From Graduate School Student to Amazon Warehouse Janitor(slate.com)
slate.com
From Graduate School Student to Amazon Warehouse Janitor
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/from-graduate-student-to-amazon-warehouse-janitor.html
67 comments
The worst are expensive "professional" master's degree programs in careers that seem like they'd be very promising in terms of job opportunities at first glance: public health, public administration, biotechnology, legal interpreting, etc. I'm afraid that many grad programs in data science have the potential to join this group.
They all seem like "responsible" careers that someone worried about making a living could turn to. And then these graduate programs make expensive and misleading glossy brochures and web sites to entice students into a career where jobs are plentiful and well-paid.
Well, you can turn those programs into a decent job, but you have to play your cards just right. You have to choose the exact subfield that is hot right now, and pick up skills that aren't necessarily taught at the grad program. And you have to get into the exact right internship, or get lucky enough to snag one of the dwindling number of government jobs in your field. But no one at these schools bothers to tell the students these things. So in the end, relatively few graduates end up working in the field they studied.
But they do keep the $50,000-100,000 in debt they accumulated.
They all seem like "responsible" careers that someone worried about making a living could turn to. And then these graduate programs make expensive and misleading glossy brochures and web sites to entice students into a career where jobs are plentiful and well-paid.
Well, you can turn those programs into a decent job, but you have to play your cards just right. You have to choose the exact subfield that is hot right now, and pick up skills that aren't necessarily taught at the grad program. And you have to get into the exact right internship, or get lucky enough to snag one of the dwindling number of government jobs in your field. But no one at these schools bothers to tell the students these things. So in the end, relatively few graduates end up working in the field they studied.
But they do keep the $50,000-100,000 in debt they accumulated.
> And you have to get into the exact right internship, or get lucky enough to snag one of the dwindling number of government jobs in your field.
There aren't a dwindling number of government jobs in public administration or public health.
> But no one at these schools bothers to tell the students these things.
Several schools' in those fields big draw is their internship/fellowship programs and connections to key employers in the public or private sector, and these things are heavily marketed as important.
> So in the end, relatively few graduates end up working in the field they studied.
A number of professional degrees are competitive advantage in related and even distant fields as well as their exact field, so that's not a sign of not getting a significant career advantage from the degree.
There aren't a dwindling number of government jobs in public administration or public health.
> But no one at these schools bothers to tell the students these things.
Several schools' in those fields big draw is their internship/fellowship programs and connections to key employers in the public or private sector, and these things are heavily marketed as important.
> So in the end, relatively few graduates end up working in the field they studied.
A number of professional degrees are competitive advantage in related and even distant fields as well as their exact field, so that's not a sign of not getting a significant career advantage from the degree.
Columbia? Sure. Tulane or Wash U? Uhhhhh...
Perhaps we should align incentives. A good start is to make it so that education loan payments are only required on higher paying jobs and the payment increases progressively (like taxes).
It would be great if loan payments couldn't exceed some percentage of income for example 10%. If it exceeds 10% of your current monthly income you pay just 10% and rest is written off. If you are unemployed, you pay nothing and have the capital you owe reduced by the full payment.
This would quickly defund useless education.
This would quickly defund useless education.
Hmm, yeah. When I think about it, these things will probably end up with a system as complicated as (or more complicated than) taxes. Can you imagine? Someone studies Mathematics and then makes money primarily through capital gains, or they get inheritances, or they sell their home after studying to be a carpenter and fix up their house. The complexities are huge.
Sure. There will be people that will get undeserved benefit. But this idea is not about perfect justice. It's about aligning incentives so that financial institutions don't fund expensive degree's that will get you janitorial job or no job at all.
Currently student loans are pretty much no risk at all. You can even shake them off with bankruptcy.
Currently student loans are pretty much no risk at all. You can even shake them off with bankruptcy.
Uh, only if you’re disabled.
Yes. I read this story and said this about it: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/12/14/links-the-academic-indust...:
“I had pushed for a college education, believing that with it came job security and the freedom to pursue my writing without the burden of poverty.” Another person lied to by the academic industrial complex. The problem is, the world is awash in “writing.” Just “writing” is not a lucrative field. There is a lot of this: “applied to art grants and startup-accelerator programs, and even joined an innovative female-owned co-working space, Splash Coworking” and “I had to host a 12-hour poetry reading to raise money on GoFundMe,” but there is a distinct shortage of “I took an operating system course, which finally taught me how to master pointers and prevent memory leaks.”
“I had pushed for a college education, believing that with it came job security and the freedom to pursue my writing without the burden of poverty.” Another person lied to by the academic industrial complex. The problem is, the world is awash in “writing.” Just “writing” is not a lucrative field. There is a lot of this: “applied to art grants and startup-accelerator programs, and even joined an innovative female-owned co-working space, Splash Coworking” and “I had to host a 12-hour poetry reading to raise money on GoFundMe,” but there is a distinct shortage of “I took an operating system course, which finally taught me how to master pointers and prevent memory leaks.”
It’s an ugly truth that writing is a leisurely art, historically only endeavored by aristocracy. Like most aristic pursuits, it’s not intended to be a meal-ticket. Great art is timeless, with its humanistic fulfillment being priceless.
> If we didn’t have a perverse glorification of education in this country
Is this true? I suspect large swathes of this country detest education. Nobody seems to be voting for better funding of schools - hell look at Oklahoma where school is only open 4 days a week. And that's an entire state!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/with-state-bu...
While there are certainly people that champion education in this country, there are many that condemn it.
Is this true? I suspect large swathes of this country detest education. Nobody seems to be voting for better funding of schools - hell look at Oklahoma where school is only open 4 days a week. And that's an entire state!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/with-state-bu...
While there are certainly people that champion education in this country, there are many that condemn it.
We outspend almost everyone else on education: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-glob... Our post-secondary education spending (college and above) is the highest in the world, and 80% higher than the OECD average.
Oklahoma spends about $8,000 per student per year on K-12 education. If it were a country, it would fall between Italy and Spain on that statistic.
Oklahoma spends about $8,000 per student per year on K-12 education. If it were a country, it would fall between Italy and Spain on that statistic.
The expenditure is there but if you look into the spending you'll find corruption and adminstrative pay is bleeding the system dry. You have school systems where the adminstrative staff keeps getting pay raises while taxe income and teacher pay doesn't grow.
You also have school systems like mine where they blew the budget on building a new school that the contractor built fraudently(stuff like the radiators in classrooms being just covers with no actual radiator underneath). It just so happens that the contractor who built the school is friends/family with members of the school board so I guess it's no paper for homework that year and the contractor doesn't get sued.
We let far too much of our school system just be raided by private interests which is how you see us spend more money than similar countries, while barely able to run some schools
You also have school systems like mine where they blew the budget on building a new school that the contractor built fraudently(stuff like the radiators in classrooms being just covers with no actual radiator underneath). It just so happens that the contractor who built the school is friends/family with members of the school board so I guess it's no paper for homework that year and the contractor doesn't get sued.
We let far too much of our school system just be raided by private interests which is how you see us spend more money than similar countries, while barely able to run some schools
As the article I linked to points out, teacher pay in the U.S. is substantially above the OECD average.
> We let far too much of our school system just be raided by private interests
Right. "Private interests" are to blame, even though school systems are run by public employees top to bottom (from the principal to the janitor). Education in Sweden and Denmark must be a real disaster, given that in those countries school-choice programs allow parents to use voucher dollars on private schools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden ; http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/27820....
> We let far too much of our school system just be raided by private interests
Right. "Private interests" are to blame, even though school systems are run by public employees top to bottom (from the principal to the janitor). Education in Sweden and Denmark must be a real disaster, given that in those countries school-choice programs allow parents to use voucher dollars on private schools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden ; http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/27820....
When a public employee like a superintendent, oks a contract for their family to bilk the school system, I think we could safely call that a private interest even though the superintendent is pulling a public salary.
Edit: your first link has an extra semicolon at the end I think. I will read these articles but it will take some time
Edit: your first link has an extra semicolon at the end I think. I will read these articles but it will take some time
> Professors and teachers are disproportionately white
According to [0], whites make up between 68% and 81% of the US population in the 25-64 age groups, and, according to your link, 76% of academics. In the same age group, Asians are 5.8-4.1% of the population, yet 10% of academics.
That makes whites over-represented by at most 76/68 = 1.12, so 12%, while Asians are over-represented by at least 10/5.8 = 1.72, so 72%.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...
According to [0], whites make up between 68% and 81% of the US population in the 25-64 age groups, and, according to your link, 76% of academics. In the same age group, Asians are 5.8-4.1% of the population, yet 10% of academics.
That makes whites over-represented by at most 76/68 = 1.12, so 12%, while Asians are over-represented by at least 10/5.8 = 1.72, so 72%.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...
At the K-12 level, over 80% of teachers/administrators are non-hispanic white, but just 50% of students: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/.... 58% of college students are non-hispanic white, but 82% of tenured/tenure-track professors, and 86% of administrators: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/02/racial-gap-am....
> At the K-12 level, over 80% of teachers/administrators are non-hispanic white, but just 50% of students
Just 50%? So 1% less, and they will be a minority in their age group?
Just 50%? So 1% less, and they will be a minority in their age group?
I live and work in New Orleans at an expensive private university. This phenomenon of TFA people coming in and buying houses if they stick around while the locals can’t is going to have some serious backlash at some point.
I will admit that my engineering degree was fantastic. Learned math at a level that allows me to do pretty much anything.
However, this isnt true for every engineer, every degree, or every college. And- Did I really need to pay 40k to learn math really well?
My engineering job + coworkers were significantly better than college as far as increasing my ability to be an engineer.
Even one of the most valuable degrees, I'm starting to become skeptical of its value.
However, this isnt true for every engineer, every degree, or every college. And- Did I really need to pay 40k to learn math really well?
My engineering job + coworkers were significantly better than college as far as increasing my ability to be an engineer.
Even one of the most valuable degrees, I'm starting to become skeptical of its value.
There are two different questions here:
1. "Does an education really need to cost so much?"
2. "Do I really need an education?"
The answer to #1 I can't answer. I would be inclined to cut certain things like athletics and student perks, but university presidents are smart people and I don't pretend to be able to do their jobs of maximizing institutional reputation at minimum cost better than they can. A 3-year professional degree that eliminates all general educational requirements seems like a pretty damn obvious win though.
The answer to #2 is, I think, yes for most software engineers. Of course there are innumerable examples of brilliant people who become titans without a formal education, but you're making it awfully hard on yourself. I wrote code all through my teenage years before going to college and easily felt things out intuitively, but... let's just say that if there's a version of me out there who dropped out of college after 2 years, I hope I wouldn't hire him/me. And, barring winning the startup jackpot or pivoting to management, the difference in lifetime earnings between someone who really has their shit together and someone who's bringing up Wikipedia at work to try to remember how linked lists work is so wide that the price of a good state school education screams "worth it" to me.
1. "Does an education really need to cost so much?"
2. "Do I really need an education?"
The answer to #1 I can't answer. I would be inclined to cut certain things like athletics and student perks, but university presidents are smart people and I don't pretend to be able to do their jobs of maximizing institutional reputation at minimum cost better than they can. A 3-year professional degree that eliminates all general educational requirements seems like a pretty damn obvious win though.
The answer to #2 is, I think, yes for most software engineers. Of course there are innumerable examples of brilliant people who become titans without a formal education, but you're making it awfully hard on yourself. I wrote code all through my teenage years before going to college and easily felt things out intuitively, but... let's just say that if there's a version of me out there who dropped out of college after 2 years, I hope I wouldn't hire him/me. And, barring winning the startup jackpot or pivoting to management, the difference in lifetime earnings between someone who really has their shit together and someone who's bringing up Wikipedia at work to try to remember how linked lists work is so wide that the price of a good state school education screams "worth it" to me.
> A 3-year professional degree that eliminates all general educational requirements seems like a pretty damn obvious win though.
Eliminating the only part of a university education that's useful? We already have coding bootcamps and they don't take three years.
If I had to choose between a person (with natural aptitude) who took this 3-year path you describe and the same person, but instead they took only the ~2 years of general education requirements, and spent zero minutes studying engineering in the classroom, I would hire the latter without hesitation.
Eliminating the only part of a university education that's useful? We already have coding bootcamps and they don't take three years.
If I had to choose between a person (with natural aptitude) who took this 3-year path you describe and the same person, but instead they took only the ~2 years of general education requirements, and spent zero minutes studying engineering in the classroom, I would hire the latter without hesitation.
That's so crazy that I don't even know how to respond to that. How would that part of the university education be useful to a software engineer? And how would it be even more useful than actual CS classes? Is this the nebulous argument about how humanities education makes you a better-rounded person somehow? You have to be trolling, right? Math and CS education make you a better engineer in much more specific ways than learning military history or 18th century English literature or art history or any of the other geneds I had to take.
And this is how we get engineers that think "I don't need to understand economics or history or politics or society or my place in it, I'll just let the people running the company I work for worry about all that so I can focus on important things like optimizing this endpoint".
I would prefer a hiring process that filters out that attitude.
> humanities education makes you a better-rounded person somehow
That's literally what university is for. It sounds like what you wanted was a trade school, and there's nothing wrong with wanting that, but there is still a reason why a university education is valued by some people.
I would prefer a hiring process that filters out that attitude.
> humanities education makes you a better-rounded person somehow
That's literally what university is for. It sounds like what you wanted was a trade school, and there's nothing wrong with wanting that, but there is still a reason why a university education is valued by some people.
> Of course there are innumerable examples of brilliant people who become titans without a formal education, but you're making it awfully hard on yourself.
Barring the possibility of going back in time to try the experiment, how do you know it's not actually the path you took that's the hard one?
Barring the possibility of going back in time to try the experiment, how do you know it's not actually the path you took that's the hard one?
Yes, if you are good enough, you do not need a college degree.
Good enough is somewhere between the skills of a skilled college graduate and someone like George Hotz, the hacker who jail broke the iPhone and read the latest AI/ML papers to start his own self-driving car project.
For the rest of us, an engineering college degree signals that we made it through the accreditation gauntlet.
The professional organizations control the accreditation. Medical school enrollment is strictly limited by the number of residency spots which are funded by the US government. The AMA controls the former, as it could easily expand the supply to lower the direct costs.
An argument can be made that a MIT ChemE degree is more difficult to obtain than one from Cal State Poly. However, as long as each school is accredited by ABET, there is a baseline level of knowledge that each graduate of the ChemE program in any ABET-accredited school should obtain.
Software engineering is a term I personally hate, as there is no way to engineer software like a bridge. No standards, no stable technology.
Good enough is somewhere between the skills of a skilled college graduate and someone like George Hotz, the hacker who jail broke the iPhone and read the latest AI/ML papers to start his own self-driving car project.
For the rest of us, an engineering college degree signals that we made it through the accreditation gauntlet.
The professional organizations control the accreditation. Medical school enrollment is strictly limited by the number of residency spots which are funded by the US government. The AMA controls the former, as it could easily expand the supply to lower the direct costs.
An argument can be made that a MIT ChemE degree is more difficult to obtain than one from Cal State Poly. However, as long as each school is accredited by ABET, there is a baseline level of knowledge that each graduate of the ChemE program in any ABET-accredited school should obtain.
Software engineering is a term I personally hate, as there is no way to engineer software like a bridge. No standards, no stable technology.
The book “The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art" ballparks some figures on the Power Law distribution of artist incomes in a global city.
Making a living as an independent creative is really hard. Marketing through channels like Instagram could help (10k true fans). Even creatives who get to be “creative” by way of being in an agency where they “apply” their creativity don’t have an easy life (constant deadlines and stress). Being creative on a deadline can definitely take the joy out of creating.
So many people want to be a writer. There are tons of writer workshops/retreats. Usually they feature writers who have achieved some level of success. But the reality is that someone like Kristen Roupenian who got a book deal out of her “Cat Person” story that went viral was very lucky. The right story at the right cultural moment.
> “40k artists resident in London (about same number in NYC)
For London and NYC each:
75 superstar artists (>$1M/yr income)
300 mature, successful artists (>$100k/yr income)
5,000 part time artists (need to supplement their income)"
Making a living as an independent creative is really hard. Marketing through channels like Instagram could help (10k true fans). Even creatives who get to be “creative” by way of being in an agency where they “apply” their creativity don’t have an easy life (constant deadlines and stress). Being creative on a deadline can definitely take the joy out of creating.
So many people want to be a writer. There are tons of writer workshops/retreats. Usually they feature writers who have achieved some level of success. But the reality is that someone like Kristen Roupenian who got a book deal out of her “Cat Person” story that went viral was very lucky. The right story at the right cultural moment.
> “40k artists resident in London (about same number in NYC)
For London and NYC each:
75 superstar artists (>$1M/yr income)
300 mature, successful artists (>$100k/yr income)
5,000 part time artists (need to supplement their income)"
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that the argument that only "marketable" skills are valuable is a farce. The United States is a cultural black hole and this article exemplifies why. Engineering, the STEM fields, and tech are also cultural wastelands. This is a major issue for me -- and one of the reasons I'm trying to get out of tech.
Even if we ignore the fact that some of our greatest thinkers often had "non-marketable" proclivities (Newton was also an Anglican theologian, Einstein worked as a patent clerk, Bertrand Russell wrote poetry, C.S Lewis was an author, etc.), there's something deeply human about being able to put pen to paper. But, for whatever reason, we are losing sight of why poetry, music, and art is valuable. This is a wide-ranging problem and no one seems interested in fixing it.
Even if we ignore the fact that some of our greatest thinkers often had "non-marketable" proclivities (Newton was also an Anglican theologian, Einstein worked as a patent clerk, Bertrand Russell wrote poetry, C.S Lewis was an author, etc.), there's something deeply human about being able to put pen to paper. But, for whatever reason, we are losing sight of why poetry, music, and art is valuable. This is a wide-ranging problem and no one seems interested in fixing it.
> But, for whatever reason, we are losing sight of why poetry, music, and art is valuable.
Everyone thinks those things are valuable, but due to nearly costless distribution of media the very best in their field can distribute their art to the entire world and we can enjoy it. It's a market that lends itself to superstar economics now, like spectator sports stars.
As a consumer of art, it has never been easier to enjoy and appreciate it.
Everyone thinks those things are valuable, but due to nearly costless distribution of media the very best in their field can distribute their art to the entire world and we can enjoy it. It's a market that lends itself to superstar economics now, like spectator sports stars.
As a consumer of art, it has never been easier to enjoy and appreciate it.
Yes, life is bigger than commerce. But your comment makes me wonder, "then, whose art should we value?" It's not that the US doesn't value art— highbrow or low brow, we have some of the finest museums of visual arts and the biggest of big-hair country music. We (more than) adequately finance both. Our resources, time, attention, and interest are finite, so how do you propose we choose whom to pay for their art? By MFA degree? School ranking? Random lottery?
Honestly, I'm sympathetic to the author, not least because I think there's some irony in the piece. She recalls mournfully the time she revealed on social media that she was at the edge of homelessness if she could not raise money. If that was painful for her, the impetus behind this essay is not as self-indulgent as it appears. She did not relish publishing this, rather, she did it because Slate paid her for it, and she's still trying to make her ambitions work. She may or may not yet succeed, but there's something admirable—and, one fears, perhaps pitiable—in her dedication.
Honestly, I'm sympathetic to the author, not least because I think there's some irony in the piece. She recalls mournfully the time she revealed on social media that she was at the edge of homelessness if she could not raise money. If that was painful for her, the impetus behind this essay is not as self-indulgent as it appears. She did not relish publishing this, rather, she did it because Slate paid her for it, and she's still trying to make her ambitions work. She may or may not yet succeed, but there's something admirable—and, one fears, perhaps pitiable—in her dedication.
Marketable just means somebody will pay you for it. All of your examples were extremely marketable. The fact is that since poetry, art, and music scale so well, we only need a few professionals and therefore only truly exceptional people can do it. Why does a mediocre artist somehow have more value than a mediocre basketball player, for example?
the argument that only "marketable" skills
are valuable is a farce
I remember (mis)using the local bookstore as my personal library during my childhood (late 80s, early 90s). The proprietor was somewhat in the mold of this author, and I learned a lot both from her as well as other patrons who stopped by, chatting, drinking copious amounts of free coffee, and buying books. In other words: it was one of those places that served far more purposes than just the economic one of distributing letters on dead trees.
Then Amazon came along, and it was obviously far better, in many respects: suddenly, I had easy access to foreign language books, for one thing.
But, less obviously, other benefits were lost. Mostly those that escape measurement by econometrics. Not just in terms of squeezing all there is out of people that are suddenly the subject of the economic force of an employer the size of Amazon. Small stores, within walking distance, i. e. the traditional "downtown" is gone, and with it all chances of surreptitiously meeting anyone from the mayor to your neighbour. It's all online now, or sometimes a big-box store outside of town within a barren cultural desert of parking lots and lots.
But the argument is hard to make: why (and how) should anyone forgo cheap prices, or the comfort of intensely personal transport, for my vague yearning of community? And so it will continue, the better future, as imagined by Kafka and brought to the big screen in Wall-E.
(presented here mostly as an alternative to the inevitable gloating of STEM majors over the failure of others to find a place in the world catering to their strengths and interests.)
Then Amazon came along, and it was obviously far better, in many respects: suddenly, I had easy access to foreign language books, for one thing.
But, less obviously, other benefits were lost. Mostly those that escape measurement by econometrics. Not just in terms of squeezing all there is out of people that are suddenly the subject of the economic force of an employer the size of Amazon. Small stores, within walking distance, i. e. the traditional "downtown" is gone, and with it all chances of surreptitiously meeting anyone from the mayor to your neighbour. It's all online now, or sometimes a big-box store outside of town within a barren cultural desert of parking lots and lots.
But the argument is hard to make: why (and how) should anyone forgo cheap prices, or the comfort of intensely personal transport, for my vague yearning of community? And so it will continue, the better future, as imagined by Kafka and brought to the big screen in Wall-E.
(presented here mostly as an alternative to the inevitable gloating of STEM majors over the failure of others to find a place in the world catering to their strengths and interests.)
Regarding that last point: It carries the assumption that people in STEMMFT (science technology engineering math medicine finance and the trades) do not have strengths and talents in other areas that they set aside to pursue their careers.
Our society seems to have no problem taking a rational approach to something like, for example, basketball. Unless you are one of a few truly phenomenal people with the talent and drive to succeed professionally, playing basketball is a hobby. Full stop. You can count on coaches to (mostly) objectively advise you as to whether or not you are one of those people.
Not so, the liberal arts. What was intended as a program of enculturation for the children of the wealthy elite has turned into a monster that devours the children of the working class, who are mostly not exceptional, and for whom an arts degree is an expensive diversion at best.
Our society seems to have no problem taking a rational approach to something like, for example, basketball. Unless you are one of a few truly phenomenal people with the talent and drive to succeed professionally, playing basketball is a hobby. Full stop. You can count on coaches to (mostly) objectively advise you as to whether or not you are one of those people.
Not so, the liberal arts. What was intended as a program of enculturation for the children of the wealthy elite has turned into a monster that devours the children of the working class, who are mostly not exceptional, and for whom an arts degree is an expensive diversion at best.
> I remember (mis)using the local bookstore as my personal library during my childhood
Did you not have a public library where you lived?
Did you not have a public library where you lived?
> bachelor’s degree in English, getting a master’s degree in creative
I think people need to do a lot more research into career earnings and job prospects. These degrees have never paid well, which is unfortunate for the subject of the article.
I think people need to do a lot more research into career earnings and job prospects. These degrees have never paid well, which is unfortunate for the subject of the article.
So many English grads, so few jobs.
1) theres a reason we have the phrase "starving artist" ... its a feast of famine career. Talk about a degree meaning little. Liberal arts is the last place a degree matters.
2)beyond job choice or debt. Did this person not take internships during college??? Cry me a river. You take jobs during bachelor years, you get reccmondations talk to your employment office (most colleges have them) and you have something lined up (espcially for a grad). I smell that this person does not work well with others and bruned all of her bridges with her colleagues.
Are we getting the full story, is this person good at what they studied and worked hard to make connections? Possibly not. This is an anecdote that should not be used as conclusive evidence of anything.
2)beyond job choice or debt. Did this person not take internships during college??? Cry me a river. You take jobs during bachelor years, you get reccmondations talk to your employment office (most colleges have them) and you have something lined up (espcially for a grad). I smell that this person does not work well with others and bruned all of her bridges with her colleagues.
Are we getting the full story, is this person good at what they studied and worked hard to make connections? Possibly not. This is an anecdote that should not be used as conclusive evidence of anything.
> worked hard to make connections
Yeah, but there are lots of people who are hard, smart workers, good at what they do, but they either
a) don't realize how important it is to make connections in order to even survive in today's professional world, or
b) were told that all they had to do to succeed in life is go to college, pick a realistic major, work hard, be honest, be trustworthy. Well, that's often not enough.
You almost always have to have a large professional network in order to thrive in today's world.
And many people struggle with that.
Yeah, but there are lots of people who are hard, smart workers, good at what they do, but they either
a) don't realize how important it is to make connections in order to even survive in today's professional world, or
b) were told that all they had to do to succeed in life is go to college, pick a realistic major, work hard, be honest, be trustworthy. Well, that's often not enough.
You almost always have to have a large professional network in order to thrive in today's world.
And many people struggle with that.
I didn't even know internships were what you did in uni. I only did mine because everyone did them. Now I make an appréciable fraction of a million dollars a year. All because I applied to the places my friends recommended I apply to and did the things then that my friends recommend I do.
The power of role models and established process is huge.
The power of role models and established process is huge.
[deleted]
She is a good writer. Probably could get a job as content creator at most start-ups and large companies. I wonder if she ever considered this path, unless I'm missing something.
Rightly or wrongly, she may have been put off by the lack of respect for the humanities so prevalent within the startup scene.
Point of evidence: the gradual replacement of the term "author" with "content creator".
Point of evidence: the gradual replacement of the term "author" with "content creator".
"Author" is a more specific term - there are many jobs that require ability to write well, but it doesn't involve any creation of original work or much choice of expression(as an author would), and it's entirely accurate to say that you're creating content according to your employers needs but you're not really an author or copywriter. E.g. writing summaries of other authors, semi-structured product descriptions, part of highly normative technical writing, and even fake reviews (it's a whole industry...) or astroturfing.
Point of evidence: the gradual replacement of the term "author" with "content creator".
My experience has been that, in SF startup culture, respect for the humanities is pretty strongly expressed. But not in the "I have a degree in writing" sense but the overwhelming belief that one must be a sort of Renaissance Man and be an artist or creator of some sort.
It makes sense, actually. For many people in the culture, they're fairly comfortable (founders are few, employees many) and so they start looking up Maslow's pyramid.
It makes sense, actually. For many people in the culture, they're fairly comfortable (founders are few, employees many) and so they start looking up Maslow's pyramid.
> Point of evidence: the gradual replacement of the term "author" with "content creator".
Please tell me more about "corporate authors" and why such a term doesn't denigrate the literary contributions of authors of traditionally published poetry and prose. Or do newspapers disrespect the humanities by calling their authors "journalists"? "Op-ed contributors"?
Please tell me more about "corporate authors" and why such a term doesn't denigrate the literary contributions of authors of traditionally published poetry and prose. Or do newspapers disrespect the humanities by calling their authors "journalists"? "Op-ed contributors"?
She works in San Marcos, TX and takes the bus to work (per the article).
It's close-ish to Austin, but I doubt there are very many large companies and startups in San Marcos.
It's close-ish to Austin, but I doubt there are very many large companies and startups in San Marcos.
> "The space, which stretches out across several football fields and up four flights of stairs, does give the illusion of forced servitude. "
Perhaps more than an illusion in practice: Nobody takes those jobs if they can find any alternative...and then the structure of those jobs (time commitment, low pay, inability to take time off) makes it hard to even look for another.
Perhaps more than an illusion in practice: Nobody takes those jobs if they can find any alternative...and then the structure of those jobs (time commitment, low pay, inability to take time off) makes it hard to even look for another.
why did she have to make
it about being a black woman? instead of the other factors. i know the same exact story but with white men.
Because stats show otherwise
This person seems to think they are entitled to a living in art/poetry just because they got a graduate degree in it. Degrees don't ensure employment, marketable skills do, and we should not mislead students to this fact.
She doesn’t seem entitled. Her plan was to start a business, not have a job drop in her lap. But entrepreneurship is also a bill of goods we sell young people. If you need money to buy food, don’t become an entrepreneur. At the end of the day, the economy is pushed forward by people employed at large corporations to produce the goods and services other people need. Reconcile yourself to that reality and position yourself to get a job working in that machine. (Unless you're special: you have independent financial security or some extremely marketable skill or credential.)
> I had pushed for a college education, believing that with it came job security and the freedom to pursue my writing without the burden of poverty. Without familial wealth or a serendipitous set of circumstances, I would need at least a degree to be competitive if I wanted to move up and over the poverty line.
This is a line sold to millions of students in all fields of study. You may be unsympathetic, but given the systemic promotion of higher education over the last few decades it's easy to understand why she would believe the degree would be the ticket to an opportunity in the field of study.
This is a line sold to millions of students in all fields of study. You may be unsympathetic, but given the systemic promotion of higher education over the last few decades it's easy to understand why she would believe the degree would be the ticket to an opportunity in the field of study.
I'd share your sentiment if she were, say, complaining about her literary talents being wasted working on ads, or as an elementary school English teacher.
But as she's working in an Amazon warehouse for just about minimum wage, so I don't quite see how one would see a sense of entitlement quite as prominently as you do. I could just as easily characterise the sentiment as "desperation".
After all, the "American Dream" isn't, at its core, just about rags-to-riches. It's also about a society where everyone can find opportunity that at least approximately match one's aptitude.
For the so-called "Great Generation" the situation was starkly different. While graduate degrees mattered less, opportunity was abundant. And someone somewhat diligent and not too stupid, as one without a doubt must be to keep a job in a warehouse while publishing essays as she does, would have found a way into the middle class[0].
To see this change and react with the sort of told-you-so glee of others' misfortune, possibly informed by some anxieties around "the two cultures", strikes me cruel.
0: only valid for white men, of course. So some things do get better with time.
But as she's working in an Amazon warehouse for just about minimum wage, so I don't quite see how one would see a sense of entitlement quite as prominently as you do. I could just as easily characterise the sentiment as "desperation".
After all, the "American Dream" isn't, at its core, just about rags-to-riches. It's also about a society where everyone can find opportunity that at least approximately match one's aptitude.
For the so-called "Great Generation" the situation was starkly different. While graduate degrees mattered less, opportunity was abundant. And someone somewhat diligent and not too stupid, as one without a doubt must be to keep a job in a warehouse while publishing essays as she does, would have found a way into the middle class[0].
To see this change and react with the sort of told-you-so glee of others' misfortune, possibly informed by some anxieties around "the two cultures", strikes me cruel.
0: only valid for white men, of course. So some things do get better with time.
I wouldn't go that far. I read the article in full, and it's an interesting description of the world behind the things many of us take for granted (Amazon, etc.) as well as some commentary on the author's own life journey. It sounds like she expected it to be easier to find a REAL job with a degree - teaching, creative writing, etc. - only to be surprised at the lack of opportunities for "non-professional graduates".
My parents strongly urged all of their children to pursue professional, specific degrees: engineering, law, medicine, or accounting/finance. They reinforced time and time again that "liberal arts degrees" provided fewer career options, and to put it plainly, that I would probably end up broke if I chosen that path. I don't think they would have provided financial support to study something like, for example, music. Or even psychology, for that matter, unless the goal was to be a PhD/academic.
I agree with your points, however, that degrees do not guarantee employment and we should not mislead students. Too many students think "degree = job". Having observed the Norwegian education system from afar (Norwegian mother & family), I advocate the way they do it and the way many Europeans have vocational programs and opportunities for technical training as an alternative to university. Even the janitors in Switzerland may train for as much as 3 years ( see https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/swiss-skills_training-t... ). Although, I do not know how that would work in the American culture, where tradesmen typically are not respected and do not make as much money as engineers and the like. Income inequality is a much bigger problem here than in some of the Scandinavian and European countries.
TLDR: degree != job, if paying for degree, get a technical one (engineering), accounting/finance, or legal/medical. Make good grades. Grades are more important in some professions than others. Don't expect to get a job with a liberal arts degree.
My parents strongly urged all of their children to pursue professional, specific degrees: engineering, law, medicine, or accounting/finance. They reinforced time and time again that "liberal arts degrees" provided fewer career options, and to put it plainly, that I would probably end up broke if I chosen that path. I don't think they would have provided financial support to study something like, for example, music. Or even psychology, for that matter, unless the goal was to be a PhD/academic.
I agree with your points, however, that degrees do not guarantee employment and we should not mislead students. Too many students think "degree = job". Having observed the Norwegian education system from afar (Norwegian mother & family), I advocate the way they do it and the way many Europeans have vocational programs and opportunities for technical training as an alternative to university. Even the janitors in Switzerland may train for as much as 3 years ( see https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/swiss-skills_training-t... ). Although, I do not know how that would work in the American culture, where tradesmen typically are not respected and do not make as much money as engineers and the like. Income inequality is a much bigger problem here than in some of the Scandinavian and European countries.
TLDR: degree != job, if paying for degree, get a technical one (engineering), accounting/finance, or legal/medical. Make good grades. Grades are more important in some professions than others. Don't expect to get a job with a liberal arts degree.
There is a tremendous amount of faux cultural cachet attached to a “college” education in the USA. As if it is a proxy of social status.
It is, don’t get me wrong, but if a more granular cultural standard for what education is meritorious - disciplines contra brand name unis - maybe vocational training would be more appetizing.
It is, don’t get me wrong, but if a more granular cultural standard for what education is meritorious - disciplines contra brand name unis - maybe vocational training would be more appetizing.
100%. As a person who has always had some anxiety over peer acceptance, I would have been afraid to pursue a trades job due to rejection from the opposite sex or even peers and family.
If you have any single friends who are successful lawyers, you might be surprised how easy they have it on dating apps compared to someone with more normal jobs. I don't think there's an easy answer to changing that social behavior at a massive scale; it's just part of our culture and the only thing we can do is teach our children to be accepting of everyone and that they are free to pursue whatever careers they want without judgement.
If you have any single friends who are successful lawyers, you might be surprised how easy they have it on dating apps compared to someone with more normal jobs. I don't think there's an easy answer to changing that social behavior at a massive scale; it's just part of our culture and the only thing we can do is teach our children to be accepting of everyone and that they are free to pursue whatever careers they want without judgement.
Not always true a many of the high status high paying jobs out side of tech prefer traditional non STEM degrees.
A degree in some of the traditional liberal degrees History, Litrature from good Uni (Ivys' Oxbridge ) is still viable.
I used to work (at one of the big publishers) with a younger colleague who had a first from Oxford in English - she has now moved into the City and probably earns as much if not more than some of the developers
A degree in some of the traditional liberal degrees History, Litrature from good Uni (Ivys' Oxbridge ) is still viable.
I used to work (at one of the big publishers) with a younger colleague who had a first from Oxford in English - she has now moved into the City and probably earns as much if not more than some of the developers
Not sure why you were downvoted for this, as you are absolutely correct. One of my "dreams" before becoming a software developer was to work in "finance", i.e. investment banking, and that industry specifically prefers Ivy League education, which typically means liberal arts.
That technicality, however, is a fine point in a much larger discussion, and I wasn't going to bring it up for the purpose of this post. I imagine the type of jobs you are talking about, "high-status, high-paying" would place a, for example, state-school Electrical Engineering graduate with good grades higher than a state-school liberal arts graduate. But they will usually rank a Harvard, etc. graduate with a liberal arts degree even higher than the EE graduate. Just my read on how that works. An English degree from <Insert State School> is not perceived the same as an English degree from Oxford or Cambridge.
That technicality, however, is a fine point in a much larger discussion, and I wasn't going to bring it up for the purpose of this post. I imagine the type of jobs you are talking about, "high-status, high-paying" would place a, for example, state-school Electrical Engineering graduate with good grades higher than a state-school liberal arts graduate. But they will usually rank a Harvard, etc. graduate with a liberal arts degree even higher than the EE graduate. Just my read on how that works. An English degree from <Insert State School> is not perceived the same as an English degree from Oxford or Cambridge.
That is like saying all kids should play basketball because they could get into the NBA. There are always lucky rich people. A ton of Microsoft and Amazon VPs have local MBA degrees. Does that mean that my Seattle City MBA will make me $1 million a year?
That's not the really same thing I was talking about high paid and high status jobs that almost universally recruit liberal arts grads "like them" from certain universities.
The cult of the MBA is a separate thing.
The cult of the MBA is a separate thing.
Sorry, that was my point by approaching the 'truth' from both directions.
They were already in the class or network of people. They knew they were going to be 'doing that work' because they were already recruited into that world long before university. It has nothing to do with their degree other than a passing qualification that they were expected to receive and in many cases the school just hands them no matter what their grades really were.
The degree is a technicality to their position and I am saying that the example you gave while interesting is not normal for anyone planning to work for a living.
I worked peripherally to publishing and am quite familiar with the situation. We had $1 million plus commission sales people 'of the right sort'. Did they know what the tech they sold did or have any real sales skills? Did it matter?
They were already in the class or network of people. They knew they were going to be 'doing that work' because they were already recruited into that world long before university. It has nothing to do with their degree other than a passing qualification that they were expected to receive and in many cases the school just hands them no matter what their grades really were.
The degree is a technicality to their position and I am saying that the example you gave while interesting is not normal for anyone planning to work for a living.
I worked peripherally to publishing and am quite familiar with the situation. We had $1 million plus commission sales people 'of the right sort'. Did they know what the tech they sold did or have any real sales skills? Did it matter?
It doesn't come off that way to me at all. She sounds like someone who hustles (in the positive sense) to do what she can and isn't crying about it, simply reflecting on whether that was a good choice or not, given how she ended up.
Without contradicting that, how is it ethical for a supposedly charitable, non-profit institution to charge young people with a hundred thousand dollars of debt for economically worthless degrees?
It's only predatory if they mislead on outcomes.
According to Glassdoor, $43k/y is the average salary for a creative writer.[0]
[0] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/creative-writer-salary-SR...
According to Glassdoor, $43k/y is the average salary for a creative writer.[0]
[0] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/creative-writer-salary-SR...
And there is also an oft-missed social justice aspect to all this. Professors and teachers are disproportionately white (and by definition, college-educated): https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61. We sell education as a way to overcome the legacy of systematic oppression of certain minority groups, but we are actually creating quite a large wealth transfer from disadvantaged minorities to college-educated white people. And members of these minority groups aren't seeing the pay-off from paying their tithes to the educational establishment. As the author notes in the article:
> A 2014 study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research revealed that an incredible 55.9 percent of black recent college graduates were “underemployed” and working in a position that didn’t require a four-year college degree.