As soon as the debate on the school opens, two tribes of idiots break out. The first are the usual humanists who hate science (in Italy there is NO humanistic culture, but only an anti-scientific or scientophobic culture), and those who are angry with the school for the world of work, all computers, internet and English, and that I call "the juvenilists".
I have already said enough about the humanists, but I would like to investigate the "juvenilists". Those who come out saying that studying the Punic wars is useless, and that Napoleon can be done without, because the school must train for the world of work.
The first thing to ask is "but don't you feel like shit if your president of the republics goes to the UN and writes in his speech that Napoleon WON in Waterloo?". No, because by dint of saying that the school must train for the world of work, we end up forgetting that there is a need for a ruling class.
We want to use as President of the Republic a guy who believes that the Normandy landings are a movie and that Stallone won the war in Vietnam? Okay, because as he plans in Erlang, nobody does. But then you'll be ashamed as an ass as soon as he goes to give a speech in public. This is usually NOT the case in Erlang. (luckily for us).
Do you like having an educated ruling class that makes you look good, that goes down in history as an enlightened ruling class, that enforces your country? Yes? And you intend to do it with someone who graduated from the High School for Butchers (that's a job too, huh)?
It is clear then that the public school for the world of work is not for you. Unless you think that the poor go to public school for the world of work, and then someone who has done private schools forms the ruling class. It is a solution, but if you want this at least say it.
But there is a second point that makes an impression. The OLD concept of "work". Perhaps it can make you appear young (to an audience of seventy years old) to say that we need to study more "the computer" and "programming" and "the webz" because those are "the jobs of the future". And if you say so, you seem to belong to that youth who is very Quintarelli.
But this is not the case. In the sense that "the webz" will be (and is) an integral part of the "new job", but not as you think, that is, not in the work understood as the production of goods and services that is done inside the company of the entrepreneur.
Because digital has added ANOTHER pillar to the world of work, in addition to "goods and services": the content creator.
Do you know what OnlyFans is? Do you know what Patreon is? Kofi? It is a galaxy of monetization that allows content creators to pay their bills, through the notoriety that is acquired with satisfaction.
In a nutshell?
In a nutshell, there are about 15,000 people living on Youtube in Italy. And counting everyone, including instagram, Vimeo, TikTok, etc we get to 22,000 people. And I'm only talking about the self-produced world, that is, the world of people who produce themselves.
Of course, many are like this:
But even this young lady, when making videos, uses some post-production technique, as you can clearly see. If we then go around the world of cam-girls and everything that revolves around the vagina, we pass from 22,000 to much higher numbers.
Sure, artists, pin-ups and everything else have been around for centuries. But never before has their number been so high, and never before have they become a sector as today.
Digitization transforms the former work (goods and services) into a triad, that is (goods, services, contents). If previously producing content was a service, today it has become a sector in itself.
And here we come to the history of the Punic wars, because if we go to YOutube and check who the most popular youtubers are, among the channels we find MANY history channels: not just Barbero, therefore. Historians are all too highly regarded. Are we sure that NOT studying the Punic wars is suitable for the NEW world of work?
No, we're not sure at all, and even philosophy is having a (very unwelcome at the academy) backfire: when there are youtubers like Contrapoints that are around two million subscribers, or Philosophy Tube that has a million, we understand because in the end the academy is pissed off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RmJO2IwHek . BUT if the academy gets pissed, things are serious.
Consequently, the "new job" does not necessarily contain the programming that is done within the entrepreneur's company, when it could contain video editing, post-production, history, philosophy, and any content that interests the public ( there are also many science channels, of course).
THE discussion I see on the school that forms for work is flawed: but not because of the idea of a school that takes away the training costs from the entrepreneur by passing them on to all citizens (Confindustria Ringrazia) but because it has an idea of very old job, and as if that weren't enough he has an even older vision of "new jobs".
It tastes of "sloaganism", or "youthfulness": the tendency to emanate beautiful slogans, which know of modern or young, but when you examine them better it turns out that it is still an old mentality, and a conception of the world even more dated.
The world of tomorrow will have extremely automated work: the mass of workers will move to content creation and all related industries. Whether they are personal content (like vloggers) or are content companies, production, postproduction, realization, and all that, they are not at all jobs that require only a type of productive knowledge in the industrial sense of the term.
And so yes: in the world of work of tomorrow, having studied the Punic wars could be as useful as knowing Erlang. (which, it should be remembered, dates back to the 70s: anyone who feels cool because they use it should understand that they are using another COBOL).
These politicians keep talking about the future as they finish their sentences by describing the past. They keep talking about the future world of work referring to the 80s. They continue to describe the needs of a market that no longer exists, forgetting that the content creator market is "protected" if only by the linguistic factor, while when it comes to programming, today as today using the same techniques as a home office, I can hire an Indian for one third of the Italian cost.
On the contrary, in the world of content creation the cultural, historical and linguistic context protect the market: the language, but also the positioning of the channels that deal with current affairs, politics, comedy – or simply music, the so-called reactions – all things which have the effect of protecting the local market: the Chinese will also be able to make a video on Italian news from China, but the Italian who comments on the same thing will be able to position himself better on the market. And he will speak in Italian.
So, assuming that the school for the world of work is a good idea, it will still be necessary to take into account the new sector of content creation, which requires precisely those knowledge that in the "old" world were considered "non-working" or "liberal" .