Letters to the Editor
-
A Canadian perspective
Let me preface all this with the caveat that a lot of what people are saying is obviously US-specific, and as a Canadian my situation may be different in ways that I don't understand.
That said, it seems like a lot of the pressures are similar. At my alma mater (I'm 27 and graduated in 2004) we paid around US$5000 a year in tuition and fees, which I think is similar to US public schools? And of course all the stuff about wanting to make a difference and worrying about selling out and trying to keep your sense of selfhood separate from consumer impulses, etc., still applies.
What strikes me as strange, though, in a lot of what I'm reading, is the degree of expectations that a lot of people have and the feeling that if those expectations aren't fulfilled it will be catastrophic. Young people seem concerned that if they don't do something altruistic professionally AND have a house with a yard AND a car AND live in New York AND make enough to not have to worry about debt, at the least, then the system is broken.
I grew up in Victoria, British Columbia, a beautiful (and cosmopolitan) city of 350,000 on the west coast. I picked up a little bit of scholarship money (I was lucky, although there is a tonne of funding out there for almost anyone who's willing to look). I went to a public university in my home town (and the American obsession with the Ivy League and private schools is one of the weirdest things about all this to me - like, really Bizarro World.) I paid my own way but lived at home rent-free, and graduated with around $15,000 in debt, which I paid off by teaching and copywriting in Tokyo for a bit (rent was $500 a month, and having spent time in a few other "great cities," they seem broadly similar. New York is not THAT expensive if you scale back your lifestyle expectations) and selling off my CD collection.
I didn't expect my useless liberal arts degree to get me a career, so I went back and did a professional diploma in journalism. I've spent the past year on co-op as a tech writer and government paper-pusher. It's not throbbingly meaningful but it pays the bills and then some. Which means I have the freedom to take off in a little bit and hit up Europe and Asia for fun times, and then come back and add a useless liberal arts MA, take my shot at an academic career, and slide back into the public sector, either NGO or government if I miss tenure track and want to avoid the "senior instructor" ghetto. The baby boomers are retiring and there are jobs a'plenty.
I'm politically active, too, but I won't bore you with that. The point of all this yammering about myself is how utterly ordinary the life I'm describing is. Anyone could have worked things out the same way. I haven't had EVERYthing - I've never owned a car (or wanted to - I've got amazing bike legs), and I won't have a shot at a house for many years. But I've done almost everything I wanted.
And so I guess my questions are . . . . Where did everyone get the idea that their education entitled them to f***-all? Why are they all so depressed about their choices - "saving the world" versus "selling out"? (Thirty years of working life is plenty of time to do both and try a few other things besides. It's not like, once a hedge-fund manager, always a hedge-fund manager.) What's wrong with the trades?
And most of all, HOW do you rack up fifty grand in student debts? Like, beer is even cheaper down there than it is up here. My suspicion is that this greed/altruism binary is false (thank YOU, undergrad theory courses!) and that everyone's just addicted to pointless shit that they totally, totally don't need. Otherwise, they'd be able to do all the job-changing and house-buying and travelling they wanted, and even if things wet off the rails somewhere along the way they could still have their little life and their kids and their garden or sailboat, and that would be fine too. Stop whinging and live!
-
A sell out's response
What if selling out means gaining an ounce of control over your life.
Here's another snapshot of a 20-something that could easily fit into The Trap's compilation of sad tales of my colleagues into the working world: I started working in journalism my junior year of college. Five years later, I've gotten a $.20 raise.
I attended a private Catholic college, an thought I graduated early and received academic scholarships, will still be paying it off into my 30's.
After graduation, I bar tended for two years until a golden chance to "sell out" fell into my lap. So I tossed the apron for a suit and headed toward a pasture of dollar-bill green.
I still work in journalism part time, but feel that a full-time opportunity will never happen. As a part-time writer, the newspaper can deny me heath care, benefits, retirement options, assignments, and can have absolute control over the bottom line - wages. They know that my passion for writing will keep me coming back.
Many younger professionals have a passion for not-for-profits or more liberal arts arena pursuits, but cannot control those organizations' stinginess - whether deliberate or not.
So I guess I took the only type of control of my life I could think of by selling out.
In conclusion, I very much agree with Brook's thesis. I feel that not only are 20-somethings forced into these career decisions, but the decision in turn becomes one of deciding between having control or not over their lifestyle.
-
Fair
Seems to me that if you have a desire to do something no one is willing to pay you enough (in your opinion) to do (say, be an "activist"), you (or, indeed, Ms Taylor or Mr. Brook) shouldn't complain if you have to sacrifice financially to do it.
You definitely shouldn't demand that the state pay you more by taking money out of the pockets of people who are doing something others ARE willing to pay for, or saving, or investing, or taking risks in their own business. After all, some of those people probably regard your particular cause as undesirable.