With programming they built this whole myth that "coding is easy, bro, trust me, you don't even need to know maths" and then people approach it with an according attitude. Once they actually progress from doing CodeAcademy courses to more real-world-like programming they hit a wall, programming turning out to be hard doesn't fit their mental model of it being easy, they decide it's not for them and leave it.
On the other hand, it could be argued that people who need to be convinced to overcome difficulties in progressing in a skill are not suited for it, but I'd still say that the world could do with more honesty so people can calibrate their expectations appropriately.
Suicide rates for veterinarians is one of the highest of any professional group.
The first day of sophomore year my wife always lectures about the financial and emotional realities of the veterinary field. She makes them make a budget for themselves that includes a hundred thousand in student loans and assumes starting pay in the high thirties. And every year she has students leave in tears. She frequently gets irate phone calls from parents saying that she has crushed their daughter's (in a few cases, their son's) dreams.
But this is likely the only time they will have had anyone tell them the cautionary tale. And it is the right thing to do.
Animals toys and books about animals are considered girl toys now I think. Boys have dinosaurs. I think it was different when I was a kid, a boy could have animals (in books or those plastic figurines) and books about animals on top of cars and it was completely normal. Horses camps used to be boy thing, now it is girl thing - probably due to cowboys and westerns going out of fashion.
At least here locally.
More like they abandoned their "dreams" because they learned they value other things in life even more. It sounds like your wife is doing the right thing. A little pain now to save those students years of hurt down the road.
Other things would be pets weighing three times what they should, never given exercise, etc.
Those are covered in your unreasonable owners, I guess.
Other “occupations” however, such as actors, musicians, chefs, and yes entrepreneurs, are often mostly or wholly dependent on luck to get a good outcome. They have to be extremely good and be lucky. Coders just have to be decently good to get a job.
I don't think it's about luck. I think it's about supply and demand.
In a supply/demand imbalance situation, it very much is about luck for an individual. If for each open position there are 100 candidates, then whether or not you'll get that job is mostly a matter of luck (and to some degree contacts).
An extra problem here is that "luck" doesn't mean lottery. It also means making all the right choices for the past years, including back before you even figured out you're in competition for a position.
Personally, I'd say the one for journalism would probably look a lot like the chef one. Many of the same beats would be hit there too:
1. You've (sometimes) got an expensive degree that costs more than you'll likely take home in wages. Though (presumably) like with a chef, it's technically a field you can do well in without a degree if your experience stacks up.
2. The internships and work experience you take on cost a fortune, since they're low/non paying positions in expensive locations, which likely work better for those with a trust fund or a decent amount of financial support from a partner or parent.
3. If you're not passionate about it, find something else because it's basically financial suicide.
4. Yet again, there's some skill/advantage you should have to do well. Not age/fitness, but influence/existing audience.
5. There's a decent amount of pressure too, with minimal benefits, low pay, awkward working hours, etc.
You could probably paraphrase the article and make it about the media industry without changing more than a paragraph or two. Same goes with game development, though that'd require a few more changes.
But yeah, it would be interesting to see articles like this for other industries.
However, programming really is easy, in that its learning curve is very shallow. It might be a long way, and you might become afflicted with the "C language brainwash", where you fail to distinguish between algorithmic and engineering details, which will further impede progress, but the learning curve is shallow, which means that overall it feels easy.
I stopped and started a handful of times, but I would always get so frustrated that I quit after a few weeks or months each time.
The most recent time, I realized that a lot of my issues were more logistical in nature. I didn't adequately understand how to use the command line, or where my packages were being installed, or how the files interacted with each other, or how to create and delete a development environment, or how to get an IDE configured.
All these things are things that felt like "not programming" to me, and indeed, when you Google "learning programming" you almost entirely get posts and articles about syntax and most of them gloss over setting up an environment.
Now that I've figured out how to get an environment set up and torn down and I can spend more time building things, I'm finding that it's nowhere near as complicated as I thought originally.
1. Minmaxing life and taking the shortest path to a degree
2. More interested in CS theory
3. Just plain unlucky in that everyone teaching their elective courses went out of their way to provide a sanitized environment
can end up mildly screwed.
It's completely consistent. From the description, in this job if you're overweight, or slow, or stubborn, or have chronic illness, or otherwise can't handle hard physical work, you're not suitable for the job. "Meritocracy" doesn't mean "judging only by how smart someone is", but "judging by how well one can do the job".
Sorry, I don't buy into his arguing from authority pov and not just because he sounds like an a hole.
As for his writing, I didn't find him sounding "like an a hole". To me, he sounds like a normal human being communicating honestly.
To each their own I guess, let just agree we disagree.
All the great chefs know each other. Do right by one and they tend to hook you up with the others.
You might be right. I'm not a native speaker, but it reads a lot like nepotism to me.
Nepotism is usually used in negative context meaning preferring unskilled family member over skilled person you don’t know.
Otherwise any kind of recommendation can be seen as form of nepotism.
Of course everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, nevertheless I do think there is an element of making excuses here for a celebrity. Ditto for the meritocracy' with ageism and body discrimination.
> All the great chefs know each other. Do right by one and they tend to hook you up with the others.
> Which is to say: if you’re lucky enough to be able to do the above, do not fuck up.
Bourdain is specifically saying there is not nepotism--that you must "do right by" a chef (in context, you must be GREAT at your job) in order to get hooked up with others--and the converse, "do not fuck up," because if you do, your bad reputation will now precede you. This is not nepotism--nepotism would be if he said "if you get a chance to work with a great chef, great, you're home free, because now they're your friend and will recommend you to other chefs regardless of how good/bad you are."