The Problem with “Life”, “Essential” and “Professional” Skill Definitions
To understand why these terms are insufficient, consider the employer demand model of STEM + Soft Skills. Both employers and educators seek to deliver a combination of content mastery like STEM and Soft Skills like creativity, critical-thinking, collaboration, communication, emotional intelligence and habits of mind skills. The goals is a primed pump of foundational information to work from and the thinking capacity to make something of the base content. With this understanding in hand, it’s easy to see that “life”, “essential” and professional labels” for soft skills is inadequate as STEM and foundational skills remain a key and necessary part of the thinking skills formula. And melding STEM and the variety of soft skills into a single “Professional Skills” defeats the purpose of describing an accurate education and workforce development process.
“Soft” is Good Enough for the Computer Industry
Moving back to the argument to continued use of “Soft Skills,” I often point out to educators that in the information industry, no one has any issue with “software” not being serious enough for primetime use. Further, the differentiation between “Software” and “Hardware” is applicable to understanding education: “Soft Skills” like creativity is like “Software” while STEM content mastery is like “Hardware” storage of data to manipulate. Thus, if “Soft” is good enough for the most impactful economic era so far through history and one which continues to drive our current day evolution, I’m of the mind that it’s a pretty damn powerful word that should be embraced by education.