors. But I suppose desperate times call for drastic changes in attitude.

As another interesting item, the article notes that many Japanese are drawn to India’s rigorous educational structure because it reminds them of how Japan’s schools were structured several decades ago, which formed the foundation for Japan’s educational success up to this point.

I generally support cross-national influences and closer cultural ties between Asian countries. As an educator myself, I also generally support efforts to improve the quality of education for everyone, especially as we move forward into an increasingly competitive global economy.

At the same time, I worry when the emphasis on strict education turns into pressure to achieve material success, which in turn frequently leads to emotional stress and mental illness for young people to “become successful.” I’ve also written about how such pressures and unrealistic standards have led to fraud, suicide, and violence among those who could not meet such expectations.

The bottom line is, improving educational outcomes is good, but an obsessive drive to achieve material success at all costs is not. This is the lesson that I hope everyone -- Asian, Asian American, and otherwise -- will keep in mind.