Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gen Y Tech Savvy, But Not Interested in a Career

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the why-when-i-was-that-age dept.

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."

20 of 593 comments (clear)

  1. Lazy Kids ! by Irish-DnB · · Score: 5, Funny

    good. If this bears out then those of us out of college can charge more and more to keep everything running.

    --
    If it's too difficult, I can't understand it !
    1. Re:Lazy Kids ! by rikitikitembo · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Lazy Kids ! by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    3. Re:Lazy Kids ! by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Funny

      >what he charges me when I fix his computer.

      He charges you to fix his computer?
      That job *sucks*.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:Lazy Kids ! by Marsell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > You want fewer crappy lawyers? Lobby to allow the ABA to get back to its job of keeping those people out of our field.

      I have a better idea: let's change things to make lawyers less needed in the first place.

      I used to be in law school, and this is what I concluded before moving to a profession that produces value, not consumes it:

      a) Ignorance is not a defense, but
      b) It's easy to violate a law, often regardless of mens rea.

      Why is b) true? Because thanks to our wonderful common-law system, there's an ungodly number of statutes. These statutes are inter-related, not necessarily the way you'd expect, and the relationships are often only implied. Of course, it's not just enough to know what's on the books, but also know how their interpretation has been modified by precedents (and not just local precedents either; judgments from overseas can have an effect too). How is anybody other than some specialist in the area supposed to untangle that? So we have people who acted in what they believed to be a lawful manner being punished. I find it particularly charming when even legal experts are largely clueless outside their area of specialization. In fact, I'm charmed by the number of specialists who don't even know their own specialization all that well. This isn't a problem of education, this is a problem of out-of-control complexity.

      You'd expect that every citizen of society should clearly understand what is expected of them, right? If they break a law, which they of course knew about, there are repercussions. This is just. Instead you have cases being decided on fine nuances of meaning of single words thanks to whatever crazed set of precedent and statute some team of lawyers was able to drag together, rationalized by the excuse that it's a living law. Now toss in lawyers who charge sums of money that is beyond the reach of most people (and pro bono is a risible excuse to protect your guilty consciousness', because you fuckers almost never do it except for friends or cases that'll improve your visibility), and who only benefit by dragging cases out, and we have a problem. A few hundred to a few thousand dollars for a simple printout of some old template in your local copy of wordperfect or word, and it's not just a problem, it's pathetic unadulterated greed at everyone else's expense.

      In short, to your profession and those of you who 'graduated' to politics: fuck you. You're a leech on society and promulgate a fundamentally unjust and morally-repugnant system. I don't know how you sleep at night -- while your new associates naively slave away of course. If Diogenes was to wander into a law firm you'd try to sell him a lamp for $5,000, and yet you're supposed to help propagate justice?

      Advice for the rest of you: never use a lawyer unless the amount is -- or worth -- millions. Just move on; you'll save yourself much grief and debt.

  2. Critical thinking by superwiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Critical thinking by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:Critical thinking by Otter · · Score: 5, Funny
      Critical thinking...Is plainly not taught anymore.

      Oh, plainly! Why, unsupported assertions that critical thinking is dead among These Lousy Kids Today hardly bear questioning!

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    3. Re:Critical thinking by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Critical thinking by Erris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    5. Re:Critical thinking by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Geometry teachers drive '95 Corollas; marketing executives drive this year's BMW.

      Using geometric principles, calculate the magnitude of the hotness of the women that each can attract.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Critical thinking by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. "In my day . . ." by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Fluent? Not really... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Fluent? Not really... by fullmetal55 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?"

  5. Gen whatever isn't technology savvy by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'.

  6. What makes "tech savvy" a big deal? by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Generation Why? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, I was going to read that story, but then I thought, meh, what would it achieve?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  8. Re:Nah it'll just be outsourced by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "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.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  9. Re:Nah it'll just be outsourced by shaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.