Slashdot Mirror
Narcissistic College Graduates In the Workplace?
SpuriousLogic writes "I work as a senior software engineer, and a fair amount of my time is spent interviewing new developers. I have seen a growing trend of what I would call 'TV reality' college graduates — kids who graduated school in the last few years and seem to have a view of the workplace that is very much fashioned by TV programs, where 22-year-olds lead billion-dollar corporate mergers in Paris and jet around the world. Several years ago I worked at a company that did customization for the software they sold. It was not full-on consultant work, but some aspects of it were 'consulting light,' and did involve travel, some overseas. Almost every college graduate I interviewed fully expected to be sent overseas on their first assignment. They were very disappointed when told they were most likely to end up in places like Decater, IL and Cedar Rapids, IA, as only the most senior people fly overseas, because of the cost. Additionally, I see people in this age bracket expecting almost constant rewards. One new hire told me that he thought he had a good chance at an award because he had taught himself Enterprise Java Beans. When told that learning new tech is an expected part of being a developer, he argued that he had learned it by himself, and that made it different. So today I see an article about the growing narcissism of students, and I want to ask this community: are you seeing the sorts of 'crashing down to Earth' expectations of college grads described here? Is working with this age bracket more challenging than others? Do they produce work that is above or below your expectations of a recent college grad?" We discussed a similar question from the point of view of the young employees a few months back.
....mom and dad always told them they were incredibly special, and would do amazing things.
It never occurred to them that there's a hell of a lot more jobs that are sheer drudgery than are a thrill a minute.
In the almost seven years since I graduated from college, I've never been sent overseas for work. I have been sent exciting places like Indianapolis.
But I always had a job during college, too. And because of that, the only thing I expected after graduation was a better salary (but not amazingly better).
My mum's a primary school teacher, so I got to hear all about the crazy fads that sweep through the education system as regularly as forest fires.
Education fads are a bit like management fads, or the hype-waves that sweep IT; some self-important tosser somewhere in academia comes up with a stupid idea, some government pinheads buy into it, and before you know it, it's all over like a bad rash.
The movement to boost pupils' self-esteem was a recent big one, which according to a recent piece on the BBC, took off in America. The idea, is that kids get praised all the time as a means of positive reinforcement -- with the obvious drawbacks.
But then again, it could be the Dunning-Kruger Effect (where the incompetent are unable to see their own incompetence), which is as strong now as it always has been.
The article is based on nothing but anecdotal evidence. The person who wrote the slashdot summary (named, strangely enough, SpuriousLogic) relates some more anecdotal evidence. Now slashdotters are requested to supply even more anecdotal evidence.
I teach physics at a community college. Any generalization you can make about my students will be true about some of them and false about some others. Yes, I have encountered some students whose self-esteem seems unrealistically high. Yes, I have also encountered some other students whose self-esteem seemed to me to be unrealistically low.
If you want to show a trend over time, like increasing narcissism, you need quantitative data from two different times, and you need the random and systematic errors on those two data-points to be small enough that they can be shown to be unequal with a high level of confidence.
My default hypothesis about any educational reform movement is that it will have absolutely no effect on anything. I'm only persuaded to the contrary if solid quantitative evidence shows up to the contrary. My default hypothesis is that the self-esteem movement has had absolutely no effect on students' self-esteem, or on their achievement, or on anything else. Students tend to be pretty realistic. They look and compare themselves with other students. They know if they got an F on their physics exam and their lab partner didn't.
Find free books.
But you are doing exactly what the article predicts that you would do - it's everyone's fault but your own. Yes, yes, they do share blame, of course they do. And I know as much as anyone that children are not at truly fault for how they're raised. But at some point, it may be their fault - but placing blame really doesn't fix the situation. Only you can fix the situation, and it doesn't really matter whose fault it is.
I'm speaking as someone whose parents really messed him up in many different ways - but ultimately, they are not going to fix it, I have to. And placing blame really does nothing but remind me of the past, instead of looking to the future.
Put shortly and bluntly, who gives a fuck whose fault it is, I care more about what you do with your life and who you are *now*. :-)
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Well, I've seen an awful lot of situations where two guys are doing exactly the same job but one guy is getting paid a whole lot more because of "seniority". That really doesn't seem fair to me...
While I understand where you're coming from, this argument is very disingenuous at best. Basically, you're saying there's no value to someone having more work experience in a field (or several fields). I can't count the number of times I've seen a problem arise (or even a request for suggestions) where the younger people throw out solutions that are quite simply moronic. Or they'll cost a ton to implement. Sure, it happens with "senior" staff, too, but oftentimes their answers tend to be on the more practical side. And it's largely because they're more familiar with the myriad aspects involved. Or they are a major part of the institutional knowledge that is required to competently resolve the situation. Unfortunately, many people never seem to realize this. And they're often the ones pulling the group down as a whole. So is it any surprise that they're the ones who tend to make less?
There was no special trait about Bill Gates that led him to the riches he has today, unless hard work (like it or not, the guy has spent a lot of time and effort to get where he is today) and knowing when a good opportunity was passing his way (hello, QDOS!) are somehow special traits.
A virtuous man ensures fairness of opportunity, not fairness of outcome. Attempting to create a fairness of outcome--in other words, creating the expectation that the world owes you something--is the first step toward a terminally fucked society.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
I really do blame the baby boomers. They grew up in a sort of fantasy world, where they could preach peace, love, and not war
Right. You're living in your own fantasy world where it has become convenient to blame the baby boomers. I'm a baby boomer and lived through those times. We had to fight to "preach peace" in opposition to Johnson and Nixon and their wars - and those fights were sometimes, perhaps often, bloody.
But it has become the accepted truth (and as such never to be questioned by those who accept it) that the baby boomers are responsible for all that is evil and horrible today. You might try pulling your head out of your butt and read some history - you'll find that nothing is as simple as you would like it to be, nor is it necessarily simple enough for you to understand it without work (which, I suspect, you're unwilling to do).
"Unfortunately, many bosses are equally out of touch with reality."
Unfortunately, its worse that than. A lot of bosses have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Ironically as business is such a competitive environment, narcissistic behavior gives a competitive advantage, so they force to the top. It also sadly means that society as a whole is structured to reward the behaviors of the NPD minority, to the detriment to the majority of people. The core problem is narcissistic people by definition lack a lot of empathy. They are wrapped up in their own views and only want people around them to agree with them. They will get angry at anyone who opposes them even if that opposition is to tell them something which would help their company.
The way society as a whole is structured is why every country is run like a Plutocracy (ruled by people with money) even though some people in some countries are told they have a democracy. Its not a real democracy, anywhere in the world, as all career politicians are middle class wage earners regardless of which party they belong to as they all belong to the same groups of people with power and money, so don't represent the majority of people. Worse still, since the financial collapse, its highlighting we are near the extremes of a Plutocracy bordering into at times a Kleptocracy, (Ruled by thieves), where they help themselves and their rich friends to millions of tax payers money in their attempt to prop up and maintain their rich lifestyles.
Unfortunately, these are also the people in power, they make the laws, which is why so few will be punished for their behavior. Which takes us back to society as a whole is structured to reward these behaviors.
Sorry, but that's utter tripe. Sure, once you've made it you might not have to work hard if you don't want to. But, unless you're born to it, you do have to work hard to get places - even if you're lucky or even corrupt. I used to have this attitude too, figuring that I'd just do the bare minimum of work that would give me the chance of getting that golden luck. It got me absolutely nowhere - if you really want to build a business or launch a product, you've got to work your freaking arse off.
I'm not entirely sure where I got the idea that if I'm working hard then I'm not doing it right, but I know that it sabotaged me for years. Hard work by itself doesn't directly equate into wealth - if you're not working on something that won't be particularly profitable, no matter how hard you work you're not going to get much out of it. But not working hard means you're definitely not going to make it, unless you'd prefer to count on winning the lottery.
Yes - earn an MBA and presto! Instant NPD!
I've had to deal with interns coming into the technology field after being coddled at college for a few years. I've tried to be friendly, polite and honest. Mostly that's been appreciated after a few months in 'the real workplace'.
I also took the time to talk to these interns at the end of their internship to go over how they would represent their work on their resumes. Invariably they didn't see what they really did. What they saw as a series of menial tasks was really "Performed X with minimal supervision" and "Completed project Y using blah blah blah". They weren't prepared to comprehend what a real project was.
One of the truly sad things was their lack of ability to troubleshoot. I know I've said this in the past but I feel it bears repeating. Everything these kids have done has been multiple choice. Their tests, their games, everything has presented them with a list of choices. Our games gave us a problem and then we were on our own to come up with what might work as a solution. Does anyone remember "You're in a maze of twisty passages, all alike." and a command prompt? Not a lot of pre-chosen answers there. I spent quite a bit of time helping them learn how to solve problems.
Lastly, here's the advice I have yet to see an intern use. "Find the job that no one wants to do, do it well, and you'll be employed for life." Seriously, everyone wants the fun and happy jobs. But someone has to clean the crap out of the corners and keep the place running. Fun and happy candidates are lined up out the door and around the corner. The one who is willing to do the jobs that require doing is going to stand out.
Now get off my intarwebz.
The reason schools are making their engineering programs do more interesting-sounding things are because engineering and CS enrollments, especially among US citizens, are dropping rapidly. So schools are trying to find creative ways to interest people in majoring in those areas; "training for boring cubicle job", funnily enough, doesn't entice people.
The only other solution, really, is the capitalist one: offer so much money that people will go into the field even if it does sound boring. But you need to offer a lot more than current going rates for that.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
And someone who did graduate, and today manages an IT company, I have some sad news for you. All that knowledge you acquired on college ? That is just the BASE of that you need at corporate . When you get hired, you are green. Not only in terms of knowledge, but in terms of company practices, market practices (many) and so on. Think of it as continued education. You went to junior, high school, college and now you are getting educated on the corporate environment.
You don't expect to jump from junior school to high-tech R&D. You know you have other steps before that.
When you finish college you are not ready. You are just closer. Keep that in mind, and make the most of your time when you join a company to LEARN. Learn from your tasks, learn from your co-workers, learn from your manager. As much as we like to joke about managers, they are making more money then you, so they gotta know something you don't (not necessarily technical).
You also need to faction in that, when you join a company, you are an unknown. The company will only invest so much money on you until they know they will have a good return.
This things are only natural. Unfortunately, most schools fail to teach this to their students, and the only source of "knowledge" they have are TV shows and such. This is not a fail of the students, but a fail of the schools.
morcego
Or at least, they traditionally did, and we haven't really figured out as a whole what we want to transition to.
Historically, only a small percentage of people got university degrees. Professors were (and in many places still are) first and foremost researchers; their real job is not teaching, but advancing their field and publishing their results. A secondary job is research mentorship: they advise and supervise graduate students as the next generation of researchers. A tertiary job is teaching of undergraduate material, to historically only a small percentage of the population that had a need to learn advanced-level stuff from an expert in the field. Those people were generally expected, furthermore, to be interested in and to benefit from a well-rounded education rather than only training in their specific area, e.g. to become scientists who also had an understanding of ethics and history.
Today, it's more or less expected in many areas that you have a college degree. As a result, a lot of people go to university mainly as a sort of certification that qualifies them for jobs. They don't necessarily want the traditional liberal education, even the science version of it; they want vocational training. But universities were not really set up to provide that, and their staff are entirely the wrong ones to provide it: the people publishing CS research papers and the people who would be good at teaching a vocational programming class that prepares one for a role as C++ programmer in industry are only occasionally the same.
That's why we historically had separate trade schools and vocational schools, which did focus on practical skills, and had teachers who were focused on teaching such skills. But there's been a sort of prestige treadmill so companies want you to have a University Degree for a job that actually need vocational training, not a well-rounded liberal-arts education with mentorship from a PhD researcher.
There's a lot of possible solutions, of course. One is to go back to the old model, where universities do research and teach a small percentage of the population, and vocationally focused institutions teach most people. The most likely, though, is probably a gradual morphing of universities into a superset of the two kinds of institutions. Already it's becoming common to hire lecturers to teach introductory classes, and some schools are offering variations on degrees to let students opt between more traditional university majors or more applied vocational majors; often this also leads to a parallel split between staff who are mainly "teaching faculty" versus "research faculty".
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10