(Laughter)

你們都曾經去過酒吧，對嗎？

But have you ever gone to a bar

（笑聲）

and come out with a $200 million business?

但，你們是否去過一個酒吧，

That's what happened to us about 10 years ago.

帶著兩億美元的生意出來？

We'd had a terrible day.

那就是大約十年前我們遇到的事。

We had this huge client that was killing us.

我們那天過得很糟。

We're a software consulting firm,

我們有個要命的超級大客戶。

and we couldn't find a very specific programming skill

我們是家軟體顧問公司，

to help this client deploy a cutting-edge cloud system.

我們找不到一項很特殊的程式技巧

We have a bunch of engineers,

來協助這客戶部署先進雲端系統。

but none of them could please this client.

我們有一票工程師，

And we were about to be fired.

但沒有一個能夠讓這位客戶滿意。

So we go out to the bar,

我們差不多就要被開除了。

and we're hanging out with our bartender friend Jeff,

所以我們去了一間酒吧，

and he's doing what all good bartenders do:

我們和我們的酒保朋友 傑夫在那裡打發時間，

he's commiserating with us, making us feel better,

他做的是所有好酒保都會做的事：

relating to our pain,

他同情我們，讓我們感覺好些，

saying, "Hey, these guys are overblowing it.

同理我們的痛苦，

Don't worry about it."

他說：「嘿，這些傢伙誇大其詞。

And finally, he deadpans us and says,

別太擔心。」

"Why don't you send me in there?

最後，他面無表情地對我們說：

I can figure it out."

「為什麼你們不派我去那裡？

So the next morning, we're hanging out in our team meeting,

我可以想出辦法。」

and we're all a little hazy ...

所以，隔天早上，我們 就在團隊會議上消磨時間，

(Laughter)

我們都還有一點朦朧……

and I half-jokingly throw it out there.

（笑聲）

I say, "Hey, I mean, we're about to be fired."

半開玩笑地把話丟出來。

So I say,

我說：「嘿，我們就要被炒魷魚了。」

"Why don't we send in Jeff, the bartender?"

於是我說：

(Laughter)

「我們不如就派酒保傑夫去吧？」

And there's some silence, some quizzical looks.

（笑聲）

Finally, my chief of staff says, "That is a great idea."

沉默了一會兒，有些人表情滑稽。

(Laughter)

最後，我的參謀長說： 「那是個好主意。」

"Jeff is wicked smart. He's brilliant.

（笑聲）

He'll figure it out.

「傑夫有小聰明，他很優秀。

Let's send him in there."

他會想出辦法。

Now, Jeff was not a programmer.

就派他去吧。」

In fact, he had dropped out of Penn as a philosophy major.

傑夫並不是程式人員。

But he was brilliant,

事實上他在賓州大學 主修哲學，但退學了。

and he could go deep on topics,

但他很優秀，

and we were about to be fired.

他能深入主題，

So we sent him in.

而且我們就要被開除了。

After a couple days of suspense,

所以我們就派他去。

Jeff was still there.

懸念幾天後，

They hadn't sent him home.

傑夫還在那裡。

I couldn't believe it.

他們沒有趕他回家。

What was he doing?

我無法置信。

Here's what I learned.

他在做什麼？

He had completely disarmed their fixation on the programming skill.

我所知道的如下。

And he had changed the conversation,

他完全解除了 他們對於程式技巧的堅持，

even changing what we were building.

改變了對談，

The conversation was now about what we were going to build and why.

甚至改變了我們正在建的東西。

And yes, Jeff figured out how to program the solution,

對談變成是在談 我們要建什麼，以及為什麼建。

and the client became one of our best references.

是的，傑夫想出解決方案，

Back then, we were 200 people,

這客戶成了我們最佳的參考人之一。

and half of our company was made up of computer science majors or engineers,

那時，我們公司有兩百人，

but our experience with Jeff left us wondering:

半數主修資訊科學或是工程，

Could we repeat this through our business?

但和傑夫合作的經驗讓我們納悶：

So we changed the way we recruited and trained.

我們能在事業上重覆這做法嗎？

And while we still sought after computer engineers and computer science majors,

我們因而改變招募和訓練的方式，

we sprinkled in artists, musicians, writers ...

雖然還是會找電腦工程師 和主修資訊科學的人，

and Jeff's story started to multiply itself throughout our company.

也分散找些藝術家、音樂家、作家……

Our chief technology officer is an English major,

傑夫的故事在我們公司裡開始擴增。

and he was a bike messenger in Manhattan.

我們的技術長主修的是英文，

And today, we're a thousand people,

他原是曼哈頓的自行車送貨員。

yet still less than a hundred have degrees in computer science or engineering.

我們現今有一千人，

And yes, we're still a computer consulting firm.

但其中有資訊科學或工程 相關學位的人不到一百人。

We're the number one player in our market.

是的，我們還是電腦顧問公司。

We work with the fastest-growing software package

我們是這個領域的第一名。

to ever reach 10 billion dollars in annual sales.

我們的套裝軟體快速成長，

So it's working.

是市場上最早達到 年業績一百億美元的。

Meanwhile, the push for STEM-based education in this country --

這行得通。

science, technology, engineering, mathematics --

在此同時，我國正在推行 以 STEM 為基礎的教育──

is fierce.

STEM 代表科學、 科技、工程、數學──

It's in all of our faces.

推行得如火如荼，

And this is a colossal mistake.

全面性地推動。

Since 2009, STEM majors in the United States

這是個巨大的錯誤。

have increased by 43 percent,

從 2009 年起，

while the humanities have stayed flat.

美國主修 STEM 的人增加了 43%，

Our past president

而人文學科則持平。

dedicated over a billion dollars towards STEM education

我們過去的總統

at the expense of other subjects,

投入了十億美元到 STEM 教育上，

and our current president

犧牲了其他的學科，

recently redirected 200 million dollars of Department of Education funding

而我們目前的總統

into computer science.

最近將兩億美元的教育部資金

And CEOs are continually complaining about an engineering-starved workforce.

轉為導入資訊科學。

These campaigns,

而執行長們不斷地抱怨 勞動力中很缺乏工程師。

coupled with the undeniable success of the tech economy --

這些倡議

I mean, let's face it,

和無可否認的資訊經濟 成功結合在一起──

seven out of the 10 most valuable companies in the world by market cap

我們要面對這個事實，

are technology firms --

世界上市值最有高的公司，

these things create an assumption

十個中有七個是科技公司──

that the path of our future workforce will be dominated by STEM.

因而形成了一個假設，

I get it.

假設我們未來的勞動力之路 將會由 STEM 所支配。

On paper, it makes sense.

我懂。

It's tempting.

理論上這是合理的，

But it's totally overblown.

它很誘人。

It's like, the entire soccer team chases the ball into the corner,

但它完全是誇大其詞，

because that's where the ball is.

這就像是整支足球隊 都追著球跑到角落，

We shouldn't overvalue STEM.

只因為球在角落。

We shouldn't value the sciences any more than we value the humanities.

我們不應該過度重視 STEM。

And there are a couple of reasons.

我們不應該把科學學科 看得比人文學科還重要。

Number one, today's technologies are incredibly intuitive.

原因有幾個：

The reason we've been able to recruit from all disciplines

第一，現今的科技是極端直覺的。

and swivel into specialized skills

我們之所以能從各學科領域招募人才

is because modern systems can be manipulated without writing code.

再轉為專業技能，

They're like LEGO: easy to put together, easy to learn, even easy to program,

是因為現代的系統 不需要寫程式碼也可以操作。

given the vast amounts of information that are available for learning.

它們就像樂高：容易組裝、 容易學，甚至容易寫程式，

Yes, our workforce needs specialized skill,

前提是能取得大量的資訊 供學習之用。

but that skill requires a far less rigorous and formalized education

是的，我們的勞動力 需要特殊化的技能，

than it did in the past.

但和過去相比，那技能不再需要

Number two, the skills that are imperative and differentiated

那麼嚴格和制式化的教育。

in a world with intuitive technology

第二，這個直覺式的科技世界

are the skills that help us to work together as humans,

必須有差異性的技能，

where the hard work is envisioning the end product

那些能協助人類團結合作的技能，

and its usefulness,

困難的是要預想出最終產品

which requires real-world experience and judgment and historical context.

以及其用處，

What Jeff's story taught us

這就需要有真實世界的經驗、 判斷，以及歷史的情境。

is that the customer was focused on the wrong thing.

傑夫的故事讓我們學到，

It's the classic case:

客戶把焦點放錯了地方。

the technologist struggling to communicate with the business and the end user,

這是個經典的案例：

and the business failing to articulate their needs.

技術人員努力和那些

I see it every day.

未能表達需求的企業、 終端使用者溝通。

We are scratching the surface

我每天都會看到這種事，

in our ability as humans to communicate and invent together,

我們正觸及

and while the sciences teach us how to build things,

人類溝通和共同發明能力的表面。

it's the humanities that teach us what to build and why to build them.

雖然科學教我們如何建造東西，

And they're equally as important,

但人文卻教導我們 要建什麼和為什麼要建。

and they're just as hard.

它們同等重要，

It irks me ...

也一樣困難。

when I hear people treat the humanities as a lesser path,

有件事會讓我惱怒……

as the easier path.

就是聽到有人把人文學科 視為是比較差的路、

Come on!

比較簡單的路。

The humanities give us the context of our world.

拜託！

They teach us how to think critically.

人文學科讓我們能夠了解 世界的來龍去脈，

They are purposely unstructured,

教導我們如何做批評性思考。

while the sciences are purposely structured.

它們本來就沒有結構，

They teach us to persuade, they give us our language,

而科學本來就有結構。

which we use to convert our emotions to thought and action.

它們教我們說服，給我們語言，

And they need to be on equal footing with the sciences.

我們用語言把情緒 轉換成思想和行動。

And yes, you can hire a bunch of artists

它們必需要和科學學科 有一樣的立基點。

and build a tech company

你的確可以僱用一群藝術家

and have an incredible outcome.

來創立一間科技公司，

Now, I'm not here today to tell you that STEM's bad.

得到了不起的結果。

I'm not here today to tell you that girls shouldn't code.

今天我來這裡並不是要 告訴各位 STEM 不好。

(Laughter)

我今天在這裡不是要告訴各位 女生不應該寫程式。

Please.

（笑聲）

And that next bridge I drive over

拜託。

or that next elevator we all jump into --

我開車經過的下一座橋，

let's make sure there's an engineer behind it.

或是我們進入的下一台電梯──

(Laughter)

我們要確保它背後有個工程師。

But to fall into this paranoia

（笑聲）

that our future jobs will be dominated by STEM,

但若是陷入這種偏執，

that's just folly.

認為我們未來的工作 將由 STEM 主導，

If you have friends or kids or relatives or grandchildren

那就是太愚蠢了。

or nieces or nephews ...

如果你有朋友、孩子、 親戚、孫子孫女，

encourage them to be whatever they want to be.

或姪子姪女……

(Applause)

鼓勵他們做他們想要做的。

The jobs will be there.

（掌聲）

Those tech CEOs

工作會等在那裡的。

that are clamoring for STEM grads,

那些大聲吵著

you know what they're hiring for?

要 STEM 畢業生的執行長們，

Google, Apple, Facebook.

他們僱人是要做什麼工作？

Sixty-five percent of their open job opportunities

Google、蘋果、臉書，

are non-technical:

它們的事求人中

marketers, designers, project managers, program managers,

有 65% 是非技術的工作：

product managers, lawyers, HR specialists,

行銷人員、設計師、 專案經理、項目經理、

trainers, coaches, sellers, buyers, on and on.

產品經理、律師、人力資源專員、

These are the jobs they're hiring for.

訓練師、教練、銷售員、買家等等，

And if there's one thing that our future workforce needs --

是他們要僱人來做的工作。

and I think we can all agree on this --

如果我們未來的勞動力 真需要什麼的話──

it's diversity.

我想大家都能認同這點──

But that diversity shouldn't end with gender or race.

那就是多樣性。

We need a diversity of backgrounds

但，多樣性不該只限於 性別或種族方面而已。

and skills,

我們也需要有多樣的背景和技能，

with introverts and extroverts

有內向者也有外向者，

and leaders and followers.

有領導者也有追隨者。

That is our future workforce.

那是我們未來的勞動力。

And the fact that the technology is getting easier and more accessible

科技越來越簡單、 越來越容易取得的事實，

frees that workforce up

讓勞動力能夠有餘裕，

to study whatever they damn well please.

依他們的意願去學他們想學的。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）