Interesting report from the Amtrak OIG

[Anthony]

http://www.amtrakoig.com/Reports/Training%...ort%20Final.pdf

Of the 12 General Superintendents and Master Mechanics who are collectively responsible for the efficient and effective employment of 12,379 field employees and subordinates, records indicate only one (8.3 percent) possesses a baccalaureate degree, and that is not a Bachelor of Science. In fact, a more detailed review of the senior field management (grades E-1, D-2 and D-1) of these two operating departments determined that of the 112 top non-agreement employees, only 22 (19.6 percent) possessed a degree, and only four of these were technical (Bachelor of Science) degrees. At lower management levels, the comparison is equally stark; in one operating department, of the approximately 125 field level line managers who collectively direct and supervise 3,000 employees, only seven (6 percent) possessed a degree, and six of the seven were in non-technical fields.
This situation has developed over many years, and will take many years to correct. Studies have shown that most managers tend to promote people who are like themselves. It is therefore understandable that this situation has evolved since, until recently, the heads of the two largest operating departments and the two top managers in the HR&DI Department did not have college degrees. If these individuals had experienced first hand the value of a college degree, they may have placed more emphasis on hiring managers with college educations.

A college education is not the only tool in an individual manager’s tool kit; there are some people whose natural leadership abilities substantially offset their lack of a baccalaureate education, and many of them are in senior leadership positions at Amtrak. On an individual basis, this is good, and arguably there should always be positions for a very small percentage of individuals who are truly gifted in these areas. However, on an aggregate basis, a senior leadership lacking formal technical and/or business education is not an ideal situation for the successful operation of a complex, 21st Century transportation company.

 

[George Harris]

http://www.amtrakoig.com/Reports/Training%...ort%20Final.pdf

Of the 12 General Superintendents and Master Mechanics who are collectively responsible for the efficient and effective employment of 12,379 field employees and subordinates, records indicate only one (8.3 percent) possesses a baccalaureate degree, and that is not a Bachelor of Science. In fact, a more detailed review of the senior field management (grades E-1, D-2 and D-1) of these two operating departments determined that of the 112 top non-agreement employees, only 22 (19.6 percent) possessed a degree, and only four of these were technical (Bachelor of Science) degrees. At lower management levels, the comparison is equally stark; in one operating department, of the approximately 125 field level line managers who collectively direct and supervise 3,000 employees, only seven (6 percent) possessed a degree, and six of the seven were in non-technical fields.
This situation has developed over many years, and will take many years to correct. Studies have shown that most managers tend to promote people who are like themselves. It is therefore understandable that this situation has evolved since, until recently, the heads of the two largest operating departments and the two top managers in the HR&DI Department did not have college degrees. If these individuals had experienced first hand the value of a college degree, they may have placed more emphasis on hiring managers with college educations.

A college education is not the only tool in an individual manager’s tool kit; there are some people whose natural leadership abilities substantially offset their lack of a baccalaureate education, and many of them are in senior leadership positions at Amtrak. On an individual basis, this is good, and arguably there should always be positions for a very small percentage of individuals who are truly gifted in these areas. However, on an aggregate basis, a senior leadership lacking formal technical and/or business education is not an ideal situation for the successful operation of a complex, 21st Century transportation company.

So ? ? ? ? ?

Much better that they know the real nature of the work they are measuring.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Most informative and very interesting! While formal education isn't everything, modern times demand some kind of formal education along with real world experience in order to be able to effectively supervise/manage people/logistics and equipment. In the case of Amtrak this might help explain some of the idiotic decisions made over the years such as cutting routes, idiotic concepts like CCCs, cutting OBS on busy trains, especially diners, and the schedule itself which must have been the result of a so called task-force, work team or any other mod-speak for a committee!(Dont blame me, they did it!!! :lol: )

I spent 30 years in Govt. service and all agencies tend to have the problem of decision makers/bosses promoting people like them , putting them in policy making positions and then they "retire" and the merry-go-round continues!

Amtrak's board needs to address this along with top management (Pres/VP etc.), its easy to fix by requiring formal education minimums along with some real work experience before being promoted, this should eliminate the old Peter Principle that most folks think that all Government agencies specialize in! (Not true, my agency didnt do this!! :lol: )

 

[TVRM610]

So what if they have a degree? What does a degree have to do with running trains? I'm sure that on the job training teaches you way more than you would ever learn in a college class room in this situation.

 

[MikeM]

One has to wonder, given all of the close calls Amtrak has had, if perhaps one of the major reasons is that better educated management candidates went with other positions - other railroads, or elsewhere in the travel industry? I really would hate to think what it must be like to work in an environment where the board and management is at war half the time, funding is constantly being threatened, and you're one reorg away from being unemployed?

I've been reading the book "Waiting on a Train" by James McCommons, and one constant refrain among many in the book is the lack of vision in Amtrak management. Poor planning for expansion, no plans to replace obsolete or damaged equipment, in cases inadequate thought given to new equipment and services, the list goes on. How much of this is driven by having a management team that has been whipped around for the whole life of the enterprise, by politicians with no true understanding of the transportation industry? Sadly, the message has tended to be that the straightest nails get hammered the hardest.

Probably one of the biggest challenges Amtrak faces is to somehow create an ongoing business culture, which rests on stable funding and measurable objectives. Once that is addressed, staffing development and improvements are key. However, it won't be successful unless the funding and objectives are set; high performers don't want to crew the Titanic. Equal if not more important, management will need to address skill gaps in current employees who are doing their base work fine but can be developed further.

 

[Big Iron]

Most informative and very interesting! While formal education isn't everything, modern times demand some kind of formal education along with real world experience in order to be able to effectively supervise/manage people/logistics and equipment. In the case of Amtrak this might help explain some of the idiotic decisions made over the years such as cutting routes, idiotic concepts like CCCs, cutting OBS on busy trains, especially diners, and the schedule itself which must have been the result of a so called task-force, work team or any other mod-speak for a committee!(Dont blame me, they did it!!! :lol: )
I spent 30 years in Govt. service and all agencies tend to have the problem of decision makers/bosses promoting people like them , putting them in policy making positions and then they "retire" and the merry-go-round continues!

Amtrak's board needs to address this along with top management (Pres/VP etc.), its easy to fix by requiring formal education minimums along with some real work experience before being promoted, this should eliminate the old Peter Principle that most folks think that all Government agencies specialize in! (Not true, my agency didnt do this!! :lol: )

My guess would be those decisions were made by the college graduates. The further you get away from the "boots on the ground" the fuzzier the message gets when it arrives at the desk of the college educated bean counter.

 

[Guest]

That is pretty sad. Nowhere else will you find people responsible for that many subordinates without at least a bachelors degree. Its great that they have a lot of hands on experience and I think that is something that is sorely lacking in a lot of college graduates, but professional development through university education is needed for the higher ups.

 

[TVRM610]

That is pretty sad. Nowhere else will you find people responsible for that many subordinates without at least a bachelors degree. Its great that they have a lot of hands on experience and I think that is something that is sorely lacking in a lot of college graduates, but professional development through university education is needed for the higher ups.

This is not true, university education is not needed.

As for the previous post about Amtrak not having a clear vision, that began in the 1970's when amtrak was founded with a blurry vision by this country and each president trying to figure out how amtrak could run "in the black."

The owner of Hobby Lobby never went to college and solely owns a national chain of stores and has who knows how many "subordinates" so yes there are other places where you will find upper management with no college whatsoever, the reason is that college is simply not necessary for such jobs.

 

[MikeM]

I totally agree with TVRM610 that having a college degree is not necessarily a prereq for being a good manager. I've seen some excellent managers who barely had high school diplomas, and some absolute trainwrecks who had graduate degrees. I guess my thought is that if you have someone who has gone on for additional education and preferably been around several businesses, they will be more open to different ways to do things and willing to try and experiment more with things.

Agree that many of Amtrak's issues have to do with the poor thought process and "planning to fail" at the onset. As a trim carpenter once told me (talking abour sheetrock driving how good trim work looks), "When a baby's born ugly, it stays ugly". But to my original thought, if Amtrak really wants to capture top tier applicants who can innovate and are willing to put roots down in the business, it has to be a going concern with a real future. Ironically, it'll take some of those same people to get to the vision stage that will make it an attractive employer.

As for current employees, although Amtrak does have some idiots working for it, overall I think it's done very well given the massive management turmoil on the senior side. Goes back to the degree discussion, where Amtrak has been successful has been in day to day operations, keeping what it has operating, albeit it barely at times. Now if we can just get a stable funding source, like the highway trust fund, and a clear vision of what Amtrak is going to be that won't change with each incoming administration.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Pfui. College is a load of horsecrap anyway. You spend $150k to get a piece of paper making you even with everyone else. I don't recall learning much of anything in college. Some of the smartest people I know have never gone, however.

 

[BlakeTyner]

Pfui. College is a load of horsecrap anyway. You spend $150k to get a piece of paper making you even with everyone else. I don't recall learning much of anything in college. Some of the smartest people I know have never gone, however.

Geez...I did undergrad and grad school at private universities and still only paid a third of $150k.

I think there's bad blood both ways--the boots on the ground types look at the 'college boys' with disdain, regarding them as interlopers who secured a position of superiority based on a few years of theoretical classroom work, while the folks with the college education often get a case of the big head and have a complex about the ignoramuses in their charge.

Both are wrong.

There are benefits to having the real world experience and there are benefits of a college education. What a bachelor's degree does more than anything else is prove that the person holding it can set goals and accomplish what he sets out to accomplish. What's learned in the classroom is less important in terms of "what to think" and more valuable as a means of "how to think." What the real world often does well is teach through failure--try something one way, screw it up, know better the next time.

I have a vested interest, of course, since I make my living in academia, but I also did the better part of a decade turning wrenches on a steam railroad, so I am able to see things from both sides. Neither experience is any more or less valuable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

I think there's bad blood both ways--the boots on the ground types look at the 'college boys' with disdain, regarding them as interlopers who secured a position of superiority based on a few years of theoretical classroom work, while the folks with the college education often get a case of the big head and have a complex about the ignoramuses in their charge.
Both are wrong.

There are benefits to having the real world experience and there are benefits of a college education. What a bachelor's degree does more than anything else is prove that the person holding it can set goals and accomplish what he sets out to accomplish. What's learned in the classroom is less important in terms of "what to think" and more valuable as a means of "how to think." What the real world often does well is teach through failure--try something one way, screw it up, know better the next time.

I agree 100%. I work with a mix of college-educated and non college-educated people; several of my co-workers and bosses have had college educations, and some have not. I've noticed that the college-educated people make more mistakes when they underestimate their need for real-world knowledge in a certain area, whereas the non-collegians make more mistakes in areas where college-educated people generally do well. I think they are both useful sets of skills, and it would be foolish to think that either one is ever detrimental.

Yes, I went to college. However, the best boss I ever had did not. He was just really, really good at the practical stuff, and he was willing to listen when the college-educated people had something to say. If he had a college education he probably could do just about anything.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

After reading the entire document and noting thread contributions so far, a couple observations.

First, I think the focus here on the college/non-college management issue, while not entirely bogus, is kind of a forest for the trees thing that misses the overall thrust of the report. An unfortunate point of departure for this forum topic (Sorry, Anthony).

Second, that overall thrust - with no reason to believe the report is not accurate - reveals what to me seems a startling lack of consistency across the board regarding training & education, career development, interdepartmental communication & cooperation, and general corporate cohesion. One can endlessly mull the reasons for this state of affairs, but I think the report's recommendations - on the whole and if taken seriously enough that action results - can be used as a base for efforts to correct the clearly serious organizational shortcomings that are only briefly explained in the discussions that precede the recommendations.

I found the passages about terminology and definitions particularly disheartening, especially the bit about some considering this a minor thing. You can't move forward in a coherent manner until everybody's speaking the same language and reading the same page. Unless and until such a foundation is in place any meaningful, coherent progress is impossible to achieve.

 

[DivMiler]

Of the 12 General Superintendents and Master Mechanics who are collectively responsible for the efficient and effective employment of 12,379 field employees and subordinates, records indicate only one (8.3 percent) possesses a baccalaureate degree, and that is not a Bachelor of Science. In fact, a more detailed review of the senior field management (grades E-1, D-2 and D-1) of these two operating departments determined that of the 112 top non-agreement employees, only 22 (19.6 percent) possessed a degree, and only four of these were technical (Bachelor of Science) degrees.

Responding to the comment about the baccalaureate degree: If a college graduate does *not* have a bachelor's of science degree, that does not necessarily mean that s/he does not have a technical degree. The undergraduate institution I attended only awarded bachelor's of science degrees to those few students who majored in engineering or applied science; everybody else earned a bachelor's of arts degree (from physics to english literature to sociology).

At the institution where I teach, all science majors have a choice of being awarded a B.A. or a B.S. At least in this respect, the writer(s) of the report are operating under a misconception.

 

[dart330]

My only gripe about not having any college education requirements are for positions where people are simply appointed (their buddy hooked them up with a job they aren't qualified for). If they are qualified and have the experience for the job then good for them, no reason not to hire them.

I am a former federal employee and the organization I worked for had a head person in every state. While I worked there they lowered the educational requirements for that head position from a bachelor degree to simply high school graduation as the people getting the hookup weren't able to finish college, yet they were going to be repsonsible for managing hundreds of people and millions of dollars.

I will gladly admit I didn't learn anything from a book in college, but I did learn to manage my time and life, meeting goals and deadlines while having as much fun as possible. I went to grad school to learn...

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Geez...I did undergrad and grad school at private universities and still only paid a third of $150k.
I think there's bad blood both ways--the boots on the ground types look at the 'college boys' with disdain, regarding them as interlopers who secured a position of superiority based on a few years of theoretical classroom work, while the folks with the college education often get a case of the big head and have a complex about the ignoramuses in their charge.

Both are wrong.

There are benefits to having the real world experience and there are benefits of a college education. What a bachelor's degree does more than anything else is prove that the person holding it can set goals and accomplish what he sets out to accomplish. What's learned in the classroom is less important in terms of "what to think" and more valuable as a means of "how to think." What the real world often does well is teach through failure--try something one way, screw it up, know better the next time.

I have a vested interest, of course, since I make my living in academia, but I also did the better part of a decade turning wrenches on a steam railroad, so I am able to see things from both sides. Neither experience is any more or less valuable as far as I'm concerned.

When did you go to college? The Truman Administration? The cheapest private tuition I ever found was $32k. It took me 5 years to complete it (I was running a business on the side that, at the time, was very lucrative). You do the math. $160k.

I do have a college degree, as I mentioned. I have a B.S.B.A., double specialization Management and Entrepreneurship, from one of the top ten entrepreneurial schools in the country. I also have a minor in Criminal Justice. I have learned some minutiae in legal regulations, a few specific accounting rules, and how to write a business plan. I can't think of anything else that I learned that I didn't know or could have figured out as a very simple one-step extrapolation of what I already knew.

All of the things I did learn I could have learned by simply picking up a book on the subject and skimming it. Clearly either: I am some kind of genius and most college students are total morons or... that sitting in college was a waste of time and most people would be equally well served paying $200 for an overpriced textbook then $150k for an overpriced college "education".

 

[BlakeTyner]

When did you go to college? The Truman Administration? The cheapest private tuition I ever found was $32k. It took me 5 years to complete it (I was running a business on the side that, at the time, was very lucrative). You do the math. $160k.
I do have a college degree, as I mentioned. I have a B.S.B.A., double specialization Management and Entrepreneurship, from one of the top ten entrepreneurial schools in the country. I also have a minor in Criminal Justice. I have learned some minutiae in legal regulations, a few specific accounting rules, and how to write a business plan. I can't think of anything else that I learned that I didn't know or could have figured out as a very simple one-step extrapolation of what I already knew.

All of the things I did learn I could have learned by simply picking up a book on the subject and skimming it. Clearly either: I am some kind of genius and most college students are total morons or... that sitting in college was a waste of time and most people would be equally well served paying $200 for an overpriced textbook then $150k for an overpriced college "education".

Started undergrad in the fall of '03 and finished in fall of '06 at East Texas Baptist University. At the time, cost was fixed at $6,000 per semester, which got you 12-18 hours (I usually took the most I could since I was paying for it regardless) as well as one free course during each summer. I had some financial aid, but even assuming I didn't, six semesters at $6k comes out to $36k out the door for the BA.

I did grad school in '07-'08 via distance learning--10 months at roughly $1200 per month, so call it $12k

Grand total for MA out the door is $48k, of which about a third was covered by financial aid.

I learned tons in college--less so in grad school, because that was more application of knowledge. While I think that a motivated person could get a lot of factual knowledge out of textbooks, I think the lectures from profs in the field combined with the discussion opportunities with other students really added value to the education. I, of course, majored in letters and not a technical field, so I can't really comment on that side. I took one semester of math and one semester of lab science--both of them being the 'easy' classes geared for non-majors. The math class, statistics, actually did help a lot in my psychology minor.

 

[Phila 30th St]

I hate the way the article seems to snub non "Bachelor of Science" degrees. I work in the electrical industry quoting custom power equipment and my Bachelor's is in History and English. Because I work hard at my job, ask necesarry questions and absorb information, I'm just as good at it as someone with an Electrical Engineering Degree.

Let's hope the same is true of the Amtrak brass.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I hate the way the article seems to snub non "Bachelor of Science" degrees. I work in the electrical industry quoting custom power equipment and my Bachelor's is in History and English. Because I work hard at my job, ask necesarry questions and absorb information, I'm just as good at it as someone with an Electrical Engineering Degree.
Let's hope the same is true of the Amtrak brass.

That is another good point-- it also serves to demonstrate the "blanket effect" that most degrees these days tend to be. Science, Fine Arts, Arts... at the Bachelor's level (with the possible exception of the BFA) it is all very similar.

 

[MikeM]

I think what any "good" degree gives a person is an ability to think critically, consider different points of views, and accept criticism. Many times, liberal arts grads are excellent in these areas, since they have lots of experience with analysis of different writers perspectives, considering merits of different positions, etc. Which, when you think about it is what makes a good manager. Additionally, many of these programs force people into dealing with points of view they disagree with, and considering objectively what lead to that position.

Successful firms typically consist of a good blend of people from different backgrounds, academic skill sets, and real world experience. Unsuccessful firms tend to skew to dominance by one point of view, an unquestioning culture, and fear of any change.

 

[George Harris]

If you learn to think and analyze that is necessary. Wahtever paper you have behind it becomes meaningless after a few years. As one manager I once worked under said, If you go for a job interview and have over 10 years experience, if one of the first things they bring up is your education. Don't waste your time. Walk out.

Not that I am against education at all. I have a BS in engineering, and so did the man quoted above. The main thing I got out of it was a foundation on which to build. If you don't build on it, that is all you have, is a foundation. Haven't noticed too many people that think all they need for their house is a foundation. Over the years I have met plenty of eductied idiots. Education may cure ignorance, but it does nothing for stupidity.

Education cost? I had under $10 grand total outlay to a BS in Civil Engineering including all living expenses, and that was in the 1960's. I have worked with guys that spent more than that per year in the same time frame, that I felt did not have as good an education.

If you want a good technical education go to one of the Southern state technical colleges, of which Georgia Tech and Texas A&M are probably the top. No I did not go to either one, but to Tennessee Tech. One of points of pride by the way was that they managed a higher percentage of passing for the EIT than UT did for their engineering students. By the way, in engineering, the significant letters you can put after your name are PE, not any of the degree abbreviations.

 

[GG-1]

The main thing I got out of it was a foundation on which to build. If you don't build on it, that is all you have, is a foundation. Haven't noticed too many people that think all they need for their house is a foundation. Over the years I have met plenty of eductied idiots. Education may cure ignorance, but it does nothing for stupidity.

Aloha George

What I quoted from your post is the meat of education, And if that foundation, came from life, or school, the foundation is all that matters, you build on that foundation.

Mahalo

Eric

 

[TVRM610]

I think what any "good" degree gives a person is an ability to think critically, consider different points of views, and accept criticism. Many times, liberal arts grads are excellent in these areas, since they have lots of experience with analysis of different writers perspectives, considering merits of different positions, etc. Which, when you think about it is what makes a good manager. Additionally, many of these programs force people into dealing with points of view they disagree with, and considering objectively what lead to that position.
Successful firms typically consist of a good blend of people from different backgrounds, academic skill sets, and real world experience. Unsuccessful firms tend to skew to dominance by one point of view, an unquestioning culture, and fear of any change.

Spot on MikeM! Since both college grad's and non have unique pro's and con's a large company would do good to hire some of each which will keep things from being routine.

 

[Shanghai]

I think education is very important. I think that in a company like Amtrak, a college degree is advantageous for specific requirements, but

not for many jobs. I would think that technical training is absolutely necessary for most operating jobs and that would include leadership

skills training. Strategic planning, finance and administrative positions would be good targets for college educated staff, but not absolutely

necessary. My former company treated seven years experience in a particular discipline equivalant to a college degree.

I have a graduate degree and found I learned more technical knowledge in undergraduate college. Graduate school was more about

building professional networks, benchmark techniques, analyzing competitors/competitive products and planning for the future.

Both of my children attended private undergraduate and graduate schools. One graduated in 1996 and cost $118,000 and the second

graduated in 2002 and cost $138,000. My youngest has just completed her graduate education at Columbia University where the

tuition was $5,300 per course!!

Much of the success in a career is perception, integrity and hard work, college or not.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I continue to believe that a college education gives people the false belief that they know things they don't know. In college, the main thing I truly learned, for good or bad, was furthering my pure hatred for most people, their pure idiocy, and their pure ignorance. I honestly think that if I didn't go to college, perhaps I would have come out a nicer person.

The school I went to was not a private school- But I did apply to some. I didn't pay $32k a year for my education. I didn't get into Harvard (only wait listed), and for good reason. What I have learned was learned outside of school. They give you a smattering of almost entirely useless information.

Sir Arthur C. Doyle's main character once described a mind as a closet- you must be careful what you put into it, or it might become cluttered. Some people have mistakenly believed he was talking about capacity, but I don't think he was. A mind can hold as much information as you care to put into it. But the more you put into it, the more it becomes disorganized. There are pieces of information I simply do not need to know. They don't pertain to my life and they are, essentially, trivia.

When we come up across things I do not know, I keep my mouth shut on here. There are people who are experts in fields I know nothing about and those are the people who should be applying themselves to problems pertaining it. To pretend that a mathematician should know more about plumbing then the installation of a toilet float is silly.

Full knowledge of something is a useful asset. Partial knowledge is meaningless. Partial knowledge with the inaccurate belief of full knowledge is a dangerous liability, both for the fool that has it, and the fools that follow them.