Automation is changing the nature of education and the ways people learn. More schools are using online learning to supplement in-class activities. In fact, some schools are completely online. Distributed computing on the internet and the automation that drives it makes this possible.
Everything changes when the formal education process becomes embedded in the internet. Courseware delivery becomes asynchronous; people learn what they want, when they want to. Test administration becomes more about the efficient acquisition of data and evaluation thereof. Human-to-human interaction as a basis for a meaningful educational experience becomes optional. Today, it’s entirely possible to learn all you need to know to make a good living in the modern world without ever needing to sit in a classroom or interact with a human directly. Let’s face it: You can do a lot of learning from YouTube.
As a result, more people are beginning to question the conventional wisdom of spending four years and thousands of dollars to get a bachelor’s degree—particularly now that companies including IBM, Google and Apple no longer require one to get hired.
Coincidentally, as companies eliminate the college degree requirement for new hires, we’re seeing significant growth in technical bootcamps. One study reports that this year, 20,000 students will complete a course of study at a coding boot camp and be “job ready.” Considering that the number of students who graduated with a computer science degree from a typical college in 2017 numbered about 93,000, there’s a good case to be made that boot camps are siphoning off a number of students that otherwise would be headed to academia.
Going to boot camp instead of college is an upward trend: The study projects that the number of boot camps are expected to grow 20 percent this year. The career path for a technical professional does not necessarily involve going college. Going to a boot camp for a year—if not less—will suffice.
Is this a problem? I’m not sure. On the plus side, I am reminded of the scene in the film, “Good Will Hunting,” when Matt Damon’s character Will Hunting, a genius with a photographic memory who walked the halls of MIT working as a janitor, makes the profound remark:
“… you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f****** education you coulda got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.”
There’s a good argument to be made that when it comes to getting a good paying job, the $15,000 median price tag for attending a coding boot camp has a better much better ROI than spending ~$200,000, the cost of a four-year degree from MIT.
But then, I am reminded of Aldous Huxley.
In his book, “Brave New World,” people are grown in test tubes according to a specific formulas, the result of which is a biological caste system. Those in the Epsilon caste are grown to be 3 feet tall and abhor the outdoors. Their job is to work their way underneath the machines on the factory floor to do simple maintenance. Deltas, the next caste up in the hierarchy, do the menial chores—janitors, for example. Gammas are the bookkeepers and data entry clerks. Then you get to the higher levels, Alphas and Beta. Betas are technicians who do very sophisticated jobs, such as mixing dangerous chemical together. One mishap can result in an explosion, killing all. Finally, at the top of hierarchy are the Alphas. Alphas possess advanced analytical skills and a broad knowledge base. They are able to plan and strategize. They have a high degree of creativity. Their role is to run the society.
Thus, I have a concern about the increasing role of technology and automation education, and the emergence of tech-focused boot camps as the prime post-secondary educational experience for many.
As more of those entering the workforce forgo a formal college education, we run the risk of creating a society in which most of the technical workforce is Betas. They’re able to do highly complex tasks, yet have no idea why they’re doing them.
Let me be specific. Let’s talk about Kubernetes: It takes a lot of knowledge and experience to be good at getting Kubernetes to work. It’s a complex, evolving technology that you need to keep your eye on. Companies are spending a good deal of money making sure their IT staff are competent with Kubernetes—as well they should be. One little misstep can result in the digital equivalent of a chemical explosion. Yet, I wonder how many of those “working Kubernetes” are thinking about the bigger picture—for example, the purpose and value of the enterprise using Kubernetes. Are these engineers questioning if the technology they’re working is doing good or harm?
Or, let’s turn the dials down a bit and ask a question that’s less loaded philosophically. How many of those working Kubernetes today wonder if an alternative orchestration technology such as Docker Swarm might be a better choice to meet the need at hand. Or are they so concerned with getting Kubernetes to run that they don’t have the bandwidth to think about anything else? Do they just defer such critical thinking to “the system architects”?
Critical thinking, although an acquired skill, is not one that’s new on the cognitive landscape. It’s been taught for thousands of years, since the time Socrates sat under an olive tree asking simple questions that forced his students to transform their assumptions and allusions into thoughts based on reason and reflection.
Developing the ability to think critically traditionally has been one the aims of a college education. The romantic ideal is that college is the place where students are exposed to a variety of ideas from a variety of viewpoints. The hope is that such exposure, along with instruction aimed at developing one’s ability to engage in higher-order thinking, will create graduates who will contribute to making a better-functioning, more prosperous and more humane society.
But, that’s the traditional perception of college. The reality is changing. Maybe college is just the place you go to get the skills required to get a good job. If that’s the case, given that a college education is becoming less affordable to more people, maybe the boot camp approach is best. Yet, there is a risk.
A good while back when I was considering enrolling in a doctoral program, I attended a required orientation at Harvard University. I sat in an auditorium composed of about 50 aspiring doctoral students. One of the department heads on stage said the following, “The objective of our doctoral programs is simple. We want to train you to run the world.”
Yep, that’s right. And, I can say with a good deal of confidence that this objective is the same today—to create thinkers who have the skills and knowledge necessary to run the world. The Alphas, if you will.
So, we’re at a crossroads. Automation is a liberating force in education in that it makes infinite knowledge available to anyone who wants it at a fraction of a cost of a traditional college education. All that’s required is the time and desire to take advantage of the opportunity at hand. However, if the result of such education is a workforce in which the concern of most is to ensure that the technology works and does not blow up, then the risk we run is that bigger decisions will be made by those who had the time and money for an increasingly elite education. In other words, as more people spend time focused on turning the dials and setting the levels to make the technology go, a very small minority actually will be determining the purpose and direction of the machine the technology supports.
Still, the fact is, most of us need to make a buck to survive. This means being good at getting the tech to work. Yet, we will do well to understand that there is a Big Picture and if don’t pay attention to it, someone else who has been educated to run the world will.
