Search
Close this search box.

Tag: stem education

AI and Women at the Workplace: A Sensible Guide for 2030

Even a few years in, the media craze over AI shows no sign of subsiding. The topic continues to fascinate, scare and befuddle the public. In this environment, the Mckinsey report on AI and Women at the workplace is a refreshing exception. Instead of relying on hyperboles, they project meaningful but realistic impact of AI on jobs. Instead of a robot apocalypse, they speak of a gradual shifting of tasks to AI-enabled applications. This is not to say that the impact will be negligible. Mckinsey still projects that between 40 – 160 M women may need to transition into new careers by 2030 worldwide. This is not a small number when the low end accounts for roughly population of California! Yet, still much less than other predictions.

Impact on Women

So why do a report based on one gender? Simply put, AI-driven automation will affect men and women differently in the workplace as they tend to cluster in different occupations. For example, women are overly represented in clerical and service-oriented occupations, all of which are bound to be greatly impacted by automation. Conversely, women are well-represented in health-care related occupations which are bound to grow in the period forecasted. These facts alone will assure that genders will experience AI impact differently.

There are however, other factors impacting women beyond occupation clusters. Social norms often make it harder for women to make transitions. They have less time to pursue training or search for employment because they spend much more time than men on house work and child care. They also have lower access to digital technology and participation in STEM fields than men. That is why initiatives that empower girls to pursue study in these areas are so important and needed in our time.

The main point of the report is not that automation will simply destroy jobs but that AI will move opportunity between occupations and geographies. The issue is less of an inevitable trend that will wipe out sources of livelihood but one that will require either geographic mobility or skill training. Those willing to make these changes are more likely to survive and thrive in this shifting workplace environment.

What Can You Do?

For women, it is important to keep your career prospects open. Are you currently working in an occupation that could face automation. How can you know? Well, think about the tasks you perform each day. Could they be easily learned and repeated by a machine? While all of our jobs have portions we wish were automated, if that applies to 60-80% of your job description, then you need to re-think your line of work. Look for careers that are bound to grow. That may not may simply learning to code but also consider professions that require human touch and cannot be easily replaced by machines. Also, an openness to moving geographically can greatly improve job prospects.

For parents of young girls, it is important to expose them to STEM subjects early on. A parent encouragement can go a long way in helping them consider those areas as future career options. That does not mean they will become computer programmers. However, early positive experiences with these subjects will give them the confidence later in life to pursue technical occupations if they so choose. A big challenge with STEM is the impression that it is hard, intimidating and exclusive to boys. The earlier we break these damaging paradigms the more we expand job opportunity for the women of the future.

Finally, for the men who are concerned about the future job prospects of their female loved ones, the best advice is get more involved in housework and child rearing. In short, if you care about the future of women in the workplace, change a diaper today and go wash those dishes. The more men participate in unpaid house work and child rearing the more women will be empowered to pursue more promising career paths.

Integrated STEM Education: Thoughtful, Experiential and Practical

In a previous blog, I proposed the idea of teaching STEM with a purpose. In this blog, I want to take a step back to evaluate how traditional STEM education fails to prepare students for life and propose an alternative way forward: Integrated STEM education.

One of the cardinal sins of our 19th century based education system is its inherent fragmentation. Western academia has compartmentalized the questions of “why” and “how”  into separate disciplines.[note] While I am speaking based on my experience in the US, I suspect these issues are also prevalent in the Majority World as well.[/note] Let STEM students focus on the “how”(skills)  and let the questions of “why”(critical thinking) to philosophers, ethicists and theologians. This way,  students are left to make the connection between these questions on their own.

I understand that this will vary for different subjects. The technical rigors and complexity of some disciplines may leave little space for reflection. Yet, if STEM education is all about raising detached observers of nature or obsessed makers of new gadgets, then we have failed. GDP may grow and the economy may benefit from them, yet have we really enriched the world?

One could argue that Liberal Arts colleges already do that. As one who graduated from a Liberal Arts program, there is some truth to this statement. Students are required to take a variety of courses that span Science, Literature, Social Studies, Art and Math. Even so, students take these classes separately with little to no help in integrating them. Rarely they have opportunities to engage in multi-disciplinary projects that challenge them to bring together what they learned. The professors themselves are specialists in a small subset of their discipline often having little experience in interacting outside their disciplinary guild. Furthermore, while a Liberal Arts education does a good job in exposing students to a variety of academic disciplines it does a rather poor job in teaching practical skills. Some students come out of it with the taste and confidence to continue learning. Yet, many leave these degrees confused and end up having to pursue professional degrees in order to pick a career.

Professional training does the opposite. It is precisely what a Liberal Arts education is not: highly practical, short, focused learning for a specific skill. As one who took countless professional training courses, I certainly see their value. Also, they do bring together different disciplines and tend to be project based. The downside is that very few people can efficiently learn anything in week-long 6 hour class days. The student is exposed to the contours of a skill but the learning really happens later when and if that student tries to apply that skill to a real-world work problem. They also never have time to reflect on the implications of what they are doing. Students are often paid by their companies to get the skill quickly so they can increase productivity for the firm. Such focus on efficiency greatly degrades the quality of the learning. Students here are most likely to forget what he or she learned in the long run.

Finally there is learning through experiences. Most colleges recognize that and offer study abroad semesters for students wanting to take their learning to the world. I had the opportunity to spend a summer in South Korea and it truly changed me in enduring ways. The same can be said for less structured experiences such as parenting, doing community service, being involved with a community of faith and work experiences. A word of caution here is that just going through an experience does not ensure the individual actually learns. While some of the learning is assimilated, a lot of it is lost if the individual does not digest the experience through reflection, writing and talking about it to others.

Clearly these approaches in of themselves are incomplete forms of education. A Liberal Arts education alone will only fill one’s head of knowledge (and a bit of pride too). Professional training will help workers get the job done but they will not develop as individuals. Experiences apart from reflection will only produce salutary memories. What is needed is an approach that combines the strengths of all three.

I believe a hands on project-based, ethically reflective STEM education draws from the strength of all of these. It is broad enough like Liberal Arts, skill-building like professional training and experience-rich through its hands-on projects. Above all, it should occur in a nurturing environment where young students are encouraged to take risks while still receiving the guidance so they can learn from their mistakes. To create a neatly controlled environment for learning is akin to the world of movies where main characters come up with plans in a whim and execute on them flawlessly.  Real life never happens that way. It is full of failures, setbacks, disappointments and occasionally some glorious successes. The more our education experience mimics that, the better it will prepare students for the real world.