On the growth of ICT Jobs in Australia

An interesting stat emerged in a news a few weeks ago: according to SEEK.com, the online job platform, tech job advertisements made up the largest category of new jobs posted in 2014. At 10.7% this category beat out Trades and Services (7.7%) and Healthcare and Medical (7.4%). From Jan 2014 to Jan 2015 – the number of tech job advertisements grew by 14%.

The drivers of this change appear to be digital transformation and analytics/intelligence. This means companies moving their infrastructure to the cloud and accommodating a mobile-first world. It also means restructuring existing processes so that you can pull data from them and then do something with that data (probably the integration of analytics software).

This is interesting news – largely because it uses SEEK data. For years, critics have commented that the Australian Bureau of Statistics mis-represents tech jobs (e.g. how do you categorise an HR person working at a tech company or a techie working in an infrastructure firm?). But this data is user generated and the ads are written to be found by the largest number of techies possible.

[Source: ICT leads growth in Aussie jobs market, ARN, Feb 2015]

On the UK’s Digital Curriculum

Are teachers ready for the coding revolution? (BBC News, January 2014) is an article about the changes to the English digital technologies curriculum. However the article is not the most interesting part of this post – as always – the money is in the comments section. I did a quick read of about 100 of the comments (of 240) and have pulled together a summary below. For the most part the comments were negative, criticising the UK government’s ability to roll out an education program, questioning its necessity, questioning teachers capability in delivering the curriculum, debating England’s role in the global technology value chain…

Here’s the summary:

On teachers:

The comments focused on teachers not having the skills or confidence to deliver programming in the classroom. Some thought that a poorly taught subject would do more harm than good – further discouraging people from pursuing technology as a career path or skills set. They suggested that teachers are already overworked and don’t have time to master a new set of tools (such as Scratch). The point was raised that students would rapidly overtake their teachers and the teachers would be left struggling without support.

On programming as part of the curriculum:

These comments asked why should programming be taught in primary school – they suggested primary school was for reading, writing, science, sports, socialisation. Teaching programming would create a generation of anti-social nerds. They suggested that there is a myth that a) programming is necessary to be in the tech space and b) coding is being oversold as an economic solution – that in reality it is a boring, frustrating, tedious process. Others argued that teaching coding languages was pointless however there was some benefit to teaching computational thinking and logic. Another point said that what really needs to be taught is entrepreneurship and business skills – then the students would learn to apply their tech knowledge through doing. And the ever present – why do I need to learn to code if I am not planning on working in technology?

On the economy:

There was a lot of discussion about whether anyone actually needs coding skills in 21st century England. That this is a skills set that should be outsourced to cheaper locations in the world (specifically mentioning India and Eastern Europe). Some commented that there were already enough skilled workers in England but that employers were looking for cheap labour overseas so talent was left languishing in unemployment queues. Others said that salaries were too low to attract high quality students into those careers. Another comment was that you don’t actually spend time coding if you are working in tech.

On the Government’s plans:

High levels of cynicism that the program would be over promised and under delivered, leaving teachers high and dry without resources.

My thoughts:

Tough crowd. However the comments do raise interesting points for any government looking to tackle technology in the curriculum. The biggest question I saw was about whether every student needs to learn to code? The typical answer is ‘not really’ – not everyone is going to head into the tech space. A more nuanced answer is ‘yes’, because students need to be exposed to this line of thinking – alongside the traditional maths, writing, science – so that they are not locked out of future job prospects. A key difference between the the 1980s (the last time governments had a tech push) and now is the omni presence of technology in our lives. Technology is no longer a nerd thing, everyone is using a smartphone and doing business/life over the internet. You don’t have to have a career in this space but you do need to know how it works.

The question of employability has been raised before. How can we say we are experiencing a STEM crisis if there is currently a skilled pool of programmers unable to find jobs (be it the US, Australia or the UK). At the moment the only answer I have found is that this relates to whether these candidates have continued to develop their skills/certificates and also do they have the soft skills and diverse backgrounds needed for the roles – but this needs more research and insight.

Either way, the above comments give an indication of the types of questions a government would need to address before rolling out a program of this nature.

The STEM Crisis is a Myth

Article: The Stem Crisis is a Myth: An Ongoing Discussion by Robert N. Charette (IEEE Spectrum, August 2013)

I read a lot of articles on the magic of technology. Reading them creates a euphoric sense that ‘now’ is the time to be alive. The internet is coming into its own and smart phones are knocking down doors left, right and centre. Any day now a wave of entrepreneurs will rise up, create jobs for the nation and solve most all of our problems. I’m sold, I am pro-tech.

However there has always been a lingering doubt. Its not uncommon that I’ll meet a mid 40s ex-software engineer that is now long term unemployed. Where did all the jobs go? Comments sections on STEM articles are a great place to look. The same themes emerge:

1. there are no jobs in tech,
2. skilled migrants and easy visas are keeping wages low and preventing locals getting jobs,
3. there are no entry level jobs because it is too expensive to hire local graduates,
4. graduates can’t get jobs because they don’t have enough industry experience,
5. industry doesn’t believe universities are training the right kind of graduates (and therefore they must import skilled labour),
6. a person might have been in tech for 20 years but was looked over for a position because their qualifications did not exactly match the job description
7. companies were unwilling to invest in maintaining the skills of its employees – preferring to hire new people in contract roles at a cheaper price

The flip side of this is the narrative I painted above – that tech is our future and that a basic understanding of computer science will put you in good stead when it comes to stable employment.

This article, The STEM Crisis is a Myth, takes direct aim at the idea of a ‘STEM crisis’. The article first points out the challenges of defining STEM careers. Is it all people working for STEM companies (including management and cleaners) or is it people with STEM tertiary degrees (which might not include entrepreneurs or self taught). Charette’s argument is that if STEM jobs were in such high demand then:

• wages would rise for software developers (which he says they haven’t),
• there would be no need for increased skilled tech immigration visas (which has happened), and
• tertiary educated STEM students would remain in STEM careers (which 20% are not after two years, rising to 58% after ten years).

The article’s conclusion is that countries in ‘crisis’ are not short on (loosely defined) STEM workers – they are short on students literate in a solid grounding of science, maths and engineering (which I presume includes computer science). It says that the constant obsession with STEM shortages is causing a boom-bust educational cycle/focus that is disrupting what should be an essential part of every child’s education. The point of the argument is clarify the ‘crisis’ element. This panic is distorting the ‘reality’ of the tech jobs market – during boom cycles it creates false promises of endless jobs once you graduate  followed by periods where employers have no access to skilled labour once the tide of enthusiasm recedes in a bust period.

I actually find the article’s conclusion a little weak. After spending over 3700 words debunking the STEM crisis it sounds as though the author ends up arguing in favour of an increased focus on STEM subjects for children. Charette then concludes by tamely asking that “instead of continuing our current global obsession with STEM shortages, industry and government should focus on creating more STEM jobs that are enduring and satisfying as well”. That can also read as: make better jobs that are more engaging – not quite the punchy ending I was hoping for.

So I still don’t have an answer – I think I’ll settle for my existing: instilling children with competencies in STEM subjects (and logic) improves their resilience for future career prospects as the economy transitions into an unknown networked/globalised 21st century.