[Feature: Thinking about Graduate Education] Roundtable: The "Specialization" Learned in Graduate School That Is Needed Now More Than Ever

Today, I hope to exchange various opinions with everyone regarding the state of graduate schools in Japan.

Graduate school reform is currently a very significant point in the policies of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). This is referred to in various ways, such as a "knowledge-based society," "Society 5.0," or a "data-driven society," but the goal is to cultivate human resources who possess high-level intellectual abilities and can operate them amidst rapid social changes. In other words, expectations for graduate schools are rising significantly to develop talent capable of driving innovation.

Speaking of Keio, I believe we have come this far with a strong framework of 10 undergraduate faculties. Regarding graduate schools, we have created not only traditional graduate schools that sit atop undergraduate faculties but also independent graduate schools focused on social issues, such as the Graduate School of Media Design (KMD) in Hiyoshi, where Mr. Inakage serves as the Dean. Currently, we have 14 graduate schools, offering a rich variety. Additionally, cross-disciplinary efforts like the "Program for Leading Graduate Schools," which Mr. Kaminari has been working hard on, are also being conducted.

However, there are few opportunities to think about graduate schools across Keio as a whole. Moving forward, in order to promote research and, conversely, to enhance our undergraduate faculties, I believe we must make our graduate schools more attractive.

In terms of student numbers at Keio, the proportion of undergraduate students is very high, accounting for 85%. Waseda is also around 82%. While it is difficult to compare with national universities, at places like the University of Tokyo, the split is roughly half and half, meaning Keio has a much larger emphasis on undergraduate education. Except for independent graduate schools, the faculty organization is dominated by the undergraduate faculties, but there are naturally areas that must be changed. If we are to further enhance our graduate schools, what paths are available? I would like to hear your opinions.

Internationally, it has been pointed out that Japan has fewer master's and doctoral degree holders compared to bachelor's degree graduates. I would like to start by having everyone talk about their respective interests. Mr. Inakage, how about you?

As you introduced, the Graduate School of Media Design (KMD) is a place that has no undergraduate faculty and only exists as a graduate school. In that sense, it is a minor presence within Keio, but conversely, we considered various things we could do and the merits of not having an undergraduate faculty during the startup phase.

I spent my undergraduate and graduate years in the United States. Undergraduate school was a time for what is called liberal arts—four years of finding oneself—where I studied a wide range of subjects like economics, theater, composition, and computer programming, taking courses in areas that interested me. Finding one's aptitude within that and then digging deeper in graduate school was the way of American universities and graduate schools.

In my case, I graduated with a major in economics, but in graduate school, I became interested in the possibilities of expression using various technologies. While developing new technologies, I researched new forms of expression through them.

In this way, learning in graduate school was about digging deep and increasing one's expertise, but even so, remaining in academia was out of the question from the start. I was preparing in graduate school to find employment in places where creative expression is possible, such as the world of film, and to be able to work in various business sectors.

Fortunately, I was able to witness the opening of the MIT Media Lab, a cutting-edge digital research center. That experience is useful now when creating a graduate school like the Graduate School of Media Design.

KMD also trains people who will remain in academia, but primarily, we want to cultivate a new type of human resource who can go out into society, utilize their expertise, and change society. We teach theoretical aspects, but we place emphasis on practical matters, and we have granted degrees by proving the impact of how much one's ideas are utilized in society.

Graduate school has the aspect of cultivating experts for academia, but on the other hand, in the global world, it has become common sense to study at graduate school to enhance one's education, expertise, and practical skills as a certain social status. Japan remains in a somewhat unique situation, so I believe it will change from now on.

I have been involved for nearly 10 years as a coordinator for the "Leading Program," a five-year integrated doctoral program started by MEXT in 2011. Specifically, I work on the "All-round type," which provides comprehensive education across the entire university, transcending the boundaries between humanities and sciences.

The Leading Program is quite unique, aimed at cultivating leaders and true elites who can be active in industry and on the global stage.

In the case of Keio, for the integration of humanities and sciences, we view the master's program as three years. During those three years, students take two master's degrees in humanities and sciences in a broad sense—a double major—and then earn a doctorate in the remaining two years. For project-based learning to solve social issues, we have mentors from industry participate. I believe this is one method for cultivating such special talent.

On the other hand, as a problem for graduate schools as a whole, MEXT and others seem to have a great sense of crisis regarding the fact that the number of students in both science and humanities is low compared to other OECD countries. In Japan's case, many people in the sciences go up to a master's program, but after that, OJT (on-the-job training) at companies is robust. Therefore, they don't feel the need to pay tuition themselves to get a degree when they can learn cutting-edge things at a company. In a sense, they have fallen into a stable equilibrium.

In the humanities as well, entering industry after graduating with a bachelor's degree involves a mechanism for developing people, often referred to by those in trading companies as "trial by fire" experiences. A characteristic of Japan was that one could acquire job skills through OJT without specifically going to graduate school.

Unless we change this stable equilibrium somewhere, we won't see a shift toward going to graduate school to learn skills to be utilized in industry. So, what will be the trigger? It is a very difficult problem.

MEXT has also made significant progress in economic support through JST's SPRING (Support for Pioneering Research by Next Generation Researchers), providing scholarships of about 200,000 yen per month to 6,000 doctoral students. However, because an equilibrium has formed, it may be difficult to move the needle on whether this will truly make the system rotate.

The stories from Mr. Inakage and Mr. Kaminari represent one side where "Keio's graduate schools are moving toward something new," but I am also a member of the committee for the Graduate School of Human Relations, and the graduate schools at Mita are currently struggling quite a bit with student recruitment. Now, in the Graduate School Subdivision of the Central Council for Education, discussions are progressing on the idea that "we must do something about graduate schools in the humanities and social sciences."

Mr. Yoshida has just published an edited volume titled "The Trilemma Surrounding Humanities Graduate Schools." The humanities and social sciences are facing various triple difficulties. Even if we talk about the integration of humanities and sciences or cross-disciplinary research, if only the social issue-oriented or science and engineering fields are energetic, the humanities and social sciences will continue to decline, and we won't progress toward integrated knowledge or the fusion of humanities and sciences. If that happens, we won't be able to leverage the strengths of a comprehensive university.

I believe the key to breaking that stable equilibrium or equilibrium point is exactly how to incorporate traditional discipline-centered humanities graduate schools, which have been responsible for training researchers, into that framework. Mr. Yoshida, what are your thoughts?

In the book just introduced, I have conducted research to clarify exactly why Japan does not expand its graduate schools.

As for who the actors in the trilemma are, one is the university itself, another is the students, and the third is the labor market. A characteristic of Japan is that these do not circulate, and I have empirically demonstrated how to clarify that.

Japan began its graduate school expansion policy in the 1990s. The logic at the time was, "Many executives in other countries have graduate degrees, so why are there so few in Japan? This will cause us to fall behind." There was an optimistic expansion, believing that if graduate schools were expanded, society would naturally accept them and the labor market would hire graduate school graduates.

And it proceeded with the same logic as the era of the good economy in the 1960s. This was a mistake. In the 60s, the science and engineering fields advanced graduate education, but this was during the period of high economic growth when there was a lot of leeway. Companies also saw that capable students went to graduate school, so they thought, "Master's graduates are capable," and the circulation proceeded very well. A structure was established at both Keio and Waseda where it is natural to go at least as far as a master's degree, if not a doctorate, in science and engineering.

When trying to apply that to humanities graduate schools in the 90s, the biggest problem was the economic situation of the 90s. Why expand graduate schools when the bubble had burst and non-regular employment was increasing? Unlike science and engineering, in the humanities, there are parts where it is difficult to show what has been built up, so the labor market lost interest, thinking that getting a master's degree wouldn't change anything.

However, because they had to expand due to policy, every university expanded. Since falling short of enrollment quotas becomes a problem, they tried to fill the quotas somehow. In a sense, they were created during an unfortunate era. As a result, the graduate school enrollment rate did not rise, and hiring in the labor market did not progress.

Japan is perhaps the only country in the world where the number of doctoral students is decreasing. When I spoke about the situation in Japan in Germany in 2019, people from major countries around the world were very surprised, asking, "What kind of country is it where the number of doctoral students is decreasing?" When I told them there are no careers even if you get a doctorate, they said, "What a strange country."

So, are other countries doing it well? Not necessarily, but they have made various attempts and efforts to prove that graduate students are becoming human resources who are properly accepted by society. I believe such efforts will be required of Japanese universities in the future.

Mr. Yoshida has connected things perfectly. Now, I'd like to hear from Mr. Arisawa, who is in the position of hiring the talent we send out.

After graduating from the Faculty of Business and Commerce, I joined the then Kyowa Bank, now Resona Bank, and experienced nationalization. At that time, I was sent to the University of Washington in the U.S. to get an MBA.

After that, I served as the executive officer in charge of human resources at HOYA, a precision equipment industry company, and then at AIU Insurance, a foreign insurance company in the AIG Group, the world's largest insurance group. After that, I joined Kagome in 2012 and currently work as CHO, linking management strategy with HR strategy.

To be honest, the reality is that there are few people within companies, both then and now, who truly understand the importance of graduate education. In other words, I think the understanding on the corporate side that "one of the major functions of graduate school is to enhance expertise that contributes to the world" is still insufficient.

However, as an HR professional, I first want university students to properly study liberal arts. And if they are going to graduate school, I want them to be able to clearly explain "What" and "Why"—what they are going to do and why they are going.

When conducting interviews for new graduates, I feel that the level of university students and graduate students is completely different. We hire several science graduate students from the Juku as well, and they have very high expertise and are active as an immediate workforce, especially in research positions.

And regarding what Mr. Kaminari said about "expecting OJT once they enter a company," in reality, companies no longer have that leeway. In a sense, I feel it's okay to think that human resource development relying on "OJT" is an illusion. From that perspective, I feel many companies on the corporate side want students to "properly study liberal arts at university." Since companies want to provide education to acquire expertise as a working professional, I strongly request that part from the university side.

Also, there was talk of "trial by fire" experiences. Keio Business School, in particular, has very substantial case studies. They have been partnered with Harvard Business School for a long time, and I feel that by combining the simulated trial by fire experience there with the actual trial by fire experience at a company, people are given opportunities to grow tremendously within the company.

In that sense, one big thing about having a graduate degree is generally having high expertise, and another is having had the simulated trial by fire experience I just mentioned. Furthermore, I believe it is about maintaining a proper balance between the logical and the practical. We have high expectations for this part, and since there are actually many such graduate school graduates, we are grateful.

However, if I may speak without fear of being misunderstood, I often feel that it is still weak compared to American MBAs and the like. For example, in MBA programs like Harvard Business School, they thoroughly conduct such experiences in graduate education, and I think it's amazing that they can become managers immediately upon entering society.

I would like to ask the university side to create an environment where it is easier to provide educational opportunities at the higher levels of higher education. For students who have a desire to learn, I want it to be a place that maximizes their value.

Hearing Mr. Arisawa's talk, I feel that what the university thinks and what the company thinks have probably failed to communicate well for a long time. The university assumes "companies must be like this," and the companies assume "universities must be like this," and I felt it's a situation where there's a time lag of 10 or 20 years in our mutual recognition.

Regarding new graduates, I think it ultimately becomes a question of career paths, but how should we change the career paths of graduate school graduates? Or how can they change? I think this is one major point when thinking about graduate schools.

In the case of Keio, for career paths in the sciences, few students go for a doctorate intending to become university professors; most enter industry. Except for the fact that the numbers aren't increasing, I don't think there's much of a problem there.

The problem is in the humanities. Looking at humanities students in the Leading Graduate School, it's true that students from Economics, Business and Commerce, or Law are hired with very good treatment, especially by trading companies. However, in the humanities like Letters and Sociology, students don't choose graduate school with the purpose of entering industry, so there are places where they don't really do much recruitment activity even after getting a doctorate.

But they say, "I am satisfied with spending my 20s devoting myself to my studies." I think it will be quite difficult when they choose a job later, but they are moving toward their dreams. I want to do something for them, but from a corporate perspective, is there a direction toward hiring students who have enhanced their expertise in such fields in the future?

To start with the conclusion, I personally hardly care about the undergraduate faculty they came from. If they have graduated from a high-level graduate school like Keio, I don't think at all that they "won't fit in at a company" just because they majored in something like literature.

Rather, people who receive high-level specialized education have the underlying foundation and the intelligence to do so. Therefore, I naturally believe that what they learned there can definitely be utilized in society. From the HR side of a company, it's not at all the case that people doing literature or sociology are harder to hire. Especially if they are going to graduate school, I think they don't need to worry about that.

However, in that sense, I have to say that the communicative power of companies is still weak. As far as I know, I don't see many companies advertising, "We hire graduate students." For example, while we clearly state that science research positions are for graduate students, I have at least rarely seen a company saying to humanities graduate students, "We will hire you preferentially."

But, as I've said many times, I often see that graduate school graduates are very active once they enter a company. I don't know if this is the right way to put it, but I often feel that those who have graduated from graduate school have a high level of inherent strength. The experience of a Master's degree gives a sense of conviction that "as expected of a graduate student." It might be rude to say this, but I want graduate school professors to send out their students with confidence.

As you mentioned, considering that companies don't have much leeway to educate internally, graduate school reform is moving in the direction of "let's have various educations and experiences in addition to enhancing expertise, even for doctorates."

For example, we are teaching graduate students experiences in cross-disciplinary projects, internships geared toward social implementation to solve social issues, and even in the humanities, skills to read data using numerical processing methodologies.

On the other hand, from the perspective of mastering expertise, that uses extra time, so the load on students increases significantly. How should we think about this?

In a sense it's correct, and in another sense, I think it might be okay not to go that far. I personally think that people who can verify things mathematically and logically through data analysis tend to be able to analyze things very calmly. As a recent trend, companies do seek human resources who can properly perform data analysis. In that sense, I don't think the direction is wrong.

However, it's not that we want them to become simple data analysts. Using Excel macros for data analysis is merely a tool, and what's important is "for what purpose" and "why use it." For example, I sometimes feel that using the tool has become the goal. Previously, if someone said they could do data analysis, there were cases where it was thought very simplistically, like "Okay, we'll assign you to the systems department."

Instead, data analysis is strictly a tool, and if they can appeal that they "possess this kind of expertise," I think that person's market value will increase tremendously.

Hearing what you just said, I thought that perhaps for both graduate schools and companies, the concept of "specialization" in expertise is changing. For example, rather than narrow expertise like having detailed knowledge about Shakespeare, it's about how to understand or utilize knowledge about Shakespeare within a social context. It means we must change the way we think about specialization even in graduate school.

I served as the Dean of the Faculty of Letters until last year. In the Faculty of Letters, the graduate schools are the Graduate School of Letters and the Graduate School of Human Relations. Both graduate schools primarily focus on training researchers, but even for the expertise of a researcher, a situation has arisen where one cannot become a researcher just by knowing their own research theme.

For example, even if one becomes a university faculty member in pedagogy, they cannot just teach their own specialty. Unless they are someone who can properly utilize knowledge across a certain breadth of pedagogy, they won't pass as a researcher. Until now, there was an understanding that graduate school somehow increases expertise by narrowing the field, but I think we must change the way we think about expertise.

What I felt listening to the talk is the definition of expertise. Of course, there is digging deep in an academic sense, but the Graduate School of Media Design currently puts forward three literacies in its diploma policy—what constitutes a degree or what the mission is to convey.

One is "Futures Literacy." This is a term UNESCO started using, and we call the power to envision the future and the power and skills to act toward that future and walk toward it "Futures Literacy." Especially now, in a time of great turmoil including world affairs, we are not returning to the pre-Covid world; rather, the power to envision a new society as a "new normal" is required. It is the power to envision what kind of things to aim for to create a better society and to act toward that.

Second, various activities that previously had to be done face-to-face, or labor that had to be done by people, are changing significantly due to the benefits of technology. We call this "Media Literacy," which is the skill to evolve activities by successfully making digital power an ally.

Third is "Innovation Literacy." KMD's sole mission is to cultivate a new type of global leader capable of innovation. It's about connecting various dots to cause a chemical reaction and what kind of innovation and new value can be created there.

For example, new things are born by connecting expertise from various fields, or team strength increases by connecting people with different ways of thinking, leading to the birth of something new. Or, the power to create communities by linking various regions. These things are currently in high demand globally. At KMD, we make these three powers important skills for leading to a degree, both within the curriculum and in project research activities.

Expertise from that perspective is the ability for graduate students themselves to aim for and act upon a somewhat abstract skill set that can be applied to various fields. By possessing that, they can respond to activities in various fields.

Currently, flexibility in how to respond to changes in various fields, or crisis recovery ability called resilience, is being very highly valued. For that purpose, the expertise envisioned by the Graduate School of Media Design is being able to know various things, connect various dots, conceive new things, and act toward the future. The definition might be slightly different from the expertise of traditional academic systems, but we conduct educational activities from such a perspective.

I believe that what is done in graduate school and what is actually done in a company in the labor market do not change that significantly. To put it very simply, research methods start with posing a question when there is an interest. To solve that question, one finds previous research on what has been done so far and thinks about whether the question can be solved in their own way. Then, one forms a hypothesis, solves it, and produces an answer. And then one checks if the initial question and the conclusion are properly consistent. We are doing such simple repetitions.

In graduate education, how that is expressed is mostly by writing papers, but even when working in a company, I think the process is the same even if the expression method is different.

If so, research ability in graduate school is a process of enhancing problem-solving ability as such a process. If that's the case, I think it would be easier to be accepted if universities appealed more to the outside world that "we are doing things that are applicable in any world." Otherwise, it's perceived as "they only do very narrow specialties, so they can't do anything else," which is a great waste.

For example, I believe that Leading Graduate Schools and the like are providing education to enhance research ability that is applicable anywhere, rather than just deepening one specific content, with such things in mind.

That is exactly right. However, while people at the top of HR like Mr. Arisawa say very admirable things, those who first see the entry sheets still mostly respond with things like, "Your expertise is not necessary for our company." I feel, with all due respect, that there is a large gap between the ideals of those at the top of HR and the people conducting the initial interviews on the ground.

I believe my company has improved considerably in that regard, but I have to say that tendency still exists. Moving forward, I believe companies must properly understand that thinking uniformly that "the expertise of graduate students doesn't fit our company" is becoming out of step with the times.

I truly think what Mr. Kaminari said is a painful opinion. It is clearly wrong for people who have learned high-level things in graduate school to be turned away at the door. As I've said many times, I think this is evidence that understanding of graduate education as a whole is still insufficient in Japan.

For example, companies find it relatively easy to understand things like business schools. This is because business schools teach things considered immediately useful to companies, such as logical thinking and strategy formulation. However, it often appears that understanding of other types of expertise has basically not progressed yet.

In that sense, there are likely many points where recognition must be revised within companies, and I hope schools will increasingly appeal that "we are not just having them learn a certain expertise, but are cultivating students who can immediately perform social implementation."

As Mr. Yoshida said, I believe the abilities companies seek are trained as methodologies within graduate schools. However, I hear that when they enter society, some companies suddenly conduct training for university graduates and graduate school graduates together. Our company conducts training separately for graduate school graduates and university graduates. There are cases where understanding is lacking despite the level of expertise and what has been built up being clearly different. If that happens, wouldn't they wonder, "Why did I go to graduate school?"

In some companies, what the difference between undergraduate and graduate is has not yet been completely understood. This is, of course, a problem on our corporate side, but I would like universities to increasingly motivate students regarding such things and convey them to us as well. It's fine for universities to scold us, saying, "The same training for university students and graduate students? You've got to be kidding. What do you think we raised these people for?"

Also, compared to Europe and the U.S., perhaps it's because there are still few people in top management in Japan who have graduated from graduate school. For example, speaking from my experience, in the U.S., I felt it was common in a sense for top management to have graduated from graduate school. Personally, I think companies in Japan must create mechanisms where those who have graduated from graduate school can increasingly go into top management.

To be honest, there are parts where universities are not sending students out with confidence. We must create a system where universities can say more firmly, "Please do not waste these two or three years."

I personally think there are still places where the system of graduate schools and the mindset of supervising professors do not change. Whether it's Leading or SPRING, common programs to provide economic support across graduate schools have been created and things are gradually changing, but I think there are parts that haven't quite finished changing.

Until now, a job-hunting system existed to connect undergraduate hiring, and an ecosystem was established where students, universities, and companies were all happy. As long as this remains happy, there is no reason to change it. However, regarding the talk of where the game change will occur, recently there is the issue of people leaking out, including in a security sense. If they go overseas, the sense of crisis gradually increases, and the mobility of human resources rises from a global perspective, making it impossible to survive only in the Japanese market. To acquire better talent, recruiting must be done with the yardstick of global competition.

I think there is a possibility that the way job offers are made will change to a form of hiring based on "what the annual salary is, under what conditions, and for what position." If that happens, I believe the ecosystem that was happy until now will collapse whether we like it or not.

I think it's one of the culprits for why the job-hunting system doesn't change, so if that collapses, I think various things will naturally change. From the corporate side, it might be something they want us to stop because "it will go bankrupt." As long as organizations like Keidanren are controlling things like "when to lift the ban on job offers," I don't think it will change, but what do you think?

I thought that was a wonderful opinion. To start with the conclusion, I think it's a matter of how far job-based working styles will take root in Japan.

Realistically, on the corporate side, certain restrictions exist for new graduate hiring, such as the lifting of bans on information sessions and interviews. On the other hand, many companies have recently been trying to transition to a "job-based" system.

When transitioning to a job-based system, what happens is that, generally based on a "job description," expertise becomes even more emphasized. For example, hiring a student who majored in accounting as a specialist in finance and accounting.

However, what I personally think is that, as an image for the next two or three years, there will be many places that first transition employees who are already currently at the company to a job-based system, and hiring will come after that.

In light of the expertise of graduate school graduates, we should originally think of a job-based system tailored to that, but for that purpose, I think there are two things that must be organized. First is to increase the mobility of the labor market. In other words, it's important that changing jobs is basically easy, and if we seek a generalist orientation from most employees as before, I think it will fail somewhere.

Another case is when companies say, "We have introduced a job-based system," but it ends there. In other words, although they introduced a "job-based" system, there are cases where the two systems of compensation and evaluation basically do not change from the previous membership-based vocational qualification system—to put it simply, seniority. To put it harshly, "We introduced a job-based system, but compensation and evaluation remain vocational" cannot possibly work.

I think companies themselves do not yet fully understand what is good about becoming job-based, so I feel that organizing the merits of the job-based system to convey to students has not yet been done.

However, if the transition to a job-based system takes place, I think expertise will be featured in hiring even more than now. If that happens, I think it will conversely become a big advantage for the graduate school side. So, my answer to Mr. Inakage's question is, "It should change." If by any chance it doesn't change, for example, the hiring of foreigners will likely become even more difficult.

On what kind of time scale do you think that will progress?

I think it takes about three years for corporate HR to transform. Therefore, including my personal hopes, I would like to see things change by around 2025.

I think the issue of recurrent education (lifelong learning for working adults) will come into focus when the job-based model becomes fully established.

Exactly, they are a set. It basically won't work unless you implement recurrent education and reskilling, centered on middle-aged and senior employees, at the same time as introducing the job-based model. That is why we are also focusing on reskilling and recurrent education; the reason is that the job-based model is merely a system, and we conduct reskilling and recurrent education to clearly state the purpose and convince all employees.

In that sense, utilizing graduate schools as a place for recurrent education and reskilling is absolutely necessary in this era of the 100-year life. In other words, universities providing more and more opportunities for lifelong learning is a huge business opportunity for the university side, and at the same time, we would very much like to utilize them easily.

That's true. When people who have come to graduate school for recurrent education return to their companies, the awareness of the value of graduate school will change. So, I think that is one breakthrough point for creating a virtuous cycle.

However, it is not that simple. While some graduate schools have already introduced recurrent education, if all graduate schools are to adopt it, the university environment and customs will also have to change. I think universities must build that mindset while companies move toward the job-based model. What kind of strategies can be considered for universities?

I think there are two types of recurrent education. One is, as you mentioned, targeting seniors to strengthen them before they enter a sort of second stage. Or even before that, graduate schools can help with scaling up or grading up, like training for middle management.

Another thing that is overwhelmingly different between the US and Japan is that the faculty and teaching staff on the university side do not have mobility. I think it is important to lower the barriers between industry and academia, where people go back and forth, working hard in "industry" and then returning to "academia" to upgrade their academic work.

If we have these two, I think Japan can catch up with global human movement and education models, but I think targeting only seniors is a bit weak.

I believe there are many things universities can do. The simplest is to provide more flexibility in enrollment. There are still many ways to improve convenience for working adults, such as short-term intensive courses, tuition systems per subject, and online courses. First is the ingenuity of the institutional enrollment system.

Another is how to create educational programs. Should we emphasize content that includes requests from companies, or should it be content where students properly learn the principles of things, distinct from their daily work? In any case, we need a discussion on what is necessary for working adults, rather than an extension of traditional researcher training.

Furthermore, it is necessary to be able to properly explain to companies the strengths gained at university. This is something Japanese universities have hardly done until now. For example, regarding what career centers do, they provide various career services for undergraduate students, but I suspect even Keio does not provide career services for graduate students.

Waseda, of course, does not either. What American universities do is that part; the career center takes the lead in marketing what kind of skills graduate students have acquired. Several universities collaborate to hold something like a briefing session for graduate school graduates, rather than a company briefing session. I think the university side should also develop more power to showcase themselves.

When I went to the US for research, I found it interesting how they market Ph.D.s in fields that are the hardest to sell, like philosophy or history. For example, they present philosophy graduates as people with the best logical thinking skills, but add something extra like "they can also use data." Or for history, they say "history is actually the ultimate archivist," making them easier to sell by including a bit of information science alongside the history content.

Instead of individual universities doing this, academic societies and associations create model programs and provide them to universities, or organizations like graduate school councils take the lead in thinking about program development. I think Japanese universities could also consider ways to market themselves more, perhaps by several universities collaborating or, in some cases, with the help of the government.

Another issue is that a society where the job-based model succeeds is one where professions are established. In Japan's case, social respect for professions is actually not that high, so I have some doubts whether those who have acquired professional skills will truly be treated well in terms of compensation, for example, even if we move to a job-based model.

The versatility of degrees is overwhelmingly poor in Japan compared to the US, so that's the point, isn't it?

It's because we are in a system where even if you finish a master's, your salary is the same as someone who joined the company two years ago.

There is definitely a need for recurrent education, but from a company's perspective, do they want people to go as far as getting a degree, or do they find a certain curriculum package attractive and feel it's enough if they take all of it? Or would they prefer it to be sold piecemeal? What are the needs like?

From a company's perspective, it seems there are still many people who worry that if an employee gets a degree, they will gain market value and "might change jobs."

Personally, if someone is going to graduate school, I would like them to get a master's. The question is, "For what purpose are you going to graduate school to increase your expertise, and how will you utilize that in your career—do you have a clear career design?" I want people to receive such graduate education with the expectation that it will lead to innovation and new value creation.

Also, the point about whether professionals are respected in society is exactly right. Although there are few examples, I think some places might be thinking with a sense of labor cost control when transitioning to a job-based model. It might take time in some cases to reform awareness on that point.

However, I think it would be good to start even just with the form and say, "Look, there are good things about the job-based model. So, let's consider the job-based model as a means to pursue professionalism for now."

In the future, when the job-based model becomes common and everyone starts doing recurrent education or reskilling, this will not be a monopoly market for universities. If it becomes profitable, the education industry will likely enter in force. Universities will be placed in a competitive environment and will not be safe.

If recurrent education is not something only universities can do, the only thing universities can claim is the right to award degrees. Therefore, if we don't stick to the degree, I think the raison d'être of universities and graduate schools will become precarious. Now that various knowledge can be obtained and training can be done online, we must think about what only a university can do.

That is exactly right. From the perspective of competition, as you said, so-called private-sector universities for working adults can be considered a threat to graduate schools like Keio University. One major reason so many working adults attend them is that they are easy to take from the student's perspective—in other words, they have good accessibility. Furthermore, classes are flexible and easy to take. Being able to design it yourself is a big attraction.

So, I think graduate schools should also consider that. It might sound rude for me to say this, but I think it is very important to analyze competitors and apply that to graduate education.

We talked about expertise earlier, but recently in graduate schools, terms like "comprehensive knowledge" (Sogo-chi) and "integration of humanities and sciences" are being mentioned.

How should we think about expertise versus the integration of humanities and sciences or comprehensive knowledge? How should graduate schools consider and approach expertise and comprehensive knowledge, or the traditional Japanese framework of humanities and sciences, within the future flow of society, industry, and labor? I would like to hear your final opinions. The opinion that "precisely because it is a graduate school, one should thoroughly master a specialty" is strong, especially in the graduate schools at Mita.

It is naturally necessary for experts to form teams to achieve great things, and companies are exactly doing business through such activities. To form a team, it is important to be able to understand each other. You need the ability to communicate, trust, and contribute, and comprehensive knowledge from that perspective feels like a graduate school version of liberal arts.

At the root of that is probably curiosity. I think it is important to be interested in various things outside your own field of expertise, and to investigate on your own or communicate with each other to deepen your understanding. Many overseas executives have graduated from graduate school, while there are not many in Japan; I think this becomes very apparent at social gatherings.

While eating, topics jump around, and the cultural literacy and comprehensive knowledge to join that circle and build a relationship of trust through conversation to form a team is absolutely necessary in the global community. Without that, no matter how high your expertise is, I don't think you will easily be accepted as a trusted community member. I believe cultural literacy is a necessary element for today's master's and doctoral students with high expertise in the global world.

We have been promoting the integration of humanities and sciences in the Leading Graduate School Program for over 10 years now. We are even doing brute-force things like having students earn double-major master's degrees spanning humanities and sciences, but a word we have been using all this time is "panoramic perspective" (fukan-ryoku).

If you want to use your expertise to solve social problems, you naturally won't reach a solution with your expertise alone unless you grasp the whole picture, such as what other stakeholders to involve for the solution. The ability to see panoramically what kind of social things are connected around the expertise you are involved in. And the ability to set a strategy for "what kind of people to involve," since you can't solve everything yourself. Believing that the integration of humanities and sciences requires such panoramic perspective and planning ability, we have been working with guidance from mentors in the industrial world.

Therefore, what we call comprehensive knowledge and the integration of humanities and sciences in our program is a place to discuss industrial and international viewpoints and how people in different fields perceive problems, including working adults. We call it a "watering hole"; just as various animals came to the oasis to drink and crossbreeding led to evolution, we discuss under various expertise and values. The results have been satisfying, looking at the graduates active in industry. I believe this overlaps with the recent trend of interdisciplinary projects in graduate school reform and collaboration with industry for social implementation.

In Japan, the "difference between humanities and sciences" is emphasized quite a bit, but I think this is more a problem of high schools rather than universities or graduate schools. In high school, students are divided by being told to "decide whether you are humanities or sciences." Especially if you narrow it down to private universities, humanities students in private schools now only do math up to around Math I.

The track record for university admissions for the high school might improve. However, when considering what a human being should learn, if they are in a situation where they say "I only did this" at the first year of high school, I wonder if they will ever have the chance to take an interest in other things and learn on their own after entering university. If you ask whether that interest will sprout upon going to graduate school, I think it's quite difficult.

When Japanese universities adopted the American model of specialization and general education, the ideal was to broaden one's scope by "learning widely from humanities to sciences at the stage of entering university," but Japan has never been proactive about broadening that scope. Rather, it became a matter of "it's better to do your specialty early," and now that's happening at the high school stage. Then, as Mr. Inakage said earlier, a situation arises where it's impossible to have a cultured conversation over drinks at dinner.

Therefore, as a Japanese educational system, shouldn't we create something like "you must properly learn at least up to this point at the high school stage"? Otherwise, the foundation is very weak, so a proper house won't be built. Can't we do something about this problem where high schools separate humanities and sciences from an early stage just to improve their university admission records?

I truly think so.

If we say high schools are to blame, then high schools will say "university entrance exams are to blame," so it's really about the high school-university connection. There is the undergraduate level before graduate school, the entrance exam before undergraduate, and high school before that; it won't work unless we think about it as a whole.

The talk of a high school graduation level test has come up many times, but they all fell through.

That's right. Speaking of liberal arts, the reason Japan is so overwhelmingly unsuccessful is probably because students enter university after deciding on their department. Because they enter having decided on a specialty, general education and liberal arts education end up being dismissed as "a repetition of high school." However, when thinking about the future of knowledge fundamentally, there are parts that won't appeal to companies unless we delve into the framework of the university system.

In the US, while there are terms like engineering or medical, I have never heard the terms "humanities" or "sciences" (bun-ri). Why is it so in Japan? In my personal opinion, one reason is that the vertical silo structure of Japanese corporate organizations might be influencing high schools and universities. Generally speaking, for example, if you get a job in a technical field, you are likely to follow a technical career. And I feel it is hard to imagine that person moving to sales or finance.

In that sense, it is exactly as you say that it's no good without comprehensive knowledge; I believe that to pursue a specialist career, the generalist thinking at the base is important. I think expertise should be built on top of that.

At the risk of being misunderstood, I think this basically won't be solved unless there is a structural reform of the "vertical silos" seen in universities and graduate schools—in other words, a "paradigm shift."

As a business person, I am all for the idea of interdisciplinary talent from Leading Graduate Schools. I would very much like you to proceed with this. I believe that such people will eventually break down the vertical walls of current companies in the near future and create a foundation where they can compete globally based on comprehensive knowledge as a matter of course.

I felt very encouraged today to hear that the professors are thinking positively. Personally, as a business person, I would definitely like to help if there is anything I can do to support you.

Thank you for your words of encouragement.

I think we can respect and leave the philosophy of undergraduate departments to them to some extent. However, I don't think graduate schools can continue with vertical silos for each research department. Since the Juku's graduate schools are still vertically siloed by research department, I would like to see a mechanism created that can share the concepts discussed today, think about the graduate schools of the entire Juku, promote interdisciplinary integration, and implement comprehensive measures to collaborate with industry to foster talent with comprehensive abilities around a pillar of expertise, making it a system that leads private-sector graduate school reform.

Actually, what I understood well after joining the Central Council for Education of MEXT is that national graduate schools have been building up because MEXT told them they "must work on graduate school reform" in the form of the 4th Medium-Term Plan, whether they like it or not.

On the other hand, graduate school reform in private universities has cooled down a bit, so I would like Keio to take the lead again, involve people from industry, and create a comprehensive organization for graduate schools to discuss how to incorporate recurrent education needs. Of course, as a result, I hope that students will recognize graduate schools, especially Doctoral Programs, as attractive places for talent development, and that the number of students advancing to them will increase.

Actually, this April, we launched an organization called the Center for Quality Assurance in Higher Learning. As you said, it is an organization that did not exist in Keio until now. It is an organization to think about teaching and learning across undergraduate and graduate schools, and I am currently serving as the director. We have created several review teams there, and in one of them, we are thinking about a common program for graduate schools. We have representatives from 14 graduate schools gathered, and first, we want to create several common subjects next April. While inheriting the Leading Graduate School and SPRING programs, we are considering creating a cross-disciplinary graduate program that includes master's courses.

Today, we received frank opinions on the state of graduate schools from your respective positions. Keio has been a latecomer in terms of cross-disciplinary efforts, but precisely because we are a latecomer, I would like to proceed with graduate school reforms that have distinctive features. I would appreciate your continued cooperation. Thank you very much for today.