President's column: July 2006
We should determine now how to protect the state's future
Minnesota is at a critical juncture for its economic and social future. Demographic changes are radically altering the age composition of its population and workforce, the ethnic and preparatory characteristics of its school age population and the future supply of educated citizens and workers. The public’s understanding of the nature and extent of the nation’s real competition for leadership and success in the future is incomplete and not rooted in reality. In many respects Minnesota’s specific challenges reflect those that the nation must address in general. Unfortunately, policymakers at both state and federal levels have not addressed the strategic changes which will be required to prepare for a stable and successful future.
With increasing retirements among baby boomers and GI Bill recipients from the post-World War II period, Minnesota is losing a talent pool that has been leading our economy and community. In the coming years we will need to replace nearly half of our K-12 teachers, nearly half of our college professors, a high percentage of our practicing scientists and other professional leaders in the varied and complex fields of our economy. At the same time, we will experience a decline in high school and college graduates and dramatic changes in the composition of the next generation preparing for high school and beyond. The changes required for Minnesota to remain competitive and stable will require radical changes in educational success rates and redistribution of the subsidies within the educational structures.
While we in Minnesota and the U.S. wait for our public policy leaders to develop reliable strategies for the future, our competitors for intellectual capital and economic leadership are acting aggressively in their own interest. While we in Minnesota and the U.S. struggle with divergent views on how to protect our national boundaries, other nations are offering substantial inducements to attract undergraduate and graduate students who would otherwise be attending our nation’s best colleges. And while we in Minnesota and the U.S. consider ways to stabilize or reduce investments in higher education and its students, nearly all of the nations in the developing world are making major strategic investments in their own economic and social futures with increased support for students and institutions of higher education. It is encouraging that business leaders are publicly addressing our education challenges and the need for significant change. In a 2005 report prepared for the National Academy of Sciences to submit to the Congress, a distinguished panel of business and educational leaders summed up its analysis in the following quote:
“Without a renewed effort to bolster the foundations of our competitiveness, we can expect to lose our privileged position. For the first time in generations, the nation’s children could face poorer prospects than their parents and grandparents did.” (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, National Academy of Sciences 2005).
The calls for strategic and systemic changes for the future are both echoes of the past and a reminder that the pace of change today penalizes those who wait and delay. Operating in a global context within an economy capable of competing as that of a small nation, Minnesota will become increasingly dependent on its intellectual capital. It is how we should proceed, not whether, that should be an urgent topic for broad public discussion and an agenda for future action.
— David B. Laird, Jr.
For more background on our global competition, view MPCC's "While We Are Sleeping" presentationPDF
(176 KB)