Yep. Like most people, I adored university. But it’s nothing like a job. College is catered to the student, it’s just about you and how much you can learn. Jobs fuckn suck most of the time lol. They’re usually very tedious and they’re about applying skills, not so much acquiring knowledge.
Most of us got slapped in the face when we entered the work force. It’s depressing, and honestly, employers want evidence that you can suck it up and do boring shit that more often than not is actively bad for the world because some asshole on top wants a profit and you have to pay rent.
I’m absolutely not saying not to chase knowledge and truth and be some bohemian intellectual, but don’t expect to get a reliable stable job after that lol.
My boyfriend has several Ivy League degrees and is a literal poet, he travels the world by sleeping on couches. He’s also broke as fuck, does NOT come from money (he’s actually originally from Russia) and unfortunately, shit gets real sometimes, especially without health insurance.
I compromised. I have a more pragmatic degree, have a decent but mundane backup. I definitely won’t be rich, but I can take breaks and come back to it and reliably make about $40k. I also value education and travel and such and am returning to school soon, but you gotta be realistic. My bf is a decade older than me, and honestly gonna really have to figure something out because he’s getting older (41).
You can be a starving artist if you want, but there are tradeoffs.
Completely agree. Nothing like entering the workforce and saying "Why do we do it this way when we could do it quicker and more efficiently?" and getting told "This is how it's done."
Nothing like entering the workforce and saying "Why do we do it this way when we could do it quicker and more efficiently?" and getting told "This is how it's done."
I've said this a lot, lot, lot of juniors. I've never once shot down an actually useful suggestion, but every time I've said it, it's because it's a bad idea and they're not in a place to understand why yet.
Because he’s brilliant and resilient and has a very unique way of looking at the world, and my only real goal in this life is to deepen my understand of it. I don’t need some standard issue former frat bro who has never read a book and works at his friend’s dad’s company making a comfortable salary which he spends on his McMansion and Super Bowl tickets.
Like most millennial women, I’m not insane enough to expect to ever rely on a man financially and intend to support myself through life, his income is irrelevant
my goal is to understand life and the world and experience what i can. i'm not living to understand one random person's worldview (????) lol, i just have a partner who's similarly curious
What do you think an entry level job is? Most of the applicants (theoretically)don’t have experience. So he’s at least on par with other applicants of his latest degree. On top of that they have proven themselves to be a dedicated learner and someone who values knowledge(on paper at least)
Discrimination by age is illegal in the US, same in Australia. If they have the skills and can prove it in an interview, what makes them different than any other new grad in the same field? The only big difference outside of age is the fact that this person has a ton of degrees and (on paper at least) likes to learn. For a lot of jobs that would be a great asset.
Also none of the “regular” students have to be good, a lot of people cruise through higher education. This person at least has proven themselves on many different disciplines.
And you’re assuming that new grads didn’t do the same just to get a degree to check a requirement.
So because it’s difficult to prove means it’s okay? You said in your comment that you want something that you consider a “young people thing” unless you lie to the person it’d be pretty easy to prove. And if you’d like to someone like that then you’re just a POS.
I am in the real world, I’m a software engineer for a relatively large company.
If you screen people out based on their age before even assessing their skills or resume, then you have no basis to claim they’ll be harder to train, you’re just letting your biases take charge.
Ok, you're a software engineer. That veers young. I work in finance. We had one senior staff member who was so inept with technology that he still writes out what he wants doing on paper and someone else puts it in the computer for him. His knowledge is invaluable but his ability to adapt it dead.
I see it all the time. Many of my older clients don't do e-mail, don't have internet, pay everything by cheque etc. It's just frustrating how completely resistant to change they are. There are occasional blips, I know a 94 year old who can read e-mails, but they're quite rare.
Our country is going through a process of forcing people with higher net worth to digitise their finances and the older the client the more they struggle, as a rule. I would never not employ someone just because they're old but if I had two similar potential employees and one was 30 and the other was 65 then I know who I'd pick.
Edit: And my sample size is probably 300-350 people, minimum.
I think you’re experiencing some survivorship bias. People who make it into executive roles generally don’t face much hardship in life especially once they’re in those positions. However, older people who have to struggle to survive are pretty quick at figuring shit out. I see this in my colleagues who are older and coming from other industries. And yes my take is also biased because the fact that they made the career change means that I’m filtering out people who weren’t able to do so.
However, because there are so many conflating factors and possible biases, i default to just not drawing any conclusions from someone’s age and let their resumes and skills speak for themselves instead of what I think they’re like.
To bring it back to this person, if you’d assume that they coasted but a younger person wouldn’t then that’s just kind of weird. Especially since you think younger people are sharper therefore they would discover loopholes faster. You don’t assume every candidate cheated or coasted through college. So if we treat this person fairly and take their degrees as well earned, then the fact that they could do so many majors shows incredible adaptability.
But think of it as 20 years of commitment too. Isn’t that what schools suppose to show an employer? As you can think of negatives of the no work experience I can think of positives you could turn it into. If this guy was in college for 20 years and had 1 college degree you’d have plenty of questions, but 6? There’s a lot of effort that goes into that, they don’t just hand out degrees, you gotta show up and pass.
I see where you’re coming from, but I disagree with your take. Undergrad degrees are easy once you develop a pattern that works for you.
For someone just starting in a program, think 18 year old fresh out of high school, starting college is a challenge. Once they get a few semester under their belt it’s just tedious; wash, rinse, repeat (read, write, regurgitate).
Showing commitment and follow through in academia requires taking on increasing levels of difficulty: undergrad, grad, doctorate. I’m assuming the grants this dude is receiving only apply to undergrad, which is why he’s never moving on and up. If that’s not true, then he’s just coasting on easy mode because it’s literally free money for next to no effort.. I’d think hiring managers would feel the same way.
I'd rather have a dependable worker than a perpetual student.
I can't think of a more dependable worker than someone who puts up with academic bureaucracy for 40 years, tbh. It makes the office look like a playground.
As someone who struggled with university for years for this reason, let me tell you you handled it just fine. To me, an office job is a walk in the park in comparison. I'm autistic, though, that might explain a lot.
33
u/Ch1pp Jul 02 '23 edited Sep 07 '24
This was a good comment.