I just wouldn't describe our existence as being in a closed system as it says in #3. If it's a closed system, you don't have much complexity to deal with. Things are more ordered and predictable. Rules are enforced down to the moment that an infraction occurs.
Education and work are inherently complex, open, uncertain, and emergent systems driven by human ingenuity. On the one hand this is great thing but on the other, students are not really taught how they fit within these systems so they continue to flounder as adults in the work system.
Andrew, we are obviously on the same wavelength here. Posted some of my thoughts reflecting on the same comment from Harari yesterday. Seems almost impossible given our similar subtitles, but I didn’t see your piece until after I posted mine!
Your analysis is based on the implicit assumption that the formal teacher-student dynamic within a series of fixed settings will continue. Isn't it reasonable to assume instead that the future of education will be impacted by what you and others describe as much as any other industry (as that's what it now is)? Formal education practices are a relatively recent innovation within the arc of human history. Yet, we still made it this far.
Good point Jonathan, and there may be some of this here. But I work at an institution that is actively challenging and rethinking teaching models as we look to the future, and my own work also intersects with this, so I think there may be less of these traditional assumptions than it might seem in my thinking.
I think it's possible to approach durable foundations of what we teach while being very aware that the modalities of how we teach and how people learn are likely to change. At ASU for example we are actively looking at "realms" of teaching that expand out quite radically from the traditional model: https://president.asu.edu/watch/asu-teaching-and-learning-realms-2020
The question remains though -- whatever the modality (including self-directed learning, casual learning, augmented learning and more) -- what will form the foundations of what we learn, and what will form the more dynamic components that are built on these foundations. And, of course, how will we develop learning frameworks that are both resilient and adaptive.
I was involved with a pedagogical shift in the late 1990s, training faculty willing to adopt online learning models and adapting their teaching materials. One persistent, initially intractable, issue was assessment. To be handed that crucial certificate meant jumping old hoops with new tech. One student had to fly from Mongolia... I still think that modern [British] education is excessive in its rigid approach to rote exams. The tail of the whole process is wagging the body of the dog. It needs uppending, no matter the financial impact on the hide-bound gatekeepers.
It's a blanket statement from Harari for sure and what you draw attention to are crucial skills that will still be relevant in 20+ years time. Deeper relational, reflective and interpersonal skills. Perennial. How we create the optimal learning environments for them to develop is what is going to be interesting, particularly in education institutions. I've long been an advocate for a shift in policy and skills discourse to that of SCHTEAM (Science, Communication, Humanities, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math) as opposed to just STEM. This gets to final no. 6... nothing else will really matter unless we do this. It's what I call Moral Imagineering.
I don't really understand where he's been going these last few years. The points you came up with are timeless. We're still going to be humans in 20 years, we will still need to interact with other humans and deal with all the eternal issues- fear, greed, jealousy, desire. We'll still need to reach for our better angels, and adapt old ways to new contexts, to be versed in history, psychology, complexity/network science. AI is not going to change that.
I agree – there are clearly going to be some things that change and a shift in some skills that are needed, or no longer needed. But unless we move away from being a human-centric society this still drives the foundations of what we teach. He may have just got confused with what we teach and the skills people have -- they two are not directly synonymous
I like the list.
I just wouldn't describe our existence as being in a closed system as it says in #3. If it's a closed system, you don't have much complexity to deal with. Things are more ordered and predictable. Rules are enforced down to the moment that an infraction occurs.
Education and work are inherently complex, open, uncertain, and emergent systems driven by human ingenuity. On the one hand this is great thing but on the other, students are not really taught how they fit within these systems so they continue to flounder as adults in the work system.
Andrew, we are obviously on the same wavelength here. Posted some of my thoughts reflecting on the same comment from Harari yesterday. Seems almost impossible given our similar subtitles, but I didn’t see your piece until after I posted mine!
Glad to see others like you making this argument!
https://joshbrake.substack.com/p/what-to-teach-young-people
Ha -- great minds ... :) Thanks for the link -- enjoyed the post
Beautifully put. You've articulated what I've had kicking around in my head for some time (and then some).
Related: Nick Bostrom's book "Deep Utopia: Life and Meaning in a Solved World", releasing this month, promises to touch on many of these themes.
Your analysis is based on the implicit assumption that the formal teacher-student dynamic within a series of fixed settings will continue. Isn't it reasonable to assume instead that the future of education will be impacted by what you and others describe as much as any other industry (as that's what it now is)? Formal education practices are a relatively recent innovation within the arc of human history. Yet, we still made it this far.
Good point Jonathan, and there may be some of this here. But I work at an institution that is actively challenging and rethinking teaching models as we look to the future, and my own work also intersects with this, so I think there may be less of these traditional assumptions than it might seem in my thinking.
I think it's possible to approach durable foundations of what we teach while being very aware that the modalities of how we teach and how people learn are likely to change. At ASU for example we are actively looking at "realms" of teaching that expand out quite radically from the traditional model: https://president.asu.edu/watch/asu-teaching-and-learning-realms-2020
The question remains though -- whatever the modality (including self-directed learning, casual learning, augmented learning and more) -- what will form the foundations of what we learn, and what will form the more dynamic components that are built on these foundations. And, of course, how will we develop learning frameworks that are both resilient and adaptive.
I was involved with a pedagogical shift in the late 1990s, training faculty willing to adopt online learning models and adapting their teaching materials. One persistent, initially intractable, issue was assessment. To be handed that crucial certificate meant jumping old hoops with new tech. One student had to fly from Mongolia... I still think that modern [British] education is excessive in its rigid approach to rote exams. The tail of the whole process is wagging the body of the dog. It needs uppending, no matter the financial impact on the hide-bound gatekeepers.
That I would agree with! Lots of initiatives around this at ASU -- but a long way to go still
Here's another futurist's post on the same video which better captures my own personal experience on how to teach children (to learn): https://www.linkedin.com/posts/futuristnikolasbadminton_this-video-has-been-doing-the-rounds-yuval-activity-7172923672624656384-fGPu
It's a blanket statement from Harari for sure and what you draw attention to are crucial skills that will still be relevant in 20+ years time. Deeper relational, reflective and interpersonal skills. Perennial. How we create the optimal learning environments for them to develop is what is going to be interesting, particularly in education institutions. I've long been an advocate for a shift in policy and skills discourse to that of SCHTEAM (Science, Communication, Humanities, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math) as opposed to just STEM. This gets to final no. 6... nothing else will really matter unless we do this. It's what I call Moral Imagineering.
Thanks Matthew -- like this, and it gets to the need to think beyond old silos if we're to thrive in a new world.
I don't really understand where he's been going these last few years. The points you came up with are timeless. We're still going to be humans in 20 years, we will still need to interact with other humans and deal with all the eternal issues- fear, greed, jealousy, desire. We'll still need to reach for our better angels, and adapt old ways to new contexts, to be versed in history, psychology, complexity/network science. AI is not going to change that.
I agree – there are clearly going to be some things that change and a shift in some skills that are needed, or no longer needed. But unless we move away from being a human-centric society this still drives the foundations of what we teach. He may have just got confused with what we teach and the skills people have -- they two are not directly synonymous