>Here's an illustrative thought experiment: imagine you have a time machine. Now pick a worker at random from some time and place in the past 5 centuries, and carry them forward by 30 years. will they be able to earn a living?
I don't find Stross' thought experiment very convincing. One doesn't need to imagine time travel. A CS graduate from the 1990s who didn't timetravel directly to 2020s but got there regular way and didn't do anything to update their skills during those years would find themselves with equal difficulties in job market than the time-traveler. (edit: Or worse difficulties.) That is why it is a good idea to continuously develop ones skills.
However, on much shorter timescales, say, 5 years, one can make a reasonable guess what kind of degree is more likely to result in gainful employment after graduation than other. A degree doesn't equip one for a job, but a useful one results in one enough understanding of some field that one obtains, should I say, a fighting chance or more to equip oneself for a job related to the field. And having a job often results in better chances to learn more and further equip oneself for one's next job.
Then in a later part of the blog post Stross argues that as arts sector is today very profitable to the UK, it warrants continued government support for arts education. This strikes me a bit inconsistent with his earlier claim that prediction of the future need for skilled jobs from the current state is impossible.
A better argument would be that it is possible that arts are going to be more useful than STEM in the future, and it would be unwise to cease arts degrees. It has certain ring of truth to it. However, I came under impression that Stross is in favor of keeping the number of arts degrees at the same level or increasing their amount, but if we take "impossibility of prediction" seriously, there is no telling the current amount -- or higher amount, or lower amount -- of arts degrees awarded is any better in 30 years either.
I am not sure the education allocation is best done by the government giving commands how many artists and engineers are needed to be trained (or given subsidies to be trained, or whatever). If that choice is for each individual to decide without government planners intervening, they at least have some idea of their personal talents, wishes, and circumstances than either Rishi Sunak or Charlie Stross.
I don't find Stross' thought experiment very convincing. One doesn't need to imagine time travel. A CS graduate from the 1990s who didn't timetravel directly to 2020s but got there regular way and didn't do anything to update their skills during those years would find themselves with equal difficulties in job market than the time-traveler. (edit: Or worse difficulties.) That is why it is a good idea to continuously develop ones skills.
However, on much shorter timescales, say, 5 years, one can make a reasonable guess what kind of degree is more likely to result in gainful employment after graduation than other. A degree doesn't equip one for a job, but a useful one results in one enough understanding of some field that one obtains, should I say, a fighting chance or more to equip oneself for a job related to the field. And having a job often results in better chances to learn more and further equip oneself for one's next job.
Then in a later part of the blog post Stross argues that as arts sector is today very profitable to the UK, it warrants continued government support for arts education. This strikes me a bit inconsistent with his earlier claim that prediction of the future need for skilled jobs from the current state is impossible.
A better argument would be that it is possible that arts are going to be more useful than STEM in the future, and it would be unwise to cease arts degrees. It has certain ring of truth to it. However, I came under impression that Stross is in favor of keeping the number of arts degrees at the same level or increasing their amount, but if we take "impossibility of prediction" seriously, there is no telling the current amount -- or higher amount, or lower amount -- of arts degrees awarded is any better in 30 years either.
I am not sure the education allocation is best done by the government giving commands how many artists and engineers are needed to be trained (or given subsidies to be trained, or whatever). If that choice is for each individual to decide without government planners intervening, they at least have some idea of their personal talents, wishes, and circumstances than either Rishi Sunak or Charlie Stross.