Showing posts with label careers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label careers. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

AS SEEN ON THE NYTIMES

The Master’s as the New Bachelor’s
By LAURA PAPPANO
Published: July 22, 2011


William Klein’s story may sound familiar to his fellow graduates. After earning his bachelor’s in history from the College at Brockport, he found himself living in his parents’ Buffalo home, working the same $7.25-an-hour waiter job he had in high school.

It wasn’t that there weren’t other jobs out there. It’s that they all seemed to want more education. Even tutoring at a for-profit learning center or leading tours at a historic site required a master’s. “It’s pretty apparent that with the degree I have right now, there are not too many jobs I would want to commit to,” Mr. Klein says.

So this fall, he will sharpen his marketability at Rutgers’ new master’s program in Jewish studies (think teaching, museums and fund-raising in the Jewish community). Jewish studies may not be the first thing that comes to mind as being the road to career advancement, and Mr. Klein is not sure exactly where the degree will lead him (he’d like to work for the Central Intelligence Agency in the Middle East). But he is sure of this: he needs a master’s. Browse professional job listings and it’s “bachelor’s required, master’s preferred.”

Call it credential inflation. Once derided as the consolation prize for failing to finish a Ph.D. or just a way to kill time waiting out economic downturns, the master’s is now the fastest-growing degree. The number awarded, about 657,000 in 2009, has more than doubled since the 1980s, and the rate of increase has quickened substantially in the last couple of years, says Debra W. Stewart, president of the Council of Graduate Schools. Nearly 2 in 25 people age 25 and over have a master’s, about the same proportion that had a bachelor’s or higher in 1960.

“Several years ago it became very clear to us that master’s education was moving very rapidly to become the entry degree in many professions,” Dr. Stewart says. The sheen has come, in part, because the degrees are newly specific and utilitarian. These are not your general master’s in policy or administration. Even the M.B.A., observed one business school dean, “is kind of too broad in the current environment.” Now, you have the M.S. in supply chain management, and in managing mission-driven organizations. There’s an M.S. in skeletal and dental bioarchaeology, and an M.A. in learning and thinking.

The degree of the moment is the professional science master’s, or P.S.M., combining job-specific training with business skills. Where only a handful of programs existed a few years ago, there are now 239, with scores in development. Florida’s university system, for example, plans 28 by 2013, clustered in areas integral to the state’s economy, including simulation (yes, like Disney, but applied to fields like medicine and defense). And there could be many more, says Patricia J. Bishop, vice provost and dean of graduate studies at the University of Central Florida. “Who knows when we’ll be done?”

While many new master’s are in so-called STEM areas — science, technology, engineering and math — humanities departments, once allergic to applied degrees, are recognizing that not everyone is ivory tower-bound and are drafting credentials for résumé boosting.

“There is a trend toward thinking about professionalizing degrees,” acknowledges Carol B. Lynch, director of professional master’s programs at the Council of Graduate Schools. “At some point you need to get out of the library and out into the real world. If you are not giving people the skills to do that, we are not doing our job.”

This, she says, has led to master’s in public history (for work at a historical society or museum), in art (for managing galleries) and in music (for choir directors or the business side of music). Language departments are tweaking master’s degrees so graduates, with a portfolio of cultural knowledge and language skills, can land jobs with multinational companies.

So what’s going on here? Have jobs, as Dr. Stewart puts it, “skilled up”? Or have we lost the ability to figure things out without a syllabus? Or perhaps all this amped-up degree-getting just represents job market “signaling” — the economist A. Michael Spence’s Nobel-worthy notion that degrees are less valuable for what you learn than for broadcasting your go-get-’em qualities.

“There is definitely some devaluing of the college degree going on,” says Eric A. Hanushek, an education economist at the Hoover Institution, and that gives the master’s extra signaling power. “We are going deeper into the pool of high school graduates for college attendance,” making a bachelor’s no longer an adequate screening measure of achievement for employers.

Colleges are turning out more graduates than the market can bear, and a master’s is essential for job seekers to stand out — that, or a diploma from an elite undergraduate college, says Richard K. Vedder, professor of economics at Ohio University and director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.

Not only are we developing “the overeducated American,” he says, but the cost is borne by the students getting those degrees. “The beneficiaries are the colleges and the employers,” he says. Employers get employees with more training (that they don’t pay for), and universities fill seats. In his own department, he says, a master’s in financial economics can be a “cash cow” because it draws on existing faculty (“we give them a little extra money to do an overload”) and they charge higher tuition than for undergraduate work. “We have incentives to want to do this,” he says. He calls the proliferation of master’s degrees evidence of “credentialing gone amok.” He says, “In 20 years, you’ll need a Ph.D. to be a janitor.”

Among the new breed of master’s, there are indeed ample fields, including construction management and fire science and administration, where job experience used to count more than book learning. Internships built into many of these degrees look suspiciously like old-fashioned on-the-job training.

Walter Stroupe, a retired police first lieutenant and chairman of the department of criminal justice at West Virginia State University, acknowledges that no one needs to get the new master’s degree in law enforcement administration the school is offering beginning this fall. In fact, he concedes, you don’t even need a college degree in West Virginia to become a police officer, typically the first step to positions as sheriff and police chief.

Still, Dr. Stroupe says, there are tricky issues in police work that deserve deeper discussion. “As a law enforcement officer, you can get tunnel vision and only see things from your perspective,” he says. “What does a police officer do when they go up to a car and someone is videotaping them on a cellphone?” The master’s experience, he hopes, will wrangle with such questions and “elevate the professionalism” among the police in the state.

These new degrees address a labor problem, adds David King, dean of graduate studies and research at the State University of New York at Oswego, and director of the Professional Science Master’s Program, which oversees P.S.M. degrees across the SUNY system.

“There are several million job vacancies in the country right now, but they don’t line up with skills,” he says. Each P.S.M. degree, he says, is developed with advisers from the very companies where students may someday work. “We are bringing the curriculum to the market, instead of expecting the market to come to us,” he says.

That’s why John McGloon, who manages the technical writing and “user experience” team at Welch Allyn, the medical device company, helped shape the master’s in human-computer interaction at Oswego. He says employers constantly fear hiring someone who lacks proper skills or doesn’t mesh. Having input may mean better job candidates. This summer, Mr. McGloon has three SUNY Oswego interns. “We plug them right into the team,” he says. “Not only can you gauge their training, you can judge the team fit, which is hard to do in an interview.”

While jobs at Welch Allyn may not require a master’s, the degree has been used as a sorting mechanism. After posting an opening for a technical writer, Mr. Mc- Gloon received “dozens and dozens” of résumés. Those in charge of hiring wondered where to start. “I said, ‘Half of our applicants have master’s. That’s our first cut.’ ”

Laura Georgianna, in charge of employee development at Welch Allyn, confirms that given two otherwise equal résumés, the master’s wins. A master’s degree “doesn’t guarantee that someone will be much more successful,” she says. “It says that this person is committed and dedicated to the work and has committed to the deep dive. It gives you further assurance that this is something they have thought about and want.”

The exposure to workplaces, and those doing the hiring, makes master’s programs appealing to students. “The networking has been unbelievable,” says Omar Holguin. His 2009 B.S. in engineering yielded only a job at a concrete mixing company. At the University of Texas, El Paso, which is offering a new master’s in construction management, he’s interning with a company doing work he’s actually interested in, on energy efficiency.

There may be logic in trying to better match higher education to labor needs, but Dr. Vedder is concerned by the shift of graduate work from intellectual pursuit to a skill-based “ticket to a vocation.” What’s happening to academic reflection? Must knowledge be demonstrable to be valuable?

The questions matter, not just to the world of jobs, but also to the world of ideas. Nancy Sinkoff, chairwoman of the Jewish studies department at Rutgers, says its master’s, which starts this fall, will position students for jobs but be about inquiry and deep learning.

“I would imagine in the museum world, I would want to hire someone with content,” she says hopefully. “To say, ‘I have a master’s in Jewish studies,’ what better credential to have when you are on the market?”

“This will make you more marketable,” she is convinced. “This is how we are selling it.”

Whether employers will intuit the value of a master’s in Jewish studies is unclear. The history department at the University of South Florida has learned that just because a content-rich syllabus includes applied skills (and internships) doesn’t mean students will be hired. “Right now, yes, it’s very hard to get a job” with a master’s in public history, says Rosalind J. Beiler, chairwoman of the history department, noting that the downturn hurt employers like museums and historical societies.

The university is revamping its master’s in public history, a field that interprets academic history for general audiences, to emphasize new-media skills in the hopes of yielding more job placements. “That is precisely the reason we are going in that direction,” she says.

“Digital humanities,” as this broad movement is called, is leading faculty members to seek fresh ways to make history more accessible and relevant in their teaching and research. A professor of Middle Eastern history, for example, has made podcasts of local Iraqi war veterans in a course on the history of Iraq.

It may be uncomfortable for academia to bend itself to the marketplace, but more institutions are trying.

In what could be a sign of things to come, the German department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is proposing a Ph.D. aimed at professionals. Candidates, perhaps with an eye toward the European Union, would develop cultural understanding useful in international business and organizations. It would be time-limited to four years — not the current “12-year ticket to oblivion,” says John A. Stevenson, dean of the graduate school. And yes, it would include study abroad and internships.

Dr. Stevenson sees a model here that other humanities departments may want to emulate.

It does, however, prompt the question: Will the Ph.D. become the new master’s?

Laura Pappano is author of “Inside School Turnarounds: Urgent Hopes, Unfolding Stories.”

Monday, July 18, 2011

AS SEEN ON FORBES

9.2% Unemployment? Blame Microsoft.

Posted by Gene Marks


I was in a Rite Aid pharmacy the other day and about to pay for my stuff at their new bank of automated self-check out kiosks. I heard one woman behind me say to her friend, “Oh, I would NEVER use those things. They take jobs away from people.”

Um…duh?

What’s that? You’d like to work for my small business? I appreciate your interest. And I, like so many others, feel terrible about how long you’ve been unemployed. We would like to do something about the situation. We’d like to help you. But there’s something you (and the woman from the Rite Aid) need to know. I’m not sure how to say this kindly so it’s best I just say it: many of us don’t really need more employees.

Of course the fact that you’re out of a job has a lot to do with the state of the economy. Growth is anemic. The uncertainty in the current business environment is holding a lot of us back from making the investments that we’d like to make. And regulations and the prospect of more regulations, let alone higher taxes to pay for our country’s deficits, are giving many of us pause for concern. For that we can certainly blame many: our politicians, the government, the banking system, the media…even ourselves.

But it’s not just that. In fact, one of the biggest reasons why you don’t have a job (and the prospects of finding a job are not encouraging) can also be blamed on someone else: Microsoft. And other technology companies like them.

Because there’s something else going on in this economy. Just look at the below chart. It shows that our country’s Gross Domestic Product, while growing at a painfully slow pace, is now higher than it was before the 2008 recession. And yet it’s common knowledge among those who track these things that there are more than seven million people without jobs than there were at the start of the recession. Which means that businesses are producing more products and services than ever before…but with seven million less people. And by the way…corporate profits are at an all-time high too.

Manufacturers are leading the charge. Just look at how manufacturing productivity has risen over the past thirty years in this country while the number of people employed to make stuff has decreased.

I know you need a job and I know this is a very difficult situation. And I don’t want to sound cruel because I’m trying to help you. And to get help with a problem the first thing we have to do is diagnose the problem. So here’s the cold, hard truth about why you’re unemployed: most businesses don’t need you any more. We can do just as much, if not more, without you.

Over the past twenty years, the technology industry, led by companies like Microsoft, have given us powerful databases, operating systems, networks and software applications that have made it easier for us to accomplish more tasks than we did before with less people. And it’s not just Microsoft who you can blame.

Blame Sage, who makes Enterprise Resource Planning and Customer Relationship Management software that has enabled businesses to automate their marketing campaigns, build workflows for alerting managers when inventory needs to be replenished and generate workorders and invoices that are immediately emailed without employing teams of people.

Blame Rackspace and Amazon and other cloud based infrastructure providers, who allow us to host all of our business applications on their servers, thereby eliminating many in our information technology departments and cutting back on wasted time from downed computers and security flaws.

It’s true that the costs of healthcare and other regulations have discouraged many of us from hiring full time employees. But at the same time we’ve come to realize that maybe we don’t need as many full time employees as we used to. And because technology has advanced so much, even over the past few years, we’ve seen an explosion of outsourcing among businesses, both small and large.

For little cost, companies like mine can easily setup systems for external access and collaboration. We use remote desktop services (again from Microsoft) , but also from companies like Citrix Online and LogMeIn so that our contractors can access our networks to do their work. We use cloud based applications like Box.net, Basecamp, Salesforce.com and NetSuite to manage projects, share data and schedule tasks with both employees and approved outsiders wherever they are. Thanks to Microsoft, Google and companies like Zoho and Dropbox we can now easily put out entire office in the cloud – documents, spreadsheets, presentations, databases, projects.

And we can communicate with our outsourced help, wherever they are, more quicker and easier than before. We make free phone calls using Skype and inexpensive mass calls (or texts) using products like VoiceShot. We hold free conference call sessions using Freeconferencecall.com. We share our desktops using Glance and Join.me. We hold training sessions using Webex. We use video tools like Oovoo to virtually meet face to face.

And finding outsourced help is easier than it’s ever been. That’s because we can search sites like Craigslist, Elance and Guru. And when we find qualified people to accomplish specific tasks for us we can use these sites to set our relationships, manage our payments and communicate our needs.

Which is why so many of the tasks once done by companies are now being outsourced to individuals and other companies who can, using their own internal technology, perform these same tasks with so many less people. Most of the clients I work with outsource their payroll to companies like ADP and Paychex. Many outsource their bookkeeping needs to firms that do nothing else, but do it more efficiently. Most companies now have internet based phone systems where an automated attendant re-directs calls to people’s cell phones and voice mail messages are sent to them via text with no humans in the middle.

No humans.

Are you starting to see the picture? I know you want to be hired full time by me. And I want to be doing my part. But please understand: I’m running a business. I want to make profits. And these tools are letting me make more profits by employing people only when I need them rather than carrying them on my payroll.

It’s not all Microsoft’s fault. What they’re doing is nothing compared to what’s happening on the shop floor. Because, quietly and without fanfare, companies like the Oystar Group are making machines that fill tubes faster than before, requiring less shifts of people to complete an order. And equipment from Keller Technology enables cosmetics and pharmaceutical manufacturers to produce more product with less people. And software and consulting firms like Intuitive ERP and Epicor are helping manufacturers change their internal processes to create more products from less space and using less resources, particularly people.

We know this is true in our own lives. Things are lasting longer and working better. We’re keeping our cars well beyond 100,000 miles. We’re letting our fridges and toasters and kettles do their jobs well beyond the lifespan that our parents did. New developments in flooring, painting and construction are resulting in longer use of our homes. Because technology is better. Have you ever had a TV repairman to your house? How many times has your washing machine broken down over the past twelve years and thousands upon thousands of cycles? Because of technology, there are less people needed to manufacture and service the durable equipment that we use because this stuff is working better and for a much longer period of time.

And with all that, we still need you. Don’t believe me? Look at last month’s Monster Employment Index or read Gallup’s recent Job Creation data. Both surveys find that job availabilities are at their highest level than before 2008. But these are not same the jobs that existed before 2008. That’s because we don’t need as many receptionists, clerks, cashiers, bookkeepers, inventory stockers and maintenance people as we used to. Technology has helped us cut back on all of that. Go to your local supermarket (or Rite Aid) and you’ll see what I mean.

But we do need programmers. And experienced customer service people. We need engineers, scientists, high end equipment operators, nurses, lab technicians and (very soon) capable construction workers too. In other words: people with skills. As a business owner it’s a no-brainer to me that if I can profit from your skills I may very well be persuaded to hire you. What expertise can you bring to me that a machine can’t do for much less? I have to meet that challenge with my own customers. That’s the challenge that we all face.

Of course, all economies are cyclical. And more jobs will be created once the economy again begins to grow. No one knows when this will happen and right now, in our current political environment, many aren’t feeling too confident that this will happen anytime soon. But even in a growing economy will we ever see 5-6% natural unemployment again? This may never happen. And if it doesn’t, please don’t just blame the politicians. Blame Microsoft. And other tech companies like them. It’s because of them that I’m not hiring you.



Besides Forbes, Gene Marks writes weekly for The New York Times and frequently for The Huffington Post and American City Business Journals. He runs a ten person consulting firm outside of Philadelphia and can be followed on Twitter.

Friday, July 15, 2011

AS SEEN ON TANGENTIAL

What to Expect When You Leave College and Begin Working 9-5

1. You will, somehow, start eating at Subway all the time.

2. There will be a growing pains period when your friends constantly text you at 2 p.m. saying, “We’re at the beach! Come!” and you will sit and get disproportionately mad, thinking thoughts like, “Don’t they know I’m at work, wtf,” and “Who the hell is free at 2 p.m.?”

3. You will suddenly need to “buy stamps.”

4.Welcome to college loans. Despite the fact that your university job made you a piddly $400 per pay period and you now make significantly more, you will envy and be mystified by the days when you could afford $80 worth of art supplies/ shoes/ whatever per month.

5. You’ll get a little fat. Once you work full-time, you’re sitting at a desk 8-9 hours per day and guess what, there are free cookies and pies all the time. There just are.

6. Say a tearful goodbye to Regis and Kelly, or whatever guilty daytime TV you used to love but are too embarrassed to Tivo.

7. Slowly, you will start to become a normal person again. You will go to bed before midnight. You will wake up early and read the newspaper, no hangover in sight. You will join a gym and think about volunteering. You might even bike with your colleagues on the weekends.

8. Your friends will describe your clothing style on the weekends as “work appropriate, minus the sweater” and on the weekdays as “weekend clothes, covered up for work.”

9. Since most of your friends are either still in college/ bartending/ working in retail, the rest of your life does not quite match that of your settled down co-workers, who will inevitably find pictures of you mock kissing a girl in a pool while smoking and holding a beer, or find a tweet of you talking about your roommates doing acid.

10. You will be constantly sleep deprived. You’re still not sure how to not watch Netflix until 2 a.m., but you also become miraculously trained to wake up at 7 every morning. This also means that your weekends involve you waking up amongst party peers/ boyfriend, whoever and reading several magazines while everyone leisurely slumbers till 11.

-Becky Lang

Friday, July 8, 2011

AS SEEN ON THE SALON

Jobs report disaster

Unemployment rose to 9.2 percent and the U.S. economy added a pathetic 18,000 jobs. Time for more spending cuts?

Thursday, June 16, 2011

LOS ANGELES TIMES REPORTS

Picking their next role: Joe College or hot young star?

Young actors face a tough decision: career or upper education. Some, like Emma Watson, think higher education is worth it. Others, like Blake Lively, skip it.


Actors college

Emma Watson, who plays Hermione Granger, of the "Harry Potter" films.


(Matt Sayles / AP / February 14, 2011)

Two years ago, Emma Watson was facing a quandary many young adults encounter: Is college worth it?

For most 18-year-olds, a university degree is an expensive but necessary investment leading to personal growth and a well-paying job. But for Watson, already a multimillionaire as a result of playing Hermione Granger in the "Harry Potter" movies, the calculus was more complex. Should she trade red carpets for Red Bull-fueled nights studying? Would the knowledge gained be as valuable as the roles she'd have to forgo? And was it possible for the actress to fit in with classmates who had watched her grow up on-screen?

Watson opted to attend Brown University — a decision that confounded Hollywood directors and publicists.

"I've had to say no to stuff that people have been gobsmacked about. I've had big directors say to me, 'What do you mean, you can't do this movie? We don't understand,'" the actress, now 21, said recently by phone from her native England. "I always hear, 'What do you mean she can't do this magazine cover?' or 'What do you mean she can't have this meeting for a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?' And my agent will say, 'She's at school, sorry.'

"Yes, it's hard for me to turn down amazing opportunities. But I've been working solidly since I've been 9 years old. So for me, to have this space to learn and figure myself out a bit is obviously worth it."

Transitioning from child star to adult actor never has been easy. But the explosion of kid-oriented entertainment on cable TV and in the movies means more teens than ever are competing to make the leap into adult acting jobs. So opting to take time out for a college degree — never a requirement in Hollywood to begin with — seems increasingly difficult.

Blake Lively, star of the hot teen soap "Gossip Girl," faced the same decision as Watson but chose a different route. She said she dreamed throughout her childhood of attending an Ivy League school and worked toward that goal at Burbank High School, maintaining a 4.2 grade point average while cheerleading, joining a nationally competitive show choir, playing sports and being elected class president.

But when she began to find success starting at age 17 in the film "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants," those around her pushed her to skip out not only on college but also the rest of high school. (She decided to finish anyway.)

"Everybody said, 'Strike while the iron is hot.' And everybody is so replaceable these days that to maintain your 'heat,' or whatever, you are supposed to put aside school," said Lively, who's now 23 and building a film career, including roles in last year's "The Town" and next weekend's "Green Lantern."

"One of the reasons why I wanted to do 'Gossip Girl' was because we had talked about giving me one day a week to go to Columbia starting the second season, once things slowed down. But things never slowed down. The show took off, and they were never able to carve out the time in my schedule. It still makes me sad every day that I didn't have that college experience."

As Lively discovered, choosing college can mean swimming against a tide of advice from family, friends, agents and managers, many of whom are quick to point out that many onetime teen stars — including Leonardo DiCaprio, Drew Barrymore and Scarlett Johansson — went on to big adult careers without attending a university. (Such members of an actor's inner circle, of course, might themselves lose out on income if a young actor decides to spend years at college rather than on film sets.)

"Nobody cares if you went to school unless you're on the business side of Hollywood," said Cindy Osbrink, head of the youth theatrical department at the Osbrink Talent Agency, whose clients include Dakota Fanning and her sister, Elle.

Complicating the decision further, Osbrink says, is that many young stars find that upon turning 18, their job opportunities suddenly expand because they no longer face restrictions on how many hours they can work as they did when they were minors. "It's a huge advantage to be a high school graduate of legal age" in the acting world, because 18-year-olds can often play younger roles, she said.

Brad Pitt, who attended the University of Missouri's journalism school, acknowledged that many actors develop into well-rounded people without a formal education. But he believes some performers who stop their schooling at an early age may be making a strategic error that could hurt them down the line.

"I worry for the young, young guys, because they haven't experienced enough to know not to get eaten up by the machine," he said. "I worry that they get defined before they really know who they are. … When they blow up too big at too young an age, they don't get the luxury to make the mistakes. They get defined and discarded."

Of course, some of Hollywood's most acclaimed actors who started in the business at a young age are college grads. Jodie Foster, 48, who studied literature at Yale, has won two Academy Awards. Natalie Portman, 30, who majored in psychology at Harvard University, won the lead actress Oscar this year for "Black Swan."

And James Franco, 33, who hosted this year's Oscars and was nominated for lead actor for "127 Hours," has been perhaps the most active actor-scholar of late: He is enrolled in Yale University's English PhD program and North Carolina's Warren Wilson College for poetry. In May, he earned a master's degree from New York University's Tisch School of the Arts and Columbia University's MFA writing program, after already graduating from Brooklyn College for fiction writing last year.

Yet as Franco and some other actors have found, it can be awkward to be a celebrity on campus. Students are known to doze off during lectures, but when Franco fell asleep during a class at Columbia, someone snapped an embarrassing picture of him, mouth agape, that ricocheted around the Internet. Foster famously had two stalkers while at Yale, one of whom, John Hinckley Jr., followed her to the New Haven, Conn., campus and later shot President Ronald Reagan in an attempt to impress her.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

AS SEEN ON FRESH IS BACK

Why Do Young People Hate Their Jobs?

Most college students I have talked to are excited about the real world after school – excited about the work, the perks, but most of all, the freedom. In the real world, there are no tests or papers looming over their heads, no professors to answer to, no dealing with the stresses and dramas that invariably accompany the college experience. Yeah, college is fun, but there’s almost a mythic quality about life beyond college: it’s substituting the sweats for suits, the kegs for martinis, the hookups for a steady, sickeningly-attractive significant other… While college seniors go through the requisite nostalgia in their last few months as an academic, this nostalgia is still often dampened by lofty expectations for the next stage in their life.

Why then, do so many young professionals hate their jobs?

(I must preface this by limiting my observations to those in the field of business. Most would-be doctors I know are happily trucking away in med school, most would-be lawyers are busily debating each other in law school, and for the rest of my graduating class—those who are doing research in Bolivia or writing articles for Mother Jones—they seem, on the most part, relatively satisfied. Then that begs the question: are jobs in the business fields overly cruel, or are those people that go into business just overly hateful? Note: This observation also excludes investment bankers, who should expect to hate their jobs even before they start.)

Some theories:

* The College Hangover: For many young people, you’re thrown into the fire right out of school. You’re not used to waking up before noon and having to look somewhat presentable. You’re not used to being “on” all the time, every single day, at least five days a week. If only you could skip work without anyone noticing (like college lectures), and still get your big performance bonus…that would be the life. Of course, that would never happen, and thus the nostalgia for college never really goes away. However, the College Hangover only serves as a legitimate excuse for your first few months out of school… After that, if you’re still falling asleep at work in reminiscence of those college glory days, well, you should lay off the drinking.

* The Bottom of the Totem Pole: You were a pretty big deal in college… president of some organization, captain of some sports team, leader of the beer pong circuit. Now, you’re the entry-level analyst who is seen as the little know-it-all who wants to shoot straight to the top, but in actuality is only making a contribution as a master formatter or lunch bitch. You’re relegated to modeling (thankfully we’re talking only about Excel), and making sure that someone less smart than you looks more smart than everyone else. Of course, no one is as smart as us, so it’s a tough reality to stomach.


* Those Lofty Expectations: You thought it was going to be first-class, up in the sky, sipping champagne, living the life… Your job was supposed to be glamorous, impressive, and telling of your smarts, skills, and talents. You thought that you’d be challenged every second of the day; you would have interesting coworkers, exciting projects, and intellectual discussions. You’d be an integral part of the company, just short of the glue that holds everything together. Unfortunately, most of us don’t have interesting projects all of the time, and we certainly know a couple of coworkers who have a few screws loose. We don’t foresee the hours of administrative tasks and unrewarded legwork that is part of the daily grind. You start asking yourself why you are here, what you are doing with your life, and how you can get into a new role/company/industry that is way more glamorous than what you are in now…or so you’d like to think.

* Too Much Freedom: When you’re young, there’s an ordered sequence of how things happen. After pre-school you go to kindergarten. After kindergarten, you’re in first grade. After first grade… etc, etc. The proverbial “life train” goes through a predictable sequence: elementary school, middle school, high school, college—from A to B. But after graduating from college, you’re alone at the train station, and only YOU have to figure out where to next. Get on the banking train, or the consulting one? Marketing, or sales? It always seems like the other train is moving faster, with nicer seats and greener grass on their side of the scenic route to your future. Anxiety strikes. Uneasiness festers. Resentment grows. You end up curled up in the corner of the caboose, hugging your knees, thinking you should have become a doctor instead… at least that would’ve delayed the decision-making for a few more years.


* Your Job Actually Sucks: If you liked the train analogy above, then your standards for quality have obviously been lowered from your time spent on the job. Maybe all that modeling/formatting/Excel-ing is getting to your head. Or maybe your job actually sucks. Hey, it happens. Perhaps it’s time to go to business school then.


Regardless of all the reasons why many people hate their jobs, most of them are still in these jobs…so perhaps “hate” is a strong word. Only a few recent graduates I know have been so fed up that they decided to quit well-paying, respectable jobs and brave unemployment. Then, despite all the negatives, there must be some reason why we are still in the grind. Maybe it’s the money, or the benefits and perks, or the hope that things will get better. Or perhaps we are just paralyzed by fear that the next job will be worse. The main challenge is to balance the expectations of our jobs with a tempered ambition. There will always be days where unemployment looks preferable, but unless that starts to happen day-after-day, week-upon-week (meaning, Your Job Actually Sucks and you should start updating that resume), I’d say to just put your head down, put the hate aside, file it all under “Learning Experience”, and get to work.

Monday, May 23, 2011

AS SEEN ON THE SALON

Graduation quotes for the new generation

It's time to stop using "The Graduate." Here are some cultural references that college kids can relate to

Updated quotations for college graduations
Speeches are boring. "Fight Club" quotes are not.

It's nearly the end of May, and across the country thousands of fresh-faced 20-somethings will be entering the workplace after years of toiling away at collegiate studies. I recently went to a commencement address for a family member and heard not one but two references to Dr. Seuss' "Oh the Places You'll Go!" In the same speech.

Sandwiched between these words of wisdom -- taken from a book designed for babies -- was the obligatory non sequitur from some faculty member attempting to explain why the advice of "Plastics" was so funny in the "The Graduate." Maybe it would have been less irritating if these weren't the exact same two quotes I was preached when accepting my diploma. Isn't it about time we threw out these two clichéd references and updated them with some more applicable cultural dialogue?

This is why I've started peppering my commencement addresses with more "hip" movie lines to appeal to a younger audience. In case anyone wants to hire me to talk at next year's graduation, I have my list ready:*

1. Hello, class of 2012! As you embark on this next phase of your life, I want to say just one word to you. Just one word: "Rango."

2. (Point to someone in the audience, preferably in front row.) ''The leads are weak?' The fucking leads are weak?!?! You're weak. What's my name? I drove an eighty thousand dollar BMW. That's my name." Guys, this may sound harsh, but this is exactly what your first boss will sound like, especially if he's played by Alec Baldwin.

3. When in doubt, always remember the gospel of Matt Damon as he told off that douchey guy in a Harvard bar:

"In 50 years you're going start doing some thinking on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a fucking education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library."

(If this does not go over well, go to a backup "Good Will Hunting" quote: "How do you like dem apples?")

4. In Aaron Sorkin's "The Social Network," we are told a million dollars "isn't cool." It is followed up by the statement that what is actually cool is a billion dollars. I think that's something we can all agree is a sound life philosophy! (Pause for laughter.)

But also? How crazy is it that Mark Zuckerberg didn't even finish college? Turns out he didn't even need a degree to make those "cool" billions!

Anywhoozle, good luck with those student loans.

5. A young man named Peter Parker was once told, "With great power comes great responsibility." Well, the good news here is that as far as I know, not one student graduating today has been bit by a radioactive spider and subsequently turned into a superhero. So relax: as far as that 'personal responsibility' thing goes, it will most likely never come up in real life situations. I speak from experience.

6. In closing I say to you, graduates of Arizona State: "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile." That's from Chuck Palahniuk's "Fight Club," and that's the real world people, so get used to it.

Also, it's a great film. Netflix it sometime.

*I also do Bar Mitzvahs.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Recent Rutgers Study

* Of students graduating between 2006 and 2010, only 53% are employed full-time (21% are attending graduate or professional school).
* The median salary for students from the classes of 2009 and 2010 is $27,000 a year -- $3,000 less than that earned by their "pre-recession" counterparts from the classes of 2006 and 2007, who earned a median salary of $30,000 in their first jobs.
* Students who did internships during the course of their degrees earn a median salary $6,680 higher than those who did not.
* The difference between starting salaries for men and women is over $5,000, with men earning $33,150 and women $28,000.
* 39% of students from the classes of 2009 and 2010 earned "a lot less" than they expected in their first jobs (the figure for the classes of 2006 and 2007 is 28%).
* Those with a regular salary earn over $10,000 more per year than those paid by the hour, whose median yearly pay is $25,000.
* 3/5 of graduates used "personal connections" when looking for a job (compared to less than 1 in 3 who used "college placement offices").
* 51% of graduates had found a job within two months of leaving college (nearly 30% had arranged employment before they graduated). 75% had found employment at the two-year mark.
* Only 52% of graduates surveyed accepted jobs for which a four-year degree was required.
* 58% of graduates aged 22-25 "are receiving some form of financial support from their parents" (29% say their parents help pay for housing). Nearly a quarter say they still live with their parents.
* 58% say they were not well-prepared for the job search by their universities.
* Among recession-era graduates (classes of 2009-10), 43% say they are "not working in the area they trained for."
* 48% of students who are "satisfied with their decision to attend college and graduate with a four-year degree" nonetheless say they would be "more careful" choosing a major if they were given another chance; 47% say, looking back, they should have "done more internships or worked part time.
"

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

AS SEEN ON THE ONION


The Post-College Job Hunt

Members of the class of 2011 are facing an anemic job market as the national unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent. Here are some of the ways graduating seniors are getting a leg up:

* Applying at places they happen to walk by and get a good feeling about
* Getting the phone numbers of the 500 biggest companies in the United States; calling them and screaming, "ARE YOU HIRING?"
* Practicing handshake with boss doll at home
* Packaging resumé with a free iTunes download
* Lurking at Chinese lunch buffet to find out what people with jobs talk about
* Putting up "Josh Needs Work" fliers in their area and expecting support, not laughter, you guys
* Googling "How to get a job"
* Comping extra slice of cheese on sandwich of anyone who looks as if they might be hiring

Thursday, April 21, 2011

AS SEEN ON THE ONION


New College Graduates To Be Cryogenically Frozen Until Job Market Improves


WASHINGTON—In a bold new measure intended to address unemployment among young professionals, lawmakers from across the political spectrum agreed on legislation Tuesday to subsidize the cryogenic freezing of recent college graduates until the job market recovers.

The bill, expected to swiftly pass in both houses, would facilitate the subzero preservation of any graduate of a two- or four-year educational institution. Sponsors of the initiative said that with the national unemployment rate at just under 10 percent, it only made sense for young job-seekers to temporarily enter a state of supercooled stasis.

"Finding employment is extremely difficult for today's college graduate," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) said. "Our current economy offers few options for the millions of young men and women desperate to join the workforce."

"Were we to freeze these graduates at the height of vigor and ambition, however, there's a chance we could revive them during a more prosperous time," Hutchinson continued. "When the economy finally bounces back—10, 20, even 30 years from now—we'll have an entire generation thawed out and ready to contribute."

The Frozen For Their Future Act reportedly calls for the installation of thousands of cryogenic tanks at college commencement ceremonies around the country. Upon receiving their diplomas, newly minted graduates will immediately make their way to preservation stations where their hearts will be artificially stopped using electroshock or a potassium-salt solution. Once a graduate's blood is drained and replenished with an anti-crystallizing fluid, they will be submerged in liquid nitrogen, a process that will, in effect, put them into suspended animation until key sectors of the American economy such as real estate and information technology have rebounded.

According to Walter Reardon of the Cryonics Partnership Inc., it will be essential for the freezing procedure to be conducted as quickly as possible.

Enlarge Image

"Graduates will never be more primed to enter the workplace than at the exuberant moment they toss their caps in the air," said Reardon, who claimed that cryogenics was the only hope for an estimated two-thirds of the nation's students. "Wait even two days, and a graduate's brain will begin to show the effects of fretting about the dismal job market. Wait six months, and you might have a permanently cynical underachiever resigned to his position at a mall sunglasses kiosk."

"Frankly, that person might not even be worth bringing back," Reardon added.

Under the proposed guidelines of the legislation, frozen graduates would remain in storage at a temperature of minus 196 degrees Celsius (minus 321 degrees Fahrenheit) until the unemployment rate fell to a more manageable 4.5 percent. All graduates would also be required to sign a waiver stating that they understood the risks involved, and that there was no guarantee the economy of the future would ever grow sufficiently to warrant their revival.

While acknowledging this danger, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who cosponsored the bill with Sen. Hutchison, said smaller subsets of graduates could be reanimated as needed if special circumstances created a demand for their skills.

"Let's say there's some sort of environmental crisis," Schumer said. "Well, we could selectively thaw students who majored in ecology or climatology and provide them with jobs. The same logic would apply if, say, 300 years from now a real-world application for people with philosophy degrees somehow arose."

Soon-to-be college graduates were divided about the pending legislation. While some expressed reluctance to induce their own clinical death, other students seemed content to postpone their job hunting for a while.

"Everyone I know is either unemployed or barely getting by," University of Illinois senior Kim Levesque said. "If they want to put me on ice until there are more jobs out there, that's totally fine with me. Not to mention the fact that I won't have to think about my student loans for a while."

When reached for comment, a spokesman for loan provider Sallie Mae said that educational loans taken out by graduates in cryogenic storage would continue to accrue interest indefinitely at 6.5 percent.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Dr. Seuss was a Dr? to What Degree?

Dr, Dr, Gimme the Seuss...


Are degrees useless? Do degrees have more use when they are compounded one upon another? Can you get one degree without the other? What qualifies a scholar?

What makes a "doctor"? All questions to consider, in honor of Dr. Seuss's birthday.

"Dr. Seuss" (pronounced Soice) a man whose title he awarded himself, most likely had more intelligence, and creativity than most of his academic peers. But he was never awarded the piece of paper that designated him as such, at least while he was living.

"His first work signed as "Dr. Seuss" appeared after he graduated, six months into his work for humor magazine The Judge where his weekly feature Birdsies and Beasties appeared. Geisel was encouraged in his writing by professor of rhetoric W. Benfield Pressey, whom he described as his "big inspiration for writing" at Dartmouth.After Dartmouth, he entered Lincoln College, Oxford, intending to earn a Doctor of Philosophy in English literature. At Oxford, he met his future wife, Helen Palmer; he married her in 1927, and returned to the United States without earning a degree" cit.

Interesting, even the notable "Dr." Soice, went around publishing books with a phony title. Is that the answer, lying? Is that how one actually establishes literary notoriety? From my perspective, I think Seuss's life is an excellent example of how creativity, intelligence, and life experience are so much more valuable than a degree. In today's academia, it is believed that one could not achieve a degree without these attributes. Further, one should do everything in their power to attempt one if they do meet the "criteria". But what of those who do not? Clearly one can attain success, even publish a book without letters behind their name, as was discussed in a previous post.

On this March 2, 2011, his 107th birthday, schools are dedicating an entire week to literacy, based solely on his pioneering efforts. I'm sure you'll find very few "leaders" in American academia questioning Seuss's legitimacy. No, not today. A man who began his career writing for a subversive college humor rag, under a different name, previously branded an alcoholic delinquent. A man who would go on to mock the very town he lived in within the pages of his "children's" books.

He did successfully graduate with an undergraduate degree. But how many of us can go around calling ourselves "Dr." without that costly PhD? I know, what many writers "secretly" know, that great writing has little to do with academic stature. A great writer needs only the patience and diligence to submit their works to publications until they are finally recognized. Even with his Dr. designation, he would be rejected 75 times, before his first publication.

Let us also not forget that despite not receiving a post-graduate degree, he did most of the work. He gained most if not all there is to gain, he just didn't "finish". There is so much more emphasis placed on the idea of finishing now in academia, than what we are gaining from doing so much time. But "they" make it so "difficult" to finish, don't "they"?! Most understand it isn't the workload that is too much to bear, and even the most intelligent and worldly among us struggle to complete a degree. To most, academia is just simply a maze of uncertainty and cow-towing to authority, before we achieve that authority for ourselves. Therein lies the paradox. That is when most of us never get that far, when most of us have to "give-up", when most of us just simply move on to something better. Something more practical, like the rest of our lives.

Going back to this idea of lying to get respect; This blog is and has always been about integrity. It's been about calling out those who have very little of it, but still claim to have cornered the market. My readers, and I, and now you hopefully, smell the pile and just want to do something about it. I think it is an admirable thing for a person to achieve exactly what they set out to do in life, simply playing by the rules. If it works out for them, that is the ideal. That is the dream, ladies and sirs. My readers and I, however, know the reality. We have to be a little more creative, even if just for the sake of jumping over the pile we are asked to walk through.

That being said, my next blog will NOT be a complete lie, but will be a completely fabricated mock-resume of my skills. One I would never give to employers. It will be what my resume would look like if any, and all of my knowledge, creativity, intelligence, and skills were valid. It will be a list of everything I learned in Kindergarten, and since, including all the knowledge I gained while in college. It will also include a list of knowledge, creativity, intelligence, and skills that employers are actually looking for. It will make me look like the ideal employee for today's economy. I will remind my readers of the {Ctrl+C/P} functions.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Weird Al's idea of growing up.

Bravo, Weird Al.

Today I read this article on NPR's website. It details Weird Al Yancovic's literary genius and the creation of his first children's book: "When I Grow Up". In the article, "Al", explains that he wants his readers, children mostly, to get a sense of possibility with the book. He wants kids to know that whatever they want to be is fine, as long as they are happy and excited about it. Not to mention, maybe another kick in the teeth of narrow-minded, nit-wits who have streamlined education and imagination.

It's obvious that Al is a talented lyricist, and that shows up in his brilliant, poetic verse. What strikes me, is how poignant the book is. It reaches out the kids in that first moment they are forced to label themselves; a label society hopes will stick with them so they will undoubtedly coast unhindered to their "desired" finish line. Unfortunately, as this blog has noted time and again,that's just not how it works.

I joked in an earlier post, that the only way to finish college in four years, is to know your eventual vocation by Kindergarten, and then never ever change your mind, no matter what life throws at you. Again, I was snidely poking fun at the narrowness of the education system, not to mention how costly it is to be "indecisive". But is Weird Al suggesting that indecisiveness could be a form of personal optimism? The little boy in the story comes up with multiple possibilities for his future, not once regretting his inability to choose. Maybe if we are told early on that we are capable of many things, we will ultimately have the confidence to make a decision. Maybe if children have the freedom to pursue their own interests, instead of being bombarded with what they are "not good at" they would just be happier kids. Personal choice could weigh-in, instead of the inevitability of settling for what others think will make them successful.

"When Yankovic himself was 8, he told his guidance counselor he wanted to be a writer for Mad magazine. But the guidance counselor convinced him that there was "not much of a future in comedy" and advised him to pursue a real career, like architecture" cit.

Unbelievable.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Self-Education:Take Back Control.


The title of my blog: "Where are we going?", once provoked this very specific image for me. It was meant to be a question to the many others whether or not of my generation, facing insurmountable debt, confusion, with little hope for the future they worked for. They feel cheated, lied to, when they climb the mountain of expectation only to find another abyss. One we were not at all prepared for.


Taking time to reflect, research, and study the "alternatives" I find that the title of my blog provokes a new image. The title questions not only the future of those in my situation, but is now a rhetorical question to the person no longer in the driver's seat. The one who steered us off course. We have lost control over our own education, and therefore control over what we can do with it.



I want to reach out to anyone who feels they have veered off course. Those who feel that they followed the rules but were still lead astray. Everyone, whether or not they feel they belong outside the confined walls of the education system, or those who still have faith in it. Both should recognize the benefits of being in control and continuing to learn and thrive. This was the advice given to me by author James Marcus Bach.

Take the next step and encourage it for people who aren't talented enough for conventional education. Then you might as well include everyone who is exactly the right amount of talent... The notion of "talent" with respect to conventional schooling is just circular logic: if someone thrives in that environment, then they are deemed to be "talented enough but not too talented." But this is a fallacy. It's not talent. It's FIT. Some people, regardless of whatever talents they may or may not have, are good fits for that system.



"Buccaneering" or Self-Education

Secrets of a Buccaneer Scholar is his book, one that has pinpointed some serious issues in the education system and thankfully, offers solutions. One solution in particular: Take back control of your own education!

Bach became one of the youngest technical managers at Apple computer with less than a high school diploma. Is he a genius? Technically, but he no longer attends Mensa meetings. More on that later. The genius of the man is not measured in numbers necessarily. Despite his high IQ, he did "poorly" in grade school. He was depressed by being classified by numbers, and not challenged intellectually, and how however unintentionally, began to take control of what number he was designated.

He intentionally failed tests, he ignored his homework assignments. Was it because he didn't care about learning? No. Did he do nothing with his time? On the contrary. Bach spent his time building and programming the very first computers. He studied physics in his spare time---but was failing physics! "See that 49 in physics? Looks like a low score doesn't it? But I loved physics. I studied it at home... I taught myself how to use sliderule and calculated trajectories...but none of that was part of my schoolwork, so it didn't count." So why would a genius not be a good student?
Something he refers to as "mental mutiny". Your mind is free to accept or not accept, to grow or not grow. Refusal of homework, failing tests on purpose, etc., are a natural response to not being challenged, to being disinterested.

The topic of interest, frequently reoccurs in this blog, because the argument of it's necessity in education. As noted before, colleges feign interest in your interests. They create "fluff" courses so you can have fun and become a well-rounded person. Education should be fun, and make you a well-rounded person, yes, but not for a one-sided pay out. As addressed before, the school gets your money, and you get nothing in return. No marketable skills or even usable credits, just memories.
But interest IS a necessity to learning. The brain only retains what it deems necessary! A professor, a teacher, a counselor, even an employer may not deem it necessary, but your brain has.

Buccaneering is Unstoppable Curiosity

Beginning in grade school, we are taught various subjects, math, art, science, etc. Are we ever asked to make connections between these varying subjects? Most often they are distinct and separate. But learning connections between various subjects is key to understanding why learning is important. A child needs to learn at a very young age that all learning is important, if he or she is to retain any information, and to continue to believe that as an adult. At high school and even college age a student continues to be confronted with old information in a brand new context, and most often reacts to it in the very same way. It is only when someone teaches new connections, charts new territory, and braves the unknown,that students are interested. Imagine a professor who teaches that a literature major can and should be interested in astrophysics for _____ reason, and makes that reason exciting. Students will make the connection. The education system is caught up in the alternative, and you are caught up in the hypocritical dichotomy of "why are these classes required of me, if I am not SUPPOSED to even be interested in them?" Alternating the dynamics of doing things excites the mind. Learning the exact same things over and over does not. It only causes burn out, mental mutiny, and, worse, depression. So many young people are depressed by what they consider their lack of ability, simply because they do not coalesce to a system that has no designation for them. Are they slow, stupid? Are they just *too* "gifted"?

"Guaranteed Not Stupid"

As a member of Mensa, Bach was told having a high IQ meant simply that he was "guaranteed not stupid" and therefore should never again doubt his ability to learn. Shouldn't that be the designation for everyone? What makes this particular group so elite, if they can't even call themselves "smart"? IQ is just another number designation by a grade, only dictated by a test that means just a little as a 7th grade history exam. Test and homework grades, IQ and SAT scores are all supposed to be the building blocks of our prospective list of credentials. But what do these credentials mean? What again does a high school diploma signify if a genius cannot earn one? What then does a Bachelor's degree signify, if the person possessing it has no idea what to put it towards?

Bach says his book "isn't about school". In his email response to me, he even seemed to argue that there was nothing wrong with the system and with people who fit in with it. But he does point out that there is something wrong with how education is fundamentally presented. It is purely presented as "facts", in context of the classroom situation. Anyone who has ever really learned anything, did so through reflection, by partially teaching him/herself. A person learns by literally becoming a better person of their creation, influenced by the information presented. Education is construction and reconstruction of your mind, and as Bach says, “Education is the you that emerges from what you learn”

Taking Back Control

Self-education in this economy is necessary for success, but self-education is most often discouraged within the education system. In my own self-education, I came across this book and many others that are helping steer me in the right direction. One could say the only thing I really needed to learn in school was how to read, how to write, and how to check out a library book. Everything else was superfluous.

This however, is a list of invaluable information I gleaned just from Bach's book:

1. Education can only happen in an environment in which people feel respected, and that their learning is necessary. They need love and encouragement from their teachers to succeed, not by way of high marks, but by formulating a personality that comes from knowing things and the curiosity to know more.

2.In school, and even in the working environment, most often others succeed when they have a sense of uniquely belonging. They want to be apart of something, but they want to bring to that something their own unique contribution. This is necessary in the classroom to a student who wants to learn, but doesn't simply want to follow along in the textbook, and regurgitate facts. Think of a pack of wolves rather than a school of fish. We want children and adults who devour their own sought out information, not passive fish who glean what they "can".

3.Criticism and intimidation are not the same thing, but in the school system are hand-in-hand. Most people who are "bad" at science and math, say it is because they are intimidated by numbers. People who are "bad" readers say they are intimidated by words. Numbers shouldn't be threatening, and speed reading should be discouraged. Criticism should be healthy, and failure should be funny.

4. People should be encouraged to take pride in what they can uniquely do, which encourages them to be successful at it, and other things. They should be encouraged to learn outside of school, and for that learning to count.

5. Adults in the workforce need to enrich their lives by continuing to learn. Learning after college, in the workplace, should always happen! Experts know that being an expert means knowing who to ask. Create your own syllabus of books to study. Create a syllabus of questions to spark your curiosity. Don't ignore your curiosity. Learn, explore. Know that you are smart, and no matter what your vocation, become a professional intellectual.


As a graduate do you have all the information you need to succeed in the working world? Of course not, no one does. I especially do not, that is why I am continuing to learn, and doing so for free. I may not have the degree but I will know as much as someone who does. I am taking control of what I am learning. I am in the driver's seat again. Are you in the driver's seat of your education?

Next time: What does it mean to be "gifted"?

Sunday, November 21, 2010

We lost our success, it's in the generation gap.

(...exerpt from a friend's livejournal)

My best friend just landed this AMAZING job, and I am so, so proud of her and happy for her, but I just can't help feeling discouraged because of everything she has achieved before age 25. She's just one of those people that good things always happen to, and I love that she has that kind of good fortune in her life, but at the same time, I am so jealous that she gets all of these incredible opportunities seemingly handed to her, when I am working my ass off to get just one shot at something worthwhile. When is it going to be my turn for that kind of success?

I have been working so hard, ever since college. Hell, ever since high school, where I shut myself away (perhaps a bit too much) to graduate with a 3.9 GPA. And I worked SO hard in college, graduated with a 3.6 GPA, Honors and two Bachelor's degrees and here I am, working this job that I dislike more often than not that stresses me out and makes me long for something I actually WANT to do. I hate for this to sound pompous, but I DESERVE chances like my best friend gets. I work just as hard as she does, but I wind up seeing so little return while she just climbs higher and higher.





My friend is struggling, as many of us are, with the disappointment that comes from lots of work and little payback. Success is most often gaged by how well we appear to be doing and how much we earn. For those of us with less than superficial values, it's not just about financial security, but self-confidence, self-realization, and the validation of our talents. However, success is conventionally determined by numbers. My friend's GPA, her list of achievements, the hours she has put in, all gage for others her rate of success. All of these things are not necessarily meaningless, per se, but any practical person like my friend would begin to ask herself, "If they do not lead to any sort return, what good are they?" What does my friend need to FEEL successful? A high GPA?, A degree? At one time, sure, but now she has passed that point. Realistically, success has an expiration date.

Rates of success: is it a generational thing?

My friend's "seemingly more successful" friend creates even more frustration as she is of the Y Generation: (ages 17-24.) It's common for GENXrs and Boomers to be irked with the success of Gen Y, especially in this job market. The problems that occur can be staggering. Boomers unwilling to "give up" their careers and retire, GENXrs floundering at the bottom of the ladder, and the GEN Y's reinventing the ladder and flying to the top.

Experts suggest the reason for this phenomenon is the technology boom, and Gen Y's swift grasp and manipulation of it. But research shows the GenXrs had that market cornered as early as 2001. In fact the surge of technological innovations seemed to have been motivated solely by the interests of GenX. "Gen X Lifestyles allow 'alternative' to enter the mainstream, separating today’s Xer from yesterday’s slacker." "Gen Xers have caused the Internet to not just be a part of the Gen X lifestyle, but a Gen X way of life" (Generational Market Research Bundle: Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y.)

The Boomers are now jumping on the bandwagon, but only due mounting pressures to compete with the younger generation in the workforce. "Technology is just another intergenerational flash-point", "Boomers see cell phones as tools, not toys, but Boomer use of cell phones, either for personal or business purposes, has definitely increased". Boomers still believe, however, that technology causes boundaries in office interaction, and still prefer the 'Human touch'. This ingrained tech-phobia is still holding them back from comfortably working from home, or creating their own entrepreneurial pursuits, thus freeing up more room in the office.(Generational Market Research Bundle: Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y.)

Regardless of the Boomer generation's slight efforts to adapt,the workplace generation gap still challenges the average Boomer's patience. Like Gen Xrs, experienced Boomers have found themselves annoyed by Gen-Y "newbies". The reality is all four generations now "butt heads" in workplace. (Somehow ages 40-44 get lost in the shuffle)






'Successful' people feel it too...

A recent article in Metro Magazine discussed the juggernaut that was the Conan O'Brien vs. Jay Leno controversy. The article acknowledges each generation's compulsion to take a side, determined by their own professional struggle. Metro argues for the younger generation, who held up Conan as an iconoclast to their own suffering. "What was largely taking place, was this huge amount of anger and animosity toward Leno for blocking the way of the next generation" (www.metro.us).
Thanks to GenX's tech-savvy, their voices were loud and clear, and all over the place. For a time, Conan represented the difficulty of being just on the fringes of the Boomer generation, knocking on the door, and still not being allowed in. Conan, 47, had paid his proverbial dues as a GenXr (15 years) and still "...saw his ambitions crushed" (www.metro.us). Success was quantified in numbers by NBC, but Conan sought the success of hosting what he considered was "the best show on television". Again, NBC bought Conan off, but all the money in the world didn't change the reality Conan had to face: a professional kick in the teeth. The reality of Conan's success, however, is clear to his fans. He captured the hearts and minds of a generation, that support him through any professional failure, and continue to keep him in the limelight. Success for Conan is in his creative accomplishments, and no longer his ability to bring in ratings or a higher paycheck. The man has a healthy attitude, that sets him apart.


So where does that leave the rest of us? I, as well as many 25-39 year olds I know, are still struggling to make use of professional degrees, but having to settle for working retail, and the service industry. Many of us are settling for "jobs", while Boomers (OUR PARENTS) for years have been beating us over the head that we need to find a CAREER. You know, like the one they have. Yeah, I caught the irony. I was, after all, an English major.


Next Topic:

What good is a Bachelor's degree? (James Marcus Bach's Self-education/Buccaneering)

Sunday, February 28, 2010

This is the very first official entry!

Welcome! This is the obligatory introduction post, so I hope it doesn't bore you to tears. Please don't cry. I decided last night in a haze of wine coolers, that it was about time that I started my own blog. As an aspiring writer (take that how you like) , I have had many "blogs" over the years, but none so public and accessible. As an intern for their summer college program, My 22 year old sister now has a vlog affiliated with Disney. I am so excited for her, but at the same time asking myself why I've been dragging my feet. I think the hardest part about getting started is figuring out what on earth to write about. As a creative writer (mostly) I usually just write about whatever comes to mind. I do have "ideas" I research and address, but it's not like "Ok I will spend the next 7 weeks, only writing about endangered species on the Galapagos islands".

I honestly don't think that would go so well. I think also that vlogs are easier than blogs. I might make a few of these vlogs. Doing them, and watching them I find they are much more freestyle and conversational, and the occasional "um" and "uh...what was I talking about, OH YEAH!" can come up, and is forgivable. Not entirely so when it comes to it's communicative cousin-the written word! I love writing, but my personality makes being in <---this little box--->, a bit confining. But we can do it! For we must be very careful when it comes to dangling participles and such! I am sure my audience here will be forgiving, still I assure you I will attempt to stay on task for most of the blog, with only the occasional tangent....Now, where was I....OH YEAH!

I want to give you a bit of an idea of what will be addressed on this blog. Here is a little outline of some of the things I will be writing about, both for my sake and yours.

Would you-could you be my neighbor?
1. Obligatory Intro Post- which we are in the middle of right now-- explains the purpose for the blog, outlines the blog's progress and may have a little bit about your fearless leader towards the end.

So what is this?

2. Well here we are at the most exciting part of the blog, finding out what on earth I will be writing about. Now are you getting an idea of what you will be dealing with here? This blog is called "Where are we going" for a reason. In this fabulous economy, many of us ranging from ages 22-30 have absolutely no idea what is in store for us in the future: monetarily, creatively, emotionally, and what have you. Part of the problem I have noticed is that time spent in college, an institution meant to get our career path on track, fails us, feeds us false information and honestly, doesn't really help us plan for our futures at all.

Can I use keyboard?


3. Part of the struggle here, I find is mostly with the job market, having very little need for what our generation was encouraged to pursue. Those of us encouraged to pursue the arts, whether in writing, music, drama, or the fine arts, well "we just should have known better". I find that my peers who sucked it up and went after jobs in either in engineering or computers, are doing quite well for themselves, but they are miserable and not doing what they really want to do. And what are the colleges teaching us? What are we gaining from our education that we really take with us? Are we on the right track to doing what we want to do?

So what is that?

4. Last night I was talking to my mother about my plan this summer: to scope out all of the publishing houses in the area, find one that's hiring and get my big ole' foot in the door.
Her quick answer back was: "I thought you wanted to be a teacher?"
I did want to be a teacher. Unfortunately it seemed the closer I got to my goal, the more things I had to do to even be considered a real teacher. As a result, I've subbed, I've been an assistant, I've even worked privately as a nanny, and a tutor. This past year I've had experience doing some very rewarding things, but all the while feeling like I wasn't doing what I really want to do. I realized that many of us aren't really doing what we want to do, but we're doing something like it, so we can lie to ourselves and say we made it, or we are just doing what pays the bills, and squeaking in our true passion only as a hobby. I realized, I do enjoy teaching, but I want to write. If I do teach, I only want to teach others to do the same. I want to teach valuable and necessary things, but only in the field of writing. I want writing to be valuable and necessary again. My ultimate goal is to get my MFA, and get published, and possibly put to use the teaching experience I would get from the fellowship. In the meantime the only contacts, and work I want to be doing is for the publishing industry. I'm done selling myself short, and getting paid to get apple sauce in my hair and on my pants.

But, aren't children our future?
5. Remember when we were the future? Well what happened to that? I'm not quite sure. I feel like we were only given a small window of time to get ourselves together, before the younger generation competitively steamrolled us out of their way. I mean good for them and all, but hey!
Some of us aren't even in our 30's yet, and we're supposed to give up? No fair! No tag-backsies, ya little bastards!

...

The rest of the ideas will eventually flow out I assure you.

Until then I am going to start on these ideas. I will attempt to keep myself well informed, and do all of the research necessary to not sound like a noob. You are in good hands here.

Stay tuned for next weeks blog:

Let's do the post-graduate limbo

Labels

about.com (1) Alexandra Nikolchev (1) Andrew Leonard (1) Anya Kamenetz (1) arts (3) asskissing (1) becky lang (1) book review (2) business (4) careers (17) cartoon (4) children (7) colbert report (1) college (8) colleges (12) comic (1) Conan O'Brien (1) creative (2) Dana Faccine (1) dance (1) debt (3) degrees (4) diane ravitch (1) doctor (1) documentary (1) Dr. Seuss (1) drawings (1) Drew Grant (1) drinking (1) economy (7) education (9) ELIZABETH HAYS (1) fail (9) fails (1) first entry (1) for-non-profit (2) Forbes (1) FRESH IS BACK (1) friends (1) frontline (2) Gene Marks (1) generation gap (6) george carlin (1) gifted (3) graduate school (4) graduates (4) graduating (4) graduation (6) HBO (1) hotel finance resourse (1) humor (3) ideas (1) intelligence (2) interests (1) IQ (3) James Marcus Bach (2) Jay Leno (1) jobs (15) jon stewart (1) LAURA PAPPANO (1) learning (3) Leslie Helm (1) letter to the editor (1) literature (1) Los Angeles Times (1) lying (7) major (1) majors (4) MB Quirk (1) Metro Mag (1) minor (1) minorities (1) minors (2) money (3) NPR (2) NYDAILYNEWS (1) NYtimes (2) onlinecollege.org (1) pay (7) PBS (1) PhDs (2) planning (1) profanity (1) rat race (1) reading (1) reform (6) Rutgers (1) s (1) scams (7) science (1) Seattle Business News (1) self-designed major (1) self-education (11) statistics (3) success (7) tangential (1) teaching (9) ted talks (1) testing (1) the Consumerist (1) the Nation (1) the Onion (3) the Salon (2) the specials (1) the Week (1) the young turks (1) Tony Cox (1) toothpaste for dinner (2) tourette's (1) truth (1) universities (8) video (10) WAWG (11) Weird Al (1) William Deresiewicz (1) women (1) writing (4) xkcd.com (2)

It's all about me.

My photo
wife. poet. humorist. friend.

Wordle: academiawordcloud