If We Build It, Who Will Come?
Education is about not just the what, but the why and the how.
The question to ask about an education is not “What can I do with it?” but rather “What is it doing to me—as a person?” Education has to do with the making of persons…
A clip from an interview with NVIDIA CEO and founder Jensen Huang has been making the rounds this week. For the first fifteen minutes of the conversation, Jensen discusses the past, present, and future of AI. It's worth listening to the whole interview to get a sense of how the folks at the center of the development of AI are thinking about the next steps. But what really caught my attention was when the topic turned to education around minute eighteen. That’s when the interviewer asks the question that caused my ears to perk up: “What should education focus on?”
As AI propels innovation and fuels our power to shape the world, it must be accompanied by wisdom and character. Jensen spends the first part of his interview talking about the importance of building the computational infrastructure to democratize access to AI.
If we build it, they will come. But the more important question is who they will be.
The Absent-Minded Professor is a reader-supported guide to human flourishing in a technology-saturated world. The best way to support my work is by becoming a paid subscriber and sharing it with others.
Vocational training should only be one part of an education
Education in the age of AI, Jensen says, should redouble its focus on domain knowledge. He argues that as AI helps to democratize access to programming capabilities, the need to know how to program will become irrelevant. Anyone will be able to program simply by describing what the program should do. This newfound power will augment the abilities of experts in particular domains like the life sciences to more effectively push the boundaries of discovery and accelerate the pipeline that translates scientific discovery to engineering innovation.
I think this is right, but only part of the story. I'll leave aside the argument about whether AI is going to eliminate the need for learning programming for another day. I'm sure that AI will change how we program, but I doubt that thinking like a programmer will become obsolete anytime soon for those in STEM fields. In fact, there's a pretty strong case to be made that being able to think like a programmer will only become more important once you have an AI copilot.
The bigger question is why we learn skills in the first place. If our skills only allow us to solve problems within a narrow, well-defined scope then I agree that AI has the potential to eliminate or at least significantly reduce our need for those skills.
But to talk only about AI's impact on education by discussing how it impacts the skills we need to learn is to have a pretty narrow view of what education is actually for. It's just one more example of how we've begun to think about education primarily as vocational training, and a narrow training at that. Jensen only has five minutes to answer this question so it's not fair to assume that this is the extent of his perspective on AI and education. It's important not to take his soundbite out of context, and yet, the way that we answer these questions matters because it shapes our cultural imagination.
What Jensen says (and doesn't say) in his answer illustrates a particular vision not only of what education is but of what it should be. My goal today is to reflect on his answer in the form of a "yes, and" and to offer my two cents (and perhaps more) on what education in the age of AI should be all about. The answer is less about what should change and more about what we should have been doing all along.
AI exposes weaknesses in our educational system
AI is definitely a disruptive force. On the whole, I buy the argument that education will need to adapt to meet new challenges and embrace new opportunities. But I'd also argue that for the most part, the parts of our education system and courses that are threatened by AI probably should have been redesigned or eliminated a long time ago. Many of those aspects aren't aligned with what and how our students should be learning to begin with. Education that starts and ends with the rote memorization of answers or the acquisition of specific narrow skills has never served our students well. The goal of an education should be to learn how to ask the right questions and then build the skills needed to work toward the answers. AI will only significantly impact our approach to education to the degree that we're not already doing this well.
Jensen's answer to deepen our focus on domain expertise is correct but only part of the story. Domain knowledge is only one of three main pillars that our educational systems should be aimed at. The full story is the what, the why, and the how.
1. The What: Building domain-specific expertise
Regardless of the careers that our students are planning to enter, they will need specific knowledge in their field. AI will change some facets of this but largely will serve to enable us to focus more deeply on the specific areas where we still are exploring the edges of what we know. Building domain-specific skills is less about the the development of those specific skills for their own sake, and more about understanding the fundamentals needed to develop an expert’s intuition and way of thinking that enables us to use new tools like AI effectively. Physicists will continue to need to understand fundamental concepts like the laws of motion, energy and power, thermodynamics, and electricity and magnetism. Likewise, engineers need a basic understanding of signals and systems along with specific expertise like how to design a circuit or select a material for a product. These domain-specific skills are the raw material that allow for higher-level thinking and Jensen is right that AI will enable us to dig more deeply into these specific domains.
2. The Why: Understanding context and motivation
While expertise in a particular field enables you to solve specific technical problems, the technical aspects are only one part of addressing real-world challenges. The problems facing our world today are complex and multidimensional, with social, economic, and historical dimensions. Without understanding the full scope of the problem, it’s likely that the solution to the technical problem won’t solve the real problem underneath it. In fact, in many cases, solving the technical aspects of a problem without understanding its full scope can exacerbate existing issues and make things worse on the whole. An increased focus on scientific domain knowledge will propel innovation but is unlikely to lead to human flourishing. As we develop our technical capabilities, we must simultaneously build the wisdom, character, virtue, and leadership skills necessary to understand the full scope of the problems we are seeking to solve. These are skills that fall outside the domain of technical expertise and require study in the fields of philosophy, religion, history, the humanities, and the arts.
3. The How: Moving toward craft
While the domain expertise to solve problems and the wisdom to understand why are critical components for the next generation of innovators, they are insufficient. In addition to the what and the why, we must build the habits and systems to be able to put what we know into action. The how is about equipping ourselves and our students with the habits, systems, and frameworks they need to understand what needs to be done and how to tackle it. The how is the glue. It includes the skills that help us think clearly and communicate our work in a variety of mediums, including through the written word, oral presentations, and more informal mediums.
It's worth noting that understanding education in this light also highlights the personal nature of education. Education is not and should never be a well-oiled assembly line where each product comes out looking essentially identical. Of course each of our programs will leave some recognizable marks on our students (e.g., Mudd engineers are trained to see block diagrams everywhere), but each one of us will develop a unique combination of domain expertise, philosophical and religious convictions, and particular ways that we make progress in our work.
This is a feature, not a bug.
Where do we go from here?
As I’ve been thinking about these three aspects of education, I’ve been reflecting on how they shape my own aspirations and the work I do with my students. These three pillars are important for students, but also for us. The best way to learn these things is to do them together as we look forward to those ahead of us and seek to offer a helping hand to those following in our footsteps.
1. What: Learn domain expertise by building things in the real world
I'm sympathetic to Jensen’s argument that generative AI, either in the form of LLMs or another foundational model to come will significantly impact the way that we write software. There are still challenges to tackle, for sure, but the syntax and structure of code seem perfectly matched to the super-powered autocomplete capabilities of LLMs. In response, he suggests that we should double down on domain-specific expertise in fields like the life sciences and as get comfortable working with chemicals and compounds.
I expect that generative AI will begin to drive a renewed interest in the hands-on, physical aspects of STEM fields. It’s interesting that the type of domain-specific knowledge he highlights in fields like biology and chemistry is almost impossible to learn without access to physical resources and laboratories. The big problems facing our world in energy, climate, and transportation are inherently physical problems that require concrete hardware expertise.
Physical resources are expensive so it makes sense why companies and institutions are pushing activities to virtual venues where they can. But the limits of virtual spaces simply won’t support the type of domain expertise that Jensen is talking about here. It’s one thing to read a biology textbook, it’s another to go into the lab and extract DNA. It’s one thing to design a circuit and simulate it, it's another to go into the lab to build and test it.
2. Why: Engage literature, philosophy, history, and art
I’ve written before about why I think range and relationships are at the core of what makes a liberal arts education tick. The humanities will only become more important as the pace of technological innovation continues to accelerate, powered by AI. As more and more of what we thought was only possible in science fiction becomes reality, the hypothetical questions will no longer remain hypothetical.
To root our work in the liberal arts is to recognize that our endeavors must ultimately be directed toward cultivating human flourishing for everyone.
Literature teaches us about the human condition, broadens our view of the world, and helps us to develop empathy for those outside our limited sphere of experience. History helps us to see the way that our current day is different, and yet not so different than the past and to draw these differences into clear relief. Philosophy and religion help us ask the right questions, and as we seek the answers, to focus on the meaning of a good life and how we can sustain it for ourselves and others. The humanities, social sciences, and the arts help us to understand what a flourishing life looks like, both for us and our neighbors, and prod us to ask the right questions to ensure that what we build is aligned with the world we want to create.
Of course, not all of us had the opportunity or desire to pursue a liberal arts education. Regardless of where we find ourselves, there are always opportunities to explore these topics in more detail, realizing that these ideas are especially important for those of us harnessing the powers of STEM disciplines to shape our world.
One of the great advantages of living today is that the world's information is at our fingertips. What we've studied in the past is a sunk cost. Don't let those choices shape your future or prevent you from exploring the humanities with curiosity.
3. How: Develop a craftsman mindset
The what and the why are necessary but not sufficient. What ties them together is the person who knows the what, understands the why, and knows how to put it all together.
In his book So Good They Can't Ignore You, Cal Newport introduces the idea of the craftsman mindset. The name of the book is part of a quote from the comedian Steve Martin and expresses the thesis of the book in a nutshell: the best way to build a meaningful career is to produce high-quality work and share it with the world. This is in contrast with the common advice to "do what you love," a phrase that Cal links with what he calls the passion mindset. Cal boils it down to one main difference, articulating that "[T]he craftsman mindset focuses on what you can offer the world, [while] the passion mindset focuses instead on what the world can offer you."
To truly have a positive influence on the world, we need to see our work as our craft. A craftsman loves her craft. She embraces continuous improvement and understands that failure is a necessary feature on the journey to success. Craftsmen see their work not just as a series of tasks to be completed, but as an art form that requires consistent dedication, practice, and reflection.
Our current moment needs craftsmen. Domain knowledge is certainly a key component to excelling in one's craft, but it's not the whole story. Seeing oneself as a craftsman means understanding the perspective that we bring to our work and that the way we do our work matters.
It matters that we do our work with excellence. It matters that we consider the various ways that our work will impact society, for good and ill. It matters that we do our work with integrity and that we treat those who work alongside us with kindness, care, and compassion. Who we are shapes our work and in turn, shapes our world.
We spend way too much time talking about the stuff we want students to learn and not nearly enough time helping them understand why it’s important and how to apply it wisely. As we think about the disruption of AI on education and our world more broadly, let's join Jensen Huang in pondering how it might cause us to rethink how we pursue domain-specific expertise.
But as we look to pivot and refocus our attention on the skills and knowledge we should pursue, let's also remember that these are only a small part of the bigger picture. New knowledge is important, as are the new opportunities enabled by AI. However, the core values of education remain unchanged. The way forward is to teach ourselves and those we work with to understand and see the world with curiosity, to build domain-specific expertise to solve challenging technical challenges, and to cultivate virtues.
As AI propels innovation and fuels our power to shape the world, it must be accompanied by wisdom and character. Jensen spends the first part of his interview talking about the importance of building the computational infrastructure to democratize access to AI. If we build it, they will come. But the more important question is who they will be.
As we think about education in the age of AI, let’s ensure that our work remains directed toward a vision of human flourishing. Domain knowledge coupled with AI has great potential to change our world, but without virtue, character, and wisdom it is unlikely to be for the better.
I hope that this post has left you feeling just a little bit more curious. If you’ve got a question to ask or something to share, please leave a comment below!
The Book Nook
Today is the launch day for Cal Newport’s latest book, Slow Productivity. I’ve been a huge fan of Cal since I first discovered him in the middle of grad school. He’s shaped the way that I think about work for a long time now and I’m looking forward to digging into his new book soon.
I’m looking forward to this one after hearing Cal talk about it on his podcast over the last few years and am really looking forward to reading it.
The Professor Is In
One more week until Spring Break and we’re chugging right along. This week is resubmit week in E80, a new change we’ve introduced this year to allow students to go back into the lab to collect new data from past labs. It’s one more of the changes we’re implementing to help students to more fully engage with the process of
I’m excited this week to have two podcast conversations queued up. Later today I’ll be talking with Dr. Steven Mason, the President of my undergraduate alma mater LeTourneau University. I’m looking forward to discussing how my time at LeTourneau shaped me and getting the chance to talk more about engineering, higher education, AI, and how my Christian faith informs my work as an engineering educator.
Then on Friday, I’ll chat with
about his new book coming out later this year and how we should think about writing, thinking, and education in the age of AI. I’m suspicious that this is going to be a fun listen and I can already sense that John and I will have a lively discussion.Leisure Line
With all the rain we’ve been having lately the waterfall at Millard Falls is running pretty strong. This photo is from a few weeks ago now, but the waterfall was about as strong as I’ve ever seen it.
Still Life
Since I got a hummingbird feeder for Mrs. Absent-Minded Professor for Christmas last year we’ve really enjoyed getting more regular visits from our quick-winged little friends. Here’s a photo from a recent visit.
I too am a LeTourneau alum! Although I’m guessing from a different era. All hail, LeTourneau, blue and gold!
Since you are uniquely situated as an educator, can you share if you are changing the way you teach or asking kids to learn differently using AI? I'm curious if anyone is putting this into practice and can share observations.