January 30, 2008
Uproar in UK Over Approval Of McDonald’s Qualifications
By Bernice Hurst, Managing Director, Fine Food Network
Transferable skills they may be but the awarding body, McDonald’s, is facing uproar over their own qualifications. British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced on Monday that the fast food chain’s training program would be accredited and skills qualifications considered acceptable on a par with certain academic achievements. An immediate uproar, which relates to parity between vocational and academic standards, broke out across the media.
Dan Taubman, a senior official at the University and College Union, expressed concern in The Guardian because “a McQualification won’t be a more rounded qualification to help a young person leave a dead-end job…If the content isn’t good enough then it won’t be a portable qualification to help people progress in their lives.”
The general secretary of the University and College Union, Sally Hunt, said, “We fully understand the benefits of people being able to transfer in-house accredited training to the next level. However, we would have concerns about qualifications that are very narrow and specific to one organization, like McDonald’s.”
Mr. Prime Minister Brown assured GMTV that standards would not fall. “It is going to be a tough course, but once you have got a qualification in management you can probably go anywhere.”
John Denham, the UK secretary of state for innovation, universities and skill, said the move was an important step towards ending ‘old divisions’ between company training schemes and national qualifications, “something that will benefit employees, employers and the country as a whole.”
Meanwhile, a spokesman from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), which oversees examinations, told the BBC, “The Qualifications Credit Framework is a new framework that allows nationally recognized courses to be broken down into units. It is componentized so if a learner drops out of a course or can’t manage to complete they can take those units with them.”
QCA’s chief executive, Ken Boston, added, “This announcement gives official recognition to employers’ commitment to training.”
McDonald’s will start piloting their basic shifts manager course this month. Speaking to BBC News, David Fairhurst, the vice president for people at McDonald’s UK, explained that the accreditation was a natural extension of the qualifications already offered. “Our employees tell us they want the chance to do more formal learning and we’re responding to that.”
The pilot will train students in everything they need to run a McDonald’s outlet, from marketing to human resources and customer service skills.
Discussion questions: What do you think of a McDonald’s training course being used as a source for academic credit? Do you think there’s merit in a similar system of accreditation in the States that would recognize business training as on par with academic study?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I don’t know enough of the specifics of the British program to comment. The danger is of course that any training offered by an individual business might teach a proprietary spin to students. That said, there is support in some higher education circles for “colleges of lifelong learning” where students exchange life experiences for college credits.
This probably wouldn’t have made news if it was a Harrod’s program, or even a Tesco management program. Like others, I have no idea what a “qualification” is in Britain, but if McDonald’s teaches its managers solid business and marketing skills in a measurable, consistent fashion, such that third parties can use that accreditation to evaluate graduates against other norms of education and training, then it should get the credit.
To Ryan’s point, I think comparing the valedictorian of Wharton to a graduate of McDonald’s U is not the point. The Wharton grad had a lot going for him or her before Wharton and probably has demonstrated great potential. But compare the person with solid McDonald’s training to someone with an Associate’s Degree from a community college, or even a C average from a mid-quality four-year institution, and it’s not clear who’d get the job and the fat bonus. Or maybe it is, and the cafeteria would probably improve as well!
This should not be a discussion of company training programs vs. higher education programs, but rather cooperation between the two. Without deep knowledge about the British system, it appears they are attempting to marry the two together. That seems to be an interesting idea. One could combine a college program (Associates Degree and/or Bachelors Degree) with an accredited corporate program that allowed that person to gain recognized academic certification that was transferable. It would require the employer program to abide by certain standards. But if an employer is willing to do so, I say terrific!
It is about education, not degrees. The “Well Rounded” University students still need to be trained, where as the product of institutions like the U.S. Military and the University of Phoenix, as well as solid training courses from sophisticated companies like McDonald’s have students that can hit the ground running. The latter may not have the advantages of coursework in the “History of the Beatles” like my ASU graduate son, but I will take functional education anytime.
The focused technical training such as McDonald’s, and the military inspire further education. The learning is motivated and the results are instantly gratifying as you are doing what you learn. I applaud and endorse the credentialing of select corporate training programs such as McDonald’s. In my own case, an Air Force technical school inspired me to go on to an undergraduate degree and Master’s.
I can’t speak for the UK academic system, however, I would welcome this in the US. Until schools can turn out the quality and consistency that McDonald’s does around the world, they should welcome this tested training.
I’m not sure I can agree with Mel. Credentials do matter, especially in terms of initial hiring decisions. The valedictorian of the Wharton Business School MBA class of 2008 may be far less experienced–and/or capable–than someone who’s worked him or herself up the ranks but my bet is that not only will they get the job before the experienced applicant but they’ll get a fat signing bonus as well.
Great idea. What is the difference from this and a strong apprentice program that has produced some of the highest quality workers in the world?
If you look at the quality of education that our high schools and colleges are turning out and the shortage of skilled employees and managers, this could be a great model for retail–and all industry–to follow.
Would you take someone with a Master’s Degree from most schools over someone who had a college degree and then had gone to work for say GE, PG, or Ritz Carlton and moved up in the ranks and had been through their internal training program? I can tell you who will win most of the time. Not the person who you think can do the job but the one who has done the job.
Programs like this could go a long way to help fill the gap in the lack of skilled workers and their managers in this country.
I have mixed feelings, and need to know more, but a few thoughts…. It might be good to give workers a chance to improve themselves…. Our existing educational system leaves me underwhelmed…. The outraged defensiveness of school systems leads me to believe a nerve has been struck, and perhaps schools will now look a bit harder at cleaning up their own acts, becoming more rigorous and relevant…. Perhaps the best thing would be for the school systems to work more closely with business in developing curricula and programs that are actually useful. No doubt, keeping some distance is wise and justified on both sides, but at the same time a lot of potential synergies are just falling by the wayside.
I find this intriguing in the sense that it could be a natural way for underprivileged workers to get an introduction into higher education. The company training programs should include incentives for students, in addition to their management courses, to take academics at a say a local community college and work towards a degree. From that perspective, it could offer a way for kids to work their way through school with guidance from their employers. But if all the company does is offer isolated management training, it’s not worthy of accreditation, in my view. Has to be part of a full-rounded education to work.
It really doesn’t matter what kind of academic credit we assign to in-house business training courses. I used to think that people who had Master’s degrees were special until they started asking me for a job.
When it comes down to it, academic credit is meaningless unless the person can put it to use. If you can get a Ph.D in hamburger flipping, by all means Doctor, put on your cap and gown and go flip hamburgers.
It has been said that the British educational system, effective though it may already be, may be too dry. McDonald’s should grease up the educational process quite a bit and make learning slide along faster. Someday there may even be a Ph.McD.
On the sublime side on the coin, any continuing educational training has potential merit. Let’s give it a chance and hope promotional spins don’t occur and fry up potential values.
In several countries, an alternate education and training system exists precisely to fill the gaps that the traditional degree-granting education system leaves behind. These training organizations actually impart the crucial skills that make graduates employable–less academic, more relevant in the real world.
I don’t know the details of the McDonald’s program discussed here. However, any program that imparts crucial knowledge, skills and attitudes that enable a student to immediately become a productive worker without first requiring additional training, is far more useful than a purely academic one. This, of course, precludes those seeking careers in research, pure sciences and academia.
Accrediting a corporate training program, like McDonald’s, seems redundant. When a McDonald’s trainee finishes, he/she gets to put that corporate credential on his/her resume. So now he/she should put it on the resume twice?
There’s no doubt that many people, employers and employees alike, often consider certain employers to be great foundation training places for the retailing industry. For decades, people who worked their way up in certain department stores (Abraham & Straus, Macy’s, Lazarus, etc.) were respected because their careers started at those places.
Today, many employers look for CVS, Barnes & Noble, and J.C. Penney alumni because of their respect for organizational quality instilled by those retailers. If you’re in the fast food business, wouldn’t you be interested in a McDonald’s graduate? Would it matter to you whether the McDonald’s program was accredited?
The idea has potential in some ways, but I would be concerned that an accredited training program showed bias toward McDonald’s if used in other venues.
No idea what this McDonald’s program is all about, but I think all the naysayers should look into it more to see how worthy it is.
I’m sure everyone’s first reaction was the class is about burger flipping and french fry loading, but if it’s about people skills, managing a restaurant and balancing sales and costs, it might have some value. Will it be McDonald’s centric? Sure. Does that mean it’s bad? Maybe not. I’d rather have real life examples than generic textbook filler 99% of students forget by the time they graduate.
I got a B.Comm and MBA. Read a million textbooks and did tons of projects, including all those ones where you partner with real companies to do year long assignments. And you what? When you work in the real world, most of the academic stuff gets thrown out the window when reality sets in. I look back at all the books and projects and realize how rinky dink they really are.
If the program was based on Microsoft, Procter & Gamble or Toyota, I’m sure more people would embrace it.
Just because it’s accredited somehow doesn’t mean it will take over the world. There are tons of credential programs out there which aren’t exactly Harvard equivalents. The program gives people options.
<<
Wrong. It’s not just specific skills companies look for, it’s also people skills and your thinking power. No two companies have the exact same processes, programs and protocols. If you got the aptitude to learn and adjust, you can tailor your past experiences and skills from one company to the next.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
I don’t know enough of the specifics of the British program to comment. The danger is of course that any training offered by an individual business might teach a proprietary spin to students. That said, there is support in some higher education circles for “colleges of lifelong learning” where students exchange life experiences for college credits.
This probably wouldn’t have made news if it was a Harrod’s program, or even a Tesco management program. Like others, I have no idea what a “qualification” is in Britain, but if McDonald’s teaches its managers solid business and marketing skills in a measurable, consistent fashion, such that third parties can use that accreditation to evaluate graduates against other norms of education and training, then it should get the credit.
To Ryan’s point, I think comparing the valedictorian of Wharton to a graduate of McDonald’s U is not the point. The Wharton grad had a lot going for him or her before Wharton and probably has demonstrated great potential. But compare the person with solid McDonald’s training to someone with an Associate’s Degree from a community college, or even a C average from a mid-quality four-year institution, and it’s not clear who’d get the job and the fat bonus. Or maybe it is, and the cafeteria would probably improve as well!
This should not be a discussion of company training programs vs. higher education programs, but rather cooperation between the two. Without deep knowledge about the British system, it appears they are attempting to marry the two together. That seems to be an interesting idea. One could combine a college program (Associates Degree and/or Bachelors Degree) with an accredited corporate program that allowed that person to gain recognized academic certification that was transferable. It would require the employer program to abide by certain standards. But if an employer is willing to do so, I say terrific!
It is about education, not degrees. The “Well Rounded” University students still need to be trained, where as the product of institutions like the U.S. Military and the University of Phoenix, as well as solid training courses from sophisticated companies like McDonald’s have students that can hit the ground running. The latter may not have the advantages of coursework in the “History of the Beatles” like my ASU graduate son, but I will take functional education anytime.
The focused technical training such as McDonald’s, and the military inspire further education. The learning is motivated and the results are instantly gratifying as you are doing what you learn. I applaud and endorse the credentialing of select corporate training programs such as McDonald’s. In my own case, an Air Force technical school inspired me to go on to an undergraduate degree and Master’s.
I can’t speak for the UK academic system, however, I would welcome this in the US. Until schools can turn out the quality and consistency that McDonald’s does around the world, they should welcome this tested training.
I’m not sure I can agree with Mel. Credentials do matter, especially in terms of initial hiring decisions. The valedictorian of the Wharton Business School MBA class of 2008 may be far less experienced–and/or capable–than someone who’s worked him or herself up the ranks but my bet is that not only will they get the job before the experienced applicant but they’ll get a fat signing bonus as well.
Great idea. What is the difference from this and a strong apprentice program that has produced some of the highest quality workers in the world?
If you look at the quality of education that our high schools and colleges are turning out and the shortage of skilled employees and managers, this could be a great model for retail–and all industry–to follow.
Would you take someone with a Master’s Degree from most schools over someone who had a college degree and then had gone to work for say GE, PG, or Ritz Carlton and moved up in the ranks and had been through their internal training program? I can tell you who will win most of the time. Not the person who you think can do the job but the one who has done the job.
Programs like this could go a long way to help fill the gap in the lack of skilled workers and their managers in this country.
I have mixed feelings, and need to know more, but a few thoughts…. It might be good to give workers a chance to improve themselves…. Our existing educational system leaves me underwhelmed…. The outraged defensiveness of school systems leads me to believe a nerve has been struck, and perhaps schools will now look a bit harder at cleaning up their own acts, becoming more rigorous and relevant…. Perhaps the best thing would be for the school systems to work more closely with business in developing curricula and programs that are actually useful. No doubt, keeping some distance is wise and justified on both sides, but at the same time a lot of potential synergies are just falling by the wayside.
I find this intriguing in the sense that it could be a natural way for underprivileged workers to get an introduction into higher education. The company training programs should include incentives for students, in addition to their management courses, to take academics at a say a local community college and work towards a degree. From that perspective, it could offer a way for kids to work their way through school with guidance from their employers. But if all the company does is offer isolated management training, it’s not worthy of accreditation, in my view. Has to be part of a full-rounded education to work.
It really doesn’t matter what kind of academic credit we assign to in-house business training courses. I used to think that people who had Master’s degrees were special until they started asking me for a job.
When it comes down to it, academic credit is meaningless unless the person can put it to use. If you can get a Ph.D in hamburger flipping, by all means Doctor, put on your cap and gown and go flip hamburgers.
It has been said that the British educational system, effective though it may already be, may be too dry. McDonald’s should grease up the educational process quite a bit and make learning slide along faster. Someday there may even be a Ph.McD.
On the sublime side on the coin, any continuing educational training has potential merit. Let’s give it a chance and hope promotional spins don’t occur and fry up potential values.
In several countries, an alternate education and training system exists precisely to fill the gaps that the traditional degree-granting education system leaves behind. These training organizations actually impart the crucial skills that make graduates employable–less academic, more relevant in the real world.
I don’t know the details of the McDonald’s program discussed here. However, any program that imparts crucial knowledge, skills and attitudes that enable a student to immediately become a productive worker without first requiring additional training, is far more useful than a purely academic one. This, of course, precludes those seeking careers in research, pure sciences and academia.
Accrediting a corporate training program, like McDonald’s, seems redundant. When a McDonald’s trainee finishes, he/she gets to put that corporate credential on his/her resume. So now he/she should put it on the resume twice?
There’s no doubt that many people, employers and employees alike, often consider certain employers to be great foundation training places for the retailing industry. For decades, people who worked their way up in certain department stores (Abraham & Straus, Macy’s, Lazarus, etc.) were respected because their careers started at those places.
Today, many employers look for CVS, Barnes & Noble, and J.C. Penney alumni because of their respect for organizational quality instilled by those retailers. If you’re in the fast food business, wouldn’t you be interested in a McDonald’s graduate? Would it matter to you whether the McDonald’s program was accredited?
The idea has potential in some ways, but I would be concerned that an accredited training program showed bias toward McDonald’s if used in other venues.
No idea what this McDonald’s program is all about, but I think all the naysayers should look into it more to see how worthy it is.
I’m sure everyone’s first reaction was the class is about burger flipping and french fry loading, but if it’s about people skills, managing a restaurant and balancing sales and costs, it might have some value. Will it be McDonald’s centric? Sure. Does that mean it’s bad? Maybe not. I’d rather have real life examples than generic textbook filler 99% of students forget by the time they graduate.
I got a B.Comm and MBA. Read a million textbooks and did tons of projects, including all those ones where you partner with real companies to do year long assignments. And you what? When you work in the real world, most of the academic stuff gets thrown out the window when reality sets in. I look back at all the books and projects and realize how rinky dink they really are.
If the program was based on Microsoft, Procter & Gamble or Toyota, I’m sure more people would embrace it.
Just because it’s accredited somehow doesn’t mean it will take over the world. There are tons of credential programs out there which aren’t exactly Harvard equivalents. The program gives people options.
<<>>
Wrong. It’s not just specific skills companies look for, it’s also people skills and your thinking power. No two companies have the exact same processes, programs and protocols. If you got the aptitude to learn and adjust, you can tailor your past experiences and skills from one company to the next.