Let's face it, a PhD nowadays takes anywhere between 4 to 7 years, and I have seen even 8 or 9 in some special occasions. That's almost 10% of your life, assuming a life expectancy of about 80 years. Most PhD students are getting paid way below the poverty line, and even with teaching duties and obscure scholarships, it's still gonna be a little tight to cover the basics. Mugu has seen enough PhD students subsisting on eggs, toasts, and the occasional canned corned beef. I am probably missing a vegetable somewhere, but you get my point.
On the other hand, Mugu also knows a few PhD students who managed to conduct their studies with a humane salary and healthy life style. These are not super geniuses, but their being in creature comfort let them do some pretty impressive work unimpeded. To quote Charleston Heston in the Ten Commandments, "A city is made of brick, Pharaoh. The strong make many. The weak make few. The dead make none."
Now, Mugu wants to throw some ideas at you. While you are not going to get rich doing a PhD, you will not worry whether you will have enough dough to pay rent, or decide on what major food group to skip. I will make two assumptions, and I think they are crucial in getting the most (money) out of your PhD studies ...
1) You don't really care (too much) what the project is, as long as it is in the general direction you are looking for.
2) You have been in the same field for a some time. So you have some experience already, and more importantly, you have a rough idea of what ideas works and what doesn't.
3) You don't belong to any elite or privileged social class, or you are, but don't receive a penny from Mum and Dad.
Out of Mugu's time as a veteran grad student, he has seen three exceptional cases. He wish he could only knew about them ...
Method 1: Become a research engineer. Towards the end of your Masters degree, you might be approached for a position of the "research engineer" at some professor's lab. They are usually offered in 2 or 3 year terms, and the pay is usually quite reasonable, though not as high as working in the "real world." But if the project has potential as a PhD project, you can effectively get a 2-3 year head start, in terms research progress and wealth accumulation. When the contract is up, switch to a PhD. At this point you don't have much time left. Just sit for 2 years tops and get the helluva there. Since all publications you wrote while working as a research engineer will be considered "pre-PhD", they go a long way i n scholarship applications. This gives you extra cash to fund your PhD! Speaking of double Whammy!
Method 2: Piggy back with a company project. This favors the older folks who are already working for a while. Sometimes there are technical problems faced by your company, and you'd be surprised how clueless your colleagues can become, not because they are incompetent, but because they don't have the time and just want to maintain status quo. If you are involved in such a project, pitch this idea to your boss, to get some academic collaboration with a Professor and do a PhD at the same time, albeit part-time. Some of your work will contribute to the research, and you're earning a normal man's salary. If you are persuasive, you can even get your tuitions paid for by your company.
Method 3: Be a resident PhD student at a company. This works usually in Europe, when there is a very well established system for something like this. Some companies offer "research student" positions, where you will work on a project for a fixed time, usually 3 to 4 years. These positions usually pay a lot better than an equivalent position at a university. You are also guaranteed that whatever project you end up taking will bear some practical value, and it is in the interest of your company correspondent to get you out as quickly as possible because, for them, research is high risk, and they want to invest at little on it as possible. Being a company, you will learn about getting things done as well.>
I think that's it. Again, you're not going to get rich from a Ph.D, but at least don't sell your talent for much less than its actual market value!
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Sunday, May 27, 2012
First time interviewing someone
Mugu has been to enough interviews, being grilled, and things thrown at, but all in all having a good time. But last week was Mugu's first attempt at giving an interview. The candidate is a student who is about to finish up his PhD. HR and his prospective boss, who asked me to show up for "observation", were also present.
Granted, Mugu was supposed to keep his mouth shut and looked pretty, but sometimes I just couldn't resist asking a few questions, much to HR's displeasure. But then again, there were so many awkward moment of silence, Mugu thought what he did was justified to keep things in motion.
Even as a rookie interviewer, here are Mugu's opinions, and perhaps this would help those who are still in the interview process.
1) Mugu can get a sense of who you are from reading your resume. Don't underestimate this statement. You can have tons of friends and professionals giving you suggestions of how to improve your resume, but what ends up going in there reflects you as a person, and your preferences and biases. Typically this is what Mugu gets from reading resumes:
2) When I ask you a question, I am looking for a connection. Assuming that your resume is impressive enough to get an interview. Now you walk in, all nervous, but all in the while trying to do your best to impress. I assume that you are technically competent. The question is, whether I can work with you. That's how I ask questions:
5) If I like you, we will make things easier for you. A big part an interview is to see if we connect, whether we "click" will be very important. This is not an exact science, and that's why most people tumble on this. In the mean time, while I don't want to be so biased, but I would be inclined to help you out a little if I like you. But, of course, I cannot make it that obvious ...
Granted, Mugu was supposed to keep his mouth shut and looked pretty, but sometimes I just couldn't resist asking a few questions, much to HR's displeasure. But then again, there were so many awkward moment of silence, Mugu thought what he did was justified to keep things in motion.
Even as a rookie interviewer, here are Mugu's opinions, and perhaps this would help those who are still in the interview process.
1) Mugu can get a sense of who you are from reading your resume. Don't underestimate this statement. You can have tons of friends and professionals giving you suggestions of how to improve your resume, but what ends up going in there reflects you as a person, and your preferences and biases. Typically this is what Mugu gets from reading resumes:
- What you should know and what you don't know
- Your personal goals and career priorities (whether you have an objective section or not)
- Whether you're telling me a bunch of crap
2) When I ask you a question, I am looking for a connection. Assuming that your resume is impressive enough to get an interview. Now you walk in, all nervous, but all in the while trying to do your best to impress. I assume that you are technically competent. The question is, whether I can work with you. That's how I ask questions:
- Things you should know. I want to see if you are up to standard.
- Things I know you don't know. I want to see how far you go before you reach your limits.
- Things I don't know. I want to see if you can convince me to see things your way.
Strangely, the last type of question is most difficult. I might not know the answers, but I will know if you are trying to BS your way out. It's better to come clean and tell us that you don't know, either.
3) If you fail to explain things clearly to me, you don't understand the topic good enough. You have spent years mastering your own topic. Now it's time to tell people what great work you've done. The problem? No one understands what you are trying to say, because every other word is jargon. One who truly understands his subject will be able to explain his understanding appropriately. You can always keep asking why indefinitely, but it takes great wisdom to say when to stop. It also shows me that you have put some thought into what you are doing, aside from just doing what your supervisor told you to do.
4) Don't think that you can change the way we do things. Mugu has made that mistake in his more ignorant days. Now I see what kind of a prick I was. You are here to work with our system, not the other way around. The difference you make will be your work, not your system. One of the most popular things to say is, "I would like everybody to use [insert someone's favorite open source tool here]." If it is such a good tool, it would have been part of the corporate workflow a long time ago!
5) If I like you, we will make things easier for you. A big part an interview is to see if we connect, whether we "click" will be very important. This is not an exact science, and that's why most people tumble on this. In the mean time, while I don't want to be so biased, but I would be inclined to help you out a little if I like you. But, of course, I cannot make it that obvious ...
What does Mugu want to see from you. Mugu doesn't ask for much. All that is required is that
- You have a good idea of what is required of you.
- You are honest about your strengths and weaknesses.
- You know what are important to us.
- Your resume has a good experience-to-page ratio.
I did not make that decision, but if I were chairing that interview, I would not have asked him to come back for a second interview. Here is what happened.
- Every other word he used was jargon.
- He tried to BS his way out of some questions for which he should know the answers.
- He told us from his resume he could speak a foreign language, but in fact he couldn't.
- He told us, in no less than 5 occasions, how his GPA was so high he could go to prestigious schools I have never heard of.
Somehow I have a feeling that he will be working next to me in a few month. Time will tell.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Viva la Chica
Mugu received some very good news a few days ago. He got a call from The Chica, who submitted her thesis that day after successfully defending it. Our supervisor asked her to follow up my work after I finished up, to take my ideas "one step further", so to speak, which usually means "bribnging it to the real world". She did it, and I was happy for her, that she finished with flying colors, and for me, that the ideas still works.
A bit of background story, The Chica is no Latina, in fact, she's, for the lack of a better word, a Hillbilly. But being the only girl in the lab, and that majority of lab-mates are Ombres (yes, Latinos), that name got stuck very quickly. Mugu met The Chica (before she was given this name) when he was teaching her class, but didn't really get to know her well until she came work with us as an intern. She apparently like her stint so much, she came back a year later as a Masters student.
Unlike most of the grad students I have worked with, The Chica is a single mom before she finished high school. After going through all sorts of odd-jobs, and strings community colleges, she finally settled on studying at our university. She's also a very dedicated person. I remember the first job I gave her (she asked me to give her some work because she was bored). It was probably the most boring of all things. That explained why I never got around to do it in the first place. She did all that, within two hours, and was totally amazed. There was also another time, when she was supposed to bring a grill to a research group party. Her son was in a car accident, and had to bring him to the hospital. She could have pull out in the last minute and have us figure something out, but she sent her boyfriend to drop off the grill.
The Chica was not without her quirks. Mugu remembered having to give her a quick, and brisk lecture on African politics because she was starting to talk about something to which she didn't know she had no idea. On another occasion, she somehow invoked the wrath of the Ombres over some equipment sharing issues. Mugu had to come intervene, and everyone was happy in the end. There were other episodes, but Mugu always took pleasure to watch over her.
There are two sides of The Chica. On one hand, she's the bubbly "new kid" who, to us, is still a kid. On the other hand, she's the mother who has to grow up quickly for her role. I can only imagine how tough she it had to be for her to juggle the two sides of her life. I remembered, when she took Mugu and Mrs. Ubuntu to the airport. Both of us (Mugu and Mrs. Ubuntu) were exhausted and delirious from three straight days of packing and moving out. Her motherly instincts kicked in, and put everything under control and took care of us like a good mother should be. When she dropped off Mrs. Ubuntu to wait in line at check-in (now that's really tight timing), Mugu told her she was simply an amazing woman for doing what she has done and more.
Congratulations, Chica, for a job well done, and I wish you all the best in your future!
A bit of background story, The Chica is no Latina, in fact, she's, for the lack of a better word, a Hillbilly. But being the only girl in the lab, and that majority of lab-mates are Ombres (yes, Latinos), that name got stuck very quickly. Mugu met The Chica (before she was given this name) when he was teaching her class, but didn't really get to know her well until she came work with us as an intern. She apparently like her stint so much, she came back a year later as a Masters student.
Unlike most of the grad students I have worked with, The Chica is a single mom before she finished high school. After going through all sorts of odd-jobs, and strings community colleges, she finally settled on studying at our university. She's also a very dedicated person. I remember the first job I gave her (she asked me to give her some work because she was bored). It was probably the most boring of all things. That explained why I never got around to do it in the first place. She did all that, within two hours, and was totally amazed. There was also another time, when she was supposed to bring a grill to a research group party. Her son was in a car accident, and had to bring him to the hospital. She could have pull out in the last minute and have us figure something out, but she sent her boyfriend to drop off the grill.
The Chica was not without her quirks. Mugu remembered having to give her a quick, and brisk lecture on African politics because she was starting to talk about something to which she didn't know she had no idea. On another occasion, she somehow invoked the wrath of the Ombres over some equipment sharing issues. Mugu had to come intervene, and everyone was happy in the end. There were other episodes, but Mugu always took pleasure to watch over her.
There are two sides of The Chica. On one hand, she's the bubbly "new kid" who, to us, is still a kid. On the other hand, she's the mother who has to grow up quickly for her role. I can only imagine how tough she it had to be for her to juggle the two sides of her life. I remembered, when she took Mugu and Mrs. Ubuntu to the airport. Both of us (Mugu and Mrs. Ubuntu) were exhausted and delirious from three straight days of packing and moving out. Her motherly instincts kicked in, and put everything under control and took care of us like a good mother should be. When she dropped off Mrs. Ubuntu to wait in line at check-in (now that's really tight timing), Mugu told her she was simply an amazing woman for doing what she has done and more.
Congratulations, Chica, for a job well done, and I wish you all the best in your future!
Sunday, March 25, 2012
My Role models during grad school
I never cared much for celebrity gossips. I still don't, but there are things I noticed about them, that are very special, and deserves Mugu's seal of approval. Yes, there are a couple, and they are not who you think they are.
1) Silvester Stallone: I had Rocky and Rambo playing on my repeat to keep me company during my lonely months of thesis writing. A lot of people think that his movies are better suited for the brainless machos. A friend of mine in LA, who knows the Italian Stallion personally, told me that he is one of the few actors who insists of doing everything himself, including scripts and stunts. The characters he created (Rocky and Rambo) reflects on his ideals for the person. It is good motivation, a reminder how one can overcome any challenge.
2) Billy Blanks: I first came across him with his TaeBo infomercials. At first I thought he is all BS, but at some point I decided to watch it. It's physically demanding. Now, some people like to make things demanding to show you how much better they are, but not Billy. In his rigor you can see that he is humble and gentle at heart. He is also very warm and genuine in what he says at the end of each video.
3) Kyung-Wha Chung: I already mentioned her in a previous article on this blog. Her strength and determination almost parallel that Stallone depicted in Rocky. Back in the days when the Asian violinist wasn't a household phenomenon, and that the musical world where she was in was dominated by a cartel of musicians who didn't want to accept her. She knew she would win, and she did.
4) Robert S. MacNamera: I learnt of him from The Fog of War. Yes, he has been a contraversal figure, having served both JFK and Johnson during much of the Vietnam war. What I was impressed about him was his effective use of numbers. He has a certain acumen in analysis that I came to admire. I later read his work In Retrospect, a sort of autobiography with a focus of his experience from the Vietnam War. It is a very inspiring read and no detail was spared. Not to mention, he is also the personification of the American Dream, where hard work and determination was the virtue of his time.
5) Jacques Brel: I was drawn to his music when I visited the Jacques Brel Museum some years ago in Brussels. I was moved to tears by his music. Also, the amount he has accomplished in his short life (he died of cancer in 1978) was incredible, and served as inspiration of a new generation of singers. The moment he discovered his terminal condition, he simply took the devil-may-care attitude and learnt how to fly. He knew pretty well, that his body might perish with the disease, but his spirit would live on.
6) Richard P. Feynman: I got a hold of his biography, Genius, by James Gleick. Behind his intellectual powress, Feynman is no different than another other human beings. He had his successes and failures, his achievements and disappointments, his friends and enemies, and his mentors and rivals. His willingness to tread unknown territories (e.g., painting, biology, and his revamped lecture notes) was also something that is now missing in to-day's academia. Though he is not known for siring new generations of academics, his influence is perhaps more far reaching. He was the reason I started doing my PhD in the first place.
6) Richard P. Feynman: I got a hold of his biography, Genius, by James Gleick. Behind his intellectual powress, Feynman is no different than another other human beings. He had his successes and failures, his achievements and disappointments, his friends and enemies, and his mentors and rivals. His willingness to tread unknown territories (e.g., painting, biology, and his revamped lecture notes) was also something that is now missing in to-day's academia. Though he is not known for siring new generations of academics, his influence is perhaps more far reaching. He was the reason I started doing my PhD in the first place.
Why I left academia
For a very long time, I had the utmost admiration for members of the academic world. They do research for the sake of advancing humanity, independent of social-economical forces. This is, I think, a privilege, of being able to manipulate ideas so complex that most people simply do not have the comprehension. We trust academics for their creativity, and we give them the freedom to exercise them unhindered.
However, there were a few things I became aware in my experience as a PhD student through which prompted me to re-examine my value towards the academic system. I think these are symptoms of a bigger phenomenon, through which the fundamental aspects of academia has twisted into something else. So here are my episodes:
The Perpetual post-doc
One day, I found a USB stick somewhere on the corridor outside my lab. A PDF of his CV saved in the stick confirmed the identity of its rightful owner, and it was returned to him very quickly. He was a middle-aged man who was a post doc in a nearby lab. He received his PhD some 10 years ago, and has been hopping from Post-Docs to Post-Docs ever since. He in his fifth post-doc when met him over his USB stick. While he seemed to be at peace with his situation, but more because he has accepted his fate. While I personally don't think he was faculty material, I also see that his situation is not all that uncommon. It could very easily happen to me.
The Professional grant writer
Later, I managed to reconnect with an old colleague of mine. He was a few years ahead of me, who received a tenure-track position a few months back. He decided to "invite" me for a talk, and afterwards we discussed my "options" as an academic in general. He mentioned, his department just hired a new faculty member, but he deciding factor was his ability to pull in 20 millions of research funding a year. He also lamented that, now, in his fledging career, he spent way too much time writing grants and wooing companies for research money. He no longer has so much time to provide guidance for his students. I also have a similar type of supervisor. As much as he is supportive of my idea, he did not have the time for me.
Academic pedigree preferred
New faculties are always more eager to look for new research staff to boost their research capacity. Browing their wanted-pages, a lot of these faculty names I have not heard of, even though their research area(s) are not all that different from mine. Strange, then I looked at their CVs, and they all have one thing in common. Their supervisors were those I quickly recognized. My academic lineage is not so persuasive, however. Though I still applied for these positions, I doubted I would hear from any of them, and I was right. Another episode involved another colleague of mine, a definite genius, who got his PhD in 2005. Though he's no longer in Post-Doc Purgatory, he is still not faculty, all because his supervisor is not someone famous.
The Glorified technician
I did not have the luxury of having a post-doc lined up for me, so I spent some days towards the end of my PhD for research positions. Things have evolved in academia, that professors preferred people with specific skills, whether it be ability to program sophisticated simulation models, or experience in certain specific experimental techniques. Aptitude and ability to make breakthroughs no longer play a role. Simply put, faculty members are looking for skilled people more than talents to serve their purpose. Isn't the point of academia is to solve new problems in new ways, as opposed to doing the same thing over and over again? There is a famous saying: If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. This brings me to the last point.
Lack of research insight
In recent years, there is a definitely shift of focus in research approach. I was raised in the school where you gather the results, think very hard about why things happen in such a way, and then summarize them in the most direct way possible. There is elegance, and it also gives purpose to the paper. Whenever I write a paper, I abide to this principle. However, the majority of the papers I read, or I was asked to review, simply tried to overwhelm readers with many figures, in the hope that the readers would be impressed by the shear amount of data. These authors neither have the will nor the capacity to scrutinize their results in meaningful ways. Many peer reviewers, who do not want to offend their mediocre efforts, approved the papers indiscriminately.
Part of a bigger phenomenon?
I think all of what I have observed is not so uncommon, and I have not said anything that my peers would disagree, whether they want to remain in academia or not. "Economics" sums up my reasons for leaving academic very well. By "economics" I do not mean financial rewards; I would sacrifice pay for academic freedom anytime. By "economics" I mean how academia acts in a two self-contradicting aspects of the economy. On one hand, professors are reduced to salesmen of their ideas in the name of attracting research capital. On the other hand, costs of hiring talents were kept artificially low to increase head-count and therefore throughput. As a result, what used to be an institution for higher learning now becomes a sweatshop for low-quality high-tech data. I still believe that you need to start low and work your way up to build a career, but I have no longer desire to be any part of this intellectual Ponzi scheme. Academic freedom is no more.
However, there were a few things I became aware in my experience as a PhD student through which prompted me to re-examine my value towards the academic system. I think these are symptoms of a bigger phenomenon, through which the fundamental aspects of academia has twisted into something else. So here are my episodes:
The Perpetual post-doc
One day, I found a USB stick somewhere on the corridor outside my lab. A PDF of his CV saved in the stick confirmed the identity of its rightful owner, and it was returned to him very quickly. He was a middle-aged man who was a post doc in a nearby lab. He received his PhD some 10 years ago, and has been hopping from Post-Docs to Post-Docs ever since. He in his fifth post-doc when met him over his USB stick. While he seemed to be at peace with his situation, but more because he has accepted his fate. While I personally don't think he was faculty material, I also see that his situation is not all that uncommon. It could very easily happen to me.
The Professional grant writer
Later, I managed to reconnect with an old colleague of mine. He was a few years ahead of me, who received a tenure-track position a few months back. He decided to "invite" me for a talk, and afterwards we discussed my "options" as an academic in general. He mentioned, his department just hired a new faculty member, but he deciding factor was his ability to pull in 20 millions of research funding a year. He also lamented that, now, in his fledging career, he spent way too much time writing grants and wooing companies for research money. He no longer has so much time to provide guidance for his students. I also have a similar type of supervisor. As much as he is supportive of my idea, he did not have the time for me.
Academic pedigree preferred
New faculties are always more eager to look for new research staff to boost their research capacity. Browing their wanted-pages, a lot of these faculty names I have not heard of, even though their research area(s) are not all that different from mine. Strange, then I looked at their CVs, and they all have one thing in common. Their supervisors were those I quickly recognized. My academic lineage is not so persuasive, however. Though I still applied for these positions, I doubted I would hear from any of them, and I was right. Another episode involved another colleague of mine, a definite genius, who got his PhD in 2005. Though he's no longer in Post-Doc Purgatory, he is still not faculty, all because his supervisor is not someone famous.
The Glorified technician
I did not have the luxury of having a post-doc lined up for me, so I spent some days towards the end of my PhD for research positions. Things have evolved in academia, that professors preferred people with specific skills, whether it be ability to program sophisticated simulation models, or experience in certain specific experimental techniques. Aptitude and ability to make breakthroughs no longer play a role. Simply put, faculty members are looking for skilled people more than talents to serve their purpose. Isn't the point of academia is to solve new problems in new ways, as opposed to doing the same thing over and over again? There is a famous saying: If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. This brings me to the last point.
Lack of research insight
In recent years, there is a definitely shift of focus in research approach. I was raised in the school where you gather the results, think very hard about why things happen in such a way, and then summarize them in the most direct way possible. There is elegance, and it also gives purpose to the paper. Whenever I write a paper, I abide to this principle. However, the majority of the papers I read, or I was asked to review, simply tried to overwhelm readers with many figures, in the hope that the readers would be impressed by the shear amount of data. These authors neither have the will nor the capacity to scrutinize their results in meaningful ways. Many peer reviewers, who do not want to offend their mediocre efforts, approved the papers indiscriminately.
Part of a bigger phenomenon?
I think all of what I have observed is not so uncommon, and I have not said anything that my peers would disagree, whether they want to remain in academia or not. "Economics" sums up my reasons for leaving academic very well. By "economics" I do not mean financial rewards; I would sacrifice pay for academic freedom anytime. By "economics" I mean how academia acts in a two self-contradicting aspects of the economy. On one hand, professors are reduced to salesmen of their ideas in the name of attracting research capital. On the other hand, costs of hiring talents were kept artificially low to increase head-count and therefore throughput. As a result, what used to be an institution for higher learning now becomes a sweatshop for low-quality high-tech data. I still believe that you need to start low and work your way up to build a career, but I have no longer desire to be any part of this intellectual Ponzi scheme. Academic freedom is no more.
Objectivism - the misunderstood way of life
It is almost impossible to go through any stage of post-secondary education without coming across at least one person who calls himself (or herself, but most of the time it's himself) an "Objectivist." "Objectivism" is some kind of philosophy introduced by the American writer Ayn Rand. You will also find that these self-styled Objectivists will possess at least the Ayn Rand novels like Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead. I read neither of them, but I am never a fan for fictions that are more than quarter inch thick.
Ayn Rand believes that selfishness is essential for personal growth, and the potential to achieve the Greater Good through selfishness can be realized through rational perception of reality. Emotion deviates from rationality, and acting selflessly is the same as acting without purpose. Both cases lead to sub-optimal outcomes. So, in a nut shell, Objectivism promotes achieving collective gain through rational thinking while acting in self-interest.
Practitioners of Objectivism often praise its simplicity, unambiguity, and maximization of human nature, rendering highly effective application and adaptation. What constitutes "rational" and "self-interest" is open to interpretation, however. From my experience with these so-called Objectivists, whether they are aware or not, "rationality" devolves to "indifference", and "selfishness" is another word for "disrespect". Quite expectedly, this version of Objectivism typically yields to personal losses at the expense of the Greater Good, hardly what Ayn Rand had originally in mind.
Let me take a real-life examples of what I mean by "common interpretations". Yuri (to honor Ayn's roots) and I went out to lunch a few times. Everytime he would eat up about 80% of his orders. Afterwards he would pick a minuscule flaw, then flagged down the waitress to demand either a refund or a replacement. In questioning his motives, he would say, "I am simply seeing this Objectively [ed.: notice the big "O"]. The fact that I don't like it represents a problem. I reported the problem and got a new plate served. Thanks to my vigilance, they are now aware of the problem and they can improve on it. They should see that I am doing them a favor." I stopped going to lunch with him.
Another episode of Objectivist abuse came from a former mate of mine from my teenage years. While we were sitting in a coffee shop, he mentioned Ayn Rand's Objectivist movement. My then naive self asked him what he meant. He said, I could earn money by referring someone to buy products that he's selling, and this way we could both win by acting in our self interest. I ran for cover as soon as I heard him say "AmWay". He might got the "selfish" part half right, but "rationality" wasn't exactly his selling point, in this case.
Though I don't consider myself Objectivist, I found the same problem as my two acquaintances in my more youthful self. For instance, going to concerts during those days for me, was an exercise of listening flaws from the performance. Though I did not always criticize the player(s) openly, it did rob me the ability to appreciate the music. I was miserable, but the prospect of finding mistakes, so I thought, would make me better at enjoying the "perfect" performance.
In time, I realized two things. (1), What I perceived as flaws was actually what made each performance unique, and to "correct" these flaws was to destroy the whole notion of art itself. And (2), I did not gain anything, emotionally or materially, by being critical of the performers. Later, I came to accept these performances as they were. I began enjoying the music immensely, and the performers were encouraged by my acceptance. Both grew from this experience.
This is not to say that one should just "hang loose". There are times when it is necessary to be rational and critical. Working on projects is a good example. All parties have a vested interest to examine their situations and options rationally and critically. The best solution, however, is one that everybody gains. This is the goal of the Objectivist approach.
Ayn Rand believes that selfishness is essential for personal growth, and the potential to achieve the Greater Good through selfishness can be realized through rational perception of reality. Emotion deviates from rationality, and acting selflessly is the same as acting without purpose. Both cases lead to sub-optimal outcomes. So, in a nut shell, Objectivism promotes achieving collective gain through rational thinking while acting in self-interest.
Practitioners of Objectivism often praise its simplicity, unambiguity, and maximization of human nature, rendering highly effective application and adaptation. What constitutes "rational" and "self-interest" is open to interpretation, however. From my experience with these so-called Objectivists, whether they are aware or not, "rationality" devolves to "indifference", and "selfishness" is another word for "disrespect". Quite expectedly, this version of Objectivism typically yields to personal losses at the expense of the Greater Good, hardly what Ayn Rand had originally in mind.
Let me take a real-life examples of what I mean by "common interpretations". Yuri (to honor Ayn's roots) and I went out to lunch a few times. Everytime he would eat up about 80% of his orders. Afterwards he would pick a minuscule flaw, then flagged down the waitress to demand either a refund or a replacement. In questioning his motives, he would say, "I am simply seeing this Objectively [ed.: notice the big "O"]. The fact that I don't like it represents a problem. I reported the problem and got a new plate served. Thanks to my vigilance, they are now aware of the problem and they can improve on it. They should see that I am doing them a favor." I stopped going to lunch with him.
Another episode of Objectivist abuse came from a former mate of mine from my teenage years. While we were sitting in a coffee shop, he mentioned Ayn Rand's Objectivist movement. My then naive self asked him what he meant. He said, I could earn money by referring someone to buy products that he's selling, and this way we could both win by acting in our self interest. I ran for cover as soon as I heard him say "AmWay". He might got the "selfish" part half right, but "rationality" wasn't exactly his selling point, in this case.
Though I don't consider myself Objectivist, I found the same problem as my two acquaintances in my more youthful self. For instance, going to concerts during those days for me, was an exercise of listening flaws from the performance. Though I did not always criticize the player(s) openly, it did rob me the ability to appreciate the music. I was miserable, but the prospect of finding mistakes, so I thought, would make me better at enjoying the "perfect" performance.
In time, I realized two things. (1), What I perceived as flaws was actually what made each performance unique, and to "correct" these flaws was to destroy the whole notion of art itself. And (2), I did not gain anything, emotionally or materially, by being critical of the performers. Later, I came to accept these performances as they were. I began enjoying the music immensely, and the performers were encouraged by my acceptance. Both grew from this experience.
This is not to say that one should just "hang loose". There are times when it is necessary to be rational and critical. Working on projects is a good example. All parties have a vested interest to examine their situations and options rationally and critically. The best solution, however, is one that everybody gains. This is the goal of the Objectivist approach.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Interviews ... good, bad, and ugly
Wow ... it's been a while! But I am still alive. I have a couple blog post ideas, but for now let's pick up where we left off ... interviews.
Good thing is, I don't have to do this anymore, but I also would like to share with you some experiences that I have ... good, bad, and ugly. Names have been changed to protect the innocent.
The Good
1) Ricky's Autos: An Italian chop shop, been around when grandpa's still sucking his thumb. After almost four generations, it still has a very mom-and-pop feel to it. Signor Ricky himself saved the day when I was asked questions to which I couldn't answer (there was only one, and it turned out they weren't looking for an answer at all). Most of all, throughout the process, they treated Mugu with a helluva respect. Respect, Ricky.
2) JC cells: Another mom-and-pop joint, this time they sell batteries. It was probably the most relaxing interview Mugu ever had. For two and a half hours, we talked more about economics and politics, more than we talked about batteries. It's also a good sign when the HR lady could take jokes about them being evil (that means they really like you, too). Don't try this, even if you think they can take these sucker punches; I got lucky this time.
The Bad
1) Oswald Lighting: These people sell light bulbs. Most of the time they were busy protecting their trade secrets than interviewing. If they treat every interviewee like a potential industrial spy, you wonder what happens if you do end up working for them?
2) A-La-Pee Urinals. Granted, this is not a dream job, and I don't qualify. At least they could have ended it there. Instead they said they wanted me back for a second, then gave lame excuses with each follow up until they sent me a PFO for finding the other-than-you-right-person. I should have pissed on them.
The Ugly
1) Janice's Last Gig. Got this lead through a friend of a friend of a friend. I guess the fine folks at Janice didn't like this kind of wheel-greasing to ruin their reputation, so they decided to make an example out of me. Invited me down to an interview, then again, and was told that an offer would come in two weeks' time. After two weeks, I called them up, and they Mugu was told what the "right way" should be to get a job at Janice's -- start as an intern.
2) Money Shot Thrusters. No, it's not a porn studio. Somehow they got Mugu's CV, and decided to bring me down for anambush interview. Mugu knew that sometimes interviewers pretend to be assholes, but these people weren't pretending. The "key grip" thought he was Johnny Wadd, and the "director" seemed to be getting a kick out being a jerk. At least they reimbursed my expenses on time (to HR ... you know what "being on time" means).
Good thing is, I don't have to do this anymore, but I also would like to share with you some experiences that I have ... good, bad, and ugly. Names have been changed to protect the innocent.
The Good
1) Ricky's Autos: An Italian chop shop, been around when grandpa's still sucking his thumb. After almost four generations, it still has a very mom-and-pop feel to it. Signor Ricky himself saved the day when I was asked questions to which I couldn't answer (there was only one, and it turned out they weren't looking for an answer at all). Most of all, throughout the process, they treated Mugu with a helluva respect. Respect, Ricky.
2) JC cells: Another mom-and-pop joint, this time they sell batteries. It was probably the most relaxing interview Mugu ever had. For two and a half hours, we talked more about economics and politics, more than we talked about batteries. It's also a good sign when the HR lady could take jokes about them being evil (that means they really like you, too). Don't try this, even if you think they can take these sucker punches; I got lucky this time.
The Bad
1) Oswald Lighting: These people sell light bulbs. Most of the time they were busy protecting their trade secrets than interviewing. If they treat every interviewee like a potential industrial spy, you wonder what happens if you do end up working for them?
2) A-La-Pee Urinals. Granted, this is not a dream job, and I don't qualify. At least they could have ended it there. Instead they said they wanted me back for a second, then gave lame excuses with each follow up until they sent me a PFO for finding the other-than-you-right-person. I should have pissed on them.
The Ugly
1) Janice's Last Gig. Got this lead through a friend of a friend of a friend. I guess the fine folks at Janice didn't like this kind of wheel-greasing to ruin their reputation, so they decided to make an example out of me. Invited me down to an interview, then again, and was told that an offer would come in two weeks' time. After two weeks, I called them up, and they Mugu was told what the "right way" should be to get a job at Janice's -- start as an intern.
2) Money Shot Thrusters. No, it's not a porn studio. Somehow they got Mugu's CV, and decided to bring me down for an
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)