...working in an IT department is. There's a big difference, the way I see it.
I don't fit the article's demographic since I went to school and graduated fully intending to go into IT, but speaking from my experience, it isn't the industry or the work that bores me, it is the environment in which I have to do it. There's only so many times you can repair Outlook before you start to resent the ignorance of your users for making you have to repeat such mundane work when there's much more interesting things out there to be done. After working technical support and then being a system administrator, I decided very quickly that if I didn't change my career path, I'd soon become an artist-- painting the wall with my brains.
Monotony aside, most of the work you do is totally thankless. Nobody cares, much less thinks about, that beautiful load-balanced SQL cluster you just put into place and how much it boosts performance and how it has an amazing up-time. IT people only have visibility when something is broken. The IT infrastructure may be important to the business, but the people who keep that infrastructure intact aren't valued or respected. Part of this has to do with the image that many IT professionals give (i.e. the neck beard-sporting slob who has never worn a tie in his life), but it also has a lot to do with the nature of non-technical people. They only remember the 1 day where all email was down... not the 364 days when it was working flawlessly.
I don't know about anyone else, but I get bored listening to non-technical plebes ranting about how important it is that you drop everything to restore their deleted PowerPoint presentation. That's the kind of work that gets schilled out in IT departments, so, as far as I'm concerned, fuck that noise. Now that I'm doing consulting, I'll never go back. It lets me focus on the technical challenges I enjoy without all the IT department bullshit that goes along with it.
We all know the complaints about young employees. They depend too much on their parents' money, they need constant hand-holding, they have no job loyalty, they demand more than they're worth, they disrespect older employees, and they're naive about corporate culture.
I'm 24 and in the demographic that is being targeted by this and here are my thoughts on this statement:
I make enough money to support myself, so I don't know where this dependence on parental money quip is coming from. Yeah, they helped me pay for school, but given the price of a university education these days, it's either that or resign yourself to indentured servitude through student loans. I've paid my parents back, so it's not like I've been given a free ride or anything.
Require hand-holding? Please. If anyone requires hand holding, it's the poor saps who never used a computer before the "dot-com" bubble.
No job loyalty? Damn right. My services, not my loyalty, are for sale. Anyone who has loyalty to a company that goes beyond doing their job the best they can is a sucker. Unless it is a company you have started and have vested interest in, why should you have any loyalty when you amount to a replaceable resource? Everyone is a mercenary these days... I'm not interested in helping John Q. CEO realize his vision of creating a grand corporate empire. I'm only interested in his company as far his interests overlap my interests. As soon as my interests are better served elsewhere, it's time we part ways. Just because I don't sell my loyalty doesn't mean I believe in burning bridges... I do my best to make sure every departure is amiable, and so far I am still on friendly terms with every boss I've ever had. I'm not out to screw anyone over, I'm just looking out for #1.
Demand more than I'm worth? That's a perspective thing. How much is it worth to you to be able to hire someone and know that whatever you task them to do within their skill set, it's not only going to get done, but it's going to get done well? Everyone loves a car analogy, so... if you need to get somewhere, a Geo Metro is enough. It ain't pretty, but it's cheap and it gets the job done. Alternatively, you can buy a Mercedes which performs the same task, but does so with another level of sophistication and brings with it an assurance of quality. So when you pay someone to do a job, you're not just paying for their ability to do something, you're also paying for their reputation. I paid my dues straight out of college as a grunt with a low salary and I climbed the ladder quickly by showing I do quality work. My reputation speaks quality, and if you want quality, you're going to pay. Some people have an over-inflated view of their abilities, and maybe they do demand more than they're worth... but being young and having certain salary expectations that some people might view as too much does not necessarily mean that they are demanding more than they are worth.
I don't disrespect anyone, regardless of age, which is more than I can say of many older employees. Because I'm young and look young, I never hear the end of condescending remarks from the "wise and learned" elders. I acknowledge I don't know everything, but I won't tolerate being underestimated or treated disrespectfully by someone just because they are older or have more "experience".
As far as culture goes... the only real culture of corporations is profit. Strip away the friendly veneer of casual Fridays, team-building bowling events, or employee birthday celebrations and all that remains of corporate culture is using quid pro quo to do things outside the normal boundaries of your business processes. My problem is not being naive, it's being jaded.
Since a lot of those same reasons can apply to ISPs and other companies in general, I propose we just hate all corporations whose profit margins are above 1 million annually.
If we can assume that money corrupts, I think it's fair to say that any company in excess of $1,000,000.00 has doing something wrong to somebody on their way to that point. This blanket hatred will make it easier for me to keep track of what companies I do and don't like.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the thought process of legislative bodies. Usage of "non-standard" operating systems is an automatic implication of guilt. They will forgo the espionage stage and jump straight to the search and seizure.
"The pen is mightier than the sword" is often taken out of context. Everyone forgets the condition that comes BEFORE that statement: Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.
In countries ruled by a bunch of rich jackasses, the pen doesn't amount to much because nothing you write changes the fact that the rich jackasses still own and run everything! Just look around and you'll see that a 50 megaton nuke is still a lot more persuasive than your Bic; they may not overtly threaten with it, but the unspoken understanding that their power is backed up with force is always there.
I don't think anyone ever really expects legislature like this to pass. I figure that politicians take up this crusade when they need something to make empty promises about to get supporters. If they get elected or keep their office, they can say "Oh well, I tried..." when it gets shot down. They got what they wanted out of the voters, and there's really no personal accountability for anyone involved.
The only difference is context. They both operate under the premise that every employee is potentially guilty and they throw a fishing net out there to catch one of them. I don't object to something rational like a clause that says they reserve the right to test in the event drug abuse is suspected to have had something to do with a specific incident, but to have a policy of random testing mostly just creates problems that aren't really there. If someone's performance is not in question, where is the logic in a company throwing away a perfectly good employee because they failed a drug test due to a joint they smoked at a party over the weekend? In this regard, a casual user whose work was in no way affected is lumped into the same category as someone who comes into work with a needle still hanging out of his arm. So, because you can be fired for something you were doing in your own time, the company is controlling your life by making certain decisions for you.
This only makes the fact that this campaign is based on preying on ignorance all the more obvious. No law students would fall for this, so they go to schools where they don't have to worry about law students.
I think coal miners might be pushing it, but I'd agree that working in IT can easily be equated to being a car mechanic. In most organizations, computers and software are tools, and the people staffed to keep them operating are in a service-oriented position. These "dot com" operations have technology as their bread and butter, so that positions their technical employees to be the company's focus instead of something in the background that keeps things working. Compare a typical auto mechanic to someone who works at a car customization shop. The skill sets of the two mechanics are bound to have a lot in common, but the difference is that mechanic at the customization shop is probably being paid more due to an inherent level of "innovation" that goes along with his work, and is also challenged more than having to do oil changes again and again.
I regretted going into IT for a while, but I realized it wasn't working in IT that I hated... it was the mindless repetition of being in a service-oriented position that has to answer to technically-inept sales people.
This is not a new idea... the Rand Corporation tried doing this during the Cold War. The problem anyone will face when trying to predict a war through mathematics is that it assumes that both sides are going to behave rationally in everything they do. There was a BBC documentary done in the early 90's called Pandora's Box-- the second episode in the series, To The Brink of Eternity, focused almost exclusively on the Rand Corporation's exploits. I'd recommend watching it if you'd like some historical perspective on the same issue.
It seems to me that the first thing you should decide is whether your 20 years of IT experience is going to be one of your qualifications, or simply water under the bridge.
I have no idea what kind of IT work you've been in, so I'm going to speak generally... If you're going to go from IT to genetic research, all that experience you've had counts for pretty much nothing. On the other hand, if you're going to take everything you've learned and turn around and do some kind of consulting, all your experience could be quite valuable, which can justify a very attractive salary.
Off the top of my head, I think any of these paths could benefit from an IT background: consulting, law (especially IP or tech-related), CAD, radio DJ (pirate or other), business analyst, product design...
This isn't like the war protests of the past where the students had something they could actually leverage against their opponent (e.g. votes). Sure, they could rally and protest, but what exactly do you envision that accomplishing? The RIAA does not need approval to function.
As I see it, the problem with this situation is that it is being fought entirely on the legal front by entities that have waaaaay more money than students could ever hope to match. Most students, while able to rally if so inclined, don't necessarily know their way around the legal system. The students who are equipped to actually do something about it (read: law students) usually aren't looking to be on the underdog side of the fight once they graduate!
Slashdot Mirror
...working in an IT department is. There's a big difference, the way I see it.
I don't fit the article's demographic since I went to school and graduated fully intending to go into IT, but speaking from my experience, it isn't the industry or the work that bores me, it is the environment in which I have to do it. There's only so many times you can repair Outlook before you start to resent the ignorance of your users for making you have to repeat such mundane work when there's much more interesting things out there to be done. After working technical support and then being a system administrator, I decided very quickly that if I didn't change my career path, I'd soon become an artist-- painting the wall with my brains.
Monotony aside, most of the work you do is totally thankless. Nobody cares, much less thinks about, that beautiful load-balanced SQL cluster you just put into place and how much it boosts performance and how it has an amazing up-time. IT people only have visibility when something is broken. The IT infrastructure may be important to the business, but the people who keep that infrastructure intact aren't valued or respected. Part of this has to do with the image that many IT professionals give (i.e. the neck beard-sporting slob who has never worn a tie in his life), but it also has a lot to do with the nature of non-technical people. They only remember the 1 day where all email was down... not the 364 days when it was working flawlessly.
I don't know about anyone else, but I get bored listening to non-technical plebes ranting about how important it is that you drop everything to restore their deleted PowerPoint presentation. That's the kind of work that gets schilled out in IT departments, so, as far as I'm concerned, fuck that noise. Now that I'm doing consulting, I'll never go back. It lets me focus on the technical challenges I enjoy without all the IT department bullshit that goes along with it.
Oh hey, you pointed out I didn't use
tags, how refreshing. Thanks for your keen insight!
We all know the complaints about young employees. They depend too much on their parents' money, they need constant hand-holding, they have no job loyalty, they demand more than they're worth, they disrespect older employees, and they're naive about corporate culture. I'm 24 and in the demographic that is being targeted by this and here are my thoughts on this statement: I make enough money to support myself, so I don't know where this dependence on parental money quip is coming from. Yeah, they helped me pay for school, but given the price of a university education these days, it's either that or resign yourself to indentured servitude through student loans. I've paid my parents back, so it's not like I've been given a free ride or anything. Require hand-holding? Please. If anyone requires hand holding, it's the poor saps who never used a computer before the "dot-com" bubble. No job loyalty? Damn right. My services, not my loyalty, are for sale. Anyone who has loyalty to a company that goes beyond doing their job the best they can is a sucker. Unless it is a company you have started and have vested interest in, why should you have any loyalty when you amount to a replaceable resource? Everyone is a mercenary these days... I'm not interested in helping John Q. CEO realize his vision of creating a grand corporate empire. I'm only interested in his company as far his interests overlap my interests. As soon as my interests are better served elsewhere, it's time we part ways. Just because I don't sell my loyalty doesn't mean I believe in burning bridges... I do my best to make sure every departure is amiable, and so far I am still on friendly terms with every boss I've ever had. I'm not out to screw anyone over, I'm just looking out for #1. Demand more than I'm worth? That's a perspective thing. How much is it worth to you to be able to hire someone and know that whatever you task them to do within their skill set, it's not only going to get done, but it's going to get done well? Everyone loves a car analogy, so... if you need to get somewhere, a Geo Metro is enough. It ain't pretty, but it's cheap and it gets the job done. Alternatively, you can buy a Mercedes which performs the same task, but does so with another level of sophistication and brings with it an assurance of quality. So when you pay someone to do a job, you're not just paying for their ability to do something, you're also paying for their reputation. I paid my dues straight out of college as a grunt with a low salary and I climbed the ladder quickly by showing I do quality work. My reputation speaks quality, and if you want quality, you're going to pay. Some people have an over-inflated view of their abilities, and maybe they do demand more than they're worth... but being young and having certain salary expectations that some people might view as too much does not necessarily mean that they are demanding more than they are worth. I don't disrespect anyone, regardless of age, which is more than I can say of many older employees. Because I'm young and look young, I never hear the end of condescending remarks from the "wise and learned" elders. I acknowledge I don't know everything, but I won't tolerate being underestimated or treated disrespectfully by someone just because they are older or have more "experience". As far as culture goes... the only real culture of corporations is profit. Strip away the friendly veneer of casual Fridays, team-building bowling events, or employee birthday celebrations and all that remains of corporate culture is using quid pro quo to do things outside the normal boundaries of your business processes. My problem is not being naive, it's being jaded.
Actually, yes, I did. Then I realized how useless such an invention would be and re-read the title.
SLJ doing the voice for Smaug would be well worth the price of admission.
Since a lot of those same reasons can apply to ISPs and other companies in general, I propose we just hate all corporations whose profit margins are above 1 million annually. If we can assume that money corrupts, I think it's fair to say that any company in excess of $1,000,000.00 has doing something wrong to somebody on their way to that point. This blanket hatred will make it easier for me to keep track of what companies I do and don't like.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the thought process of legislative bodies. Usage of "non-standard" operating systems is an automatic implication of guilt. They will forgo the espionage stage and jump straight to the search and seizure.
Joel himself is quoted as saying that he preferred Mike filling in the role of host and didn't care to be on camera.
"The pen is mightier than the sword" is often taken out of context. Everyone forgets the condition that comes BEFORE that statement: Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.
In countries ruled by a bunch of rich jackasses, the pen doesn't amount to much because nothing you write changes the fact that the rich jackasses still own and run everything! Just look around and you'll see that a 50 megaton nuke is still a lot more persuasive than your Bic; they may not overtly threaten with it, but the unspoken understanding that their power is backed up with force is always there.
I don't think anyone ever really expects legislature like this to pass. I figure that politicians take up this crusade when they need something to make empty promises about to get supporters. If they get elected or keep their office, they can say "Oh well, I tried..." when it gets shot down. They got what they wanted out of the voters, and there's really no personal accountability for anyone involved.
The author obviously has a lisp. One that carries over into her writing...
I want cash every time someone says my name, looks in my general direction, or even thinks of using any oxygen to which I have laid claim.
I figure I have just as much a chance of people paying heed to my desires as these broadcasters do, so what the hell.
The only difference is context. They both operate under the premise that every employee is potentially guilty and they throw a fishing net out there to catch one of them. I don't object to something rational like a clause that says they reserve the right to test in the event drug abuse is suspected to have had something to do with a specific incident, but to have a policy of random testing mostly just creates problems that aren't really there. If someone's performance is not in question, where is the logic in a company throwing away a perfectly good employee because they failed a drug test due to a joint they smoked at a party over the weekend? In this regard, a casual user whose work was in no way affected is lumped into the same category as someone who comes into work with a needle still hanging out of his arm. So, because you can be fired for something you were doing in your own time, the company is controlling your life by making certain decisions for you.
Ever heard of random drug testing?
From the Agent for H.A.R.M. episode:
Woman: Are you coming, or do I swim alone?
Crow: Yes, and yes.
Of all the Universities listed, none of them are known for their law schools. Who do they specifically exclude? The #2 ranked law school in the US (Source: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/ usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_brief.p hp)
This only makes the fact that this campaign is based on preying on ignorance all the more obvious. No law students would fall for this, so they go to schools where they don't have to worry about law students.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't take the opinions of a few ignorant teenagers as some kind of prophetic gospel.
I think The Boondocks summed it up pretty well: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rf5fQ8Q2_Xw
I think coal miners might be pushing it, but I'd agree that working in IT can easily be equated to being a car mechanic. In most organizations, computers and software are tools, and the people staffed to keep them operating are in a service-oriented position. These "dot com" operations have technology as their bread and butter, so that positions their technical employees to be the company's focus instead of something in the background that keeps things working. Compare a typical auto mechanic to someone who works at a car customization shop. The skill sets of the two mechanics are bound to have a lot in common, but the difference is that mechanic at the customization shop is probably being paid more due to an inherent level of "innovation" that goes along with his work, and is also challenged more than having to do oil changes again and again.
I regretted going into IT for a while, but I realized it wasn't working in IT that I hated... it was the mindless repetition of being in a service-oriented position that has to answer to technically-inept sales people.
This is not a new idea... the Rand Corporation tried doing this during the Cold War. The problem anyone will face when trying to predict a war through mathematics is that it assumes that both sides are going to behave rationally in everything they do. There was a BBC documentary done in the early 90's called Pandora's Box-- the second episode in the series, To The Brink of Eternity, focused almost exclusively on the Rand Corporation's exploits. I'd recommend watching it if you'd like some historical perspective on the same issue.
It seems to me that the first thing you should decide is whether your 20 years of IT experience is going to be one of your qualifications, or simply water under the bridge.
I have no idea what kind of IT work you've been in, so I'm going to speak generally... If you're going to go from IT to genetic research, all that experience you've had counts for pretty much nothing. On the other hand, if you're going to take everything you've learned and turn around and do some kind of consulting, all your experience could be quite valuable, which can justify a very attractive salary.
Off the top of my head, I think any of these paths could benefit from an IT background: consulting, law (especially IP or tech-related), CAD, radio DJ (pirate or other), business analyst, product design...
This isn't like the war protests of the past where the students had something they could actually leverage against their opponent (e.g. votes). Sure, they could rally and protest, but what exactly do you envision that accomplishing? The RIAA does not need approval to function.
As I see it, the problem with this situation is that it is being fought entirely on the legal front by entities that have waaaaay more money than students could ever hope to match. Most students, while able to rally if so inclined, don't necessarily know their way around the legal system. The students who are equipped to actually do something about it (read: law students) usually aren't looking to be on the underdog side of the fight once they graduate!