the world spins around me

Feb 2010 02

As the semester starts to get back into the swing of things, I keep worrying that I’ll lose control of my goals/things that might be goals, and make old mistakes.

Maybe it’s because I don’t know what I want, maybe it’s because I don’t really want it. Maybe it’s because I don’t know how to balance my wants with my desire to make others wants happen. Maybe “wanting” is stupid and superficial.

I feel like I’m already starting to just “go through the paces” of school. I don’t like this feeling. I don’t like “going through the paces”. I don’t like things always being the same.

Sameness is boring.

This contemplativeness, it’s either “not like me” or it is me. Thinking for the sake of thinking? Why? Why not? Where? How? Who? If?

Sparkling snow, lit by streetlights
streetlights, powered by electricity
electricity, same thing that’s running this computer that I write with now
computer, distraction, tool, friend
just called a computer ‘friend’.
sorta destroys the meaning of friend, when we can call inanimate, non-thinking objects our friends and people just smile and think “oh, he’s a computer science major”.

Isn’t it a bit… devaluing?

Sometimes I wish my brain was like snow on a sidewalk. I could just shovel all the stuff that’s pretty in it’s own right, but that gets in the way off to the side. It might ruin the purity and perfection of the newly fallen snow, but it wouldn’t bother me or others anymore. The only issue occurs once spring comes, and the snow melts away. All those ideas, lost in their current form, perhaps reconstituting another time to cause my life to be dreary, grey, and wet.

Wow, contemplative-me turned emo-me really, really fast.

general Twitter It! No Comments »

TS, eh?

Dec 2009 29

It’s a topic that’s been hashed over and over again in the media, particularly recently (given the attempted attack that occurred on Dec. 25th), and Gizmodo summed up my sentiments pretty well.

For those of you that follow my “stuff” pretty regularly (stuff being twitter, this blog, whatever else), you’ll know I fly a lot. Maybe I’m jaded, but TSA has consistently seemed to be mostly a facade to give the american public a sense that the federal government is doing something to protect us against terrorist plots.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to die on a plane (I don’t know anyone who would). I don’t want the US of A to be insecure, or susceptible to terrorist (or other) attacks. This whole TSA vs. “the turrists” thing that’s been happening recently strikes me as very similar in many ways to network security vs. hackers (CS major, don’t judge).

It’s a game of cat and mouse, ultimately. We can do everything within our power to secure ourselves against a threat, but those people who want to get in (or attack us) will find a way. So the question becomes, how secure do we want to be? How inconvenient do we want our process of flying (or using our computers) to be? To jump back and forth between metaphors: Sure, we could require users to maintain 3 passwords, and require them to enter those three passwords as well as biometric scanning every 30 seconds, but no one would ever get any work done. Just like we could start requiring people to show up 24 hours before their flight, and go through rigorous background checks (all at their expense), just before they’re even allowed into the main concourse, but no one would fly (that’s about as secure as we’ll get, at least on the flight front).

To what end though? Is this really how we want to be going about “securing” ourselves? It’s been shown that it’s quite a bit more likely to be struck by lightning than it is to die in a terrorist attack. Does this mean we should refrain from wearing all metal, and construct elaborate tunnels underground? No, probably not. It’s more likely that one would die in a car crash than that they’d die in a terrorist attack. Does this mean we’re all supposed to sell our cars, and walk to the places we need to go? No, that would be ridiculous. Clearly you get the point.

I’m not advocating removing security, I think it plays an important role in keeping travelers and the country as a whole safe. I am advocating pausing, and spending some time actually thinking about the effects of the measures being put in place, and how effective they actually are. I’ve carried knitting needles through airport security, with no questions asked. I’ve also had too much technology in my bag, where the xray couldn’t see everything in it. I wasn’t asked to prove that this technology was actually technology, they just wanted to look through what I was carrying.

Obviously this is all anecdotal (albeit, by me, so clearly it has some meaning >_>), but it seems rather indicative of the rigor of TSA (this was pre Dec. 25). Let’s fix this before it gets out of hand, for both my sake, the sake of the reputation of the US, the sake of everyone else trying to fly within, into, or out of the US, and even the sake of TSA/airport employees. Please.

general Twitter It! 2 Comments »

walking in a winter {wonder,waste}land

Dec 2009 29

<emo-summatusmentis>
I miss my parents, and I haven’t even left yet.
Not that they’re not here, just that this short time is too short
long cat is long
I understand it’s part of life, the whole “don’t live with your parents forever” thing
I don’t want to live with my parents forever, I just don’t want to not.
The weather outside is frightful
and seems rather indicative of my mood
but the fire is so delightful
or it could be, if we had a fireplace

</emo-summatusmentis>

The winter always does this to me, as does being up late at night, and being over-tired. Stability is overrated.

general Twitter It! 1 Comment »

communication disparity in technology?

Nov 2009 18

With the ever-increasing amount of technology in our lives, the gap between the people embracing new technology and the people who would rather keep what they know seems to be getting bigger and bigger. The younger generation has started embracing things like Facebook, MySpace, text messaging, and Twitter, while (generally speaking) the older generation is still sort of getting comfortable with their cell phones.

Anyone who has ever watched 13 year olds use their phones to text their friends, it becomes pretty clear that they are entirely comfortable with their phone, and it’s almost an extension of their arm. It seems as though they use text messaging as a form of communication, just like all others. I know that as a Computer Science major, I’m just as, if not more so, comfortable communicating via a text based medium than I am via voice (face to face conversation, or a phone conversation), unless it’s someone I know really, really well. However, if I send my dad a text message, he would rather call me back than respond via the same medium.

That said, if I send a text message to my younger sister, she not only responds very rapidly, she also texts in a very similar tone to the way she speaks. Arguably my younger sister (and others her age, clearly) are using the technology in a much more fluid way. It seems as though the younger generations use means of communication all mostly equally, in that they’re perfectly willing to text instead of talk on the phone, or read people’s Twitter feeds instead of calling and asking what’s going on in someone’s life.

This is in stark contrast to older generations, where it seems as though even those who are comfortable with using technology as a means of communication, are still a little bit uncomfortable. For instance, it’s fairly common to see email from a parent, or older friend/co-worker that address three or four different topics, each in their own separate paragraph. This is standard “writing procedure”, but it makes replying less fluid, less conversational.

It seems that the core issues here are two-fold. First, it seems like there is an inherent discomfort around technology in older generations. Not that older generations are afraid, or not willing to try, or even that they don’t understand proper usage or “netiquette”. It seems to be that older generations write email or text messages in a formal, forced way. Perhaps it’s that email and text-based forms of communication in general were introduced as a professional communication tool first, and become more personal second. Perhaps it’s just that older generations are forcing themselves to use something that they feel mildly uncomfortable with, even though they know they shouldn’t.

Second, and this may be the more predominant reason that conversations via technology feel stilted, it may be that technology is just missing something crucial to the fluidity of voice conversation. Clearly technology has made great strides in the past 10 or 15 years, but it may be that we haven’t yet perfected the requisite concept to imitate natural conversation. It may be that younger generations (and Computer Science-type people) force their way past the fundamental flaw in the means of communication, when there could very well be ways to better optimize the communication experience to make the entire interaction more fulfilling and fluid.

Now, obviously this is mostly conjecture, and it would take knowledge about psychology, and studies, and all sorts of other things to figure out what the root cause of the disparity between acceptance of new communications media is. I’m more inclined to think that the technology itself is missing something crucial, and that there’s a better way to communicate that has yet to be discovered. I like to think that technology can and should be used to it’s fullest potential, and that this means making it as accessible to everyone as possible.

general Twitter It! No Comments »

emotion as a rational argument? No thanks

Nov 2009 09

Last week I wrote an article counter the common arguments against gay marriage (in a very tongue-in-cheek manner, I will admit), and ended with a call to arms over the issue of gay marriage, as it pertained to Question 1 on the upcoming Maine election. Needless to say, I’m sure by now most have heard that this referendum passed, and that same-sex marriage is now illegal again in the State of Maine. I for one, am disappointed and disgusted, but this loss raises a valid point which few seem to be willing to address on the national or state level. President Obama addressed it a little bit on the campaign trail, and this sentiment can often be heard in almost all political discussions between friends. How often do you hear people say something similar to “Ugh, how can they be so stupid? I don’t even understand where they’re coming from!”
Now, clearly the “the other side is so dumb” sentiment is dismissive, and unnecessary, but the second portion of this is what I wish to write about. This concept of “I don’t even understand how the other side could reach this conclusion” raises an important point. Part of the premise of our political system is that within a democratic system, the thought processes of the majority will be put into law, but that everyone’s voice will be heard and, at least ideally, considered. However, this seems to be quite the opposite of what is happening. The current political atmosphere seems much more centered around visceral emotional responses to an issue, and I think this is at best unfair and unreasonable.
The United States of America is, to steal a common phrase, a melting pot. That is to say, people from all sorts of ethnic, religious, economic and political  backgrounds live in the United States. Allegedly, all of these people have an equal voice in the way political decisions are made. To paraphrase President Obama, the only way to make sure the law is just and fair to everyone is to be able to carry-on a rational, reasoned discussion about the topic. He was talking about this in the context of his personal religion, and how this would affect his decisions as president, but I feel that there’s a larger point to be taken away from this.
Consider the vote on Tuesday in Maine. It is fairly obvious to anyone who watched the campaigns unfold and the discourse leading up to the vote, fear of change seemed to win the day. Now, this is a rather superficial definition of the reason that the Yes on 1 campaign won, and there’s an argument to be made that the vote was religiously motivated, that fear about the societal affect of same-sex marriage, that it was fundamentally wrong for children to be taught that homosexual couples exist, that the sanctity of marriage would be destroyed, or even that homosexuality is too gross, a disease, or even a biblical abomination were the underlying reasons for why the Yes on 1 campaign won. All of these arguments may have some merit, but the consensus of analysts seems to be that superficially, voter turnout on the No on 1 side just wasn’t there, and this was probably because “protection of marriage rights” is much less of an emotional issue than “protecting the institution that has been in place for thousands of years”.
Note the word emotional in the last sentence. This is the crux of the issue. Politics within the United States has turned into a visceral emotional issue. President Obama arguably won on this very campaign, he inspired people by using very emotional mantras, “hope” and “change”.
This is directly the reason religion seems to have such a stronghold on the United States political atmosphere, religion is, for the majority of religious people, a very, very emotional issue. However, emotion is something that is very difficult to convey to others. Have you ever felt something, tried to explain it and given up because they “just wouldn’t understand”? Or consider a political topic that is very emotionally charged, like abortion. Much of the discourse over abortion centers around the “abortion is murder” argument. Now, whether you’re for or against abortion, I think you would have to look long and hard to find someone who has no opinion about abortion. Even those that one may encounter that say “I don’t know much about the issue” usually finish with “but I feel X way about it”. Again, not the use of the word “feel”.
As President Obama said (albeit not directly about political discourse in the United States), the only way to ensure that everyone feels like they are being represented is to make the discourse founded in intellectual, reasoned discussion. One is allowed to feel however one wants on a subject, but the argument presented ought to be as devoid of emotion as possible, or it’s hard to find a common ground.
To use the gay marriage referendum in Maine again, much of the discourse from the Yes on 1 campaign was very emotionally charged. The No on 1 campaign was accused of “redefining marriage” (arguably a fairly personal attack on those married couples in the State of Maine). While the No on 1 campaign presented a very well thought out, intellectual argument about how same-sex marriage wasn’t different from straight marriage, how these are just people that deserve equal rights, how the other states that have legalized gay marriage aren’t suffering from any societal degeneration, and even how same-sex marriage does not affect the economy (and in some cases boosts the economy) of the states that have legalized it. Obviously, these arguments failed against what seemed to be a very simple, consistent, emotional message.
It’s clear that many political issues are emotionally charged (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, insert-your-topic-of-choice-here), but choosing to react to emotions first, and try and justify your emotions second is the wrong way to go about having a debate that will sufficiently satisfy every party. Often times emotional issues cause people to zealously stake out a position, and subsequently not budge.
In order to move this country forward we, as a whole, must start forcing political discourse to be entirely grounded in an intellectually supported way. Once this expectation has been laid down, the “abortion is murder” argument will need to be supported by a working definition of murder, why abortion falls under this category, why a fetuses life is more important than that of the mother, and a plethora of other questions. The same-sex marriage debate will no longer be able to use “fundamental redefinition of marriage” as a mantra without providing a definition of marriage, and evidence to support that this definition really has never changed throughout the course of history. The healthcare reform debate will have to actually support that “death panels” will occur, providing proper citation directly from the bill.
Fearmongering, hatred, and prejudice will no longer be valid political arguments, and will instead be marginalized in preference of reasoned political debate. Emotion is clearly an important part of being human, and we need not remove it from who we are. However, emotion ought to take a secondary role in the national and state level political discussion.

general Twitter It! No Comments »

color que sugiere color

Oct 2009 30

Seriously unsure as to whether or not I want to keep this up. I don’t know what it is, or where it came from. Enjoy, or don’t. Better yet, don’t read it. Or do. Whatever.

fog settling nonchalantly around the streetlamps

parking lot across the street covered in eerily fake white light

wet, but not too wet, dare I say enjoyably wet

copper haze encircling the the lamp sitting atop a metal pillar

rain: constant, grounding

fog: eerie, but somehow reassuring

night: dark, eveloping, colorless

it’s stabilizing, the lack of color. Real.

Nature doesn’t pretend, “this is what the world is

no false, unreachable goals” color is, or isn’t, nothing more

day: trees pretending to lead to something beautiful, brilliant.

just brown. dying leaves, grass, always rain.

————–

¿Porque la lluvia? ¿Porque las mentiras, esperanza falsa?

Prefiero el noche oscuro, real, basado en realidad. Hermoso.

Mañana todos volveremos al mentira, al color que sugiere color.

general Twitter It! 2 Comments »

the time is now

Oct 2009 28

Gay marriage is an issue pushing it’s way towards the forefront of the political playing field, and an issue that really shouldn’t be ignored. There are now six states that currently allow same-sex couples to be married, and a 7th that did at one point. However, this number is at risk of slipping on November 3rd.

On November 3rd, the state of Maine has a People’s Veto up for vote. This vote acts very much in the way that Proposition 8 did in California, a “yes” vote means “repeal the legalization of same-sex marriage” and a “no” vote means “do not repeal the legalization, keep it legal”. I’ve ranted and raved enough about this particular vote, but as someone who spend a large portion of his life in Maine, I have a connection there that native Minnesotans may not.

I don’t want to rant more about this specific vote, but I do want to discuss same-sex marriage as a concept. The opposing viewpoint, that marriage is between a man and a woman, puts forward a number of different arguments for why same-sex marriage should remain illegal, but it seems as though none of these hold much water, and this is what I want to talk about today.

Same-sex coupling/marriage is unnatural, animals in nature don’t do it. This decidedly not true. There are species of apes (Bonobos, to be more precise) that exhibit very homsexual behavior, entirely within their natural habitat.

The word “marriage” is strictly a religious word, and the government shouldn’t be deciding what my religious beliefs can be. Clearly it’s true that the government shouldn’t be imposing religious viewpoints on the general public. I wouldn’t like it anymore than someone who believed the opposite of what I do. Separation of church and state is an important part of the principles this country is founded on. However, the idea that the word “marriage” is only a religious word also is just patently false. The word marriage derives originally from the latin word maritus, which means lover or nuptial. The verb form of this word, maritare, means “to marry” or “to give in marriage”. The english language came by this word through french, but the origins are latin. While it’s possible that all of these were religious ideas (the Roman Catholic church possibly had a very large influence on latin), it’s important to note that none of these root words specify gender, or a religious context. Furthermore, the term “marriage” is used all the time in a secular context. If the religious people of this country want to claim “marriage” as a religious word, wonderful. However, all civil marriages need to be called “civil unions” and it seems as though religious organizations should hold separate ceremonies for their marriages.

Being gay is a choice, and we as a society shouldn’t have to cater to every single person’s lifestyle. Tell me, if you’re putting forward this argument, when did you choose to be straight? At what point in your life did you decide that you preferred the opposite gender to your own? What’s that? You didn’t? That’s right, you didn’t. Just as you don’t choose to be inherently introverted, or you don’t choose to like some foods. Clearly people can choose to act on their tendencies, or to not act on their tendencies. I regularly choose not to eat vast amounts of candy, despite the fact that I love candy. I also choose to be more out-going in a social setting, despite the fact that I’m a relatively introverted person. People can choose to act a certain way, either with or against the way they are naturally, but this doesn’t make homosexuality a choice or a whim.

The bible says homosexuality is an abomination. The bible also says that you’re not supposed to eat shell-fish, or wear clothing that mixes fibers, or eat fruit from a tree that is older than three years of age. These parts of the bible are ignored all the time, because they’re not relevant to our society anymore. If we’re allowed to ignore parts of what the bible says, doesn’t this sort of remove the authority that the bible has on what we can and can’t do?

If same-sex marriage is legalized, my children will be taught that it’s ok for men to marry men, or women to marry women in school. My children might become gay! I know I turned into a zebra when I first learned about them. In fact, I’m still a zebra. No, your children won’t turn gay because they’re being taught that it’s OK. Homosexuality isn’t something one becomes if exposed to it, one cannot catch homosexuality like one does with the flu. Furthermore, you children may already be gay or lesbian, they may already know that they prefer people of their own gender to people of the other gender. This is OK!

These seem to be some of the primary arguments opposing same-sex marriage laws. As one can see, there are responses to all of them (I know, I know, everything has a resopnse to it), but I hope my responses have caused people to think about the position they are putting forward.

Same-sex marriage is a matter of equality, and it’s a matter of love. No one is harmed when straight people get married, marriage between people of the same gender isn’t different. The sanctity of marriage won’t be affected by same-sex couples marrying, particularly given that the sanctity of marriage is already arguably under attack (consider the rate of divorce in the United States).

I know I promised I wouldn’t rant about Question 1 on the Maine ballot, but this feels important. If you’re from Maine, go vote No on Question 1. If you’re from Maine, but not there currently, request an absentee ballot. If you’re not from Maine, but you know someone who is, go urge them to vote, urge them to make their voice heard for equality and justice. If you’re not from Maine, and don’t know anyone there, but this issue is important to you, donate money to the No on Question 1 campaign. There are 6 days left before this is put to a vote, I’m sure the No on Question 1 campaign could use monetary support in the last sprint before voting day. UPDATE: Colin (@weikaolun ) on Twitter, directed me towards a way to help the No On 1 effort in Maine, even if you’re not in the state. Check it out

This issue isn’t about religion, it’s not about removing rights from other US citizens, it’s not about turning the children of this country into homosexuals, and it’s not an attack on the American Way of Life. It’s about people who love other people wanting to be able to commit themselves to the other person for life. It’s about people yearning to be able to have a way to show their love to the world in the same way that other people in this country can.

Those of you in Minnesota reading this? Let’s do what we can to get Minnesota up to speed with states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, and hopefully Maine.

tl;dr Gay marriage isn’t bad, and the reasons people give for why it is are wrong. Do what you can to keep same-sex marriage legal in Maine.

general Twitter It! 1 Comment »

what do you love, what drives you?

Oct 2009 11

I’ve had two separate people ask me (and a room full of other people) a pretty simple, straightforward question: “What are you passionate about?” The first was @thingles , and the second was Andrew Sims, from @DOOMTREE .

The questions itself is pretty simple. Everyone has a passion, right? Everyone has at least something that they care about. But it raises a good point, and as @thingles said (paraphrased), “it throws people off guard when you ask them that”.It got me thinking, what am I passionate about?

I know things that make me act passionately, things like social justice issues, gay marriage, religion, technological ethics, and I’m sure some other list of thigns that I’m not aware of. So, I act passionately about things, but is that really what passion is?

For instance, things like abortion rights, if I get started, I can come across to others as very passionate. While I think abortion rights are very important, I don’t do anything about it, except vote. While I think the environment is very, very important, I’m not a member of Greenpeace (or other organizations working to further environmentalism). So how do we define passion? Is it a belief? Is it acting on a belief?

If passion is acting on a belief, does having a belief but not acting on it make someone ambivalent, or lazy? And if just having a belief is passion, am I incredibly passionate about everything in my life?

At this point, the definition of passion is just semantics, and there’s an argument to be made that passion (as a belief) doesn’t unless you act on it, just as there’s an argument to be made that nothing matters unless it’s affecting something, and that a system of beliefs without action is useless, let alone passion. But I don’t want to go there.

So, the question remains unanswered, what am I passionate about? I’m a Computer Science and Spanish double major, is that my passion? No, probably not. I’ve known forever that I wanted to study computers, but that’s just becaue they make sense to me.

Does passion mean what “clicks” with you? Is passion manifested in music? Or is passion manifested in one’s significant other? How can passion be related to another human? Doesn’t that mean we’d be entirely dependent on the other?

I’m inclined to think passion is “what truly matters” to someone, something that someone would really, absolutely, have a difficult time living without. If that’s the case, passion becomes much more personal. I would say, if that’s the case, I’m not passionate about all the things listed above.

“What are you passionate about?” My answer, @thingles and @DOOMTREE , is that I’m passionate about humans, and I’m passionate about life. I’m passioante about the creation that comes out of being human, and I’m passionate about the interactions and lack thereof that every person goes through. I’m passionate about being, and about doing, and about being able to continue to be and do.

general Twitter It! 2 Comments »

liberty and justice for all

Oct 2009 10

I wrote this for the University Register, last week.As such, those of you in $small_town may have already read this.

Over the summer, the State of Maine legalized same-sex marriage, and became the fifth state to allow same-sex marriage. After what was a pretty easy battle in the scheme of political fights in the state house and senate, the bill was put on Maine Governor Baldacci’s desk, and was signed into law.
In Maine, like in California, there is an option for a “People’s Veto”, wherein the citizens of the state have the option to petition to put the decision to referendum, and get voted on during the next general election. Like in California, citizens of the state of Maine collected the amount of signatures to get the decision put to referendum, and now (like in California) there will be a vote in November over the legalization of same-sex marriage in the State of Maine.
Clearly, in terms of process, there are quite a bit of similarities between the situation in Maine right now, and the situation in California before the 2008 election (as though you couldn’t tell from the previous paragraph). However, these are not the only similarities. In California, the Church of the Latter Day Saints poured a significant portion of money into pushing the political campaign “Yes on 8″ (remember that a “yes” vote meant same-sex marriage would be illegal, and “no meant that same-sex marriage would stay legal). Similarly, in Maine, we are seeing a big push by the Catholic Church and Catholic-based “for the family” organizations to similarly advocate for “yes” votes (illegalizing same-sex marriage).
This trend towards tax-exempt religious groups pushing very, very hard in one direction on political issues is, quite frankly, disturbing. Unfortunately, in our society, money can make or break a political campaign, and these religious groups did, and continue to, pour large amounts of money into these campaigns. Why do I find this disturbing? A pretty simple concept, and one made pretty clear in the First Amendment to our Counstitution.
The legalization of same-sex marriage is a political issue, plain and simple. There are arguments to be made that “marriage” is a religious term, but it’s not. Or, it is, but it’s also a very secular term, used very widely in our society. Therefore, these arguments will be ignored for the duration of this article. Religious groups are allowed to be tax-exempt, with the stipulation that they do not participate in political activity, this is what political action groups are for. The idea that religious groups are allowed to use their tax exempt status to help fund a very public, very political, and ultimately very unjust campaign goal seems wrong.
Yes, I understand religion is very crucial to many people in our country, and I understand that people’s religious view permeate their opinions on public policy. I’d like to consider a fairly harsh example, but I think there are a number of parallels. In the South, during the civil war era, there was a sentiment among many southern Christians that Africans were descendants of Ham (the son of Noah who was punished, and told he would forever serve his brothers), that slavery was therefore entirely justified from a biblical/religious perspective.
What seems to be at the crux of the anti-same-sex marriage sentiments is that in some form or another, the religion of the people pushing this idea dictates the way they feel about same-sex marriage. This is wrong, just as justifying slavery through religion is wrong, just as getting stoned (with rocks, not marijuana) for eating shellfish is wrong.
Religion, at a personal, self-centering level, doesn’t bother me terribly much. I respect that people get to their conclusions about their creator (or lack thereof) through their own way, and that is entirely valid. I don’t dispute people’s right to believe in god, just as I wouldn’t want my right disputed. I do however, take issue when religious groups, particularly very powerful religious organizations, start pushing their ideals into public policy. If religious groups are going to be turning themselves into, or setting up and funding, political action groups, then they don’t deserve tax-exempt status, and they should be subject to the laws and regulations surrounding political funding.

Uncategorized, general Twitter It! No Comments »

you fake it ’till you make it, that’s the story of your life

Sep 2009 09

I really need to stop using song lyrics as post titles. Like, they’re fitting, but seriously, kinda cliche.

The school year has started again, and droves of new freshman are back on the $small_school campus, as well as most of the people who were here last year. Some of the freshmen probably think they know what they want to study, many probably don’t. Of those that do, a good portion will probably change their mind in their (approximately) 4 years here at $small_school. This is all ok, that’s part of what college is, right? That’s what we’re told, or at least, that’s what it felt like I was told for the 13 years I spend in the public (and quasi-private, but that’s another story) school system.

We’re told from a very young age that school is preparing us for life. In high school (or at least my high school, others might’ve been different), we were told that by the end of our four years there, we would be prepared for college, work, military, or whatever we wanted to do with our lives. I knew about halfway through high school that I wanted to study one of my current majors. People tell me I’m one of the lucky ones that knew what they wanted to “do” coming in. Now, did that mean I knew what I wanted my job to be for the rest of my life? Of course not, that would be silly.

Is it so silly to assume that I’ll know what I want to do, given that I’ve been told for a long time that I’m being “prepared for life”? Is it silly to think that after spending 13 years studying general subjects, and at least another 4 on a more specified subject area that I’ll have a goal of what I want to do with all this education? It doesn’t seem that silly. At least of the premises behind the educational system is to prepare a person for what they will do in later years. Obviously it’s better to be prepared for a field you enjoy than for a field you hate. But, at least for me, it comes down to what “prepared” means.

At the end of my four years at $small_school, will I have the skills needed to go out into the private sector into a Computer Science related job? More likely than not. Will I have the pre-requisite training to continue my education in graduate school? Very possibly. Does this mean I’m “prepared” for life? Does preparation mean “having the requisite skill-set”, or is there something deeper?

In various conversations I’ve had, I’m not the only one who isn’t sure what they want to be doing once they get out of $small_school, $medium_school, or $big_school. Clearly there are students who know what they want to do, some want to be a doctor, some want to go to grad school, some are working towards a job in journalism, and some have accepted their fate as art students who will have more difficulty finding a job in their field, but are ok with that because they love their art. But it seems as though the people who don’t know what they want to do outnumber the people who have a goal.

Is this inherently bad? No, I don’t think it is. I don’t think it’s good, but I don’t think it’s bad. Is it the job of the educational system to get students to a place where they have a starting place, and giving them the tools they need to move from there? Or is the job of the educational system strictly to give students the training to suceed in the marketplace? It seems as though $small_school takes the approach that their graduates should be fully prepared to take whatever life throws at them.

I will say, I acknowledge that this might be me turning a non-issue into an issue, because I’m trying to justify my own world spinning out of control, but I honestly think students reaching the end of their four years fit into one of three categories. 1) The students who know exactly what they want to to, 2) the students who don’t really know, but will get a job or go to grad school because it seems like the logical next step, or 3) the students who have no clue, and don’t know how to start deciding.

What’s the right answer? I don’t think there is one. Should students be pro-active in this process? Absolutely. Is this whole issue outside the domain of what the school system is striving to do? Very possibly.

Quite frankly, education and learning the content is probably the easier part of this equation.  How does one train a student to set a goal, work towards that goal, adapt should something in their plan change? How does one train a student to know what they want, or to know how to discover what they want? I’m not sure one can, but the school systems should stop professing to producing fully prepared students, or perhaps be more clear about what “prepared” means. Or maybe I should sleep more, and think less.

general Twitter It! No Comments »