Are Irish students getting the right advice on AI-proofing their careers? It's a question that's becoming increasingly relevant as GenAI rapidly reshapes the labour market. Many parents and students are starting to wonder if the guidance they're receiving about the future of work is still relevant in an AI-driven economy. The traditional assumptions about subject choices, degrees, and careers may no longer hold true. In Ireland, conversations around these topics often rely on decades-old assumptions. Courses with high CAO points are frequently viewed as safer, more prestigious, or more valuable, while broader arts and humanities pathways are sometimes unfairly dismissed.
But many of these assumptions may become increasingly outdated. GenAI is exceptionally good at many structured and language-based tasks, and entry-level roles that once acted as training grounds for graduates are becoming increasingly automated. However, this doesn't mean entire sectors will disappear. Labour markets are constantly evolving, shaped by technological change, shifting consumer preferences, migration, globalization, and economic shocks. What may matter more is the ability to transfer skills across sectors, learn continuously, and respond to change.
The more routine and standardized a job becomes, the easier it is to automate. The more a role relies on human judgment, ethical reasoning, creativity, empathy, and navigating complexity, the harder it becomes to fully replace. That's why broad-based education may matter more than ever. Increasingly, employers may value graduates who can combine technical literacy with communication skills, critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and adaptability.
Subject choices are often framed around relatively narrow ideas of employability and security. Students can feel pressure to choose subjects perceived as 'safe', practical, or linked to stable professions, while creative and humanities-based subjects are sometimes treated as secondary or risky options. Yet the rise of GenAI may begin to blur many of these traditional distinctions. The future may not belong exclusively to coders or data analysts, but to people who can work across disciplines, interpret information, communicate effectively, and apply human judgment in complex situations.
There is also a danger in asking teenagers to specialize too narrowly too early. Many students do not yet know where their strengths or interests will ultimately lead them. Subject choices made early may sometimes become framed as irreversible career decisions, when modern careers are often far less linear than previous generations experienced. The traditional idea of a single 'permanent and pensionable' career may also feel far less relevant to younger generations entering a rapidly changing labour market.
Broad subject exposure matters because it allows young people to develop different ways of thinking and make informed, independent judgments. Studying languages can build cultural understanding and communication skills. History and literature develop interpretation and critical analysis. Scientific and technical subjects foster quantitative reasoning and problem-solving. Increasingly, it may be the combination of these abilities that becomes most valuable.
Of course, technical and professionally focused degrees remain enormously important. Students pursuing clearer professional pathways often develop strong technical confidence and commercial awareness. But broader interdisciplinary degrees can also cultivate adaptability, communication skills, and wider social understanding. Increasingly, the future may require both. Personally, I see this regularly in my own work teaching economics students within both Arts and Business programmes. Through an alumni network for UCC economics graduates from the Bachelor of Arts programme, I have seen graduates move into remarkably diverse and interdisciplinary careers across public policy, education, healthcare, sustainability, finance, technology, communications, and entrepreneurship.
In many ways, adaptability may become even more valuable in an AI-driven labour market. What stands out is not how narrowly their degree defined them, but how adaptable they became. Many combined analytical abilities with communication skills, technical knowledge with creativity, and commercial awareness with broader cultural understanding. In many ways, that adaptability may become even more valuable in an AI-driven labour market. Following my own BA degree in Economics, it shaped my professional life, leading me into academia, research, and a career I genuinely enjoy. But some of the most enduringly valuable parts of my degree emerged in far less predictable ways.
French, on a personal level, transforms family holidays, allowed me to navigate living abroad with confidence, and has deepened my appreciation of culture, music, and film. My first-year study of Archaeology also changed how I experience travel, historical sites, and family visits to natural history museums with my children. Places such as the Céide Fields become far richer and more engaging when you understand the human stories, landscapes, and histories behind them. This broader value of education is often missing from conversations with Leaving Cert students about 'useful' subjects and future careers. Education is not simply workforce preparation; it is also about building curiosity, perspective, and the ability to engage more deeply with the world around us.
The future may increasingly belong to people who can combine technical competence with human insight: graduates who understand both data and behavior, technology and ethics, analytical thinking, and communication. Perhaps the real question is not whether arts and humanities subjects are practical enough for a GenAI-infused future. It may be whether we have spent too long undervaluing the broad, adaptable, and deeply human skills they help develop, skills that may become increasingly important in the age of GenAI.
