On the one hand, I really feel for the person and appreciate her sharing. Problems like these rarely consider the practicality of the situation and shouldn't be taken lightly.
On the other, I know there are kids out there who never got to go to a good school, always had problems at home and never got to feel the joy of learning. They can't write this kind of story and even if they did no one would read it. They can't travel somewhere, don't have anything to be cut off from nor will ever meet someone who saves them. They can't stop doing things that hurt them and if they become depressed they might very well end up being homeless.
Or the high-performing poor kids who might have to work or in other ways face academic death from a thousand papercuts. Many times because families with better resources uses all their power to make overexertion a desirable thing so other kids can't compete.
Or just the normal kids who already knew from the beginning what was important and the limits to being productive. Maybe they went to a good state school and now regardless of merit have to live with being last in line after people from private schools time and time again.
I guess my point is that when we contemplate a fix to these problems I hope we also don't overlook the people in different situations with similar problems.
I had a similar argument recently. It was all fun and games talking about the problems with traditional education and the loss of creative thinking until I pointed out that the only reason we can have this debate is because we went to good schools, got good grades and got good jobs.
As someone who grew up poor and extremely grateful to get out of the ghetto, I'm consistently surprised that I'm surrounded by unhappy well-off peers who have similar struggles and offer similar advice (quit job/school, follow your heart, travel, go to Burning Man, etc). These are lamentations and luxuries of the leisure class. Money doesn't buy happiness, but everything still costs money. When you satisfy 90% of what most people define as needed to keep them happy and comfortable, that last 10% takes over your world. In a post scarcity society, we are all trapped at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and happiness seems harder and harder to achieve. Instead of being happy with what we have, we keep moving the bar.
Don't get me wrong, the author's problems are real and valid, and there is something wrong with our society when kids start committing suicide over GPAs, but a large part of me fears for our future. Maybe Star Trek really is a dystopia…
I agree. On one hand, as someone who deals with minor bouts of depression, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It sucks.
On the other, I think part of the problem are these bizarre expectations to have everything "figured out" at such a young age. The author writes about a series of what appear to be catastrophic, depression inducing academic and career oriented decisions, culminating in landing a dream job. All by age 23 or so?
It's all about academics, careers, potential employers, grades, GPA, admissions, money, prestige. Need to find my place, need to find my place. Then you find out it's not as fulfilling as you'd imagined. Perhaps it comes with the mentality of being an "overachiever". How about stopping to smell the flowers sometime, and realize you're a kid with a lot of life left to live, full of all kinds of trials and tribulations?
Whilst it's true that we shouldn't overlook the experience of others, I believe if we try to look at the issues all at once we'll not get anywhere (analysis paralysis) or will generalise too much and miss the finer details.
You touched on one of the key points for me when you said "never got to feel the joy of learning". Perhaps that's the key problem in this case too, as the author didn't seem to have discovered the joy of learning, but discovered the joy of achieving, and the price you pay when you don't have other joys to balance you out.
I can't wait for a time when we lose our obsession with work ethic. Not that working at something you want is automatically bad, far from it, but it's not the only way to enjoy life. One day I hope we can see that being a slacker can be a noble profession.
>Not that working at something you want is automatically bad, far from it, but it's not the only way to enjoy life. One day I hope we can see that being a slacker can be a noble profession.
My peers in high school were overachievers who seemed to have everything figured out. I had no idea what I was doing and often had close to failing grades, despite scoring high on standardized tests (2390 SAT + 800 SAT II Math).
I got rejected from almost every college I applied to and ended up dropping out after a year when I actually did go. I worked two jobs and took community college classes for a year before returning to university.
I'm definitely more focused and mature now. I think people shouldn't feel the need to conform to the "normal" path of going off to college right away. There's really no single correct way to go through life. I needed time to figure things out for myself instead of adhering to a system I wasn't comfortable in.
I seriously wish I had stayed the hell away from college until I was mature enough to handle it. I wasted money going too early. Frankly, I may of gravitated to my profession without the aid of college. Throughout my career I've always ended up as informal tech support, and an informal in house developer. By jumping from job to job and accumulating developer experience in these informal venues, I may of had an alternative way to get my foot in the door to a real programming job.
It can look bad to have high test scores and poor grades because it implies you were a lazy student. It's not a sentiment that I agree with but our guidance counselors basically put it to us that way.
I applied mostly to Ivies and similarly competitive colleges. They get plenty of applicants with near-perfect test scores and GPAs, so my poor grades made me a subpar candidate.
This happened with people in the highly gifted magnet at my High School. It didn't matter that they were taking nothing but AP classes by teachers hell bent on being extremely difficult. They saw consistent C and B grades and a 1600/2400 (I went to High School during the transition from 2 part to 3 part SAT). Some didn't get accepted anywhere due to the fact they only applied two a few Ivy League schools.
So I'm a similar situation except I'm hopelessly introverted. The idea of a bootcamp seems good to my parents, but to me it's just another word for school. At this point it would be easier to get a computer science degree than to do a bootcamp because doing work in groups is the first thing I check for on a syllabus before I drop a class.
It sure looks good though, pay $15,000 for a 97% chance at getting a job. I just don't want to pay someone to teach me something I already know just to get a job. That's why I dropped out of college.
I really believe the person in the article is just strongly introverted, and that's it.
School puts a lot of pressure into socializing students, without caring about individual sensitivities. I personally hate working with other people, and there are actually plenty of people who do. Learning is a tedious task, so I'll never understand why school must be social.
There is always the same situation that occurs to me. Some guy just start talking to me while I'm doing something. I'm obviously uninterested in talking with the guy, and for some reason I'm the sociopathic weirdo. Interacting has become a standard, and those who fails to do so are quickly put away or seen at failing in society.
I really believe that society can't tolerate outcasts. Society really feels like an army of acolytes who only hold social norms. Maybe it's the remnants of instituting civilization through religion, maybe that's why people can't behave without having a set of beliefs who don't have any ideas behind them.
> "Some guy just start talking to me while I'm doing something."
Have you tried the headphones trick? Works for me. You don't even have to be listening to music.
> "Interacting has become a standard."
Without putting too fine a point on it, it's always been the standard. You only exist now because your predecessors interacted. I hear you that there's a time and place for interaction, and you shouldn't feel pressured into engaging with others, and it's good to enjoy your own company, I frequently find that's what I enjoy the most too. However, if you label yourself as 'introvert' or 'extrovert' you limit your potential experiences, and I don't see the point in that.
> You only exist now because your predecessors interacted.
You mean sex ? I don't think you need to be social to see sex happening.
> However, if you label yourself as 'introvert' or 'extrovert' you limit your potential experiences, and I don't see the point in that.
Yeah, that's why introversion/extroversion is called a spectrum, even an introvert needs to be social once in a while.
Also I'm sure introvert people have been kept away from being well integrated into society because there are much less communities of people living together, we all have our own kitchen and shower, which will inevitably isolate people won't don't seek social contact.
The problem is that extroversion is rewarded, not introversion. It becomes a problem when you requires for degrees to include social interaction into group projects. That was my experience and it really marked how I failed at school, while I'm sure I'm more intelligent and capable than the average.
The problem is the creation of a set of rules to put incentives on people to interact, instead of letting them interact naturally.
I don't think you need to have an extended amount of social interaction to have sex happening. Sexuality and sexual impulse are there to make social interaction to so much necessary.
As someone who is currently finishing up Fullstack, you do have to work in groups but it isn't the bullshit you have to do in college. You pair program with different people each day to work through workshops. You work in groups on projects, but everyone pulls their weight and it isn't at all what I had experience in groups in college. If you don't know how to work in a group, then you don't know everything you need to get a job. Pairing and working on teams is going to be your life as a programmer, so you are going to need to learn it. If you are at all interested and it is something you can do I'd highly recommend applying. It will push you to work with people, but it is a supportive community that'll insure you do well.
People really pair program all day long? Gah, that sounds maddening and inefficient. I would probably lose my shit if I had to interact like that with someone every minute of the day.
Sure, take a few minutes to look something over, talk over what the issue is, look at some data, decide what ought to be done, but then you've got to go do the work.
I guess I'm like an old Apple II. I can have my Write_Code disk in, or I can have my Deal_With_People disk in, but I've only got one disk drive.
The group work required of students isn't even remotely representative of the type of collaborating that is required in the workplace. It's just a bullshit excuse to tick a box they know appeals to potential employers.
I think it probably resembles the workplace about as much as anything about being a student resembles the workplace, which is to say, not much at all. But the original post was about not wanting to do a coding boot camp because of the personal interaction. And how he doesn't want to pay someone to teach him "something he already knows" to get a job. But a job is about a lot more than just technical proficiency, and it sounds like something is being... if not taught, at least tested for in these contexts that is also needed to succeed at working life for most people.
In Japan they have this phenomenom called hikikomori - young people shutting themselves off from the world, kinda like the person in the article did for a while, until his parents threatened to cut him off. I'm wondering why we don't have much of this hikikomori phenomenom in the West - is it simply because Western parents don't tolerate it?
I would suggest that we do have it in the West. It's not unknown to know people who live at their family home well into their 20s, don't work, don't go out much, spend their time getting stoned, watching TV, surfing the web, and playing computer games.
The only major differences between the hikikomori and the equivalent Western stereotype is that food isn't brought to the room, and this leads to some limited social interactions with those around them.
I can understand the appeal of being a recluse, and I'd much rather someone became a recluse than topped themselves.
The equivalent Western stereotype is probably the neckbeard. It's prevalent enough to have shown up in mainstream media, e.g. South Park's Make Love, Not Warcraft.
I think it's mainly a jobs problem. People are going to freak out in a few years when they will find out how many people have become passive by the recession of 2008, especially in the periphery countries of the EU, where unemployment is high.
I relate so much to this article. Being put into a situation where you have a real connection with other people and real ideas like a boot camp is amazing. There is way too much disconnection in academia. Places where the success of the students determines the fate of the teachers, and vice versa, makes a way more real environment. Anywhere equal investment despite histories as the basis of the Thing at hand is going to make people better off. I'm rambling
> There is way too much disconnection in academia.
It depends. Sometimes there is, when you sit among 500 mostly disinterested peers in a lecture hall and lecturer is taunting you that he is there to make half of you fail.
And sometimes you stay in the lab late into the night because you know, that your advisor needs these results to extend his grant money. And all your lab-mates are like "But you are just a master's student, you shouldn't care about this publish-grant-cycle BS untill second year of your PHD!"
I'm in a similar situation, now at university, no idea for what I'm waking up in the morning, living the zombie life. Only I don't come from upper class, nor I'm very talented. So the reality for people like me is somewhat different.
It takes a lot of courage to write something like this. Lindsay, if you're reading this, I tip my hat off to you for sitting down and delving deep into some of these challenges. Only when we make ourselves truly vulnerable do we grow and I hope both the actual act of writing this piece and the subsequent commentary you get makes you a better human being.
As a "traditionally educated" person who went to a public school and an ivy, university is very much optimized for people who can be programmed easily. And I don't mean that in a nefarious / brainwashy type of way. School is a game with rules and objectives. Follow the rules, modestly achieve the objectives, and you're validated with a degree. This validation is sanctioned by society and in some places (law, medicine), mandated by law.
Go off path? Deviate and carve your own path? Refuse to go on a path? You're off reservation and labelled a "dropout." You're not in the box everyone is used to conceptualizing you in. They don't understand you which leads to one of two reactions: 1) they fear you or 2) they dismiss you as a non-threat.
I'd add to that list "couldn't go on the path in the first place", too, as there are plenty of people who fall into that bucket. I wish there were more public acknowledgement of the sentiments in your last paragraph. Refreshing comment.
I feel that I'm in a fairly related situation myself. A week ago I packed my backpack, and flew out to London to start a startup. Since my parents are not really supportive of me as I'm not "studying or working" in their opinion - I'm mostly on my own.
I've had some tough times recently, especially in the past week. But every time, I just look ahead and see what I can make, what I can build, what I want to achieve. It is _very_ difficult to get anything done if you don't have a clear vision of your future. It's _very_ important to avoid discouraging teenagers and young adults from going on their own path.
>It's _very_ important to avoid discouraging teenagers and young adults from going on their own path.
Alternative idea: it's important to discourage teenagers and young adults from going their own path, to make sure that only those who are really prepared and committed will actually do it. Like the old Jewish tradition of telling anyone who wanted to convert "no, go away" three times before eventually letting them start the process.
The problem is that this is just rephrasing "survival of the fittest," a concept misappropriated from evolutionary theory into societal planning numerous times by despots, and which - to my mind - has no place in a society mindful of its incomplete information about what constitutes "fittest."
On the one hand, I really feel for the person and appreciate her sharing. Problems like these rarely consider the practicality of the situation and shouldn't be taken lightly.
On the other, I know there are kids out there who never got to go to a good school, always had problems at home and never got to feel the joy of learning. They can't write this kind of story and even if they did no one would read it. They can't travel somewhere, don't have anything to be cut off from nor will ever meet someone who saves them. They can't stop doing things that hurt them and if they become depressed they might very well end up being homeless.
Or the high-performing poor kids who might have to work or in other ways face academic death from a thousand papercuts. Many times because families with better resources uses all their power to make overexertion a desirable thing so other kids can't compete.
Or just the normal kids who already knew from the beginning what was important and the limits to being productive. Maybe they went to a good state school and now regardless of merit have to live with being last in line after people from private schools time and time again.
I guess my point is that when we contemplate a fix to these problems I hope we also don't overlook the people in different situations with similar problems.