I teach at a large public university, and the students likely to have ‘passion’ language and aspirations are a significant minority, marked by high SES and cultural capital, like this interview notes. Many of our students instead frame their choices about majors and careers through a sort of blunt or simplistic pragmatism that I think ha…
I teach at a large public university, and the students likely to have ‘passion’ language and aspirations are a significant minority, marked by high SES and cultural capital, like this interview notes. Many of our students instead frame their choices about majors and careers through a sort of blunt or simplistic pragmatism that I think has its own problems for longterm happiness or success. Students tell me they are majoring in “general business” because they want to “get a good job”—but when I ask what types of jobs or fields they’re interested in, they don’t know. Parents won’t allow them to major in the humanities or social sciences, because “those aren’t jobs”—and when I point out that many careers rely on a wide-ranging skill set rather than a single degree program, I get blank looks (or contemptuous smiles).
I’m conscious of the damage incurred in the ‘do what you love’ mentoring. On the other hand, I have observed many students who seemed to be slouching through college, bored with their business degree and unsure of what they were doing next…who were excited to develop public presentations about campus history, or to study film and pop culture, or design educational programs for local middle schoolers. But they take our classes as a one-off, and can’t make the connection to how those skills might translate to the rest of their lives…or how sticking with their sources of interest and enthusiasm might mean better grades across their college career, more enthusiastic and detailed letters of rec from professors, more opportunities for internships and referrals, and so on. Many of the ones pursuing this seemingly pragmatic path are, I think, being poorly mentored and advised in their own way, just as much as the DWYL ones are.
I work myself into knots about this. When I taught at large public universities I was absolutely the teacher trying to tell kids "major in [my humanity!], go to grad school, convince your parents you're learning life skills!" And philosophically I believe it: that what we learn in a liberal arts education equips us to think, which then equips us to do so many types of work. What I've learned since leaving academia is just how difficult it is, particularly without robust internship experience, to convince employers with very specific job descriptions that you can, in fact, do that job. Plus: mountains of student loan debt, far more than even most of us took on to attend school (private or public). I hate the idea of ROI [return on investment] when it comes to a degree but our current system has forced that logic.
Absolutely--and I understand the ROI thinking, but I suppose I'm concerned that many of the ones who seem to be adopting it aren't, actually, taking the steps that will help them get those jobs with very specific skill sets. A mediocre GPA with a degree in Gen Business, poorly written application materials (shouldn't Business at least be teaching them how to write a resume? I have graduating seniors come to me without knowing what a resume is, or how to shape one towards a specific job or internship)...these don't seem like things that are likely to set them up for lucrative careers. It seems like many of them are being pushed towards this model by well-intentioned middle-class or lower middle class parents who think it's the practical choice, but it seems likely to replicate the same class divisions mentioned in the interview. Those students who *are* able to use this model to launch careers are those who already have family connections in a field or who use Greek life and other social factors to network their way into jobs.
(Editing to add: I definitely don't give any of them the 'go to grad school' advice! Hahahasob. I have an anti-pep-talk for those who come to ask me about it.)
I think there's a big issue with students having exposure to what types of jobs exist and what type of education supports them. My company hires 'high potential' students and rotates them through a few months each of design, operations and sales, because basically they have no idea what any job is like, therefore, no idea if they would like that job.
I'm grateful that I did internships during my summers at college, because it taught me a lot about the types of jobs I did *not* want. But without that experience I have no idea how I would've known what to look for. And I studied engineering which is a pretty straightforward education/job relationship!
Love that you company does that — it's basically like a low-stakes training/sorting program, too, that allows people to end up in the areas that suit them/interest them. SO FEW PLACES DO THIS, THOUGH — just like so few places (outside of trades) are now are willing to do on-the-job training, which used to be very much the norm.
Yeah, don't give them too much credit - this is a pretty exclusive program with strings attached - there's a requirement that participants relocate for part of the assignment, and they don't have a ton of control over where they're assigned or who they will work with. Also, you have to be recruited into it (current employees can't apply into the program). Finally, they only recruit from a pretty narrow set of majors.
BUT STILL! For those who have access to it it's quite a good way to learn about various aspects of the business. Kind of like a series of internships, but you're a full time employee with benefits while you do it.
I agree. Having interest in a field of study or a topic isn’t always connected with what a job in that field is comprised of. You might be interested in science but life in a lab is not for everyone. As someone who has hired a lot of people in my career, the fact is that most people learn on the job. They bring their attitude and abilities to it and they perform at some level. You either like it or you don’t. You like detail or you don’t. You can plan time or you just want to take orders. You can’t stop working when you’re on task or you’re watching the clock. The hard part is knowing yourself AND identifying the careers that have roles in synch with tour temperament. This is incredibly difficult and a bit of trial and error. I think the underlying message of follow your passion is that the ideal is to find the right job situation so that you’re not miserable and your day is over before you know it. With all of the neurodiversity and variation in temperament and humanity, there is a good job match for everyone.
I used to teacher Career Ed and one of my most-said lines was, “Finding out what you hate is as valuable as finding out what you love,” for exactly these reasons.
I really appreciated this comment, as someone who also teaches at a large public university (an HSI, with a lot of low-income and / or first generation college students). Like you, I get that "do what you love" is complicated (to say the least). But I also think that that equation between what you study and what your job ends up being is much more complicated than a lot of students realize -- they think they'll get a business degree and become an entrepreneur, or they'll get a history degree, and the only thing they can do is teach history. And with that in mind, I think there really IS a value to studying something that interests you because university education is four (or more -- my university doesn't have a great four-year graduation rate) years of your life, and those years of your life do matter.
The university where I teach tends to push STEM-centered vocationalism as a solution (/the only solution) to its low-income / minoritized / first-gen student body, with concomitant neglect of "softer" / more humanistic skills ("passion" stuff). But I think that perpetuates further inequality -- where not-explicitly-vocational training / education is exclusively the preserve of wealthier folks (and, weirdly, knowing how to write a clear and / or convincing sentence is not part of getting a job...?).
I teach at a large public university, and the students likely to have ‘passion’ language and aspirations are a significant minority, marked by high SES and cultural capital, like this interview notes. Many of our students instead frame their choices about majors and careers through a sort of blunt or simplistic pragmatism that I think has its own problems for longterm happiness or success. Students tell me they are majoring in “general business” because they want to “get a good job”—but when I ask what types of jobs or fields they’re interested in, they don’t know. Parents won’t allow them to major in the humanities or social sciences, because “those aren’t jobs”—and when I point out that many careers rely on a wide-ranging skill set rather than a single degree program, I get blank looks (or contemptuous smiles).
I’m conscious of the damage incurred in the ‘do what you love’ mentoring. On the other hand, I have observed many students who seemed to be slouching through college, bored with their business degree and unsure of what they were doing next…who were excited to develop public presentations about campus history, or to study film and pop culture, or design educational programs for local middle schoolers. But they take our classes as a one-off, and can’t make the connection to how those skills might translate to the rest of their lives…or how sticking with their sources of interest and enthusiasm might mean better grades across their college career, more enthusiastic and detailed letters of rec from professors, more opportunities for internships and referrals, and so on. Many of the ones pursuing this seemingly pragmatic path are, I think, being poorly mentored and advised in their own way, just as much as the DWYL ones are.
I work myself into knots about this. When I taught at large public universities I was absolutely the teacher trying to tell kids "major in [my humanity!], go to grad school, convince your parents you're learning life skills!" And philosophically I believe it: that what we learn in a liberal arts education equips us to think, which then equips us to do so many types of work. What I've learned since leaving academia is just how difficult it is, particularly without robust internship experience, to convince employers with very specific job descriptions that you can, in fact, do that job. Plus: mountains of student loan debt, far more than even most of us took on to attend school (private or public). I hate the idea of ROI [return on investment] when it comes to a degree but our current system has forced that logic.
Absolutely--and I understand the ROI thinking, but I suppose I'm concerned that many of the ones who seem to be adopting it aren't, actually, taking the steps that will help them get those jobs with very specific skill sets. A mediocre GPA with a degree in Gen Business, poorly written application materials (shouldn't Business at least be teaching them how to write a resume? I have graduating seniors come to me without knowing what a resume is, or how to shape one towards a specific job or internship)...these don't seem like things that are likely to set them up for lucrative careers. It seems like many of them are being pushed towards this model by well-intentioned middle-class or lower middle class parents who think it's the practical choice, but it seems likely to replicate the same class divisions mentioned in the interview. Those students who *are* able to use this model to launch careers are those who already have family connections in a field or who use Greek life and other social factors to network their way into jobs.
(Editing to add: I definitely don't give any of them the 'go to grad school' advice! Hahahasob. I have an anti-pep-talk for those who come to ask me about it.)
I think there's a big issue with students having exposure to what types of jobs exist and what type of education supports them. My company hires 'high potential' students and rotates them through a few months each of design, operations and sales, because basically they have no idea what any job is like, therefore, no idea if they would like that job.
I'm grateful that I did internships during my summers at college, because it taught me a lot about the types of jobs I did *not* want. But without that experience I have no idea how I would've known what to look for. And I studied engineering which is a pretty straightforward education/job relationship!
Love that you company does that — it's basically like a low-stakes training/sorting program, too, that allows people to end up in the areas that suit them/interest them. SO FEW PLACES DO THIS, THOUGH — just like so few places (outside of trades) are now are willing to do on-the-job training, which used to be very much the norm.
Yeah, don't give them too much credit - this is a pretty exclusive program with strings attached - there's a requirement that participants relocate for part of the assignment, and they don't have a ton of control over where they're assigned or who they will work with. Also, you have to be recruited into it (current employees can't apply into the program). Finally, they only recruit from a pretty narrow set of majors.
BUT STILL! For those who have access to it it's quite a good way to learn about various aspects of the business. Kind of like a series of internships, but you're a full time employee with benefits while you do it.
I agree. Having interest in a field of study or a topic isn’t always connected with what a job in that field is comprised of. You might be interested in science but life in a lab is not for everyone. As someone who has hired a lot of people in my career, the fact is that most people learn on the job. They bring their attitude and abilities to it and they perform at some level. You either like it or you don’t. You like detail or you don’t. You can plan time or you just want to take orders. You can’t stop working when you’re on task or you’re watching the clock. The hard part is knowing yourself AND identifying the careers that have roles in synch with tour temperament. This is incredibly difficult and a bit of trial and error. I think the underlying message of follow your passion is that the ideal is to find the right job situation so that you’re not miserable and your day is over before you know it. With all of the neurodiversity and variation in temperament and humanity, there is a good job match for everyone.
I used to teacher Career Ed and one of my most-said lines was, “Finding out what you hate is as valuable as finding out what you love,” for exactly these reasons.
I really appreciated this comment, as someone who also teaches at a large public university (an HSI, with a lot of low-income and / or first generation college students). Like you, I get that "do what you love" is complicated (to say the least). But I also think that that equation between what you study and what your job ends up being is much more complicated than a lot of students realize -- they think they'll get a business degree and become an entrepreneur, or they'll get a history degree, and the only thing they can do is teach history. And with that in mind, I think there really IS a value to studying something that interests you because university education is four (or more -- my university doesn't have a great four-year graduation rate) years of your life, and those years of your life do matter.
The university where I teach tends to push STEM-centered vocationalism as a solution (/the only solution) to its low-income / minoritized / first-gen student body, with concomitant neglect of "softer" / more humanistic skills ("passion" stuff). But I think that perpetuates further inequality -- where not-explicitly-vocational training / education is exclusively the preserve of wealthier folks (and, weirdly, knowing how to write a clear and / or convincing sentence is not part of getting a job...?).