Having it AllMy dad works 6.5 days a week, he travels constantly, and can't be away from his phone (or the internet) for more than a few hours at a time. I once told my mom that sometimes it felt like his relationship to us was similar to that of the father and son in Harry Chapin's Cat's in the Cradle. Even though I'm sure my dad would be devastated to hear that I was able to so easily draw parallels between that song and my experiences in high school, I can't help but recognize that what I want to do with my life borders on the same insane level of commitment to a job. Honestly, reading the articles for this week was not comforting. I don't want somebody to lie to me and tell me that it's possible to do everything and get everything you want out of life, but, I didn't realize that it would be quite so impossible. I want to have a challenging job and a family and time to travel. Right now, my priority is the job, but I don't want to end up focusing so much on a job that I forget to make time for everything else. Despite reading all the evidence to the contrary, I cannot bring myself to admit that it's impossible. Even if my dad wasn't home most weekdays for a family dinner, he was able to make time for us and have a job. There were absolutely bumps in the road where he struggled to balance the two. My relationship with my dad will probably never be as close as the one between me and my mom, but he made it work. I can't believe that anything that was possible for him could be impossible for me. I recognize that I'll face different challenges to finding the same balance. As a woman, I face the expectation to be an active participant in parenting. Having a family for a woman often means taking time off and dedicating attention to the children. For a man, it means working harder to provide for a family. Even if I don't embody these characteristics, I will face the expectation, and this hurts my ability to do both. If the only way I can do both is to work and make time for my family where I can, I am somehow a poor mother. If I take more time off and dedicate it to family, I am a poor worker. Based on this, it's impossible to do both. But, I believe that I can be fulfilled working and having a family. Maybe they don't need to balance 50-50. Perhaps the best way to achieve a balance is to just make sure all of your attention isn't pinned on just one goal. For example, having a job that is challenging but making it home for dinner some nights or letting go of work over the weekends. I think this was the goal of the article Maybe We All Need a Little Less Balance. The key to balancing the combination of things you want out of life is knowing how to prioritize one without letting the other slip below the radar. Although I don't think I've ever burnt out, I did reach a point the end of my sophomore year where I was devastated that I wasn't going to get everything I wanted from college. Travel had always been something I loved, and I had managed to get into a study abroad program, but I found out really late in my second semester sophomore year that I wasn't going to be able take the classes I needed to graduate abroad. I could choose to turn down study abroad or I could change my major to Computer Science (the Electrical Engineering classes were the issue). The week I spent figuring this out while finishing up projects and studying for finals was probably the hardest week I've had at Notre Dame. I felt like I had to choose between going abroad or Computer Engineering. I managed to work out a very convoluted means by which I could get the credits I needed to graduated on time, but I'm still dealing with the consequences of those choices now (I'm overloading this semester to make up for the schedule change). Achieving a balance in my life past college will probably look like this. I'll need to balance the things I want with what I can reasonably do with my time. And I've learned that it takes flexibility and dedication to what you want to make it happen. I believe I can do everything I want if I really put effort into making it work. To support the balance and happiness of its workers, a company should support workers' families and after-work life. A company like Amazon, which based on the article Inside Amazon, has no interest in creating an environment of balance between work and life, doesn't value workers. Instead, it values the results. While a results driven atmosphere is great for innovation, it doesn't inspire people to stay with the company. The article frequently mentions how young college grads seem to replace the older workforce, pointing out that the average worker at Amazon has 1 year tenure. A company like that is not one which values the individual. I would hate that environment. I want to work in an environment where I'm valued, and not just the work I do. I think it's important that a company provides freedom and choice for employees to love their job and also be happy with their life outside of it. Personally, I have to decide which elements I value and am willing to pursue. I can't believe that it's impossible to me to get everything I want from life: a family, a job, time to travel, etc. The minute I believe that I stop myself from ever being able to do it.
0 Comments
Job-HoppingWhen preparing for an interview, one sample question I read all the time is "What job do you want in 5-10 years?", or something along those lines. I think it's a silly question. According to the Bureau of Labor, the average person will have around 10 jobs by the time they're 40, and that number is expected to rise. How can I possibly know what my career trajectory is going to look like in 5-10 years? Especially if in 20 years, I am expected to have around 7-8 different jobs (at least). The article "You Should Plan On Switching Jobs Every Three Years For The Rest Of Your Life," discussed how as Millennials rise in the work force, they bring with them expectations to continuously learn and develop. Because of this, they become 'job-hoppers,' which used to describe individuals who were unable to commit to a company. But, according to the article, the economy has changed. Individuals who stay with a company longer than 2 years get paid 2% less. Before reading all about this, my idea of a grand scheme for my future was actually fairly similar to this-- although it was based on the way my dad climbed the corporate ladder in his business. My dad joined a type of corporate development program which involved taking a number of different positions across the business in different rotations. He made a number of lateral moves in the industry and once that was done, he was able to take that experience and quickly climb the corporate ladder. The jobs that I've been looking at have similar elements, although I'm not interested in rising in business right now. I'm looking for the opportunity to diversify my technical skills as well as advance into more skilled engineering roles. A number of companies have rotational programs which are designed to combine growth across different engineering disciplines with experience in a number of different positions in the company. Many of them also contain opportunities to pursue a graduate degree. I see these programs as good middle ground. I can still hop to different parts of the business and continue learning and growing into a position I know I will love, but I also don't need to switch companies. Although I hadn't thought a lot about company loyalty when looking for jobs, I do believe that it's important when looking to advance in a company to stick with one company (or industry). While I do believe that it's important to be dedicated to the company you work for, if you can find a better job that pays better, why should a company hold you back? End of the day, I want to get the most possible from my job. If I can do that by switching jobs and switching companies, why not? If the company values me and my job, they will make an effort to make my job more appealing to me. A company making an individual sign a non-complete makes sense, in a very specific scenario. If the individual has trade secrets that would jeopardize the business of the former company. This is only true when an individual works in a high-level part of the business or frequently works with customers. One of those individuals would significantly disadvantage the former company if they were to go to a new company. However, many individuals working at a company do not deal with insider secrets or techniques. Individuals who aren't working with these parts of the company are being asked to sign these agreements to lock them into a job without viable alternatives. It is effectively a means by which a company prevents poaching, which should be a protected right workers have thanks to anti-trust laws. These agreements take away leverage from workers, making it hard for them to negotiate pay raises or promotions. Using these agreements to prevent poaching should be illegal. It is a misuse of the agreements. The economy is spurred by growth and the desire for businesses to grow. A company who cannot entice their employees to stay doesn't last, so these agreements are used to save the company money and keep employees trapped in one company. This stifles economic growth and hurts people. A company should entice employees to stay by offering better incentives or opportunities. If a company cannot offer that, they don't deserve to get the employee, they have nothing to offer them. If an individual isn't excited or inspired to have their job, they won't perform the same way. Why would the company not want the individual who really wants the job? It makes sense to me that a company and employee should find a good match. I think that an individual should look for the best job for them, and a company should look for the best person for the job. These agreements force an artificial fit when used improperly, which isn't ideal for both parties. I believe job-hopping is ethical if the individual isn't doing so to deliberately misuse secret information held by a business. Looking for new opportunities and better pay is good for the individual and their happiness benefits the company they work for and the economy.
What Makes a Hacker?When I think of a hacker, I imagine Penelope Garcia, the technical analyst on Criminal Minds. Firstly, I do watch way too much TV. But, in my defense, she isn't the only 'hacker' personality in the media trying to give a new personality to the negative term. There's also Felicity Smoak and Skye, from Arrow and Shield, respectively. (Again way too much TV). My point is, these three women don't embody the traditional negative 'hacker' type. These three characters have one aspect in common: they're all brilliant, empowered women. And although I'm aware that these women are characters, intended as an inspiration to encourage people (especially women) to try computer science, I can't help but recognize how these characters transformed my perception of a hacker. Mark Zuckerberg describes, in his 'Letter to Investors: The Hacker Way,' that that hackers have an "unfairly negative connotation from being portrayed in the media as people who break into computers." Obviously, Zuckerberg isn't speaking about actors, rather, he is speaking about hackers who create malicious viruses or hack into secure servers. The popular view of a hacker is a socially awkward nerd, who locks themselves in their parents' basement and angrily obsess over secrets held by the government. Even the actors in those three TV shows above hack into secure servers to reveal government secrets. Zuckerberg claims that a hacker isn't somebody who breaks into computers, they're somebody who "tests the boundaries of what can be done". Personally, I disagree with this interpretation. The dictionary describes a hacker as "a person who uses computers to gain unauthorized access to data." The definition of the word doesn't need to change to reflect the idea that not every person who loves working with computers is a geeky, isolated, socially awkward nerd. In TV, although technically all these characters may be breaking the law by hacking into computers, they do it for a morally acceptable reason. I don't think the perception of hackers needs to be connotatively negative, but I don't think it describes every individual who works in computer science. I don't agree that hackers are just problem solvers. They're creative, out-of-the-box thinkers who break into computer systems. The 'break into computer systems' part can't be removed from the definition. However, that doesn't make a hacker a bad person. I prefer to think of them as dedicated to transparency. I think many people who have spent a lot of time with computers have at one point done something to hack into a system they didn't have access to. When I was in middle school, many of my friends hacked into some of the teacher's computers. I met friends at my internship who did very similar things, hacking into the school's network to experiment and test the boundaries. Although nobody I know has actually tried to do anything harmful or illegal with hacking, I've learned that many people may have first gotten interested in computers to try to sneak around walls or into systems. In the article "The Word 'Hacker'," the author discusses how a hacker is not only somebody who tries to break into a system, but also an individual who's especially masterful with computers. He states that "disobedience is a byproduct of the qualities that make them good programmers." In this sense, the experimentation and disregard for traditional rules makes these individuals think outside-of-the-box, helping them to become better programmers. In my opinion, having the ability and desire to break into a system, just to prove that you could, isn't necessarily a bad thing. I would like to think that I'm a very capable individual, but I'm not a hacker. The closest I've come to breaking into a server was in 7th grade when I took over the mouse of one of my friend's computers. I don't believe I fit into description of a hacker, although I do believe I'm an excellent programmer. I am glad that the perception of a hacker has transformed a little from the socially awkward basement geek, but I don't think it matters that a hacker likes to break into systems. I believe that an individual who likes going against the rules is capable of the out-of-the-box thinking that good programmers have. I wouldn't be angry if somebody considered me a hacker in this respect, I would be proud that they believed I had the same creativity and skill as a hacker.
Super-Programmer?When I think of super-powers, I think of flight or invisibility. I think of inhuman abilities that an individual has, or a skill which only they posses which is impossible for others. Programming doesn't fall into that category. It's as much of a super-power as any other skill that an individual can learn. Treating programming as a magical power undermines the work that every programmer puts into their job. In my opinion, it would be the equivalent of telling an individual that spent their live devoted to mastering an art form that they're good at what they do purely because they have an innate talent for that art. Skills and talents are learned and developed thanks to hours of hard work. While it's great to recognize how impressive the final result is, the more impressive factor is the amount of effort that led to that final product. From an outside perspective, programmers seem to create magic. Before I started programming, I never imagined how binary digits could translate to video games or systems to drive cars. From this perspective, it's understandable how programming could appear to be super-human. But I think it's important to recognize that although the programmers are able to create systems that are impressive, it's a skill that can be learned by any individual. The goal behind the video "Coding is a Superpower" is targeted towards young children to encourage them to experiment with programming. However, I see this video as being incredibly disingenuous. In my opinion, the video seems to have been created to specifically target young girls by showing that even a fashion model can be interested in programming. Although I have no issue with targeted advertisement to encourage women to enter STEM fields, her words are targeted towards young children, who are interested in games and super-powers. Rather than referring to programming as a super-power due to the impressive capabilities, it is more intended to appeal to kids. If programming is a super-power, it becomes an unreachable goal. How can an average person hope to grow into a brilliant programmer if programming is a super-power. Although it encourages kids to become interested in programming, the wording suggests that programming is an innate skill rather than one which takes years to learn. I agree that programming shouldn't necessarily be portrayed to young kids as a difficult or time consuming, but it is also important to recognize the effort that each programmer puts into their work. The article "Programming is Not a Super Power," the author discusses how programming is often viewed in television as easy and instantaneous. The hacker can sneak into the system and solve the issue in an hour. But while programming in real life, there's almost never an instance where the first piece of code works. It is entirely misrepresented in this respect. Although it is important to encourage people who are passionate about problem solving to consider programming as a career choice or a hobby, programming is misrepresented by being described as a super-power. Programming takes hard work and dedicated effort. It's not a skill people are born with or one only a few people possess. Programming is skill people can learn by putting in the effort.
Who am I?My name is Kaitlyn Ingram, I'm a senior studying Computer Engineering with a minor in Engineering Corporate Practice. I live in Hawaii, so I'm still acclimating to the concept of winter. I chose to study computer engineering because in my freshman year, in the Introduction to Engineering course, I learned the basics of programming and I really enjoyed working on it. After sophomore year, I knew that I really loved working with code and programming, but I also wanted to learn about hardware and electronics, so I figured that Computer Engineering would be the perfect fit for me. This semester, I really hope to gain a stronger understanding of the impacts of technology. I enjoy programming because of all the cool things that can be done. I often don't consider the impacts of the technology beyond the scope of what I'm doing. I think it would be really interesting to learn less about what technology is capable of and learn more about what the potential risks to utilizing that capability are. The biggest issue that I've seen in my internships so far is the difference between the number of men and women working in software positions. Although I didn't see any clear sexism in the environment I was working it, I was hard to not notice that I was only one of three women working in the building. Because women make up such a large portion of the work force, I think that it's crucial that women are encouraged to work in software and the environment should be friendly towards all genders.
|
Kaitlyn |