Knowledge Half-Life
There's an interesting concept, originally attributed to an economist who focused his research on figuring out how much knowledge is worth, called the half-life of knowledge.
Like the vanilla, mathematical term, "half-life" in this context refers to the amount of time it takes for one's knowledge to lose half its value.
So if you leave school with 100% valuable knowledge related to (let's say) graphic design, at what point will you have half as much value because the field has evolved, the tools have changed, and the things you thought you knew have been proven false or incomplete or replaced by newer, better understandings?
There have been all sorts of knowledge half-life studies focused on different fields over the years, but the findings have been pretty universally brutal.
In 2002, the president of the National Academy of Engineering said that the half-life of engineering knowledge was between 2.5 and 7 years, depending on the specific facet of engineering, one's education, and so on.
That means if you graduated with a degree in engineering in 2002, by 2005 (at the low end) or 2009 (at the high end) you would have known half as much as when you graduated, because standards and know-how and the tools used will have changed—the world will have evolved around you, and that degree and all the work you put into earning it would be half as valuable as when you got it.
Another study, also focused on engineering, found that if an engineering graduate wanted to stay current—not losing knowledge-value over time, evolving with their craft as it changes—they would need to invest about five hours a week, 48 weeks a year, for the rest of their lives; and that's assuming that the pace of innovation and growth in the fields of engineering, math, science, and technology would all stay the same (this was in 1966, and I think it's fair to say that the pace of growth in all of those fields has changed dramatically in the decades since).
There are many possible takeaways from this type of research and what its findings imply, but I tend to use it as a reminder that lifelong learning isn't really an optional side-course—it's ideally built into our lives and routines so that even if we can't keep perfect pace with all the growth and iteration and change in the world around us, bare-minimum we won't be left behind to such a degree that we can't begin to understand where the world is going and how we might remain an active and productive part of that world.
It also (to me, at least) provides additional incentive to always be cross-training between various industries and skill sets and bodies of knowledge, as while there's something to be said for siloing oneself and absolutely focusing on just one trade and info-library, building a unique collection of understandings will tend to make one more versatile and flexible and valuable, over time.
Reads
The bad hair, incorrect feathering, and missing skin flaps of dinosaur art
An illustrated reading list of groundbreaking mixed-media literature
A glimpse inside Delhi’s punk scene