Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
This reply irked me a bit because it clearly comes from a software engineer’s point of view and seems to miss a key equivalence between software & physical engineering.

Yes a new tool is coming out and will be exponentially improving.

Yes the nature of work will be different in 20 years.

But don’t you still need to understand the underlying concepts to make valid connections between the systems you’re using and drive the field (or your company) forward?

Or from another view, don’t we (humanity) need people who are willing to do this? Shouldn’t there be a valid way for them to be successful in that pursuit?

I think that is what I was arguing?

Except the nature of work has ALREADY changed. You don't study for one specific job if you know what's good for you. You study to start building an understanding of a technical field. The grand parent was going for a mix of mechanical engineering and sales (human understanding). If in mechanical engineering, they avoided "learning how to use SolidWorks" and instead went for the general principles of materials and motion systems with a bit of SolidWorks along the way, then they are well on their way with portable, foundation, long term useful stuff they can carry from job to job, and from employer to employer, into self-employment too, from career to next career. The nature of work has already changed in that nobody should study one specific tool anymore and nobody should expect their first employer or even technical field to last more than 2-6 years. It might but probably not.

We do need people who understand how the world works. Tall order. That's for much later and senior in a career. For school purposes we are happy with people who are starting their understanding of how their field works.

Aren't we agreeing?