Ross Emmett


Ronald H. Coase, RIP (1910-2013)

I only met Ronald Coase once, and quite by accident. But it was one of those memories that sticks with you.

I was working in the reading room of the Special Collection Research Center at the University of Chicago’s Regenstein Library. It was probably the summer of 1996, and I was of course working on Frank Knight’s materials. Mid-afternoon, an elderly gentleman came in and sat down at the table next to mine. A number of people were working in the reading room, so I didn’t particularly take notice of this man. I only noticed, out of the corner of my eye, that he was reading a book, rather than looking at archived papers.

At some point I looked around me and realized that the man reading beside me was none other than Ronald Coase. Of course, I tried to see (without staring!) what he was reading, but the book was resting on the foam book supports the Research Center provides for those reading rare books to protect the bindings. I kept looking over from time to time to see if I could read the title, but never did.

I took a break around 3 pm, and went outside to enjoy the sunshine for a few moments. As I walked back in, Professor Coase was walking down the hallway leading out of the Research Center. I introduced myself, figuring that our mutual interest in Frank Knight would allow such an introduction, and asked him what he had been reading. In his soft unassuming voice, he said,

“I was just checking to make sure I had a quotation from the first edition of Pigou’s The Economics of Welfare correct.”

As he walked away, I couldn’t decide which surprised me more: that he didn’t own a first edition of Pigou’s famous book himself (I do!), or that he would even check to see if he had the quote right!

Posted: September 3rd, 2013 in History of Economics, Ronald Coase


No Comments »

Frank Knight: “Can the Mind Solve the Problems Raised by Its Liberation?”

Talk prepared for session on Frank Knight’s Economic and Social Philosophy at the Southern Economic Association meetings in Washington, DC, November 2011. I was not able to attend, so recorded my comments.

Can the Mind Solve the Problems Raised by Its Liberation?

Creative Commons License
Can the Mind Solve the Problem of Its Liberation? by Michigan State and Ross B. Emmett is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

Sources identified in the talk:

Buchanan, J. M. (1979), “Natural and Artefactual Man,” in What Should Economists Do? Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
Knight, F. H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Knight, F. H. (1922), “Ethics and the Economic Interpretation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 36, May, pp. 454-81.
Knight, F. H. (1923), “The Ethics of Competition,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 37, August, pp. 579-624.
Knight, F. H. (1960), Intelligence and Democratic Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (2009), The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

The text of my talk:

Can the Mind Solve the Problems Raised by Its Liberation?

Frank Knight concluded his Intelligence and Democratic Action with the following words:

I have been raising questions to which I, at least, do not see the answers—questions which, … frankly seem to justify doubts about the future of free society. If it is to survive society itself must manage somehow to work a very considerable change in human nature as it has come down into this liberal epoch. …
The question [is] whether human nature has what it takes to solve the problems which have been raised by its liberation.

Over the last twenty years of his life, Frank Knight devoted his attention to the manuscript of a book which remained incomplete at his death on the future of liberal society. Central to that book was a theme we can call “the quest for rational norms.” For Knight, the central problem facing liberalism was not “markets or state?” or even “what’s the best constitutional arrangement?” Instead, he believed that liberal society needed to establish a set of rational norms that would both constrain and guide the freedom liberalism had provided us.

In the manuscripts he wrote during those twenty years, he began to organize his response to the question about rational norms in three parts. First, what norms exist for thinking about economic policy in a free society? Secondly, what norms should guide politics in a free society? And finally, what ethical norms are required for a free society?

As I said, Knight’s book remained unfinished at his death, but we can summarize his thinking on each of these areas from the drafts that were written, from the book Intelligence and Democratic Action, and his other publications.

In economics, the quest for rational norms was reasonably clear to Knight. Throughout his entire career, going back to a point shortly after he completed Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Knight argued that economics could not be a predictive science. Hence, economics was not directly a guide to policy. Instead, he argued in different ways, that what economics did was provide a set of principles that guide our thinking about economic policy in a free society. A central concern of his was the problem of value. Knight’s solution to the problem of value lay in the alternative cost tradition, today identified most often as the opportunity cost tradition.

We could explore Knight’s economics principles further, but that would only take us further into things that you as economists could as easily spell out as I can, so I’m going to move on to politics.

In the quest for rational norms in politics, Knight has a more complex approach, because he is torn between two issues. Liberalism, as a tradition, affirms the importance of inherited traditions in shaping individual rationality. If we will, we could follow Adam Smith and say that our moral sentiments are shaped by the range of experiences our culture provides us. For Knight, an important component of this, which is seldom observed, is his early friendship with Edward Sapir, whose Sapir-Whorff hypothesis regarding language and culture, suggests that language shapes the way that we can conceptualize the world around us. Thus, for Knight, our rationality is socially embedded. I might point out here that in his debates over rationality and culture with Robert Hutchins, Robert Redfield, and John Nef—debates that provided the impetus for the creation of the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought—Knight sided with Redfield in rejecting the notion of a universal or natural moral rationality.

And yet at the same time, Knight believed, unlike some of his colleagues in the early postwar liberal movements, that liberalism was a revolutionary movement that had emerged by overthrowing the cultural authority of past traditions, esp. those traditions emerging from religion and absolutism. Hence, for Knight, there was a two-fold set of rational norms. On the one hand, we are rule-followers; on the other, we are rule-breakers. Thinking constitutionally, for Knight, was the way that humans should break law: that is, Knight argued, that where there were problems in our political order, what was needed was rational discussion of how to break, and re-make, the law.

As is typical in his work, Knight does not provide us with much more guidance than these comments suggest. Still, I find it interesting that the people that perhaps represent most closely what Knight might propose were he to spell out more fully the political norms that he would urge us to follow, are those who are often seen as antithetical to the tradition of liberalism in which we often place Knight. I’m thinking here in particular of John Rawls and Amartya Sen. I mention these two because John Rawls was reading Knight’s “Ethics of Competition” as he was working out his theory of Justice as Fairness in the 1960s. There are many similarities, once one recognizes Knight’s rationalistic side, between Rawls’ goals and Knight’s goals. And Amartya Sen, like Knight, is very concerned about those who, while free, do not have the capacity to participate effectively in a free society. Indeed, Knight spoke sometimes of the need for “effective freedom”; not just the absence of coercion, but the means and capacity for participation that improves the quality of one’s life.

Finally, ethics. As you know, Knight was concerned about ethics for the entirety of his life. From at least the 1922-23 essays “Ethics and the Economic Interpretation” and “The Ethics of Competition,” he returns over and over again to the question of what ethical norms can guide our action, both individually and as a society. There are two key signposts that we might point to that suggest what Knight might tell us about ethics in a liberal society. The first of those has been nicely captured by Jim Buchanan in the expression that concludes his essay “Natural and Artefactual Man”: what the free person wants is the freedom to become the person he wants to be. This is a theme that resonates throughout Knight’s work: that what freedom means ethically is the freedom to become someone that you currently are not, and that becoming is what people want more than satisfying existing wants. Hence his attack on utilitarianism; hence his attack on moralism and scientism as the substitution of an external authority for the personal quest to define the norms that will shape the quality of one’s life. In part, Knight’s comments on the quest for political norms for social action are an extension of this: society is also in the process of becoming, and freedom is valuable because it enables us both personally and collectively to become what we want to be.

The other theme is also a Buchanan theme: that is, the necessity of relatively absolute absolutes. Ethics, for Knight, does not exist in a cultural vacuum any more than economics and politics do. Cultural history matters for Knight; the values that we have are those which we have inherited from the past, and as we go forward, we do not completely remake them at one time. There are always some things we hold constant while we consider whether to change something else. Thus, for the moment, there are some values we hold as “absolute,” but always with the caveat that we remain free later to put them up for criticism: they are relatively absolute absolutes.

Hence, once again, Knight does not provide us with rational norms for ethical action. If anything, his ethical principle is the one he mentioned in his AEA presidential address: have lots of principles and make a judgment as to which are relevant to any specific decision.

The same holds true for his ethical standard for a liberal society. Does the society force one to accept norms which are not considered ultimately changeable? Does society enforce norms that prevent you, in some fashion, from becoming the person which you could become?

You may notice that in each of Knight’s three areas of concern, he provides little that suggests free society will succeed. Nor do his concerns fit together into a nice neat system of thought which one can apply to the social and economic problems of the day. Knight was always better at upsetting the course of normal economic and philosophical discussion by unveiling the constraints of its underlying assumptions than he was at system-building. But perhaps even today, reminders of our need for humility in the face of the dynamic complexity and novelty of human experience can prompt us to remember what we wish to become, and the need for critical judgment. That is what reading Knight today reminds us of.

Liberty in Classical Liberalism Talk

What is liberty? What does it mean to be free? How do we assure a free society?

On Wednesday, November 16th, I open a series of talks at James Madison College on Liberty. Here is the information. My talk will be on Liberty in Classical Liberalism.

The James Madison College Student Senate and MSU’s Young Americans for Liberty are pleased to invite you to a speaker series defending the importance of freedom, however it may be conceived. From communism to anarchy, be prepared for a lively discussion on the meaning of liberty.

Come hear Professor Ross Emmett open the series with a conversation on the meaning of classical liberalism in modern society.

6:30pm on Wednesday the 16th of November in room 331 Case Hall.

LSJ article on grade inflation at MSU

I am quoted in this article from the Lansing State Journal on grade inflation.

Michigan State sees ample “A’s” in recent years, by Matt Miller, which appeared today, September 11, 2011.

A companion article also appeared: MSU’s school of music, education lead the pack with most 4.0s

A useful addition to this discussion is Rachel Penn’s and my article on grade inflation at James Madison College.

Posted: September 11th, 2011 in Grade Inflation, Michigan State University, Teaching


No Comments »

Interview with Ross Emmett on Elgar Companion to the Chicago School

Jeanne Hoffman interviews me about my book.


RIP: Warren J. Samuels, 1933-2011

The following was posted on the SHOE email list earlier today.

Warren Samuels passed away yesterday at his home in Gainesville, Florida. Warren was an eminent historian of economic thought, whose work ranged across the field’s breadth. His first published works in the field were a pair of articles on the physiocratic system (published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics) that served to reshape thinking about the physiocratic view of the economic role of the state. On the other end of the time spectrum, he was a pioneer in doing and encouraging work on the history of post-war economics. This breadth of scholarship is exemplified nicely in the book that he completed not long before his death, Erasing the Invisible Hand: Essays on an Elusive and Misguided Concept in Economics, which was brought to completion with the assistance of Marianne Johnson and will be released by Cambridge University Press in September. We’ve suffered a great loss as an intellectual community in his passing.

Many of you knew Warren well, so there is no need to rehearse at length his publications or his forays into many other areas of economics. Warren was one of the first historians of economics to treat the history of economics as a branch of intellectual history. This was, for him, a part of the larger intellectual conversation about the role of governments and markets in modern society that was his lifelong pursuit. His well-known studies of policy in classical economics (The Classical Theory of Economic Policy) and in Pareto (Pareto on Policy) were major contributions to that discussion. His perspective had a significant effect on the students who studied with him over the years, and on those of us who were the recipients of his comments and advice at conferences and via correspondence.

From the outset of his career, Warren recognized the importance to the intellectual historian of correspondence, course notes, unpublished manuscripts, public lectures, etc. What we now collectively refer to as archival materials. Not only did he promote the use of these materials in historical research, but he also amassed an extensive personal collection of these materials, which he began to publish in 1989 in archival supplements to Research in the History of Economic Thought & Methodology. The very first supplement contained the notes he had obtained from economist Robert L. Hale and Sinologist Homer H. Dubs of John Dewey’s course on Moral and Political Philosophy at Columbia University. The second supplement contains the only authorized publication of Frank Knight’s infamous lecture on “The Case for Communism.” Warren and George Stigler went back and forth for some time regarding the publication of that piece! Dewey and Knight were, perhaps not surprisingly, two of Warren’s intellectual heroes. The materials he amassed will continue to be published in the research annual for many years to come. His collection of photographs of economists is already available online from the Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University.

Warren was also a tireless editor of volumes that touched upon almost any aspect of his wider interests. I have lined up on my bookshelf over 80 volumes that he edited on the history of economics, economic methodology, or recent economic thought. Mine is probably not a complete set! All of these were undertaken to encourage scholarship in areas that interested him (and, by extension, which he thought would interest others). Many of them are also the means by which he encouraged the work of young scholars.

Many of us experienced his generosity to students, young scholars and anyone else who wanted to join the great conversation. His goal and passion was to broaden and enrich that conversation, and he was as happy to engage in conversation with a young scholar as he was with a Nobel laureate. To that end, he and Sylvia made a substantial contribution to the History of Economics Society to endow its Young Scholars program.

Among the many professional societies to which he belonged, the History of Economics Society was always the one closest to Warren’s heart. He was a founding member of the Society, and served as its 8th President. The Society honored him in 1997 with its Distinguished Fellow award; two years earlier he was the recipient of the Association for Evolutionary Economics Veblen-Commons Award. He was the long-time editor of the Journal of Economic Issues and the founding editor of Research in the History of Economic Thought & Methodology.

I wish to acknowledge the helpful advice I received from Jeff Biddle, Marianne Johnson and Steve Medema.

Cities and Innovation

I’ve been reading Edward Glaeser’s Triumph of the City (Penguin, 2011): an excellent read and quite accessible for general audiences.

Glaeser makes three claims I’d like to discuss. The first is in his subtitle: the city is “our greatest invention.” The second is that cities are central to human flourishing; and the third, which he tells us lies behind both of the first two claims, is that “ideas spread easily in dense environments” (ironically, this core claim only appears in Glaeser’s acknowledgements, so those interested in the thinking behind his book may miss it!).

I disagree with Glaeser’s first claim, and largely agree with the other two, although the nature of my disagreement with the first claim will modify both of the other claims. Let me explain.

Humanity’s greatest invention is language. Glaeser may, of course, simply respond by saying that language is natural to humans, while he is concerned with that which is human-created. But it is that natural-artificial divide that led Rousseau to identify cities as “the abyss of the human species” (a quote Glaeser uses) because they are artificial, and also to argue that language must have begun as an expression of human emotion (a raw, natural act, like a song from a song-bird) rather than as product of human rationality. Clearly, Glaeser doesn’t want to join Rousseau, so perhaps he’ll have to agree with me. In any case, his discussions of place and the evolution of cities sound a lot like discussions of the evolution of language and of its diversity across the human race.

Without language, humans would be reduced to managing the various relationships of existence via reciprocity—the highest form of social collaboration commonly found among other animals. Reciprocal relationships—I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine—can be quite complex, but because they involve exchanging A for A, cannot take us far toward either exchanging complex ideas or creating “dense environments.” Cities, certainly, don’t appear from reciprocity. For that, we’d need to take relationships beyond reciprocity; and language is the key to the “beyond.” And since both Glaeser and I are economists, I can add that reciprocity is different than economic exchange—trading A for X (getting into why trade is not reciprocity would take us too far away from our topic, but I can illustrate the issues by merely pointing out that X need not only be a different good than A, it may not even be a good, and it may not be in the same place, or at the same time). Trade, as Adam Smith realized long ago, is deeply connected to language and both are fundamental to making humanity, as Robert Malthus once said, “a peculiar animal.” In short, no language or trade, no cities.

The fact that Glaeser takes language for granted is signaled by his third claim: dense environments promote the spread of ideas. He might as well say, lots of talk promotes the spread of ideas. Density is only possible because humans can talk, and greater density enables even more talk. As long as we assume that ideas spread via talk, then density facilitates the spread of ideas.

It was this argument that led me to pick up Glaeser’s book in the first place. I thought he could help me understand better how cities function as “hubs,” “hotspots,” or “incubators” for innovation. And he does: he makes a persuasive case that because cities create a dense network, good ideas for all kinds of things that add value to our lives are more likely to appear and have a chance to succeed. This is how cities make us, as his sub-title says, “richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier.”

But as I read, I realized that Glaeser never really explains how “density” converts more ideas into good ideas that add value. After all, a dense human environment is as conducive to cheap talk as it is to good talk. And Frank Knight’s first law of talk may apply: “Talk is cheap and it drives out talk that is less cheap.” Flattery, sophistry, cajolery, publicity, huckstering, lobbying, deception, and the like are often associated with city life. Welcome to the Emerald City!

Glaeser never really addresses the problem of cheap talk. Instead, his analysis of cities implies that density, and the diversity of ideas it provides, serves a winnowing function for ideas: lots of ideas are tried out, those that succeed survive. Perhaps this is a heritage of his Chicago School training: markets always produce improvements, as long as we understand improvement to mean better satisfaction of what it is that people want. And I’m sympathetic to that argument.
But what if we want to improve the means by which people voluntarily find new and better wants? Isn’t that part of the reason we create cities? Can I be confident that increasing the density of cities will necessarily improve the quality of our social interactions? I have come to the point where I expect it will, but not only from market interactions. I don’t see in Glaeser a reason for me to be confident in my expectation. For this, we’re probably better off turning to Elinor Ostrom and Deirdre McCloskey. They at least have arguments for how talk, and especially cheap talk, plays a role in improving the outcomes of centrally uncoordinated human action. Ostrom’s Nobel lecture provides the basics of her argument; McCloskey’s “Bourgeois Era” series is building her case. Both contradict Knight, although perhaps in different ways.

For my own purposes, consideration of the importance of talk to innovation helps us understand why certain institutional features of a society – its appreciation for freedom of expression and association, its willingness to design around human action rather than direct action through design, etc. – as well non-institutional features, such as a society’s norms and common morality, play such an important role in making some societies innovative, and others not. More on that topic to come!

Hayek, Chicago, Friedman, Knight

Posted to the SHOE (Societies for the History of Economics) email list earlier today:

Sergio Noto’s note somewhat overstates the case for Knight’s favor toward Hayek. I’ll use the occasion to respond to it as a chance to also comment on Hayek’s appointment.

1) It is not strictly true that Chicago’s department of economics rejected Hayek. Or, to put it differently, the department never had an “up-down” vote on him. As far as I have seen in the Departmental Records, Hayek never made it onto the list of economists the department would consider for hires (this was generated internally by T.W. Schultz with rankings by the departmental members). So the department did not “reject” him.

2) Of course, this simply shifts the question to: why was he never included on the list? But the answer there seems obvious: before the post-war period, Chicago generally hired Americans, or people who had a connection to the department. Indeed, between 1946 and 1952, they lost R. Blough, P. Douglas, S. Leland, and H.C. Simons (the only non-American to leave was O. Lange). These were replaced with M. Friedman, E.J. Hamilton, L.A. Metzler, and M. Reid. Metzler, of course, was a Keynesian; Friedman a former student; Reid through her Iowa State connection to Schultz; and Hamilton through Nef and Knight.

3) Did Knight work for or against Hayek? Sergio notes their respect for each other, which did exist. But David Mitch’s story (in his essay “Chicago and economic history” in the Elgar Companion to the Chicago School) about Knight’s help in hiring Hamilton is potentially telling in regard to the hiring of Hayek. Chicago considered hiring another economic historian twice in the 1940s; both times Harold Innis and Earl Hamilton were ranked highest by the faculty. Nef preferred Innis, whose vision of economic history was broad. Knight preferred Hamilton, who “grounded his work in perspectives from economic theory” (Mitch, p. 115). Knight won, and Hamilton was hired. What the choice of Hamilton suggests is that Knight encouraged the department to seek economists, narrowly defined, rather than those with a broader vision of economics and society. The choice was ironic in two senses: a) Knight himself had never been an economist, narrowly defined (although he did define economics narrowly), and b) Hamilton became the object of criticism from Friedman students later for his wage-gap theory of inflationary adjustment during the time of Spanish treasure. Knight would, in this accounting, not support a Hayek hire in the department.

4) But Knight did support, and assist with, the hiring of Hayek in the Committee on Social Thought (see my paper on CST). In fact, given Knight’s own role in the Committee, it seemed the obvious place for someone with economics training and broad philosophical interests. The workshop system emerging in the department during the 1950s — aimed at creating applied policy economists through rigorous scientific training of graduate students and faculty — would have been inappropriate for someone like Hayek (Hamilton, actually, ended up with the same problem — it wasn’t until Fogel replaced him that the economic history workshop took off). And the College, which taught the undergraduate students, would not have been appropriate for someone of Hayek’s scholarly interests. Hayek needed access to a scholarly community including graduate students. The Committee, which came into existence in the mid-1940s, was a perfect fit. Indeed, in the same year Hayek joined the Committee, Leo Strauss was hired in Political Science (a very eclectic department at that point which couldn’t decide what it wanted to do), with a cross appointment in the Committee. Hayek and Strauss played important roles in shaping what the Committee became over the next 20 years.

5) And, yet, there is more to the Hayek-Knight relationship to mention. Late in life, in an interview with Jim Buchanan, Hayek muses on his relationship with Knight and wonders why Knight never seemed to reciprocate Hayek’s respect and friendliness toward him. I have argued the roots of the matter go back to the capital debate, not in its theoretical aspects, but in the fact that, just as Hayek and Knight came to seeming agreement on capital (in their correspondence in the early 1930s), Hayek turned around and published an article which dismissed their discussion in favor of a “systematic exposition” of a position that did not account for what they were agreeing upon in the letters. I have quoted Knight’s response in my online essay on Knight’s capital theory — see the quote at the beginning of the page. See also my essay on Knight and Hayek in the newly released Hayek, Mill and the Liberal Tradition (ed. by Andrew Farrant).

If you combine Knight’s response to Hayek in 1934; his comments about The Road to Serfdom that now appears in the definitive edition edited by Bruce Caldwell (a representative quote is here); and his criticism of Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty (JPE, 1967; also the title essay in vol. 2 of my FHK collection), you see that Knight did not hold Hayek in the same high esteem that Hayek did Knight. In the latter item, he uses words like “pretentiousness,” “anarchistic,” “notably absurd,” supremely “absurd,” and a “flagrant example of false generalizing.” Oh, and later in the essay “Hayek reaches the peak of fallacy.” David Levy tells the story of Knight walking out of a Hayek lecture at about this same time (Knight was sitting in the middle of one of the front rows, so his departure was obvious to everyone!).

A complex relationship which needs a complex story to tell it.

The Perennial Gale of Creative Destruction: Schumpeter Turns Marx on His Head

On Monday, April 4, 2011, I gave a lecture at James Madison College on Schumpeter’s notion of “creative destruction.” The lecture was sponsored by the MC Student Senate, whom I thank for the opportunity. The lecture was streamed live via ustream.

The Perennial Gale of Creative Destruction: Schumpeter Turns Marx on His Head.

Connecting College Students with New Firms

President Obama wants firms, labor unions and community colleges to work together to put students to work. His grand idea is that firms will tell community colleges what skills they need in new workers, government will fund community college expansion of skill education, and labor unions will cooperate in allowing firms to expand hiring. Several firms have already leapt onboard this plan: McDonalds and Gap, for example, although neither has a unionized workforce. The Gates Foundation is also involved, along with several other liberal education-oriented foundations.

A central problem with Obama’s grand idea is the simple fact that new jobs are usually created by new firms, not established ones. An NBER research paper issued in August 2010 by John C. Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin, Javier Miranda showed that the prevailing wisdom among policy-makers that small firms create the most jobs is misleading. But it is also wrong to say that big firms create the most jobs. The authors argue that strongest indicator of new job creation is whether the firm is young, regardless of whether it is small or big.

Obama’s biggest challenge, then, is one he is not seeking to address: how can we connect college students to young firms?

That question was one the students in the Michigan Futures Seminar identified back in 2009 as a key issue for fostering a more entrepreneurial, innovative Michigan. The students in that seminar created Spotlight Michigan, which began to search for ways to connect students to young firms.

A couple of insights from the 2009 and 2010 versions of the Seminar, both of which developed ideas under the Spotlight Michigan theme, are relevant to President Obama’s idea. Both, however, suggest that throwing federal dollars at the problem will not particularly help.

Insight 1: New firms are not active student recruiters.
This does not mean they will not hire students, but instead that when they look for new employees, they tend to want to hire someone who has both a specific set of skills and the willingness to work in the “new firm” environment. They want a specific set of mechanical or IT skills, of course, which is why the President’s plan is aimed at community college education. But they also want someone who understands that new firms do not have the luxury of hiring you to do only one thing: you’re as likely to participate in a strategy session as you are to spend the day programming. And you may well have to put the coffee on and work long hours alongside owners and other employees from a wide age range.
Such an environment is exciting for some students, scary for others. The fact that 80% of new firms fail within less than 5 years also means that the student hires may well be looking for work again, soon.

Insight 2: Students do not know how to look for jobs with new firms
Ask a student to name a “new” firm, and they’re likely to name Facebook. In other words, most students have no idea what new firms look like, and they don’t know where or how to find those firms. Given insight 1 (new firms are not likely to be sitting between the US Army and IBM at the local career fair), and students’ general inexperience with the business world (having been in the classroom since they were 6), it is no wonder that students don’t consider working with new firms.

Spotlight Michigan has tried a number of ways of bridging the Great Divide between new firms and students. The lessons I take away from their experiences are twofold:

1) the most important thing we can do to link students with new firms is to make a personal connection between an entrepreneur and a student; and
2) encourage students to join young professional or entrepreneurial groups that informally kick around new ideas and spin companies and non-profits out, because that’s where they will meet the entrepreneurs starting new firms.

Neither of these lessons particularly needs the millions President Obama wants to throw at community colleges. Colleges are not really very good at either of these things anyway. And labor unions are not involved at all (why would they be? – they work to protect existing jobs at older firms, not create new jobs at new firms!). What it takes is local involvement of students, entrepreneurs and individuals who are willing to invest time and energy to link the two. In other words, it takes a community to raise entrepreneurial firms.