3 ms·
> The main reason being getting a standard corporate job tends to nullify all impact you could have (with a few rare exceptions). "Impact" is an ambiguous term
by Eduard 2y ago
> The main reason being getting a standard corporate job tends to nullify all impact you could have (with a few rare exceptions).
"Impact" is an ambiguous term, so it's quite vague what you mean. I assume "positive impact on the world and knowledge".
While this mantra is indeed motivational, it can set you up for disappointment, both in corporate as well as research/PhD settings, at the moment you realize how many hurdles there can be (toxic colleagues, bureaucracy, ignorance, etc.).
Also, for this interpretation of "impact", a corporate job can be very impactful as well.
- InkCanon 2y ago>impact is ambiguous This is the core of the issue (most replies usually involve some slightly different definitions). I take many definitions of impact, including societal use, contributing to knowledge, etc. But it's much clearer there are many things people do that are low impact, especially in places with a lot of bureaucracy, politics etc. A corporate job can, but it seems to me as a result of various incentives corporate jobs tend to be compartmentalized, low impact and repetitive. We're also at a down cycle where tech, the historical haven for impact in a job, is scaling back a ton of things to focus on stock prices. If you know of any corporate jobs that do have impact by some definition of it, I'd love to hear it. In my experience these have been mostly startups.