yes, I'd agree; although to some extent I would not limit the ignoring to the Govt.; there's all sorts of advice out there on what 'pays' education-wise which is unhelpful in the medium term... O'Connor concludes young people should study what they love & then figure out a career later - which was always the advice I gave; better to have a good degree in a subject you love, then a mediocre result in a subject studies for instrumental reasons...
@ChrisMayLA6 To me, it always seemed the best strategy for the young is to look at the areas that the government does _not_ recommend one educate oneself in. Then go for those areas. After 3-5 years, there will be a huge shortage, and salaries will rise.
The trap is to educate yourself based on what the government thinks is needed. This is almost always wrong.
I guess the only exception to this rule is where the profession itself has cornered the market such as lawyers and doctors. Those two managed to hang on to the best job protection techniques from the middle ages, with shortage and high cost as a result.
yes, I'd agree; although to some extent I would not limit the ignoring to the Govt.; there's all sorts of advice out there on what 'pays' education-wise which is unhelpful in the medium term... O'Connor concludes young people should study what they love & then figure out a career later - which was always the advice I gave; better to have a good degree in a subject you love, then a mediocre result in a subject studies for instrumental reasons...
@ChrisMayLA6 I think this is dangerous advice. Life and work does not consist of only fun moments, doing only things that we like. It consists of hard things, and doing things we do not like. By telling immature people that they should focus on what they like, the risk is that they go out in life with the expectation of only doing something fun, and then things turn out to be not so much fun.
I find it much better to be realistic and balanced and teach my students that life is not fun, and work is called work for a reason.
After all, there is only so muc economic space for gender scientists, artists, influencers and the like. If you're not at the top, then your life will be worse off, than the person who takes a moderate approach and educates himself in a sector that actually does pay somewhat well, and where there is a demand.
Yes, I think my advice was pitched to the middle of that - do well in a subject you love because (in the UK at least) most employers are more concerned with the grade than the focus (except in vocational/professional subjects).... hence getting a first in a subject you love is better than a 2:1 in a subject that seemed like an instrumental choice.... I should say by advice was never taken by the majority, so likely they are thinking more like you
@ChrisMayLA6 Well, yours isn't bad advice per se, only when taken to an extreme by an immature person with an immature expectation of the world.
Another classic I always give my students is that the world is not fair, and the best way to hurt yourself, is to walk around the world with the expectation that it is fair.
Funnily enough, my mother's frequent advice (to me & others) as well!
@ChrisMayLA6 The entire motivation powering the "AI revolution" is that it is a way of making money without expending human effort. That is diametrically opposite from the idea that we should all pursue socially fulfilling vocations. I don't expect young people to buy this nonsense for long, which basically tells them to get used to being poor while someone else becomes incredibly rich. ☹️
yes, like other technologies in the past, its an (explicit) mechanism to transfer money from workers to capital.... but (see previous post) also undermines the very engine of capitalism - 'effective demand'
@ChrisMayLA6 This is maybe a reason to be concerned at how much the tech "entrepreneurs" are wooing politicians: They are simultaneously trying to bluff their way to success in the marketplace, and also to become a part of state funded infrastructure. It seems like there's an attempt at a sort of blitzkrieg going on, a bid to make this technology irreversibly central to society before people realise what's happening. It feels more like a political coup than capitalism.
@ChrisMayLA6 Isn't it weird how yet again this sort of discussion of social value can start in the FT, while the mainstream press won't touch the neoliberal assumptions.
indeed, which is why the FT remains my paper of choice (whatever I might think of its overall politics)
@ChrisMayLA6 @2legged it tries to be fact based at least, whatever they decide to do with those facts.
