In addition, Myers and Myles (2005) found that not all training is created equal. The type and quantity of training mattered a lot. Their data allowed them to distinguish among five types of non-credit training: computer training, job entry and job upgrading, literacy and second language training, health and safety, and a large omnibus ‘other’ category.13 They found that the likelihood of reporting that learning was helpful was significantly higher for those taking credit-based learning and for those with longer learning spells. Learners who reported more than 2 days of training were 1.7 times more likely (than those who reported less than 2 days of training) to report a wage gain. Workers who reported taking 12 or more weeks of training were 3 times more likely to report that training was helpful in achieving a wage gain.
Myers and Myles (2005) also considered the impact of job and workplace characteristics such as firm size and sector, occupation and workplace autonomy. While the size of the firm that a worker was employed in did not make a difference, most other job and workplace characteristics had a significant impact. Workers who report high levels of job autonomy (a proxy for high job skills) and high levels of workplace innovation (job change) were more likely to report that learning was helpful in achieving a positive labour market outcome. Similarly workers in the private sector were significantly more likely to report that a learning episode was helpful.
Although there is only a small body of evidence, the studies that do exist suggest that although less educated are less likely to participate, when they do participate they are no less likely than their more educated counterparts to benefit from their learning. This conclusion is somewhat surprising given that the human capital theory predicts that results would be biased towards the most educated. One possible explanation for these results is that less-educated learners start from a position of relative educational disadvantage. Thus they may be more likely to gain from additional episodes of learning. In other words, the more educated may experience a declining marginal product for their training in which higher-order events have small effects.
The Canadian evidence in particular suggests that there is a pool of individuals who missed out on successfully completing secondary school or obtaining post-secondary education in their youth, but have benefited significantly from job-related training or ‘second chance’ education as adults. This finding indicates that there may be a non-trivial proportion of individuals with high potential returns to education who did not graduate from high-school or did not pursue postsecondary education perhaps because of low family income, credit constraints or family socialization that does not emphasize the importance of education. As Riddell and Sweetman (2000) argue, for these ‘high potential return’ individuals, a policy designed to increase educational attainment would have a substantial payoff – both in terms of increased employability and in terms of equity.
13 Within job-related formal learning a distinction can be made as to whether the learning has the potential to lead to a credential such as a degree, diploma, certificate, or license. In this paper, we refer to this type of learning as ‘credit’ learning. This type of learning is also sometimes referred to as ‘program’ related learning. Learning that does not lead to a formal credential is referred to as ‘non-credit’ learning. This type of learning is also sometimes referred to as ‘course’ related learning.