What the heck do these three things have to do with each other? Well, originally I had three different blog ideas. They are very related so I figured it would be better to include them in one post.
Let's begin with robots.
Robots Will Have Your Job
Bill Gates said it. Not me. In this interview, Gates claims that in 20 years there are many jobs that will be replaced by robots. I don't think this is a crazy idea.
Just think about it. Right now if you need someone to drive you to the airport, you could get a taxi. That taxi is driven by a human and that is the human's job. But wait! There is the Google self-driving car. Sure, they aren't super popular, but they already exist. So why not have this Google car drive you to the airport? Wouldn't that be better for everyone? Well, I guess it wouldn't be better for the human that was replaced by a robot.
I was working on a small project with my older son. We were talking about this idea of robots taking over the world. The conversation went something like this:
That's a great idea. Although really, if humans can kill robots wouldn't it be easy for robots to kill robots?
What kinds of jobs can't be replaced by robots? I think (at least for now), robots can't be humans. They can do some tasks that humans do but they aren't humans. This means that the best robot-proof jobs would be the job of being a human. What is the job of a human? Let's see....here are some things that humans do (and make us human):
- Art
- Music
- Literature
- Filmography and photography
- Science
- Math
- Philosophy
- Gaming
- Sports
But which of these match up to actual real human paying jobs? Clearly some of them do (some sports and filmography). Others could be considered to be a job - you can get paid to be a scientists, right? So maybe these don't all match up with a career - but as we know robots right now, they don't really do these things. These are the realm of humans. No droids allowed.
Newton's Education and Useful Science
What about the most recent episode of Cosmos? (You can watch episode 3 here online) I thought this episode of Cosmos was the best so far. It seems they are sticking with the theme of "how do we know this stuff"? Looking at the historical development of ideas in science shows that we don't just read about things in textbooks. The ideas had to come from somewhere first.
They spend some time talking about Newton, Hooke and Halley. It's a very interesting story about the relationship these three men have. For me, the best part was when they showed Newton studying at Cambridge. It's very clear that he is not there for job training (because if he was, then he could be replaced by a robot).
I especially love the scene with Newton in his room studying all sorts of stuff - including alchemy and looking for secret codes in the Bible. Why did he study these things? They weren't part of a course (and I don't think they had grades back then - those were invented later). Then why? The answer is obvious: because. Why do we do the things we do? I think for the best activities, we do them just because.
Now when I think of National Science Foundation grant proposals, you know what the first thing that comes to my mind? You have to write a proposal in such a way to make clear that your research will be useful. This is wrong. Do you think that Newton worked on the universal law of gravity because it was useful? Well sure, it's useful now - but what about back then? I guess you could say Newton did it for revenge, but maybe he just did it because he wanted to. Why do artists paint a particular scene? Sometimes they are commissioned for some particular work but often they just paint what they want.
Robots will have a hard time replacing humans because they don't have their own desires (at least not until their firmware is upgraded).
The Biggest Educational Mistake
You might think the worst mistake is to start a land war in Asia, but you would be wrong. Well, in higher eduction, there is a bigger mistake (but really, universities shouldn't get involved in war). The mistake that countless politicians and administrators make is to think that a university is a place to create and train workers.
If a university's role is to produce workers, why not just make it a robot factory? Isn't that the logical next step? I mean if robots are going to take over jobs and the university creates workers - then just skip a step.
No. A university is not about workforce development. Ok, it is probably true that if more people graduate with an undergraduate degree they can increase the number of employed people in an area. But it's like what Richard Feynman said about sex: "sure it's useful, but that's not why we do it".
If a university isn't about workforce development, what is it about? A college degree isn't about jobs but rather it's about learning and training to be more human. Think about it. If a college degree is about job training, why do math majors take art? Or why do history majors take math? Oh, I've heard this before. In order to be a great historian, you need to know algebra. I, for one, like this argument. However, go get some great historians and give them some algebra questions (make it word problems). How well would they do? I bet not so great. No, most adults don't actually NEED algebra. Most adults should still study algebra because it's good for you.
Ok, now for some links. Here is a post from Inside Higher Ed that looks at President Obama's view of the art history major. His quote was:
Let me first point out that if someone followed me around all the time and recorded what I said, I would surely say dumber things than this. But this was pretty dumb. It seems that he is implying that there shouldn't be any art majors because they don't make very much money? This would be like saying that we shouldn't plant flowers because you can't eat them. There is more to life than money.
Anyway, all those art majors are going to get the last laugh. "Manufacturing skills"? Don't you really mean "robot programing"? I, for one, welcome our art major overlords.
One more link. This is essentially the same thing but without a Presidential quote.
These U.S. Colleges and Majors are the Biggest Wast of Money - The Atlantic.
Yes. For the most part, an undergraduate degree costs WAY more than it should. If you really want to make more money, it would probably better to skip college and just find some career that you can start making money right away. You might not have as good of a job after 5 years compared to a college grad, but you surely won't have the debt.
My main point: if you are going to college just to get good grades and then get a job, you are probably wasting your money. This goes along with the advice I give to early college students. Don't just pick the easiest path to a degree. All you'll end up with is a degree and good grades. Instead, study lots of things. Focus on the things you find the most interesting (that might be art history). If you are doing what you love and are passionate about, you are way ahead of many people. Even if you don't end up being a professional art historian, you will still have enriched your lives and made yourself more human.
