Skip to main content

So, what is a "career" afterall?

It's funny - I look at myself as a product of privilege and good fortune because I had the opportunity to get educated in the United States, but when I think of what my "career" looks like, I have no clue what's going on.

I find that a lot of my friends might feel the same way. In my opinion, a career represents a body of work that you have either previously done, are currently doing or plan on doing in the future, that is your function in society. When I was applying to university in 2004, a career meant our IB grades and coursework, our intended university study focus, and the schools we were applying for (all 200575639302247304 of them for us folks who needed financial aid).

But after university, a career meant (again) your grades and important works from your degree, any relevant intern/externship experience, and your intended work options.

Here's where I get a little confused. If career comes down to work options, and we keep what I like to call the former definition of career, then these work options would have to reflect your study interests. This is, of course, assuming that your work options require you to have focused your education around that type of work.

Now, how many of you reading this (echoes about the walls of the Internet, and comes right back to me) feel like what you studied in school or any experience from your jobs could be used for purposes other than to serve one particular field?

I think there's much more room for lateral thinking in the 21st century. I also think that now more than ever, we need to consider knowledge as interrelated, connected and collaborative. We need to define a career today as a multi-dimensional work ethic that involves humanistic values, not necessarily pinned down as scholarly definitions.

It's difficult for me to imagine the future as involving focused careers as we define them today. I believe a "focused career" will involve a variety of disciplines meshed together to create new areas of results-oriented, and socially beneficial work.

So the next time you're surfing job openings (because there's so many jobs available these days, right?), and you don't feel like you're up for the requirements of the position, try selling what you already can do in relation to the position. Who knows - the people hiring you may not see an immediate need for other, non-related skills and interests, but those interests may be vital for the long-term.

Carpe diem.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tanzania is not Tasmania

Dear friends: Please let's stop refering to Tanzania as Tasmania. Here is why. Tanzania is located on the coast of East Africa, below Kenya. It is not origin of the the cartoon character from your childhood. Tasmania is an island which is part of Australia. The animal known to exist only on Tasmania is the Tasmanian Devil. Once again, you will see this is not the cartoon character you remember from your childhood. Let's summarize: Tanzania is not Tasmania.

Policy Brief 2: Why is Tanzania Poor?

(Policy Brief # 2 Submitted December 6th 2007, for Econ 346 - Economic Development, Lafayette College) Over the course of the 20th century, Tanzania experienced a multitude of social, political and economic changes. It still remains poor today. The WorldBank classifies a ‘low income country’ – such as Tanzania – as one with a Gross National Income per capita of $905 or less (WorldBank Data 2006). As of 1992, Tanzania ’s per capita income was recorded at $110, and average per capita consumption was $0.5 per day (OECD 2000). Several possible factors have been blamed for contributing to current hardships, such as Julius Nyerere’s failed attempts to collectivize agriculture between 1961 and 1975 through his socialist Ujamaa policies as the first president of Tanzania (Pratt 1980). While pre-independence plans “focused on the commercialization of agriculture and the creation of industries that could reduce the need for a variety of imports”, post-independence interventions by the Gov

Revision rinsed II

When discussing communication for development, we tend to argue against the models based only on diffusion of media technologies. That is, in pursuing a critical approach to development practices, we tend to support participatory approaches to technology use and engagement. Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory. It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse. Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or