The End of the Credentialist Society and What Education Should Teach Children in the AI Era

Title photo:
Scenes from the Kesennuma Junior High School Photo Book Project 'Photography Class'
(Great East Japan Earthquake Reconstruction Support)

To start with the conclusion, I believe the credentialist society will end sooner or later. I think so.

This is neither an idealistic theory nor an anti-establishment argument.
Demographics, economic rationality, and the evolution of AI technology are already pointing in the same direction.

By the time today's elementary and junior high students become university students,
it would not be strange if companies rather than individuals were the ones 'sending them to university.'
Amidst a serious labor shortage, a system for learning while working—such as earning credits through national university correspondence courses—would likely be a natural institutional design.

In the extreme, a world where 'everyone holds a degree from a prestigious university' if they wish is technically possible.
If academic credentials lose their scarcity, they will no longer function as tools for hierarchy.

This is not a question of good or evil.
Impermanence It is the 'flow of the world' that operates under the truth of.

The credentialist society was a 'screening system,' not an ability evaluation.

In the first place, was an academic degree ever an accurate indicator of an individual's ability?
The reality was more of a system for screening large numbers of people at low cost.

For a certain period,
following instructions,
repeating memorization and reproduction,
and adapting to the format of examinations.

This mechanism was rational during the period of high economic growth and population increase.
However, now that the premises of society have changed, its effectiveness is wavering.

Even from the university side, statements are emerging acknowledging that the 'guarantee power' of degrees is declining.
The decline in the value of academic credentials is not a matter of perception, but a structural phenomenon.

Memory-oriented education is now a 'waste of brain power'

Nevertheless, modern education has yet to escape from memory-oriented learning.

The memory capacity of the human brain is finite.
It is hard to call it rational to stuff it with knowledge that can be found by searching or information that AI can instantly supplement.

Even logical thinking will likely cease to be a 'human monopoly' in the near future.
AI is already said to be equivalent to an IQ of 120–140, exceeding the human median.

In an era where someone with an IQ of 80 can achieve the judgment equivalent to 120 through AI,
what is the point of continuing to make people compete over the "amount memorized" or the "amount of effort"?

Is "effort" still not necessary, though?

Here, there is a common counterargument.

“Doesn't a society where you don't have to make an effort make people weak?”
“Aren't there strengths that can only be acquired through hardship?”

This opinion is,not wrong.

In fact, in the field of educational psychology,
it has been shown that effort and challenge lead to improvements in learning outcomes and self-esteem.

Effort has value in cultivating non-cognitive skills such as patience and self-control,
and it is also a fact that there are people who grow by continuing to take on challenges.

However, the problem is not the effort itself.
The problem lies in the fact that the "content" and "target" of effort
have not been updated from their old premises
— despite the AI era.

Effort is meaningful, but in the AI era, we should redefine thepurpose and directionof effort.

The legitimacy of education challenged by AI

The emergence of generative AI is shaking the very premises of education.

Writing reports.
Summarizing.
Constructing logical arguments.

These can now be "outsourced."
These are no longer "human-only abilities."

This is not a problem that can be solved by banning AI.
Rather, what is being questioned is the judgment ofwhat to do yourself, what to delegate to others, and what to leave to AI.

Doesn't AI take away our ability to learn?

Here, too, there is a valid counterargument.

“If we rely on AI, won't people stop thinking?”
“Won't the opportunities to learn from trial and error or failure be lost?”

In fact, some studies point out that excessive use of AI may weaken the formation of non-cognitive skills.

Also, while AI is a tool that enhances learning support, there is also the view that it
does not completely replace human-specific abilities such asthe teacher's cognitive roles (creativity, emotional intelligence, and contextual judgment)as well.

However, this is not a problem with AI itself.
It is a problem of how we let it be used and how we design it.

What future education should teach

So, what should future education teach?

The answer is surprisingly simple.
It is not the ability to do everything yourself.

・Understand your weaknesses
・Delegate to someone (or AI)
・Focus on your strengths

This is not an ability, but askill of decision-making.

If academic credentials no longer function as a signal,
what will become important from now on is only 'what kind of judgments you made and how you acted'.

What remains for humans is 'action' and 'embodiment'

So, what is it that only humans can do?

One isembodiment.
Humans connect directly with the outside world and interact with it through the autonomic nervous system, emotions, and motivation.

Even with humanoid robots and autonomous vehicles,
there is no rationality in replacing the 8 billion humans who are, in a sense, energy-efficient and organic.

In the end, what remains for humans is only
thinking, deciding, and acting.Even if the methods change, the tasks remain the same.

Why children, more than anyone, should use AI

For example, ChatGPT costs about $20 a month.
For children who are supported by their parents, have their food, clothing, and shelter secured, and possess time, physical strength, and energy, there is no tool with better 'cost-performance' or 'time-performance'.

It has been pointed out that generative AI has the potential to streamline learning by providing instant information gathering, question responses, and individually optimized feedback.

Furthermore, ChatGPT has practical benefits such as performing information gathering in a short time and answering questions immediately.

Even if you fail, it won't be a fatal wound.
You can try again as many times as you like.

However, there will always be a certain number of people who deny new things.
There are even people who deny not just the first penguin, but the second penguin as well.

But there is no need to pay attention to those voices.
The more attempts you make, the higher the probability of hitting the mark.

Whose values are being questioned?

The end of the credentialist society does not mean that 'learning' is over.
It just means that the reasons for learning and the axes of evaluation have changed.

Should we really continue to demand effort in the same form?
Will academic background continue to be the indicator that determines our lives?
And when faced with AI,
are we truly able to articulate the role left for humans?

It is not the children who need to change.
What is being questioned is
the very "values" and "educational philosophy" of us adults living in this era, is it not?
What kind of educational philosophy do you envision for children and your own future?