Slashdot Mirror
Gen Y Tech Savvy, But Not Interested in a Career
jcatcw writes "Young people aren't choosing computer science majors because they take technology for granted — it's something to use not something to make a career. "By and large, this generation is very fluent with technology and with a networked world," according to James Ware, executive producer at The Work Design Collaborative LLC, a Berkeley, Calif., consortium exploring workplace values and the future of the workforce. That future may be in managing technology, which requires skills today's college students don't have: writing, critical thinking, hard work and just plain showing up. One of their primary concerns is a flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance."
Is plainly not taught anymore. Most people don't even remember how logic was taught for the past 2000 years.... geometry.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Yep, seems like pretty much every "new" generation gets the slam from the ones who came before. Us Gen X'ers were cast off as a bunch of slackers IIRC. In ten years we'll have some snotty Gen Y writer blasting the lazy post-college Gen Z's and ranting how the greedy Gen X'ers will consume the last remaining Social Security resources. Definitely nothing new to see here.
I work with Generation Y'ers and they aren't so "fluent with technology" that they don't need to get a CS education. Most of them still don't know the difference between RAM and a HD. They don't even know the units used to calculate the amount of RAM or the speed of a computer. Obviously, there are exceptions, but it's been my experience in a middle-class community of Gen Y kids that they don't know jack about a computer. Can they use an IPod? sure... but so can my 60 year old mom, big deal. That's like saying my Grandma used to be "fluent with technology" because she could use a typewriter back in the day. Having the ability to use it and having the ability to make it are two totally different things.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Most of you will be too young to remember "computer literacy" classes which strove to teach students how to use computers. The idea was that if you could use a word processor, spreadsheet, and touch type, then you'd be prepared for the careers of tomorrow.
It's all bullshit. God help us if "data processor" and "data entry clerk" are careers of the future. The ability to use a computer is about as important to "jobs of the future!" as knowing how to husk coconuts is to a Pacific Islander. If you haven't learned those skills in your everyday life, then you're screwed anyway.
The fact of the matter is that someone still needs to build all those cool things like Twitter and Facebook and Myspace and all the rest of the crap out there that these "technology fluent" kids are so good at using. As long as we consider them to be fluent, though, we are putting emphasis on the wrong thing.
I was technologicaly fluent at using a pencil. It wasn't my ability to use a pencil that made me the right guy for my job.
These stories simply reflect the fact that, for any value of N, people in generation N-1 generally do not understand technology that became available during the childhood of generation N. This does not make generation N more technically savvy than generation N-1; by the time generation N+1 comes around, generation N will not understand the stuff they have. This was just as true for the baby boomers using remote controls and VCRs that their parents couldn't understand as it is for me using computers that the boomers have trouble with. It didn't mean that the boomers were geniuses because they could use a VCR.
Probably sort of like how my mom can't figure out the internet really well, which I think is rather simple; on the other hand, I can't understand the compulsion 'them darned kids' have for constantly text messaging each other.
Just because you can use mass-market electronic goods does not make one 'technically savvy'.
Yes, if only I could charge the Doctor or the Lawyer what he charges me when I fix his computer.
Of course, this idea is nothing new. Every generation goes through a very similar idealistic phase. Generation Y is now entering its early 20's, and it's likely that this is the phase they're beginning to go through right now. So it's hardly surprising that they're rejecting formal instruction in a field that they already feel very comfortable in (as self-taught learners). Just part of them "finding their way."
Just a thought.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There is a video professor ad where a woman laughs that her four year old is often more comfortable with a computer than she is. A lot of older people just don't realize that **comfort** is not a particularly big deal. Yes, most middle and upper class people in Gen Y are "comfortable with a computer" and other gadgets. So what? When I was in college two years ago, it didn't stop many of them from making many of the same mistakes that their equally **computer illiterate** parents made like not updating their software and trusting everything that came into their inbox that didn't look automatically like spam.
So you can plug your iPod in and sync up your media collection with it. How is that a practical use of your computer, the sort of thing that drives the economy?
I have to wonder... were there ever articles like this talking about basic skills like driving? "Younger generation more comfortable with horseless carriage?" Being able to use a computer? BFD. Who cares. Being able to write software, integrate components and mess with hardware are the skills that stand out.
From my perspective as a mid-twentysomething, I agree with this entirely. I went away to college and quickly lost interest in pursuing CS or CE, Math, Physics, or any of the hard sciences, really. The kicker for me was the lack of a solid career path, and the way the folks that studied these subjects were treated in terms of on-campus recruiting, job fairs, etc. Meanwhile, business majors had no problems finding work, especially those who had some technical skills on the side. So I joined them, sort of, and ended up with a business degree in economics.
Coming out and looking for work, I was basically doing applied statistics, writing code for models and such, but would not even have been interviewed without the business degree. The bottom line is that someone with a stats degree could've done the work as specified, but they wanted to hire people who could write the models based on the business problem at hand (interpret it into a regression model basically, find out how to source the data to run it, write it, interpret the findings for management, etc). And I've done this for two different companies, so there's a chance it's not a unique hiring thing.
So I wonder, are people of my generation rejecting the idea of CS and other sciences, but using the concepts they learned from a few courses they took in that department in a business setting? If that's the case, like myself, I'd argue that the change is an emphasis on the application of these skills to business, not an abandonment in their education.
I'm really happy doing what I do, and while I probably lack the theoretical knowledge that a PhD in Statistics would have, my analysis in the business context is what's really being sought -- and I'm strong in that. I'm finishing up a law degree at night now, so I really can't wait to see how the technical skills apply in that profession. Lawyers are largely so tech/scientifically averse that they don't even consider the application of those skills in hiring, I've found. But the lawyers I've worked with here who have the tech or science background are tons better at their job. So what's it gonna be?
I know somebody is going to say that he has a great job, and they can never get rid of him, yada yada. But, that doesn't mean anyting.
What about people just entering the field? What about 5 years from now, or 10 years from now?
Who want's to spend $80K on a college education, and work their ass off. Then, toil for entry level wages for another 5 years, only to train their $5/hour replacements in the Ukraine, or whatever? Great "career" right?
Most IT work is tedious, and unimporant. The pay, at best, is nothing special. And employers seem to have an never-ending list of requirements, even for an "entry level" job.
I think it's safe to say that there are better career choices.
Right at the moment, people that work in IT aren't exactly a majority of the populous. As a percentage of the whole workforce, I'd be willing to bet that people keeping these systems running and designing new ones are a small fraction of the population. People that now, and have always been interested in the 'nuts and bolts' side of technology are always going to be around in the same relative quantities as they were before.
Call me a troll or this post flamebait, but it will be true.
Look at IT objectively - it's infrastructure. You do the jobs that make the background stuff work. Mechanics, machinists, equipment opertors, assemblers, all do this stuff. They diagnose problems and fix them. They assemble components built and designed primarily by others into a useful working product, often based on the experience of others.
Of course gen Y doesn't want any part of that. It takes effort and requires getting your hands dirty. Most kids out of school (in any generation, I might add) are looking for which CEO position will give them the best golden parachute. Nevermind that that's not how the real world works - their perceptions are based on seeing smart people (like them) on TV shows get to the top without effort. Some will eventually realize they have to make money, and they'll be IT ditchdiggers. Others will find their niche in retail sales, or construction, or some white collar paper-pushing position.
Nobody aspires to grow up and be a plumber, but the world still needs them. And, in case you haven't looked lately, plumbers can make decent money.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Doctors and Lawyers have a government mandated monopoly. You want to be paid the same? Lobby for official certification, or similar.
Deleted
I support a gaggle of Gen-Y'ers and would like to point out that using technology is not the same thing as understanding technology. Even the graphic designers who use Photoshop at the expert level five days a week don't know simple things like how to burn a data CD. It's possible for someone to own a Smartphone, digital video camera, home network, etc. and have not the slightest idea how they work or how to solve even the most minor of problems.
This is not a slam, just a clarification. I don't see ANY generation having more tech skills than any other, and that includes the current teenagers who were born surrounded by technology.
P.S. I am an X'er
In the case of both law and medicine, they have professional associations that basically work to control the 'supply' of professionals in the field. (Well, the Bar Associations aren't doing too hot lately, which is why the market has flooded, but they used to be better.) If it weren't for the AMA, doctors probably wouldn't be paid all that well, either. Think of all the other people in the medical field -- nurses, technicians/technologists, etc. -- very few of them are paid as well as actual doctors, because it's hard to become a doctor and there are certain functions that are legally restricted only to doctors.
If you could get a lot of IT workers together and establish an "Information Technologists Guild" and bribe enough politicians into making it illegal for anyone not in the guild to open the case of a computer, then turn around and make it nearly impossible to join the guild, you'd probably make a fortune, too.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Ya, come in whenever you want. Of course you won't be able to work, because the guy that does the job your job depends on hasn't come in yet. That order, meh, it can wait until next week or whatever.
If a serious problem arises, and your manager isn't there, it'll have to wait too. Nevermind that things may grind to a halt.
There are three kinds of "technology "fluent": To use the old car analogy
1) Can drive a car, knows all about car companies and which models have leather seats and what "anti-skid brakes" do
2) can fix a car. Can figure out what part is broken and do a "remove and replace" repair
3) Can design a car. Knows how to design body sheet metal so that it absorbs energy in an impact. Can model flame propagation inside a combustion chamber,
With cars e have drivers, mechanics and engineers. With computers it is users, service techs and engineers. So what the article says is that even though many kids are computer users few want to become engineers. Well "good" the ratio of users to engineers should be about 100,000 to one or maybe 500K to 1. It only take 10 guys to set up a cool web site that a million people can use.
Other's have already pointed out the 9-5 situation (people being there when they need to interact together), but, there is a more general point I'd like to address. This sense of entitlement, that the world needs to adjust to 'my' lifestyle and needs. Unless you are going to own and run your own business, that ain't gonna happen. Maybe this attitude comes from parent who start themselves jumping through hoops anytime the kids wants something or has to be somewhere (all activities structured and scheduled). Parents quit saying "NO". Unless you can employ yourself, and control your destiny....your expected to meet the requirements of the place of employment you choose. The world is not out there to conform to your lifestyle. That pretty much is a thing of the past after you leave college. Hey, if you can find a job that allows shift work like you mentioned...choose that one, but, they are few between, and most I know of.....don't earn that much and are largely janitorial.
With age and work experience...and years of accomplishments, comes increased position and pay. I'm not saying it is always justified, there will always be jackasses that make it to the top, but, then again...I never say someone is overpaid. Obviously someone is willing to pay those people that much, and frankly, I want to be one of them. I really, really like the things money allows me to do....and rather than try to customize the system around my wants, I try to figure out how to use it to make my gains.
Unless you can either learn to work the system, or work for yourself....you're gonna be left behind, and while it may be sad, the world really doesn't care about it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The point is rather that there are so many people who're so utterly clueless, that in this kingdom of the blind the one eyed is already a king. When you have people who have troubles copying files with Explorer, someone who can install a driver without breaking the system is already their superior.
... let's see, what's the latest hype ... right, that dreaded trojans can't harm the backup, because it is oh so critical and that can't be rushed, you have a good job and can read /. all day ... erh... nevermind.
And, bluntly, installing something doesn't take anything a 15 year old doesn't know.
Also, don't forget that HR departments are hardly staffed with people who have their masters in IT. Just spew technobabble to them and they will wave you in, and as long as you can credibly claim that writing that backup batch job is something that has to take a month or two, simply by claiming that you have to make dead sure that those dreaded
But I guess you see the point. Peer review could work. But where do you find it? People like the one mentioned above will be rotated from company to company (at least as long as he isn't the only tech there, with peers quickly debunking his stories and discovering he's a balloon of hot air and little substance), until he ends up in a company where everyone in IT is simply a slacker (or quickly turned into one), telling tall tales about their oh so terribly hard jobs while they're using the company line for torrent downloads.
And that's where all those stories of inapt and useless IT departments come from.
As long as there's not some kind of "mandatory" training or, better, some kind of peer review, people will get away with this and success in IT will be governed by your skills in fast talk and storytelling, and less by your competence.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They didn't like that answer and while they continue to promote technical careers at the high school level, they also lobby heavily for expanded H1-B visa quotas and press the State Department and DoD to relax restrictions on sending work overseas.
Kids are too smart these days. Whatever they do, they are increasingly interested in maintaining control of the market for their skills, rather than selling themselves off to a large corporation. Scott Adams had a Dilbert strip where he coined the term 'technological savant'. This is an individual who can solve the most sophisticated technical problems in his/her field, but is too stupid to compare paychecks between professions.
Have gnu, will travel.
That's funny, I do run my own business. I like to call it Me, Inc. I provide a service (my time and skills) to the highest bidder the market. Currently, the highest bidder is my employer and part of the price they pay for my services is a mutually negotiated and agreed upon balance between my time spent with them and the time I spend elsewhere.
I don't understand why, when 2 parties negotiate conditions in a relationship (contract, purchase, service, etc), if both of the parties are businesses, it's just a part of doing decent, respectable business, enlightened self-interest, free-market economics, etc. But when one of the negotiating parties is a business and the other is a worker/employee, then the worker's enlightened self-interest is characterized as entitlement (or socialism, if they do it collectively).
Why is it so hard to conceive of individuals as little self-owned businesses with valuable services to provide to employers at mutually negotiated prices? And let the market decide which way the prices go. After all, capitalism is all about free markets, right? And labor is another market. Regulated, like most markets, but still a market, nonetheless. I have seen many business people who tout free market economics when it benefits them and then with straight faces denounce the workings of the labor market when it swings in favor of the worker.
Employees demanding more is hardly new. People wanting more is what drives a capitalistic world. Just because the most recent generation value certain things (freedom of lifestyle) and demand those from employers does not make it any less of a demand than, say, demanding a higher salary or benefits for family members, etc.
This idea that people are "entitled" is nonsense. Everyone wants as much as they can have and more. Employers want hard-working employees for cheap. Employees want to work less for more pay (or other types of compensation). A compromise is reached. That's how it's *supposed* to work. Attitudes like "be grateful for what they give you" only cause one side to gain an advantage and speaks of a subservient mentality.
Life is way to short (and you only have 1) to slave yourself to a job with no say as to how to run your life. Considering you spend a very significant portion of your life at work I would say it is crucial to find a job that fits your life and not fit your life to your job. There are many tech jobs out there that allow you to choose your hours, provided you work hard, get your work done, and actually work a full 40 hour week. Every place I have ever worked has allowed this. In fact, it is one of the things that I demand from an employer before I agree to work anywhere. I have friends at other companies that routinely come in at 4pm. Me I like the evenings so I come in about 11 pm but I could come in much later if I wanted. It is this old school, lemming type mindset such as yours that allows upper management at some companies to still perpetrate the ridiculous 9 - 5 workday. If you are much better then average at what you do you will find employers will give you flexibility. So lemmings of the 9 - 5, grow some balls.
Thankfully, in America the people decide how our system runs. We can adjust the world to our lifestyle. We can impose it on the business world, should we so choose. Europe does--maybe they've gone too far, but I think a few steps in their direction would be a good thing, and if enough other people do too, then business will no longer be "entitled" to dictate quite as many terms of employment as they were before.
It's not even so much a matter of reducing choice, as changing the available choices. Few people here can get 4+ weeks of vacation, long and flexible lunch hours, etc., even if they want them, without taking a disproportionately large drop in pay and giving up promotions to the go-getter with no life outside of work, so for many it's just not a real option. In Europe, you may not be able to work over X hours, but that's been traded for the ability to do things that most people in the U.S. are not free to do. Should America decide to make such a trade, we can and will.
Sure I have. I also know that supply and demand aren't always (or usually, for that matter) restricted by the government. With IT certifications, there are two obvious ways you can affect supply and demand:
1. Price: If you increase price, you decrease the supply of people that can afford to get your certification. Interestingly, if you set the price too low, too many people will get it, which will cause the demand for that certification in the workplace to go down - this, in turn, will eventually affect the demand for the certification itself. If you set the price high enough, fewer people will be able to afford it, which will cause the HR drones to think there may be value in the certification. This brings me to the next method...
2. Difficulty: Make the test too easy and anyone can pass. This will eventually effect demand for the certification in much the same way that having a low price affects demand. By making the test difficult, you also restrict the supply of people that can pass your certification, which, in turn, helps to boost demand for that certification - if only the best can pass your test, people will assume that only the best passed your test and will hire accordingly.
The key, of course, is to make sure you don't get too carried away in either direction. As I already mentioned, you don't want to make the test too easy or too inexpensive - if you do so, its value in the workplace will be minimal since just about anyone can get it. However, you also don't want to make it too expensive or too difficult - if it's too expensive, only corporate types will be able to afford it, and they have the nasty habit of doing ROI studies on such things sooner or later. If it's too difficult, nobody will want to take the test, especially if the individual's ROI on studying for the test doesn't make it worthwhile. Consequently, supply and demand for certifications is governed by the perceived value of the certification from the workplace, which, in turn, affects the perceived value of studying for and getting the certification for the individual. Also, the perceived value of the product you're getting certified in definitely plays a factor here. Everyone has heard of a "paper MCSE" - they exist because anyone that's interested in IT work "needs" an MCSE to prove they know more than the 15 year old kid down the street, so you have a lot of people studying for that series of tests. However, have you ever heard of a "paper ACSA"? What about a "paper dCAP"? Probably not, because neither Apple OS X or Asterisk are products that HR drones feel represent general knowledge of all IT or phone networks.
That said, you are correct in that, since none of the certifications are required to work on a computer, they do not restrict the supply of people that can work on a computer. This is why Geek Squad is able to pay so little. However, there is a point (and it comes rather quickly) where, if you wish to get past "help desk drone" status, you're going to have to get a small alphabet soup going on your CV. This is similar to how, if you ever want to get past "front office receptionist at a law firm" or "candy striper at a local hospital" status, you're going to need to get some sort of certification.
May the Maths Be with you!
The criminal code must be limited to what can be taught in a single semester high school class, and understood in that time by typical high school students. If a criminal law is not widely known and understood, how does it serve any useful purpose? Laws known only to experts serve only totalitarianism.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Marriage and kids are completely besides the point when talking about employers giving flexibility and choice to their employers. After all, with that flexibility you could very well choose to come in at 9 - 5 if that suits your wife and kids, but why force that on others because it suits you? I know guys with a wife and kids that come in later because they actually find it useful to getting their kids off in the morning. Someone a couple of posts up made the point of increased productivity on a flexible workday system. You can't deny that people are more productive when they can choose to work at the hours their mind is the most alert. In that respect it is in the employers best interest to allow flexible hours since in the end they will end up getting more value from their employees.
Of course you won't be able to work, because the guy that does the job your job depends on hasn't come in yet. That order, meh, it can wait until next week or whatever.
If someone's entire work process is dependent on another person being in, what happens if he's sick, or on holiday? What if he leaves tomorrow?
Obviously the minority of office jobs that require being in at the same time as other people are not going to do well at being flexible, but this doesn't apply to all or even most of them. Also jobs can still require "core hours" (although even without core hours, there will naturally be a significant overlap).
Also note that "flexible hours" doesn't necessarily have to mean "come in when you want" - it could mean having a choice of hours, which you then have to stick to. And "life balance" has nothing to do with it. The world isn't going to stop because one guy comes in at 9am and another at 11am.
This would have other benefits too, for example not having as much of a rush hour, and resulting in less congestion and pollution.
I don't understand why, when 2 parties negotiate conditions in a relationship (contract, purchase, service, etc), if both of the parties are businesses, it's just a part of doing decent, respectable business, enlightened self-interest, free-market economics, etc. But when one of the negotiating parties is a business and the other is a worker/employee, then the worker's enlightened self-interest is characterized as entitlement (or socialism, if they do it collectively).
... no more than 10 hours a day, weekends are fine, and complete absences of work should at least be announced).
You can. Negotiate for it. But don't expect to get paid as much as someone willing to dedicate their 9-5 to the company in question. In general, there are more employees than employers. So yes, the employer has the upper hand. Deal with it.
In my line of work, the popular thing is flex time. The rule is '80 over 2', that is, 80 hours over 2 weeks. They don't care how you do it (within reason