Malcolm Gladwell. "Getting In: The Social Logic of Ivy Leage Admissions"
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html
Major themes:
1. Passion is a significant contributor to success.
2. High intelligence means little without discipline and passion.
"Bowen and Shulman write about the characteristics that make athletes more coveted by Ivy League schools:
One of these characteristics can be thought of as drive--a strong desire to succeed and unswerving determination to reach a goal, whether it be winning the next game or closing a sale. Similarly, athletes tend to be more energetic than the average person, which translates into an ability to work hard over long periods of time--to meet, for example, the workload demands placed on young people by an investment bank in the throes of analyzing a transaction. In addition, athletes are more likely than others to be highly competitive, gregarious and confident of their ability to work well in groups (on teams).
I posted this in light of my conversation with Roman about careers, success, money, and the very nebulous future. I am coming to terms with the fact that I lack the proper external motivation to do well in certain industries. Making more money is not something that could drive me to do anything. Financial security and stability also have yet to move me (though they may motivate my decision to get married). I was told that I needed to think about the future, have inner dialogues with myself to figure out what it is that I want to do with myself, and I couldn't move past the fuzziness of "I want to be a good human being." The vagueness of all this is normal, and necessary to college, but I am confused.
Roman and I debated whether a $60K starting salary is sufficient for happiness. He certainly did not think this was so. My argument was: If you make a lot of money, you can invest your money in ways that can make a difference, that can create sustainable change in the world. Moreover, you will have the disposable income to do as you please. This is by far the best way to navigate through the world, I said, because the grassroots, passion-filled, hokey pokey work is inefficient, and unrewarding in terms of deliverables.
I told him taking a job at Goldman Sachs, at a great company that gives you good hours and good pay, is a good idea. Following the linear time line of career progression is a good idea. Spending four years of college gaining the technical expertise and skill to earn $60K starting is a good idea. I could never do what he's doing, which is why I admire what he will do.
On Saturday mornings, I volunteer at the Law School. Sarah, a 2L, was telling me how she is working at a firm after years of grassroots, community activism work: "I want to know what it is like to have resources." Like Roman, Sarah is a practical individual. Pragmatism dictates that one consider the economics of decision-making. Cost-benefit analysis is the key. How much does passion really weigh in on career decisions?
I am not a pragmatic person. I may not make Roman's salary in 5 or 10 years. I may not get a job at a firm. The possibilities of all this do not deter me from beleiving that I may find employment with my philosophy degree. Moreover, the technical skills I do not possess, I can learn because monkeys can be trained to use Excel (or so Roman says). I can acquire these tangible skills, and learn to discipline myself so that I am not sleeping on the floor somewhere after graduation. All I need now is a passion.
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html
Major themes:
1. Passion is a significant contributor to success.
2. High intelligence means little without discipline and passion.
"Bowen and Shulman write about the characteristics that make athletes more coveted by Ivy League schools:
One of these characteristics can be thought of as drive--a strong desire to succeed and unswerving determination to reach a goal, whether it be winning the next game or closing a sale. Similarly, athletes tend to be more energetic than the average person, which translates into an ability to work hard over long periods of time--to meet, for example, the workload demands placed on young people by an investment bank in the throes of analyzing a transaction. In addition, athletes are more likely than others to be highly competitive, gregarious and confident of their ability to work well in groups (on teams).
I posted this in light of my conversation with Roman about careers, success, money, and the very nebulous future. I am coming to terms with the fact that I lack the proper external motivation to do well in certain industries. Making more money is not something that could drive me to do anything. Financial security and stability also have yet to move me (though they may motivate my decision to get married). I was told that I needed to think about the future, have inner dialogues with myself to figure out what it is that I want to do with myself, and I couldn't move past the fuzziness of "I want to be a good human being." The vagueness of all this is normal, and necessary to college, but I am confused.
Roman and I debated whether a $60K starting salary is sufficient for happiness. He certainly did not think this was so. My argument was: If you make a lot of money, you can invest your money in ways that can make a difference, that can create sustainable change in the world. Moreover, you will have the disposable income to do as you please. This is by far the best way to navigate through the world, I said, because the grassroots, passion-filled, hokey pokey work is inefficient, and unrewarding in terms of deliverables.
I told him taking a job at Goldman Sachs, at a great company that gives you good hours and good pay, is a good idea. Following the linear time line of career progression is a good idea. Spending four years of college gaining the technical expertise and skill to earn $60K starting is a good idea. I could never do what he's doing, which is why I admire what he will do.
On Saturday mornings, I volunteer at the Law School. Sarah, a 2L, was telling me how she is working at a firm after years of grassroots, community activism work: "I want to know what it is like to have resources." Like Roman, Sarah is a practical individual. Pragmatism dictates that one consider the economics of decision-making. Cost-benefit analysis is the key. How much does passion really weigh in on career decisions?
I am not a pragmatic person. I may not make Roman's salary in 5 or 10 years. I may not get a job at a firm. The possibilities of all this do not deter me from beleiving that I may find employment with my philosophy degree. Moreover, the technical skills I do not possess, I can learn because monkeys can be trained to use Excel (or so Roman says). I can acquire these tangible skills, and learn to discipline myself so that I am not sleeping on the floor somewhere after graduation. All I need now is a passion.
"My argument was: If you make a lot of money, you can invest your money in ways that can make a difference, that can create sustainable change in the world. Moreover, you will have the disposable income to do as you please."
ReplyDeletemy point was that going down that road doesn't leave you with any time to enjoy that disposable income. neither goldman nor blackrock offer anything like my idea of 'good hours.'
even more basic than that, though, you have to spend many years before you get to a point where you have saved up enough money to do soemthing with it. if i move into the city like i plan, i certainly don't expect to save any money next year. and if you don't actually enjoy your job, you have to ignore that feeling and just look to the future. (not unlike waiting for paradise in your previous post, actually.)
you have to train yourself to be at worst indifferent to your work. i, at worst, will not be indifferent. at worst, i'll be miserable.
so it's great that you 'admire' stern students for their pragmatism, but i think pragmatism in most cases doesn't boil down to anything other than greed.
i think you can find a job after college with your philosophy. a lot of people, seeing a philosophy degree, will think 'she cultivated her ability to think in college.' but what kind of work are you actually seeking? that's the bigger question.
that is a very interesting parallel between your waiting to enjoy your money, and my waiting for the next stage. but the difference is that the comfort money will give you will be felt and experienced on a daily basis. you will not have to deny yourself anything roman. just because you are not doing something you are passionate about does not mean that you will not have hobbies, that you won't have a good family, and friends that will provide you with purpose. what we spend the bulk of our lives doing--i.e. working one-third of our lives away--still leaves two-thirds. your misery is only short-term, my dear. in two years, inshallah, you will see that i am right.
ReplyDeletebuy yourself a bentley.
i think i just have a different vision of what my life will be like than you do. i see the ratio of time spent at work being more like 3/4 or 4/5 than 1/3 (of my wakings hrs).
ReplyDeletethe work does not have to mean that i don't have all of those other things, you are right. but when the thing that takes up so much of your time is that unsatisfying, not much else will matter. the hobbies, friends, family and all the rest mean not mean much when you have so little time to spend with them.
you're right, i will not have to deny myself anything. but only after i have taken the initial step of denying myself a satisfying career. i hope that in two years (khudo khat is the farsi equivalent of inshallah) you will be proven right. but i think it more likely that in two years, i will be trying to figure out what to make my new career in instead.
my dear,
ReplyDeletecareer (work) is a means to an end. a means to money, a means to other forms of entertainment and happiness.
the people i've worked with in the ibanking, business world (and my father too) are motivated by what you call greed, the desire to acquire more. this is just another strain of motivation that leads to success. greed can also be understood as a passion for money. as long as your ethics are intact, what is the harm with greed? and as gladwell indicates, it is a combination of passion, motivation and intelligence that leads to success.
not only will you be successful at your job, despite your self-labelled misery--you will find something that sparks you in your work, perhaps an inspiring colleague, or a cause outside of work that interests you. Perhaps you will volunteer your time like you do now? Perhaps you will be given paid vacations? THere are countless benefits you reap with the stability of a good-paying job. You have the work ethic, as well as intelligence, etc. I'm sure eventually, you'll start your own company, or maybe find something else. But alhamdulillah, you are already on the path to success.
:)
i disagree entirely with career being a means to an end. the career is an end in itself. which is probably why we keep talking past each other...
ReplyDeleteeverything is a means to an end. that end is defined by you. for utilitarians, the end is pleasure. pleasure in terms of work might mean the least effort, least stress generating the most monetary satisfaction. for me, my work should have something to do with my greater purpose in serving humanity. although lofty and admittedly goofy, i believe that my work should maximize other people's happiness in some way. i want to ultimately do good work so that God is pleased, which is why money, mobility, and job security are not so relevant. this is also why i admire stern kids so much because they are clogs for a machine that actually recognizes their work with money. my benefits won't be actualized for a long time probably.
ReplyDeletewe have talked past each other. at the crux of this dialogue is a central difference in ideology.