Gen Y Tech Savvy, But Not Interested in a Career

jcatcw writes "Young people aren't choosing computer science majors because they take technology for granted — it's something to use not something to make a career. "By and large, this generation is very fluent with technology and with a networked world," according to James Ware, executive producer at The Work Design Collaborative LLC, a Berkeley, Calif., consortium exploring workplace values and the future of the workforce. That future may be in managing technology, which requires skills today's college students don't have: writing, critical thinking, hard work and just plain showing up. One of their primary concerns is a flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance."

Re:get off my lawn

[Anonymous Coward]

as soon as you start calling me a lazy idiot, I stop caring what you think.

...thus proving the original statement.

Re:Lazy Kids !

[MrCrassic]

While that might be true, not all "15-year-old kids" can get up and get the CompTIA A+ certification that would allow them to work at bigger places and actually make profit for their knowledge...

Hell, not even some older, more experienced techs can establish their skills into something profitable. People always need a technican; I believe it's just a matter of how well the game is played.

Re:Critical thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in IT at a public K-12 school system. I know what technology is used and how it is used. I also went through this same school system when I was a child, and have experienced a large assortment of different training methods over the years, so I'm very capable of comparing different methodologies and their effectiveness. I'm not so close to the administration that teachers consider me a threat, so I can really hear their complaints. I can also hear the reasoning behind the administrators' decisions, and compare one against the other.

I'm not impressed with the changes as time rolls along.

The poster to which you are replaying is very correct, but so much more detail could be added that it would be unbearable to read due to length. Most of your points are way off (if not contradictory), but you do add to what the previous poster said: there is an added (forced) concentration on testing. Schools used to teach you how to learn. Now you are taught how to pass a standardized test. Along with other testing. But that barely scratches the surface.

The testing is not effective, because there is a strong de-emphasis on student accountability. If they fail their state-mandated standardized test, they can take it again, and again, and again until they pass. Or if they get a good grade in the class, mommy and daddy can petition the administration to give them a free ride for that state-mandated standardized test. Students are not "held back" or "retained" (and it's definitely not called "failing" anymore) for the reasons the previous poster cited. It's the same way with grouping by ability that is controversial in many school districts.

You contradict yourself in that you agree teachers today aren't as talented as they used to be, but yet you say that there isn't a negative progression in education as time moves forward. If I give you 50 stones, the most you can give someone else is 50, if you even give them that many. You can't give any more. That person having even fewer stones than you did, can pass on even less to the next person.

But it's not just the teachers' faults. By and large, they don't have the support from the administration above them, or the administration above that level. They also have to play baby-sitter to the kids who don't care and who likely will never care while they cause disruption in the classroom, and they have to try to tailor their lessons to the lowest common denominator. This often causes the more advanced students to become bored, allowing immaturity to kick in, and thus creating even more behaviour problems.

Many things contribute to the poor state of education that is called public education these days.

Now, compare this style of "learning" and "testing" to what you experience on any IT certification test, even ones as pathetic as _______ (fill in the blank as you please). With the exception of the Comptia tests which allow you to review your answers, once you answer, that's it. When the test is over, that's it. If you pass, you pass. If you fail, you fail. Failing the test will tell you where you need work, so you -can- go back and study and try again. But it's not free.

Administrators would definitely get their panties in a bunch if they had to put their precious students under such pressure. It would likely affect the money coming into the school and, ultimately, flowing into their bank accounts. We can't have that.

-M

Re:There are only about 26,000 real CS jobs in the

[russotto]

Closest I can find to your 26,000 figure is "Computer and Information Scientists, Research" (27,650). The iPhone and Palm jobs you mention wouldn't fall under that, they'd most likely fall under "Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software" (employment of 329,060). Then there's the 472,520 jobs in "Computer Software Engineers, Applications". And the 396,020 "Computer Programmers". There's also 446,460 "Computer Systems Analysts".

Running hedge funds takes an entirely different skillset. There's probably a lot of people with both, I've known a few programmers who went into finance also. But I think the part of the iPhone job most closely related to that is the "getting yelled at by Jobs", not the technical problems.