[hilbert42]

Tough question, but it boils down to the type of subject matter that's been taught.

I'll use myself as a illustration: I've done a wide range of subjects in my time and I'll use two instances. One was philosophy which included political philosophy the other electronics (which was separate from science, physics, chemistry, etc.).

Philosophy covers a vast field: analytic Phil./logic requires mathematical precision whereas political Phil. requires a different type of thinking altogether much of which is subjective in nature. If I were to be employed in this field an employer would be mainly looking for my ability to assess and judge situations, etc. but that would have had precious little to do with any course materials. Here, an employer is looking at the worldly skills Phil. has taught me which is very different to my electronics courses.

An employer who was employing me for my electronic skills would expect me to have perhaps basic but very specific skills as taught in the course. If given a spectrum analyzer or oscilloscope, my employer would expect me to know what they were and how to use them. If I'd not used those models previously, any reasonable employer would give me operations manuals and a little familiarization time then set me to work on some electronics project. Essentially, in electronics there are certain specific skills that one must be taught and be familiar with or one cannot do the work.

In essence, in some professions there's a very tight coupling between one's education and one's work, especially so in engineering, chemistry, etc. and less so in others.

[forgetbook]

So, it varies, and is loosely coupled at best, even looking from a macro-level.

The problem I see is that while students have enormous incentive to match a company's standard, companies have very little incentive to be a part of that process.

A student pursuing a degree in a larger pursuit of a career is faced with a founder's dilemma. They shoulder all of the risk of failure, and have no recourse. It isn't a company's problem if they aren't trained properly, nor is it a professor's. When starting a company founders are able to seek funding and declare bankruptcy, but students are expected to take out loans that cannot be defaulted on.

If the macro-level goal is a highly trained, highly effective workforce, then why aren't students supported in pursuing training by any of the institutionsthey interact with on that macro level?

[hilbert42]

The point you raise isn't unique to the medical profession (although it's likely at the sharp edge), but it's endemic in other professions too. It's a much bigger cultural issue involving employees' attitude to work, long term job security and employers' indifference, etc. Huge topic, too complex to make much sense of here.

A related problem is the continuing education issue/ongoing skills etc. It's always been a bit of a joke from a workforce-wide/global perspective. Again, the reason why that's so is also involved and complex.