4 ms·

I'm totally OK with "do what you love," so long as it's followed by, "So long as you can afford to do so." I often tell my children that I'm incredibly fortuna

by reuven 13y ago

I'm totally OK with "do what you love," so long as it's followed by, "So long as you can afford to do so." I often tell my children that I'm incredibly fortunate to work in a field that I love, and for which there is demand. Most people, I say, work in order to make money, which is totally reasonable and legitimate, but means that they're doing things they don't necessarily enjoy. So yes, I'm privileged, in that people pay me to do what I love. And I think that in our age, a large number of people can be similarly privileged. But it shouldn't be an expectation, but rather an aspiration, to be able to work in something that you love. And if you can't work in something that you love, then it's more than respectable and reasonable to do something that brings in sufficient income to feed, clothe, and house your family -- and, one can hope, gives you enough time to pursue the hobbies and interests that you do love, and about which you can be passionate.

3pt14159 13y ago
I also tell the people that ask for my advice that it is ok to live in a $500/month shithole if it means you get to do what you love. Don't accept what people expect of you (nice house, car, etc) do what you want to do if at all possible.
slurry 13y ago
I think it's interesting that you love what you do and also work in a high demand field. I don't think those are actually coincidental. All the chemical engineers I know (I know a few) are pretty happy. Most find their work interesting. All the humanities academics I know (I know very many, having been one in a former life) are more or less unhappy. Many find their day to day work uninteresting and unexciting. Chemical engineering is a high-demand field. Not many people's dream job. Humanities academia is a low-demand field. Many people's dream job. I think "work in a high demand field" is better advice for any young person than "do what you love," with or without qualification. Especially if they are the sort of young person who wants to be passionate and interested in their work. Doing the hyperspecialized Hot Field of the Day may be a bad idea, but perennials like [software] engineering, K-12 education, finance, nursing, medicine etc. are generally going to be the best use of an intelligent student's time. Low-demand fields mean a lot of down time due to lack of funding or lack of employment. That kills passion. High-demand fields mean there's always something to do and a new problem to solve. I think that's more important for actually loving what you do.
- taeric 13y ago
  This ignores that often the high demand is there because it is a tough job for folks to do. Not everyone can physically/mentally do any job. Even if they would love to do so. That you know successful people appears at face value to simply be survivorship bias.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
  - slurry 13y ago
    Academia, nonprofit work, the arts and other low-demand "dream" jobs are also extremely demanding and not possible for everyone to do. My argument was that being one of the (high percentage of) chemical engineers with a job is better than being one of the (low percentage of) humanities academics with a job. I'll acknowledge that survivorship bias is a potential problem. Do you think humanities PhD washouts are generally happier than Chem E washouts?
    - taeric 13y ago
      My argument is that the "high percentage of chemical engineers" are the survivors. I knew quite a large number of chemical engineers that failed out of college. Or, amusingly enough, had to switch majors to a humanities degree. :) So, if your point is to strive high at what you are good at, provided that what you are good at is in demand, then yeah. Kind of easy to see. If your point is to simply pick an in demand position and be good at it, that is a bit tougher.
      - slurry 13y ago
        Cut policies at chem e programs are brutal and I sympathize. However, an unsuccessful chem e student who becomes a coder, or uses his prereqs to get into nursing school or become a K-12 teacher is still following my advice. It's not about which specific field, it's about what kind of probability distribution of finding a job in a field.
        taeric 13y ago

by reuven 13y ago

3pt14159 13y ago

I also tell the people that ask for my advice that it is ok to live in a $500/month shithole if it means you get to do what you love. Don't accept what people expect of you (nice house, car, etc) do what you want to do if at all possible.

slurry 13y ago

I think it's interesting that you love what you do and also work in a high demand field. I don't think those are actually coincidental. All the chemical engineers I know (I know a few) are pretty happy. Most find their work interesting. All the humanities academics I know (I know very many, having been one in a former life) are more or less unhappy. Many find their day to day work uninteresting and unexciting. Chemical engineering is a high-demand field. Not many people's dream job. Humanities academia is a low-demand field. Many people's dream job. I think "work in a high demand field" is better advice for any young person than "do what you love," with or without qualification. Especially if they are the sort of young person who wants to be passionate and interested in their work. Doing the hyperspecialized Hot Field of the Day may be a bad idea, but perennials like [software] engineering, K-12 education, finance, nursing, medicine etc. are generally going to be the best use of an intelligent student's time. Low-demand fields mean a lot of down time due to lack of funding or lack of employment. That kills passion. High-demand fields mean there's always something to do and a new problem to solve. I think that's more important for actually loving what you do.

taeric 13y ago
This ignores that often the high demand is there because it is a tough job for folks to do. Not everyone can physically/mentally do any job. Even if they would love to do so. That you know successful people appears at face value to simply be survivorship bias.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
- slurry 13y ago
  Academia, nonprofit work, the arts and other low-demand "dream" jobs are also extremely demanding and not possible for everyone to do. My argument was that being one of the (high percentage of) chemical engineers with a job is better than being one of the (low percentage of) humanities academics with a job. I'll acknowledge that survivorship bias is a potential problem. Do you think humanities PhD washouts are generally happier than Chem E washouts?
  - taeric 13y ago
    My argument is that the "high percentage of chemical engineers" are the survivors. I knew quite a large number of chemical engineers that failed out of college. Or, amusingly enough, had to switch majors to a humanities degree. :) So, if your point is to strive high at what you are good at, provided that what you are good at is in demand, then yeah. Kind of easy to see. If your point is to simply pick an in demand position and be good at it, that is a bit tougher.
    - slurry 13y ago
      Cut policies at chem e programs are brutal and I sympathize. However, an unsuccessful chem e student who becomes a coder, or uses his prereqs to get into nursing school or become a K-12 teacher is still following my advice. It's not about which specific field, it's about what kind of probability distribution of finding a job in a field.
      - taeric 13y ago