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."

Comments

Critical thinking

[superwiz]

Is plainly not taught anymore. Most people don't even remember how logic was taught for the past 2000 years.... geometry.

Re:Critical thinking

[Billosaur]

Indeed. School used to be filled with logic and reasoning -- kids had to learn to think. Now schools are more interested in childrens' self-esteem and socialization. Frankly, part of the problem is that the newest crop of teachers don't know logic or have excellent critical reasoning skills. As each generation passes, we get further from the Aristotelian virtues and knowledge becomes more watered-down.

Nowhere is that more borne out than in computer programming. Logic is the backbone of programming and if you haven't got a decent grounding in it, your coding skills are going to be atrocious, no matter what language you use. I remember when I was going to school to about 8 years ago to get a programming certification so I could shift careers. There I was, in my mid-30s with 18-year-olds all around, who were more interested in Napster and trying to download porn onto the school computers than actually learning the skills they needed. They used to razz me quite a bit, but I got through the whole set of courses with a 4.0 because I had the logical background that made going from pseudo-code to finished program easier.

Until we get back to teaching fundamental reasoning skills in school, each succeeding generation is going to take their environment more and more for granted, and understand it less and less.

Re:Critical thinking

[nomadic]

Is plainly not taught anymore. Most people don't even remember how logic was taught for the past 2000 years.... geometry.

Though honestly, a very large percentage of people over the past 2000 years weren't really taught anything. Formal education has never been universal, and honestly I've been to senior citizens centers and believe it or not they don't spend their days discussing complex philosophical issues. The percentage of people who have the ability to think logically is pretty small, and of those only a percentage have the requisite training to really think critically. It's always been that way.

Re:Critical thinking

[Erris]

Critical thinking Is plainly not taught anymore.

It's something you have to learn but can not be taught. Logic, history, facts, and opinions may be taught, but thought comes from experience and reflection. The more someone tells you they are going to teach you "critical thinking skills" the more you know they are going to try to indoctrinate you. The majority of people who think they can teach you critical thinking, lack the skill themselves.

Re:Critical thinking

[nomadic]

School used to be filled with logic and reasoning -- kids had to learn to think.

When on earth did this happen? You think an elementary school in 1950 was a sort of mini-Lyceum? It's always been rote memorization and paperwork.

Now schools are more interested in childrens' self-esteem and socialization.

Ridiculous. Schools these days are obsessed with test results and cramming the ability to do these tests into the kids' heads. That whole self-esteem thing has been out of vogue for a while.

Frankly, part of the problem is that the newest crop of teachers don't know logic or have excellent critical reasoning skills.

I will agree that teachers today are probably not, on the average, as talented as they used to be. This is a result of the fact that for most of this country's history, 50% of the population was limited in their careers. If you were smart, female, and wanted an education, you were very likely to end up as a teacher. This isn't something that you can go back to, though.

As each generation passes, we get further from the Aristotelian virtues and knowledge becomes more watered-down.

I just don't buy it. I think there are serious deficiencies in our education system but I don't buy the idea that as you go back you find a better and better one.

Re:Critical thinking

[niiler]

I think that in the past fewer people were better educated. Now, nearly everybody is literate, but at a much reduced level. Can you imagine *any* of our current politicians writing (not ghost writing, but actually writing) at the level of Jefferson, Franklin, or Adams?

Re:Critical thinking

[cayenne8]

"I'm not sure I agree with the grandparent but I can assure you that if rich white people lived in cities the schools would be fantastic."

I dunno, if the culture of the populations in the 'urban' areas valued education (instead of ridiculing those that try) above the aspirations of being a star athlete or rap star, then I think you'd see a much larger change.

The US already throws a TON of money at schools, which does nothing to help the red tape that eats it up, nor the apathy of many of the recipients.

Education thrives in an environment where parents and children see the value of it. No amount of money can change this core need of a good educational system.

"In my day . . ."

[PeeAitchPee]

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.

Re:"In my day . . ."

[hondo77]

Time filters out crap. In a decade or two, people will forget the crap of the current era and focus on the good stuff. Happens all the time. People loving music from the seventies don't know or conveniently forget all the crap that was produced back then. That's a good thing, though, because who wants to remember the crap?

Fluent? Not really...

[JCSoRocks]

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.

Re:Fluent? Not really...

[fullmetal55]

I think what they meant is they're fluent with the USE of technology. Back in the 50s, most men knew how to fix their car, not just drive it. now most people take their car to a mechanic to fix when it breaks, sure they're more complex now, but that fits the comparison with technology too. The same thing is happening here with computers and technology. in the 90s, more computer users had at least an understanding of what went on under the hood. now, most people who use them, consider them closed boxes, and take them to a tech (mechanic) to fix when it breaks. sure the excuse is they're more complex under the hood, but the real reason is nobody wants to be bothered with how it works, they just want it to work. As Douglas Adams said, the three stages of civilization are "How", "Why", and "Where". How do computers work? (up to the 90s, still ongoing but less so) Why do computers work (current, figuring out what they're good for, developing products etc.), Where? most likely "where is it useful?"

Re:Fluent? Not really...

[Billosaur]

Which is the disconnect between technology and the mass market. The customer does not want to know how the computer works -- they only want it to work when they get it out of the box. Mind you, processor speed and hard drive are such that they really aren't the most critical factors in buying a PC anymore for your average user.

This is why Microsoft rules the software landscape, Linux is finding it difficult to make inroads into the PC market, and why Apple has everybody enamored with the iPod. Familiarity breeds contempt, and contempt breeds lack of understanding. All the customer knows is that their laptop works when they turn it out and Windows pops up, and they can use that to load songs on their iPod. The behind-the-scenes does not interest them, which is why the general populace doesn't have a clue about Net Neutrality or DRM.

I ascribe it to the fall of the hobbyist. In the heady days at the beginning of PC age, when guys were buying Altair kits and Ham radio ruled, I think there was a higher level of curiosity. But now I don't think ham radio clubs, computer clubs, or even astronomy clubs are popular anymore, given the instant access to information we have now. I see this trend continuing as long as technology does not require the user to put any thought into it.

Re:Fluent? Not really...

[GogglesPisano]

This generation literally grew up with computers and the internet. It would be much more surprising if they didn't become accustomed to using the stuff that has been all around them. The same could be said of any previous generation's adoption of new technology (printed books, locomotives, telephones, automobiles, you name it).

That said, there is a huge difference between the superficial use of technology and an understanding of the principals that drive it. Most teenagers know how to use IM, but very few could tell you how it works.

Chris Dodge is one student who certainly has his tech credentials in line. Thanks to his parents, both of whom worked in the tech sector, Dodge has been exposed to PCs since birth and knows enough to design and launch a blog, produce a podcast, or shoot, edit and post a YouTube video.

No offense meant to the aforementioned Chris Dodge, but I would argue that his skills are more due to internet-era osmosis than some deep technical ability. The fact that a fish swims in water does not make it an expert in fluid dynamics.

Gen whatever isn't technology savvy

[Mr. Underbridge]

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'.

Re:Lazy Kids !

[rikitikitembo]

Yes, if only I could charge the Doctor or the Lawyer what he charges me when I fix his computer.

Generation Why?

[elrous0]

I read an interesting science fiction story a few years ago (think it was in Asimov's or "Year's Best Scifi") called "Generation Why." It posited an interesting look at a future generation that scorned the work ethic of its preceding generation because it simply didn't believe in money, material possessions, and work for their own sake. This "generation why" essentially asked the question "Why should we break our backs working long hours away from our families just to have a 9,000 square foot house and a big SUV?", "Why should I learn things that aren't going to make me a better person?", "Why should I work a job that I hate just for a higher salary?", etc.

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.

Re:Generation Why?

[vertinox]

This "generation why" essentially asked the question "Why should we break our backs working long hours away from our families just to have a 9,000 square foot house and a big SUV?", "Why should I learn things that aren't going to make me a better person?", "Why should I work a job that I hate just for a higher salary?", etc.

Why should we?

I know plenty of Gen X'ers and Baby Boomers who feel the same way. Most of the fell into line but they thought the same exact thing and actually a few say "No more!" and just live simple lives.

Personally, I have a job that I don't like that pays a lot, but I don't have a big house and my car is a 90's POS and I feel no need to buy a 50" flatscreen TV just to watch talking heads and men throw a leather ball around as a conversation topic. I'm old enough to be a Gen X'er but this idea of rejecting societal norm has been around for ages.

Its more prominent now with a bit of healthy nihilism when you take a global perspective to things. In the end, you are going to die and won't be able to take any of your wealth and knowledge with you. Eventually, your kids are going to die and someday there won't be any one around to remember you so what you do today is more important that long term which humans have a bad habbit of thinking that the status quo will last forever.

I mean... My dad worked himself to death in a job he hated for 30 years just to make it to retirement. I was worried there for a while that he would die before he would even get to enjoy that time. I'm sure many people have seen their family members die and all their plans and goals have been thrown out that window.

Maybe, its the realization that working for money is not the end goal. You should really take the job that you like and the one that allows you to be with your family and accept that you don't need all that stuff you can't take with you that will go into a landfill someday as it is.

Either way... Its not learning new skills to make us a better person, but rather the old skills like moderation and patience.

What makes "tech savvy" a big deal?

[MikeRT]

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.

Crappy writer

[KevinIsOwn]

From TFA:

While they may not possess the tech skills of old -- expertise in outdated areas like NetWare, Cobol, even ColdFusion programming -- this new generation packs a punch with mastery of things like HTML programming and a complete comfort level with business basics like Microsoft PowerPoint and Excel, not to mention Web 2.0 advances like blogging and social networking.

How does knowing HTML pack a punch in comparison with COBOL? Does this writer even know how all these "Web 2.0 advances" are being made? And even though I wouldn't use ColdFusion, that's one way blogs and social network sites get created. This writer is incredibly unqualified to be writing any article about technology. This isn't the only stupid line in there.

The change is in application, not education.

[sjwaste]

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?

IT = stupid career choice due to offshoring

[walterbyrd]

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.

Re:Lazy Kids !

[Colin Smith]

Doctors and Lawyers have a government mandated monopoly. You want to be paid the same? Lobby for official certification, or similar.

Using tech not the same as understanding tech

[rbanzai]

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

Re:Lazy Kids !

[Kadin2048]

Yes, if only I could charge the Doctor or the Lawyer what he charges me when I fix his computer. It's a question of ease of replacement. If it was as hard to find a computer technician as it was to find a doctor or a lawyer, you would be able to charge that much.

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.

There are three levels...

[ChrisA90278]

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.

Re:Nah it'll just be outsourced

[cayenne8]

"Corporations are to be blamed. "Flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance" is something all companies should be able to provide. This is something so trivial there is no excuse. What benefit is 9 to 5?? None whatso ever. I should be able to come in at 4 pm in hte afternoon unquestioned. OTOH how the bloodyass does the management execs justify deserving 10x the salary of the normal employee."

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.

Re:Nah it'll just be outsourced

[shaper]

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.

Re:Nah it'll just be outsourced

[imgod2u]

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.

Re:Lazy Kids !

[lgw]

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.