I have written many times about my view that AI-driven changes in the job market will not come in a big bang way. Recent developments, however, are making me reconsider that thinking.

I recently represented the Philippines at a regional consultation meeting in Tokyo to discuss AI for Development in preparation for the launch of the World Bank World Development Report 2026. A key finding from the meeting was the current fear among college students that, by the time they graduate, all the entry-level jobs meant for them will have been taken over by AI. This may be happening in far-advanced economies, but there is no doubt that we will soon see the same in the Philippines. And what will be the job prospects for those still in high school?

The adage “get a degree, get a job” is being upended by technology. Most entry-level roles, such as data entry, basic coding, report drafting, and summarizing meeting notes, are now being done by AI. These junior roles are the easiest to cut, consolidate, and backfill with software. But for Yoshua Bengio, the AI scientist who helped create AI, eventually everyone’s jobs will be impacted within five years. That is scary, indeed.

Traditionally, college degrees were pushed as the key to success for the young and aspirational. That is why parents will not let stones unturned to get their kids through college. But now, even graduates from the best schools seem to be finding themselves “unemployable” as employers adopt a “wait-and-watch” strategy amid the rise of AI. Even global big brands have been freezing thousands of would-be new roles that AI is expected to take over in the next five years.

The real fear among undergraduates, especially in STEM and business fields, is that the corporate ladder has had its bottom rungs sawed off. How do you ever get to be a senior strategist if the junior roles do not exist to train you? They worry they are entering an economy that only wants experienced pilots and has no use for co-pilots.

Is the degree dead? If AI can pass the Bar exam and code better than a college senior, is a four-year degree still relevant? Yes, but they should think of it as the baseline, not the golden ticket.

But the vocational value of the degree — the idea that you learned “how to do the job” in class — is fading. Professors could be teaching methods that might be obsolete by the time graduates walk across the stage. Employers know this. They care less about grades and more about the portfolio, the real-world things they have actually built, written, or solved.

We used to debate a lot on whether schools are meant to prepare students for jobs or for life. In the AI economy, these two goals are merging. College was often treated as a vocational training ground (learn X to do job Y). But the new reality is that “job Y” might change several times in a decade, so “Life Readiness” is now the best “Job Readiness.” Why? The skills previously considered “life skills,” critical thinking, ethical judgment, communicating, empathy, and resilience, are the hardest for AI to replicate. A liberal arts style of thinking (connecting dots between history, philosophy, and technology) is becoming more valuable, not less, because it teaches you how to think, not just what to do.

For Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, young people need to be critical thinkers and passionate learners, especially in developing their EQ, meeting skills, communication, and writing.

To survive the jungle gym out there, young people need to pivot hard and try to become better humans. They should never forget that AI is incredible at providing answers. It is terrible at knowing which questions are worth asking in the first place. They should shift from just accumulating knowledge to synthesizing it. They should be the person who can connect the dots between distinct ideas.

They should not hide from AI tools. Many people view AI as “smart pills” because it makes people look smart. They should become the best person in the room at directing them. The future belongs to those who can translate a vague human problem into a precise set of instructions for an AI model, and then critically evaluate the output.

They should cultivate their “Adaptability Quotient.” Their IQ matters less than their ability to unlearn and relearn quickly. The tools they use today will be gone in three years. If that terrifies them, they are in trouble. If that excites them, they are ready.

The job market is not ending, but the easy, linear path is. The students who will thrive are not the ones with the best grades; they are the ones who are scrappy, curious, and undeniably human. But will the parochial minds of many schools provide them with the space to achieve it? That is another question.

(The author is an executive member of the National Innovation Council, lead convener of the Alliance for Technology Innovators for the Nation (ATIN), vice president of the Analytics and AI Association of the Philippines, and vice president of UP System Information Technology Foundation. Email:[email protected])