Outre les qualités intellectuelles qu’elle amène à développer, l’université, par la diversité de ses étudiants et de son corps enseignant apporte des qualités humaines à celui qui y étudie. L’université est le lieu transitoire entre la vie d’un adolescent et la vie d’un homme, qui devient autonome, assume ses choix, ses études et par là même, ses résultats.

Cette formation est un des piliers qui permet à chacun de se construire.

Un deuxième pilier est cependant indispensable pour aborder efficacement le monde du travail, je veux parler de la formation professionnelle.

Beyond the intellectual qualities that it helps to develop, the university, by the diversity of its students and its teaching staff, brings human qualities to those who study there. The university is a transitory place between the life of an adolescent and the life of a man, who is becoming autonomous, accepting responsibility for his choices, his studies, and thus also for his results.

This education is one of the foundations that allow each of us to construct ourselves.

A second pillar is nevertheless indispensable for efficiently entering the work world, I mean professional training…

The proposed law would thus require that university students spend five hours weekly on getting a BEP or CAP, which are both secondary-level education certificates, on the level of American vocational-technical diplomas. Typical specializations for the BEP or CAP are things like carpentry, retail sales, automobile maintenance, graphic design, secretarial work, and restaurant work: they are degrees that, in essence, aim to produce the specialized “technicians” who make up the French working classes in an increasingly post-industrial era. Given widespread complaints about out-of-work university graduates, it isn’t surprising that this proposed law hopes to enhance job placement prospects, while also (in a charming moment of humanist pragmatism) allowing students to “balance their knowledge” between pure theory and pure technique.

Let’s be clear: this is a proposition that comes from a specific political position, that of the French center-right. Five of the six senators who propose it are from UMP, the party of Sarkozy; one additional senator (Marcel Deneux) is from the centrist MoDems. Given the UMP’s well-known affinity for the business sector, it isn’t very surprising to see this proposal to shift higher education in a vocational direction; there have been plenty of more subtle versions of the same proposal over the years. To be sure, given the current left majority in the French Senate, it isn’t remotely likely to become law, and no doubt there are some internal French politics here that I don’t follow. Sauvons L’Université describes it sarcastically as “the UMP’s generous contribution to the debate,” which suggests that it’s a purely symbolic proposition.

There is, however, an interesting expression in the proposed law that merits commentary: la vie active. It translates simply as “active life,” which probably will strike an Anglophone reader as pretty vague. In French this is a conventional expression that denotes what in English would be called “working life.” It’s used in expressions like this one (in the proposed law):

Le baccalauréat professionnel permet l’insertion dans la vie active…
The vocational diploma allows entrance into active life…

It’s one of those expressions that always puzzled me in French: why should “work” be glossed so poorly as “activity” in general? Surely, I always thought to myself, “activity” encompasses a much broader range of things than just paid labor? Finally I thought to look it up in a French scholarly dictionary:

14. RELIG.  Vie active. Mode de vie des personnes vivant dans le monde, par opposition à la vie contemplative des religieux ou religieuses cloîtrés.

Étymol. ET HIST.
I. Adj. 1. 1160 « (en parlant d’une pers.) qui est dans la vie active, laïc, par oppos. à contemplatif »; vie active « vie séculière, p. oppos. à vie contemplative » (BENOIT DE STE MAURE, Chron. ducs de Norm., éd. Fahlin, 13 355 : Soz icez [chanoine e clerc] vit li ordres lais, E cist en sostiennent le fais. Actif sunt qui si faitement Vivvent au siècle activement, E vie active est apelee); 2. 1360 « qui déploie de l’énergie, travailleur » (ORESME, Éthique, Table ds GDF. Compl. : Actif est de action, et selon ce l’en dit que ung homme est actif, qui est praticien et bien besognant);

In short, this tells us that in the medieval period (or at least around 1160 A.D.), the phrase “active life” was used to distinguish those who were living secularly from those who were in the “contemplative life” of the religious orders. By 1360 the expression was also used to describe a person who “deploys energy, a worker.” Curiously, then, when we read about current French debates over job placement, we find ourselves in the presence of distinctions between action and contemplation that derive rather directly from the culture of medieval Christianity. One might even go so far as to say that this very distinction between “action” and “contemplation” is something that encourages today’s right-wing senators to view a university education as entirely theoretical, the utter opposite of a practical education.

It’s a bit curious, because French university curricula have increasingly shifted towards professional topics like business and economics over the past forty years. But no anthropologist should be surprised to find that symbolic systems of classification work to conceal as well as to reveal.

I’ve been listening to the results of your debates with great interest.

It’s remarkable that we’ve been able to bring students, young graduates, university actors and business representatives together for this debate on the “new resources for enterprise” that the human and social sciences represent.

The question that has been discussed here for the past three-plus hours is essential. It’s at the heart of my activities at the Ministry of Higher Education and Research.

There was a time when, among employers, the universities had a bad reputation in relation to other establishments of higher learning. This time has passed. For almost three years now I’ve led efforts that aim to restore the universities to their full place in the country’s instructional programs.

Graduates in the human and social sciences deserve to be supported in their search for employment. To be sure, three years after the end of their studies, graduates with a license in classics, languages or history have unemployment rates around 7%, which is actually lower than those with the same degree in physics (8%) or chemistry (12%). But these encouraging statistics should not hide a worrisome reality: these fields also see a process of unacknowledged selection — by failure. This failure extends to as many as 50% of enrolled students, in both the first and in the second years [of the 3-year license].

For too long, we have let things be without reacting.

The fields of social and human sciences have welcomed many of the students coming from the second wave of massification of university enrollments, the one that began in the 80s. But the democratization of access to higher education has remained unfinished. We have too often neglected to support these new high school graduates. They have been driven by the system’s inertia [les pesanteurs] towards the social and human sciences, without really having chosen them.

It was in order to reverse these tendencies that the law of 2007 set disciplinary and professional placement [l’orientation et l’insertion professionnelle] at the heart of the university’s missions. The “License plan” has offered universities the means to bring students up to speed and to better prepare them to enter professional life.

It was not acceptable that many enrolled students never showed up to take their exams, nor that the university had such high exam failure rates. From this point forward, troubled students should be able to leave the university better armed for professional life. And, starting this year, universities should furnish their professional placement indicators.

In other words, students and students’ issues have been brought back to the heart of the university. Henceforth it will be possible to respond to their legitimate needs for disciplinary placement, for training [formation] and for preparation for professional life.

In this room we have actors with years of experience in professional placement. But until these last few years, their initiatives remained isolated and lacked sufficient overall coordination. That’s why, for the last three years, I’ve pushed to regroup our job placement efforts and to make them more coherent.

Little by little, the universities have reorganized their forces of professionalization within job placement offices (BAIP). And placement indicators are just the start of an immense effort to constitute a set of figures, which will make it possible to closely follow the impact of degree programs on students’ employability. At the same time, universities are learning how to emphasize the competences that go along with each of their programs. This is essential for letting employers know where to turn to diversify their hiring.

The coming years will involve reinforcing and diversifying the job prospects [débouchés possibles] for all students who pass through the human sciences and social sciences. Taken together, these fields represent 56% of students at the university — and this figure remains stable from the license to the doctorate. That means that the human sciences and social sciences have an immense need for placement.

In addition to teaching posts, the public sector in general offers the human sciences and social sciences a number of openings. On one hand, this is a good thing: the renovated State of the 21st century will have a need for “general culture,” for the spirit of synthesis, for the attention to the human factor that we get from the sciences of man and society. But an efficient State does not multiply its employees until they stretch out of sight. One must go where jobs are being created. It is the private sector where one can expect the diversification of openings and the multiplication of jobs for the graduates of the human sciences and social sciences.

That’s what gives today’s meeting its importance. I’m happy that it has taken place so soon after the Council for the Development of the Humanities and Social Sciences suggested it, in the report that it submitted to me last January 14th. The large crowd we see here today confirms that this Council, with its eminent and rich reflections on the future of the sciences of man and society, was right to make reflections on professional placement a priority.

This morning’s debates will have contributed to the emergence of a new state of mind; they will have let people working on the same thing nation-wide meet each other; finally, they will lead to concrete progress on these issues.

I know that a certain number of you, among the university placement officials, are going to meet this afternoon, after this meeting, to get to know each other better, to discuss your experiences and to reflect, concretely, on how to improve placement efforts. Your experiences are diverse, often rooted in the regional reality of an employment pool. However, students’ expectations, universities’ ideas, and recruiters’ worries are often very similar across regions. You have much to gain by networking on the supraregional and even national scale.

On the recruiters’ side too, a holistic vision needs to be put together. Operation Phoenix has played a pioneering role in organizing high-quality recruitment at the master’s level in SHS [social and human sciences]. The graduates involved are being hired with permanent contracts (CDI) and are getting instruction that should rapidly adjust them to the realities of business. This involves a demanding procedure that makes some enterprises recoil: some feel that they don’t yet have the means to correctly evaluate the value of an SHS degree; others feel that they don’t have the size necessary to support the necessary financial engagement. Nonetheless, Operation Phoenix has the great significance of having constituted a reference: it sets the standard for best practices in professional placement in the human and social sciences.

Of course, faced with the realities of economic life, faced with the diversity of situations that businesses confront, it would be absurd to want to impose a standardized procedure. The Elsa procedure, which has also been in place for a few years now, has done very important follow-up work to better adapt student profiles and business demand. Other initiatives have been taken elsewhere, to adapt to particular regional contexts or sectors of activity. The variety of these formulas deserves to be encouraged, provided that one respects quality requirements and that SHS graduates are not treated as second-rate.

Over the term of its work on graduates’ employability, the Council for the Development of the Humanities and Social Sciences has recommended, among other things, the creation of a “good SHS placement label” that would be given to businesses that perform well in this domain and that follow a chart of best practices. The use of such a label would have the advantage of taking into account the diversity of experiences while still fixing quality requirements at the national level and in giving the means to “pass to higher speed,” to borrow the title of the second roundtable.

The considerable work done in Operation Phoenix or in the Elsa process has produced results that are qualitatively appreciable but that remain quantitatively limited. I would thus like to encourage the actors in these operations, and all those who work on similar initiatives, to imagine how such a label might be put in place. It would of course be necessary to consult the universities, especially via the Conference of University Presidents, in specifying the details [modalities]of such a labeling process. Everyone will get something out of this operation: students, universities, and enterprises alike.

There is no question here of confounding roles. The Ministry’s role is to guarantee the quality of educational programs and to officially recognize them. Its role is also to encourage the universities to rapidly constitute reliable placement indicators. Today, I think, the objective is not to multiply professional programs, but to make sure that programs in human and social sciences are recognized alongside the professional degrees. And the labeling we’ve discussed concerns recruiters too. I imagine that the promoters of Phoenix, of Elsa and of other similar operations will put in place a “labeling committee” constituted by independent actors, one whose first task will be to elaborate the guidelines for “best practices in SHS placement.” At this moment, it will be possible for the Ministry of Higher Education and Research to be represented on this committee.

A few quick translation notes… (a.) the license is the introductory French university degree, approximately like a bachelor’s but three years long and generally more specialized. (b.) I’ve had a lot of trouble translating formation, which is something like education but has the connotation of “forming” a person in a specific field. Often formation designates a sort of specialized education, more or less professionally oriented. (c.) “Placement” or is my translation of insertion, a word which means getting “inserted” into some professional workplace. I’m not sure it quite captures the same connotations, but it will have to do for now.

Also, as usual in this translation game, the text refers to other entities that I’m not well acquainted with. I’ve never heard of Elsa, but I did look up Operation Phoenix and it’s apparently a project that gets MA graduates (of some nine Parisian universities) hired at several major corporations: Axa, Coca-Cola Entreprise, Danone, HSBC, Marine Nationale, L’Oréal, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Renault, Société Générale. It’s paradoxical, to say the least, that there would be so much emphasis on finding jobs for French graduates at the same time that precarious labor within the university system is so low on the ministry’s priority list.

I’m interested by a number of other features of this speech, from the bureaucratic and organizational futures it envisions to its absolutely unquestioned emphasis on job placement (which infuriates so many of the faculty critics here), from its vision of a shrinking French State to the emphasis on “quality” and “best practices” combined with clear job outcomes. But above all I’m struck by the fact that, in this vision of things, the integration of public higher education into the business world is total. Total.

So in other words, the justification for philosophy is partly “fun” and intrinsic interest (the metaphysics of the Matrix figure in a photograph), but largely and perhaps predominantly economic necessity and marketable skills. Insofar as philosophy is, well, sold this way, it’s suggestive of Bonnie Urciuoli‘s work on the empty terms of liberal arts marketing rhetoric, of what Don Brenneis calls “the consequentiality of the semantically vacuous.” Certainly in this article, it’s unclear that philosophy really teaches skills; and if it does, it’s also unclear that they are particularly vocationally useful.

Careerism in philosophy, incidentally, has been condemned at least since Francis Bacon, who argued in the Advancement of Learning that the urge for “lustre and profession” was exemplary of the error of “the mistaking or misplacing of the last or furthest end of knowledge.” This article, as far as one can judge from the journalist’s choice of quotes and interview topics, takes precisely the opposite position. Here, philosophy is all about its instrumental value for individual advancement. The journalist emphasizes, with an eye to her reader’s probable doubts about the discipline, that philosophy needn’t be “luxury,” be “frou-frou,” be “people sitting under trees and talking about stupid stuff” (said Onejame about her preconceptions of her major).

Unsurprisingly, the one person who does take a more traditional view of philosophy, as the master discipline that founds all others, is not a student but rather the Chancellor of CUNY, Matthew Goldstein. Goldstein comments that philosophy “is really at the core of just about everything we do. If you study humanities or political systems or sciences in general, philosophy is really the mother ship from which all of these disciplines grow.”

Luckily, the journalist manages to discover a less academic function for philosophy: that of reproducing heteronormative sexuality.

Jenna Schaal-O’Connor, a 20-year-old sophomore who is majoring in cognitive science and linguistics, said philosophy had other perks. She said she found many male philosophy majors interesting and sensitive.

“That whole deep existential torment,” she said. “It’s good for getting girlfriends.”

So even existential torment turns out to be yet another skill, ready to be put to use on the dating market. And the student in question seems quite aware of the fact: content with her instrumentalism.