Recent college graduates, their newly minted degrees in hand, are having a hard time landing their first job. What gives? Georgios Petropoulos, a labor economist, explains how rapidly evolving AI technology has quickly altered the job market, especially for young workers seeking entry-level jobs. In this opinion piece, he explains why entry-level jobs matter and proposes changes for how universities and businesses can adapt to these new economic and labor landscapes.
Georgios Petropoulos, “It’s Time to Address the Looming Crisis in Entry-Level Work.” MIT Technology Review, 26 May 2026.
- Which jobs have seen a slowdown in entry-level hiring, according to Petropoulos? Why? What evidence does Petropoulos give to support his claim?
- According to Petropoulos, what’s wrong with the advice that young people about to enter the workforce should “learn to code” (¶ 11)? What does he say in response to this naysayer view?
- How are young people affected by the lack of entry-level jobs? What are the long-term costs of a shrinking job market for young workers? How might businesses be harmed if they outsource entry-level jobs to AI?
- Read Petropoulos’s essay for how he uses metacommentary to clarify and emphasize his points. Identify one place in his essay where he uses metacommentary well and explain what it does for his argument.
- Petropoulos thinks higher education should make changes to prioritize “AI fluency” (¶ 17). Others don’t agree. Read (or listen!) to this essay by historian Nils Gilman, in which Gilman argues for the value of broad liberal arts education in the emerging judgment economy. He says that universities “must cultivate the habit of thoughtful reflection, the discipline of testing assumptions and the humility to adjust when the evidence or context shifts” (¶ 37). What do you think? Do you agree with Petropoulos’s view or Gilman’s view about how universities (and students) should respond to the challenges and opportunities of AI in the classroom and in the workforce? Why? In your response, be sure to summarize the two views in your own words.
They Say I Blog 
In his discussion of the impact of AI on the workforce in “It’s Time to Address the Looming Crisis in Entry-Level Work,” Georgios Petropoulos argues that artificial intelligence is subtly eliminating many entry-level jobs by automating the routine tasks that once helped young workers gain experience. Petropoulos contends that these positions are more than just jobs, they serve as the primary training ground where employees develop experience and practical skills. He questions the irrelevant advice that students should simply “learn to code,” explaining that AI can now perform most of the task once done by beginners. Instead, Petropoulos advocates that universities, businesses, governments, and students adapt to an AI-driven workforce by emphasizing AI literacy, hands-on experience, and continued investment in early-career workers rather than replacing them with automation.
I agree with Petropoulos because AI is advancing a lot faster than the education system and job market are able to adapt. Entry-level jobs have always been an vital way for younger people to gain experience, develop critical thinking skills, and learn how businesses operate. If Ai continues replacing these positions, future workers may struggle to gain the knowledge needed for higher-level roles. I also agree that students should learn how to work alongside AI instead of avoiding it. AI growth is inevitable, so we should try to take advantage of it the best we can. However, businesses should view AI as a tool to increase productivity rather than a replacement for less experienced employees.
For my research paper, I want to explore how AI is changing the job market for college graduates and whether universities should redesign their programs to better prepare students for an AI-driven workforce. I plan to argue that colleges should place greater emphasis on AI literacy, internships, co-ops, and hands-on learning so students can develop both technical skills and real-world experience. As someone planning to study electrical engineering, I think this topic is especially important because AI is rapidly changing engineering careers and many other technical fields.
LikeLike
Artificial intelligence is transforming the employment world at a far faster pace than many individuals had anticipated. In his article, Georgios Petropoulos says that AI technology has led to the loss of many jobs in entry-level positions due to its ability to perform the same tasks that could only be done by the newly hired personnel. These entry-level jobs are vital since they provide experience and skills to students who would eventually take up higher jobs. Rather than advising students to ignore the AI wave, Petropoulos says that universities need to change their ways and make students literate in AI technology. In contrast, historian Nils Gilman presents an alternative viewpoint on the subject matter. Although he agrees that AI will revolutionize the educational process and the working environment in general, Gilman asserts that universities should not concentrate their efforts solely on learning how to work with the technology. On the contrary, he claims that universities should keep educating their students in the areas of critical thinking, reflection, and questioning. According to Gilman, technology may change with time, but critical analysis of the information and problem-solving skills will always be needed. It is not either/or – technology or the liberal arts; Gilman thinks that people need intellectual competencies for life. However, I share Petropoulos’ view because AI is gradually becoming integrated into many different industries, so students who do not want to acquire the knowledge on how to deal with it will find themselves unable to compete after they graduate from university. On the other hand, I also find the opinion of Gilman quite interesting. Knowing how to use AI is definitely useful but it must be considered a tool rather than a substitute for human thought. Employers always need people who know how to communicate, collaborate, make decisions, and solve complex problems which have no obvious solutions. Although AI is able to create information fast enough, it is unable to replace the ability of human beings to judge and create something new. For this reason, I think that universities should consider both approaches to education. It is possible to provide students with necessary skills related to AI along with strengthening their abilities to think critically and solve problems.
LikeLike
After having read this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that there should be more emphasis on the necessity to become literate in AI in the universities along with the development of other valuable skills by the students. Indeed, AI is transforming the labor market extremely fast, and a lot of jobs are disappearing. Thus, it is necessary for students to know something about AI.
One of the aspects that caught my attention was the fact that asking the youth to “learn how to code” is not sufficient anymore. A couple of years back, coding was deemed one of the safest skills to learn. However, today AI can do all these things including writing codes, answering questions, and accomplishing basic tasks within seconds. This does not imply that programmers are not required anymore, but it means that the employees should offer something extra than just the technical skillset.
On the other hand, I also feel that AI literacy should not take precedence over general education. This is because I still feel that there is a need for people to learn how to write, how to communicate effectively, work well with others, and think ethically because it is not easy for AI to duplicate these qualities.
At the same time, I do not think AI literacy should replace a broad education. I believe students still need to develop writing, communication, teamwork, and ethical thinking because these skills are difficult for AI to fully copy. A person who knows how to think critically and communicate clearly will be more valuable than someone who only knows how to use technology.
In summary, I believe that Petropoulos made his case quite well. AI will definitely continue transforming the workplace and the universities should ensure that their students are prepared for this challenge. Preparation for the future is about gaining not just technological knowledge but also human competencies which can never be replaced by technology.
LikeLike
Georgios Petropoulos in his essay claims that AI is transforming the way people get started in their professions as many repetitive tasks that used to be given to beginners have now been automated. Consequently, young specialists who just graduated may not have much opportunity to start in some particular field and develop. The author suggests that the main goal of universities today should be mastering AI skills. Namely, he believes that it is necessary to teach students to operate with AI software, verify the results, and combine the data obtained from the AI with one’s knowledge of the subject.
The main point in Nils Gilman’s essay is the usefulness of a liberal education. He claims that in the future workplace judgment will become extremely valuable, and judgment implies the skill of questioning one’s assumptions, synthesis of information from various disciplines, empathy, and making decisions in uncertainty. In Gilman’s opinion, preparation of students only to work with currently existing technologies is too limited because these technologies may become out of date very soon.
I agree more with Gilman, but still, I have to admit that there is some truth in Petropoulos’s position. The knowledge about AI is quite beneficial, but no university should let it replace the development of thinking skills, writing, communicating and ethical awareness. Knowing how to operate with an AI tool may help students accomplish specific tasks, but the AI software will constantly evolve and soon almost all people will be equally proficient in its usage. The one who will differ from the rest will be able to detect errors in the work of AI, formulate good questions and use the provided information responsibly.
Having become a science student, I have an opportunity to use AI to describe complex matters, to summarize some information, or to structure my data. However, on some occasions, AI gives a very certain response but not necessarily the right one. As a result, I might fail to spot an error if I don’t know biology or chemistry well enough. In contrast, the exclusion of AI from the educational process may become harmful in the future when it comes to the career of the student.
In my opinion, universities should integrate these two strategies. Universities need to incorporate AI into standard curricula while keeping in mind that students should be able to provide explanations for their ideas, to analyze the data, and to find solutions on their own. Internship, laboratories, and group work can help students gain necessary practical experience which cannot be acquired through AI. Petropoulos is absolutely right in claiming the necessity of AI fluency but Gilman is also right about the importance of judgment and adaptability.
LikeLike
After reading Georgios Petropoulos’s article, I agree that artificial intelligence is changing the job market in ways many people did not expect, especially for recent college graduates. One point that stood out to me was his argument that entry-level jobs are more than just a paycheck. They are where people learn how to solve problems, make decisions, work with others, and develop professional judgment. If AI replaces too many of those early opportunities, young workers may struggle to gain the experience they need to build successful careers later in life. At the same time, I do not believe AI is the real problem. The real challenge is how businesses and schools choose to use it. Throughout history, technology has always changed the workplace. The internet, personal computers, and smartphones all replaced certain jobs while creating new ones. I believe AI will do the same. Instead of asking whether AI should exist, we should be asking how it can help people become better employees without eliminating the opportunities they need to grow. As someone who is returning to college later in life, I understand how valuable experience really is. Knowledge from a classroom is important, but there are many lessons that can only be learned by actually doing the work. No amount of AI can replace the confidence that comes from solving a real problem, making a mistake, and learning from it. Those experiences help people develop judgment, and judgment is something technology cannot fully replace. I also agree with Petropoulos that students should become comfortable using AI instead of avoiding it. However, learning how to use AI should never replace learning how to think critically. AI can help organize information, explain difficult concepts, and improve productivity, but people must still evaluate its answers and make their own decisions. Technology should support human thinking, not replace it. In the end, I believe the future belongs to people who know how to combine AI with strong critical thinking, communication, and real-world experience. Businesses should continue hiring entry-level employees because today’s beginners become tomorrow’s leaders. AI may change how we work, but it should never eliminate the opportunity to learn, grow, and develop the judgment that only experience can provide.
LikeLike