As a college educator I am tasked with preparing today’s students for their future careers.
Implicit is that I should know more about the future than most people. I do not - at least not in the sense of specific predictions. But I can suggest some boundaries on the path forward.
Let’s start with the three Laws of Future Employment. Law #1: People will get jobs doing things that computers can’t do. Law #2: A global market place will result in lower pay and fewer opportunities for many careers. (But also in cheaper and better products and a higher standard of living for American consumers.) Law #3: Professional people will more likely be freelancers and less likely to have a steady job.
Usually taken for granted is that future jobs depend on STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and math). This view is eloquently expounded by Thomas Friedman, who argues that the US is falling behind China and India in educating for STEM careers.
Alex Tabarrok makes a case for STEM in his excellent little e-book, Launching the Innovation Renaissance. He points out that “the US graduated just 5,036 chemical engineers in 2009, no more than we did 25 years ago. In electrical engineering there were only 11,619 graduates in 2009, about half the number of 25 years ago.” Similarly, the numbers of US computer science grads is flat over the past quarter century. Thus Tabarrok believes the US is falling behind in innovation and related technologies.
But Tabarrok and much of the conventional wisdom are wrong. The job that electrical engineers did 25 years ago has almost nothing to do with the job they do today. Computers now do much of the work that people used to do - computers design circuits, do all the drafting, plan the manufacturing, etc. It used to be that an electrical engineer designed the electronics in your car. To some extent they still do, but today even the smallest components come with operating systems - in other words, your car is programmed rather than designed. Electrical engineering is a career that follows Law #1: much of it has been (and will continue to be) computerized out of existence.
Computer science careers illustrate Law #2. Computer science services are among the most tradable in the world. It is literally a global job market. Thus the number of computer scientists graduating from American colleges is an irrelevant number. Further, computer science jobs are themselves being computerized. The job description for today’s computer scientist is only tenuously related to what they did 25 years ago.
Laws #1 & 2 predict that there will likely be fewer STEM jobs in the future – they are both easily computerized and tradable. People will always be employed in STEM disciplines, many of them highly paid, but they’ll be paid for smarts rather than education. The disciplines will be much more competitive, with older and less talented workers left on the sidelines. Tom Friedman and Alex Tabarrok, reflecting conventional wisdom, are mistaken in maintaining that increasing STEM education is a key to future economic competitiveness.
So if computerized, tradable skills won’t create much new employment, if any, what will? Clearly, it will be non-tradable skills that can’t be computerized. At their most valuable these jobs depend on human-human interaction - empathy. Counseling (of any sort: psychiatric, financial, weight loss, etc.), sales, customer service, management, and personal services all rely on empathy, as does waitressing. While much teaching can be computerized, what remains will depend more on empathy than anything else. “They don’t care what you know, but they will know if you care,” is a maxim future teachers should take to heart.
According to Ronald Coase it is generally cheaper to engage freelance labor than to hire employees, unless the market transaction costs are too high. The internet lowers transaction costs and makes smaller firms (fewer employees) more economical. Thus we arrive at the Third Law of Future Employment: professional people will more likely be freelancers and less likely to have jobs. This already happens in computer science: projects are put out to bid on websites for global competition. Much journalism today is freelance, as is graphic design, engineering, or any number of other skills. The third law predicts this trend will grow.
The bottom line is that today’s young people need to develop an individually unique set of marketable skills for tomorrow’s job market. A marketable skill is more than an education (which is not a skill), and also more than just job training (a skill, but no larger expertise). The useful benchmark is it takes 10,000 hours to become expert in something.
I recently had a student – an English major – in my chemistry class. He had no good reason for being there; he could have fulfilled requirements with much less effort. So I asked him why?
“It fit into my schedule and I felt like doing it. I like it.”
“What are you going to do with an English degree?” I asked.
“I’m writing a novel. It’s about cowboys.”
Now conventional wisdom says this guy is all wet. Alex Tabarrok would have him drop the English degree in favor of chemistry (or chemical engineering). His English professors will say that his chances of publishing a novel (much less earning a living off one) are next to zero. SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher has Six Big Ideas for SUNY - and my student doesn’t fit into any of them.
But think about the skill set needed to write a novel, of which writing may be the least of it. He has to have something to write about, which means nurturing a general curiosity about the world – not just cowboys, but apparently also chemistry. He learns to be a keen observer of people: their appearance, what they wear, their character, mannerisms, and language. He develops the self-discipline and self-confidence to finish a project because it is intrinsically important, not because people say “Wow, that’s wonderful. You’re writing a novel!” Because of his novel my student becomes expert in many skills that can translate into a wonderful career.
How is that different from mere education? The typical English major writes papers comparing Proust with Balzac. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it isn’t building the 10,000 hours. It simply amounts to following directions carefully, and eventually collecting a credential. True expertise, by contrast, is something self-generated, following your own passion and talents. This isn’t to say education is always a waste of time, but it will no longer be sufficient to build a career.
So here is my career advice to today’s students:
- If you passionately like something and are good at it, then do that. STEM, for example, will always have a place for smart, hardworking people. Likewise, good writing can’t be computerized, but you need both talent and passion to be successful.
- Start work on the 10,000 hours. Your education may help, but very little you do in school contributes to the total. Be it car detailing, truck driving, computer programming, drawing, writing – acquire an expert skill in something. Write a novel.
- Empathize if you can. Computers can’t do that. Jobs that involve empathy (along with other skills) will always be in demand.
- If you got it, flaunt it. That’s something else computers can’t do. Beauty has value, especially for women but also for men. This is wonderfully described in Catherine Hakim’s book, Erotic Capital. Even if you don’t got it, take advantage of youth. Acquire a fashion sense, take care of yourself, look as good as you can.
Work hard. Have fun. Get rich.
Daniel Jelski is a professor of chemistry at New Paltz, and previously served as dean of New Paltz’s School of Science & Engineering.
Email this Story
Humanities education
Great article, and I would be very interested to hear Dean Jelski's views on the future of teaching in the humanities. It seems that the idea that "they won't care what you know, but they'll know that you care" could easily apply to teachers in the STEM fields, but what about, say, a teacher of English literature? Teaching this subject is something that a computer could not do very well, as the experience relies heavily on discussion, and empathy is an important factor in fruitful discussion. "What you know" (and the word "know" probably takes on a different meaning with regards to literature than with regards to mathematics) when teaching this field, then, becomes very important.
The humanities are not like the sciences, where a definite answer exists, and it would therefore be very difficult - I would say probably impossible - for a computer to be able to facilitate such learning.
It's a great article, thank
It's a great article, thank you, you have really inspired me!Especially I like this motto in the end :) I have graduted the University less than a year ago and I have faced a question what should I do after the graduation.It's always hard to make a choice.The level of unemployment in US declines , and it shows that it's really possible to find a job.But how to find a job that would not just bring you money, but a pleasure also? You are right,times have changed and works are different now, computarization and the Internet have made an influence almost on all the job fields.So I think that before finding a job better to find out yourself at first.Take a closer look at what you really like, what you want to do,be passionate to get new knowledge all the time.I am sure it will help to get a successful employment and become financially secure.
Great article
The only thing I might add is that the most important thing a liberal arts education gave me 30 years ago was learning how to learn. As a lifelong autodidact, I have fluidly negotiated careers in computer programming and design, building systems for everyone from hydro-geologists to digital advertising executives. It was the liberal arts education that allowed me to see the whole picture, how disciplines relate and how knowledge is interconnected. Marketing data miners are using the same algorithms as tunneling engineers when making determinations based on data. The only guarantee you have is the pace of change will not slow. You have to think of your education as a platform that enables you to go on to much greater learning.
Contracting in the UK
I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. This is the perfect blog for anyone who wants to know about this topic. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I’ve learned much stuff from your blog. Keep up the good work! Contracting in the UK
Subsidies for higher education
I have posted an article against subsidies for higher education here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/01/19/a-free-college-education-for... .
Daniel Jelski
A Free College Education For All Won't Solve Matters
Mr. Jelski,
Your article "A Free College Education for All" was interesting, but doesn't really get to the heart of the matter. The article does not call for the ending of federal subsidies for education, without which college tuition might be reined in. I will examine each of your points in turn:
Let volunteers teach classes
I’m all for this, although it is hard to see how this will effect cost savings to students. What employer is going to respect a degree from the University of the People? Especially being that most of the people doing the hiring have a vested interest in not hiring graduates of UoP. Will an employer like GE recruit at UoP with the same fervor as they currently do at well established private and public universities? The University of Phoenix’s track record is pretty sketchy with respect to placement. Yeah sure, it is a for-profit institution, but would a similarly situated non-for-profit that institution that used volunteer instructors fare any better? And where would all these crack volunteer professors come from and how would the quality of their instruction be measured?
Automate almost everything
Come, come now! This will not cause universities to lower tuition. This would probably lower the cost to universities, but this will not induce colleges to lower their tuitions. The cost of educating a lawyer is very cheap according to this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?src=me&ref=general
Choice snip:
Tuition at even mediocre law schools can cost up to $43,000 a year. Those huge lecture-hall classes — remember “The Paper Chase”? — keep teaching costs down. There are no labs or expensive equipment to maintain. So much money flows into law schools that law professors are among the highest paid in academia, and law schools that are part of universities often subsidize the money-losing fields of higher education.
“If you’re a law school and you add 25 kids to your class, that’s a million dollars, and you don’t even have to hire another teacher,” says Allen Tanenbaum, a lawyer in Atlanta who led the American Bar Association’s commission on the impact of the economic crisis on the profession and legal needs. “That additional income goes straight to the bottom line.”
But the low production cost of law schools has not inclined law schools to low tuition or even to reduce class size. You also suggest that grading be outsourced to foreign countries! This suggestion is like throwing gas on a fire. How would exporting even more jobs to foreign countries solve our employment problem?
Let the winner take all
Your suggestion here would probably work at the high school level. The effective purpose of a college degree is to function as an IQ screen for employers. It isn’t so much what you know, but rather how smart potential employers think you are and what wage you will be willing to work for. Rosetta Stone is great for those wishing to learn a new language relatively cheaply. A similar program for all aspects of higher education would probably fall flat because there would be no IQ certification involved, as is assumed with a college degree.
Break the cartel
You started off cooking with gas, but then fell short. In the article you wrote:
It is enforced by accrediting agencies, appropriately run as voluntary associations of existing institutions, dedicated to keeping newcomers out.
I would strongly disagree with your assertion. The educartel is not maintained through accrediting agencies. There are many colleges and universities in the US willing to cater to every type of student. The education market is wide-open. The problem is not that we have too few colleges, but rather that we have too many. And we have too many because Americans have been hoodwinked into believing in the necessity of a college education. The reality is that very few people are capable of college level work. Instead of dealing with this reality, we pretend that America is Lake Woebegone where all people, assuming they go to college, have the potential to be above average. This naïve belief is the root cause of the education bubble.
From my perspective, the educartel can only be broken if either one (preferably both) of the following happens:
1)Ending all federal subsidies for higher education, especially guaranteed student loans.
2)Overturning Griggs v Duke Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.), which will allow companies to test potential employees in any manner they see fit. Currently, employers are barred by law from testing directly for intelligence and have come to rely on colleges to do their IQ screening for them. Allowing employers to test directly would cut out the middleman, thus breaking the educartel.
Empathy! Yeah, That's the Ticket!
Empathy is going to power the economy?!!! That's even more ridiculous than the notion that house swapping would power the economy for all eternity (everyone knew that additional land wasn't being created). How did that work out for us?
There are basic problems with Mr. Jelski’s Laws of Future Employment:
Law #1: People will get jobs doing things that computers can’t do.
Or not. There is going to be a net loss of jobs, regardless of what field one chooses to enter. And that field will generally pay less than it did a decade ago. Everyone not technically inclined (which is most people) will rush to the supposedly empathetic fields, driving down wages and increasing unemployment. I guess we can counsel each other to prosperity instead of selling houses to each other as we did in the last decade. That's the ticket!
Law #2: A global market place will result in lower pay and fewer opportunities for many careers. (But also in cheaper and better products and a higher standard of living for American consumers.)
The problem here is that the two do not offset. One can only take advantage of low prices if one is steadily employed. Even assuming full employment, deflationary pressures will not be applied uniformly. Sure, big screen TVs and computers will continue to come down in price, but the price of essentials like food, energy, medical care and education will continue to go up. Those with the greatest amounts of capital will benefit from this system (those with first access to money), but capital formation for the working and middle-class will be severely negatively impacted. Most of the population in the US will experience a race to the bottom.
Law #3: Professional people will more likely be freelancers and less likely to have a steady job.
And this is supposed to be a good thing? If one factors in the impact of immigration, freelancing leaves a lot to be desired. Certainly, it can be very lucrative, but not for most. Not today anyway. Everyone is essentially a freelancer, with wage depression prevalent.
Being that Mr Jelski is a tenured professor and insulated from wage competition, I can understand him spouting inanities. But for those of us who have to compete for a living, inanities don’t put food on the table. Perhaps he could suggest something really useful, like encouraging US citizens to support an immigration moratorium:
http://www.vdare.com/posts/dr-norm-matloff-jennifer-wedel-xenophobia-and...
Or perhaps Mr. Jelski could point out the negative effects of federal subsidies for higher education:
http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2011/12/higher-education-bubble-has-b...
Career advice
Sure, hobbies matter. Education is about becoming a well rounded person, but your university degree might only offer you a particular perspective or teach you a single skill. So you'll have to sacrifice your spare time to learn other stuff. If your hobbies can be put to practical use (volunteering, apprenticeships, etc.) then you might benefit financially from your blood, sweat & tears in the long run. If you write a cowboy novel, you can self-publish on the web and hope for the best.
I can't see why law #1 and law #2 would lead you to predict the decline of STEM jobs. For every 100 electrical engineers sacked, anywhere between 0 and 1000 programmers might be hired - your laws cannot predict the number. The skills in demand on the labour market have always been subject to change in technology; last time I checked there was a greater demand for software engineers than authors of cowboy novels. In any case, there's no shortage of unsuccessful novelists!
I would probably say "acquire an expert skill in something that matters and isn't too easy to learn".
And of course all of this
And of course all of this does not attack the core problem: as jobs shrink, become less lucrative and require scarcer skills, even as the overall economy becomes richer, how do we manage the distribution of wealth? For if we do nothing, the profits will go to an ever smaller group of people who are already wealthy. Instead of the good of increased wealth and leisure in society, we fall ever deeper into the pit of great social and economic inequality and permanent depression.
interesting but flawed
The author indicates lower wages and more competition for jobs in the future but then goes on to describe a higher standard of living due to lower prices for consumers.
Sorry, been there, done that. The country has been hollowed out as jobs are shipped to China/Mexico etc. Surely prices for these foreign made goods are down but the decline has been in lock step with declining domestic incomes which are the predictable result of shipping so many jobs overseas.
What this writer describes is the same except computers take the place of cheap chinese laborers in his hollowing out scenario. I do not pretend to know of an alternative or remedy but I look forward to the release of an empathetic robot that can teach chemistry. The the author can then join us in flooding the market and driving down wages for sales reps and massage therapists. Then, we come to the REAL issue. When we are all poorly paid sales reps & massage therapists, who will have the money to buy the products and get the massages in the first place? Methinks the model does not work....
On the IT issue
I think there are really 2 IT job fields. If you look at the pure coding front yes, indeed the job can be done anywhere and sooner or later the machines will do it. In this field since 1970 the number of jobs has already decreased as in the 1970s companies often wrote their own operating systems and the like.
However there is another subfield Analysis, which consists of taking business requirements and translating them into development specs. This requires more local presence. One needs to know what is do able, so as to ensure that the specs lead to a buildable system. One way to look at this is enterprise architecture, which starts with the business needs, then looks at data required to meet the business requirements, then moves to the algorithms needed, and finally to the hardware. The first 2 stages definitely take a lot of interaction with the business types (in fact a business degree with some CS might work well) The latter two are the parts that will sooner or later be automated away.
So refreshing to see a
So refreshing to see a realistic statement on education and development.
And yep, "If a computer can't do it" is key.
I really enjoyed this
I really enjoyed this article - thanks.