The Most Rewarding Career?
The battle between choosing a career that pays well and choosing a career that is rewarding for what you do --- "do what you love" --- is so rehashed as to be trite. Because it has entered the pantheon of truisms, of expected conflicts, everyone thinks about it within an established context. It's the "should I pursue a career on Wall Street or should I pursue my passion for writing?" "Should I be a doctor, or should I go into acting like I've always wanted to?" "Should I be a lawyer, or a mathematician?"
Look again at those debates. They're all in highly-respected careers that follow relatively well-established paths. If you are a "smart" person who can get a higher degree or achieve at a high level (even that phrase is biased), then you are expected to do so. You probably won't ever consider another path, and will consider yourself privileged to land a "good" job.
Which brings me to the recent challenge to this mentality from the upcoming New York Times Magazine. Are we so certain that happiness comes from taking a job that most utilizes advanced training? The author claims no. Do we have a duty to pursue such jobs because we are capable? The author doesn't address the question. What he does do is open doors: he might as well be saying, "do not eliminate so many jobs from your horizons; they are removed for a false reason." Context matters; society may have established norms that are not helpful.
I remember talking to a very good professor at the U of I who said that, if not for his career in mathematics, he'd be working with his hands---that's the type of person he is. He's someone who's confident in himself and fiercely willing to be different; are others following academic paths merely because they see it as a great achievement to be there, and not because it is what they want to do?
Our world is very good at implanting subtle assumptions that grow to drive all our decisions. Overcoming that is a major accomplishment. I'm certain that I haven't gotten there yet, but seeing through it to what's best for us is such an important feat that I hope more people are able to do.
Look again at those debates. They're all in highly-respected careers that follow relatively well-established paths. If you are a "smart" person who can get a higher degree or achieve at a high level (even that phrase is biased), then you are expected to do so. You probably won't ever consider another path, and will consider yourself privileged to land a "good" job.
Which brings me to the recent challenge to this mentality from the upcoming New York Times Magazine. Are we so certain that happiness comes from taking a job that most utilizes advanced training? The author claims no. Do we have a duty to pursue such jobs because we are capable? The author doesn't address the question. What he does do is open doors: he might as well be saying, "do not eliminate so many jobs from your horizons; they are removed for a false reason." Context matters; society may have established norms that are not helpful.
I remember talking to a very good professor at the U of I who said that, if not for his career in mathematics, he'd be working with his hands---that's the type of person he is. He's someone who's confident in himself and fiercely willing to be different; are others following academic paths merely because they see it as a great achievement to be there, and not because it is what they want to do?
Our world is very good at implanting subtle assumptions that grow to drive all our decisions. Overcoming that is a major accomplishment. I'm certain that I haven't gotten there yet, but seeing through it to what's best for us is such an important feat that I hope more people are able to do.