Milennials

I'm in a weird place.

Not physically weird like the furniture is nailed to ceiling or anything like that.  No, I'm stuck between two human generations that are vastly different but more alike than they realize.  I believe time will bear that out but for now it's just a hunch.

I hear a lot about how millennials have an entitlement mentality.  Well, I can tell you that such condemnations aren't exclusive to them nor are they anything new.

The civil rights movement was accused of similar "transgressions" against society until the accused flipped the term around on their accusers.

Damn right that people shouldn't be judged based on their complexion!  That's as legitimate an "entitlement" as expecting to be able to walk down the street without a bunch of morons wearing sheets hanging you from the nearest tree.

It really boils down to a heartfelt belief in social justice.

Social Media, the Internet and information overload in general have enabled social activism for causes a world away.  But for many millennials it seems that it's enough to tap the "Like" key and call it a victory for the cause.

The problem is is that somewhere along the line social justice has gotten mixed in with Beyonce' videos and video game streams.  Just another element of a social profile.

Worse, it's my generation that caused it.  We are the helicopter parents who banned the word "No" and instilled the belief that everything our kids did was wonderful and had a higher purpose.  Even if the brat was a borderline sociopath.

I've frequently used the phrase "T-ball trophy" to express my disdain for this kind of parenting.  There's a narcissistic undertone that comes out of it that says that because a belief is dearly held and popular that all others are invalid.  It all goes straight back to my generation who were determined to throw out the lessons of 100 generations of procreation and somehow expect a better result in our offspring.

It's where the entitlement charge comes from as well.

How can we blame millennials for dearly held left-field ideologies when we never told them they could be wrong?

Ladies and Gentlemen of Generation X.   You've raised a generation of suckers that will believe and suffer anything so long as it plays into the fantasy world we created for them.

I've seen nothing that better illustrates this point than the groundswell of support for Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders. Most of which comes from millennials.

There's nothing wrong with that per se' but when asked about the reasons for supporting him you hear a chorus of anti-establishment rhetoric with little substance.

Hey, I'd love to see all those things that Bernie is promising come to pass too.  But reality says that he's pushing an ideology.  He's selling a product no different than an IPhone or  a designer handbag.  It's promotion without substance with a marketing program that promises instant gratification.  Offer anything less at your own peril.

In fact even President Obama suffered a backlash shortly after transitioning from candidate to President because many supporters thought he should be doing more than he was.  As though the heavens were supposed to open up and vanquish all the evils of the world the moment he took the oath of office.

I've gotten into discussions with millennials over this and the common thread always comes back to a hyperactive belief in the need for immediate change without delay.  Consequences be damned!  We're going to save the planet and bring income equality to the world in a month.  If only these old "establishment" types would just hurry up and die already!

I can appreciate the commitment and the ambition especially when it's focused in a direction I happen to personally agree with.  But I don't buy anything based on its marketing.  I dig deeper which runs headlong into the entitlement mentality.

It seems just because you want something it should happen regardless of the consequences.  Ideologies are great for those weened on instant gratification but they ultimately end up as little more than lip service.

It's not that I believe that the millennial generation is any more naive or less intelligent.  I think they're responding to the programming we gave them.

Which is interesting because at some point in life you throw off that programming.  They say as we age we tend to get more conservative and cautious simply because we have more to lose and less time to recover.

I wouldn't be surprised that at some point when I'm just about ready to collect my paltry social security check of $1200 a month, the millennial generation is going to look a lot more like my parents, the baby boomers.

Remember that young baby boomers were just as much social activists as millennials are now.  In fact my generation spent years dodging the barbs for having no social conscience.  We were the "Do nothing" generation while our parents were lauded for changing social conscience and their parents for ushering in the modern age after winning world war 2.

But our parents eventually got older and with it more conservative.  For the  most part they took advantage of the trappings of the civilized world, raised families and relegated their activism to collections of Time Life "Sounds of the 60's." CD's.  Social justice was important but the climb up the corporate ladder even more so.

If any generation got idled it was theirs.  We still deal with pay inequality for women, stagnant wages and erosion of personal liberties.  What happened to all that activism in the 40 year's they've been in power?

Knee jerk legislation, mandatory sentencing for minor offenses and a income inequality unrivaled since the days of the 19th century robber barons.

I see a similar future for the millennial generation.  At some point you have to look past the packaging if you don't want to end up with maggots in your Twinkies.

If Generation X is to be saddled with the label of "doing nothing" it was simply because we didn't have the power or the cause to do to otherwise.  The world was finally made in an image acceptable to our parents and for a long time we didn't know any better.   As their children we didn't really have anything to complain about other than possible nuclear annihilation from cowboy politics..

You can, however, point to Generation X as the modern root of anti-corporate sentiment.  The boomers may have hated " The Man" but that pretty much ended when "The Man" started offering up company cars and golden parachutes.  The term "wage slave" entered the popular vocabulary during my generation as productivity went up and compensation went down.

In short, we were sold a bill of goods.  We were promised what our parents had but in the end we ended up being the first generation to have less than our parents.  All this while saddled with debilitating debt caused by an economy built on the premise that you could never really afford to buy anything.

Have you seen those "End of Life" insurance ads on TV.  Now you can't even get away from your bills when you die!  Since when is it commonplace to saddle your relatives with your bills?  Hell, when I go, just throw me off some cliff in the wilderness and let the coyotes get a meal.  How's that for environmentally friendly....

Still, with all that, I'm fortunate to have lived in a time where I saw technology rise from novelty to world changing.

When I was a kid music was still listened to on LP's and Cassette  tapes.  From there I saw the rise of the personal computer, the advent of mobile technology to now where connectivity is expected to be ubiquitous.  

So to millennials I can say this.  I get what you're after but don't dismiss my skepticism at your ideology.  I'm glad that your market power has forced a change in education and social awareness.  Just be aware that what you may think is anti-establishment is the same bill of goods that we were sold some 20 years ago.

And don't beat yourself up too badly if you realize somewhere around your mid 40's that liking a Facebook page wasn't really activism.  Step back and see what you've really accomplished before condemning those who've gone before you.

Yes, I still say it's my generation's fault that millennials seem a bit impatient and naive but so is any young generation just coming into their own power.  You can make the changes you want to see but it's not going to come from YouTube or social media or voting for unrealistic ideologies.

It will come from a unified effort toward real change.  An effort with a foundation that however flawed came from those that walked the path before you.

The disability of a narrow mind

Anyone who knows me well has heard me utter the phrase, "mediocrity is the standard" more than once and usually with disgust. 

So what do I mean by that?

To be blunt, the standard of mediocrity means blundering through life never attempting to do more than the bare minimum.  It's a fallback position that many in the working world spend their entire careers operating from. 

It usually happens when someone takes a position they may be qualified for but have no real interest in.  How such a person can rise to power when a more engaged candidate doesn't is usually indicative of a systematic problem within the organization.  In short, everyone up the management chain is similarly disinterested and will protect themselves from discovery.   

If one operates under the standard of mediocrity for a long enough period of time they eventually assume that it's the status quo.  This is the disability of the narrow mind within the context of employment.  Note that racism, elitism and other societal 'isms are similar in that all effectively cripple higher reasoning.

Thus we see the initial stages of the "dominos of disaster" when practitioners of the mediocrity standard run headlong into more engaged individuals.   

When confronted with a potential threat to the status quo of mediocrity, the disability becomes readily apparent.  It surfaces in confrontational behaviors and rejection of information not contained within their narrow focus even when compatible with stated organizational goals. 

In effect, the inability to think "outside the box" regardless of how beneficial the outcome will prevent the afflicted individual from acting reasonably.

If it sounds like a medical or psychological condition it is.  In fact it's pathological in an organizational sense.

This is the dilemma that the long term and formerly self employed face when interviewing with afflicted organizations.  Candidates with such a backgrounds are considered inferior and suspect regardless of experience, accomplishments or evidence to the contrary.

Take the example of the former self-employed consultant now interviewing for a regular full time position.  In this case the candidate may get through HR and lower level managers but find opposition from senior management.  Even before the first handshake is extended the candidate is already in a diminished position.

Overcoming the condition is virtually impossible as any concession the candidate asserts is assumed to be suspect if not disingenuous.   The only recourse for the candidate is to try to frame their qualifications within the narrow context of the organizational pathology.

At this point it's usually a pointless exercise to proceed any further since the organizational dysfunction curtails higher reasoning and shortens attention spans.  This is most blatantly evidenced by repeated questioning about the same topic, yawning and in some cases snoring.

Unfortunately, most organizations suffer the affliction and have even elevated it to a de facto mission statement.  It's a common pathogen meaning you're going to encounter a lot of it in the corporate world regardless of your job function. 

If you do encounter such an organization (and you will) and still  wish to persist in your efforts to join it you can employ the following tactics.  Note that they will likely be unsuccessful but more productive than attempting to alert the afflicted to their condition.

• ·         Lie -  You can hope they won't check your background and enter the organization with stealth if not outright deception.  With the easy access to information and most organizations requiring a formal background check it's likely you won't succeed past the first interview.  If the organization is dysfunctional enough, however, they may respond well to a cleverly crafted deception. 
• ·         Debate- This tactic will likely have even less of a chance of success than deception but at least you'll be comforted in the knowledge that you were completely truthful.  The tactic involves countering objections to your qualifications by crafting your responses to fit the narrow focus of the afflicted organization.  For example, when confronted with a concern about work ethic especially if your career consists primarily of self employment try this.  Assert the merits of personal responsibility and client satisfaction necessary to run a successful small business.  It also wouldn't hurt to mention that you're a firm believer in trickle-down economics and would jump at the chance to be standing on the bottom rung with awaiting arms outstretched.  Keep in mind, however, that afflicted organizations and their management have limited capability to engage in higher reasoning so keep your responses short and at roughly the 6th grade level.
• ·         Violence - Only useful if the prospects of arrest and incarceration hold no fear for you. 
• ·         Submission - In short, be an apologist for your entire career and essentially "throw yourself on the mercy of the court."  In a severely afflicted organization with candidates less qualified than yourself this may be the most effective tactic.  Be aware, however, that should you secure the position you will likely find it unfulfilling.  Still, the knowledge that mediocre performance is the status quo may eventually make your stay more tolerable.  Beware the danger of becoming infected with the Disability of the Narrow mind, however, as it will alter you on a cellular level.  Then again, once infected you will likely become anesthetized to its ill effects and become blissfully unaware of it.  This is especially true if  the position offers a good prescription drug program.
• ·         Defiance - This is similar to the Violence option above except the authorities aren't involved.  It's not so much a display of emotional outbursts as an attempt to make the hiring manager feel stupid.  The desired outcome of this tactic is to temporarily shock management out of their disability by forcing undeniable logic on them.  Your ultimate goal is to convince the hiring manager that you are the change needed to further organizational goals.  Unfortunately, this tactic has only been shown to work in the movie Office Space.

In short, afflicted organizations should be avoided if at all possible.  Otherwise damage to your career and possibly your psyche could result.

Fixing the lie of "for profit" schools (revised and angrier!)

After my last article about the lie of for profit schools a friend of mine wrote to me saying that while he agreed with most of my take on the Devry's of the world he couldn't completely agree with it. 

Of course this sparked a larger discussion when I saw him a few days later.  Briefly, his position was that while for profit schools may be more apt to focus on their bank account than the curriculum it didn't necessarily elevate public universities to Mother Theresa status.

He related a few key points in his argument. 

•      Nobody's forced to attend a post-secondary school.
•      Non-profit doesn't necessarily mean eligible for sainthood.
•   Schools aren't completely responsible for the success or failure of a student. 

Let's take a look at these...

Yes, education after high school is completely voluntary  but I'd argue completely necessary.  That is unless you think cashiering at your local fast food joint is a career path.  Considering I could barely count change when I graduated from high school, a little extra classroom time was beneficial.

When we're talking about non-profits it's a given that anything touched by humanity is by default corrupted by its ambitions.  Even the Bible couldn't escape that truth and neither does a non-profit school.

He pointed to how non-profits may not offer stocks traded on the NYSE but it never stopped them from wasting millions on something other than their stated reason for being. Admittedly, it's hard to frame the building of a new football stadium at "(Insert State here) University" as a catalyst for advancing education.

Still, at least the money went back into advancing something other than a quarterly dividend to some shareholder.  I'd also remind you that there are plenty of non-profits that don't have their own football stadium. 

His last point goes without saying, we are to at least some degree in control of our own destiny.  If in the pursuit of it we're mislead into making a poor decision, however, somebody needs to be held accountable.  It's the reason we have the Federal Trade Commission.  If you mislead the public about your product expect to pay the consequences.  That's the set of rules you have to accept if you're in the "business" of selling education like Oscar Mayer sells hot dogs. 

Yes, public universities also suffer the sin of selling unnecessary classes too but they're a damned sight cheaper and at least the credits transfer.  Oh yeah, and they're not setting up the curriculum based on a revenue projection.

That's really the crux of the argument.  As I said in the last article, if you're going to just sell education as a product then your focus isn't on advancing knowledge.  Rather it's advancing your bottom line.

So here's the part where my friend agreed with me.

I hold the belief that any educational institution that operates as a profit entity shouldn't have access to public funds.  Yes, I'm suggesting that taxpayer backed student loans and grants shouldn't be given to institutions whose reason for being is the make money. 

I see no reason to provide public funding to someone's private venture with virtually no oversight and dubious value to society.  It's not unlike the uproar over the AIG bailout or the furor over saving domestic automakers.  The difference here is that there's even less oversight of public monies in for-profit schools than there was for the billions we gave to banks and insurance companies. 

If your school is in it for the money then put it where your mouth is.  The Devry's and ITT's of the world  shouldn't be getting the bulk of their revenues from government backed student loans and grants.  If they want to offer financing they should be providing it themselves and not passing it on to taxpayers.

That means your education may still cost $50k for a Bachelor's degree but if it doesn't live up to the hype and you go broke because of it at least there's always bankruptcy. 

It's not that I'm against private schools or even alternative education, on the contrary.  I myself was attracted to ITT Tech and then the University of Phoenix exactly because I didn't want to waste time on classes that had nothing to do with my chosen course of study. 

That's been a failing of public universities in the past and it caused a drop in enrollment which ultimately benefitted alternatives like the for-profit schools.  A problem, by the way,  that's only recently been addressed by many universities adopting a similar program structure to the for-profit schools.

So if the Not for profit schools have been able to adjust their programs to match the profit schools and still be 2 to 4 times cheaper for the same degree then where's the justification for the extra cost? 

As much as I may have enjoyed my time at ITT Tech nobody holds that degree in the same regard as say a year of study at M.I.T.  So how can you justify charging almost the same money for a year of education at an IVY league school ?

The simple answer goes back to that old marketing adage, Sell benefits not features.  Advertising a benefit is essentially selling an intangible product that's almost impossible to challenge.  Where features like power windows, cruise control or Air conditioning are tangible.  Looking Cool, being admired and improving your station in life are not. 

They're the warm fuzzies that you can't quite put your finger on and if you can't define what it is that's motivating you then you can't challenge their value either.   Convincing me that I'm going to be just as valuable to the world as an M.I.T. graduate based on a bare bones"heat and serve" boilerplate curriculum is just a lie.

That, my friends, is exactly what for-profit schools are selling.  Not the quality of their programs but the promise of improving your condition for a premium price.  Whether or not it's justified is entirely subjective but I'd rather not be putting taxpayers on the line for it. 

If you're a for-profit school and your programs fail to deliver you still have the taxpayer's money no matter how successful the students are.  You've effectively conned the government into supporting your corporate bottom line. 

Perhaps it's the biggest con game of all when you can get public money to support private enterprise that by its very nature is set up to only enrich itself.  

I mean at least Boeing has to deliver helicopters that don't crash in the desert for the billions they get from the Department of Defense.  Where's the accountability for the University of Phoenix and Devry's of the world who take billions in public education money? 

Does it make any sense that government financing has turned these schools into multibillion dollar corporations whose only reason for existence is to keep the public money pump primed and flowing?  They can't deny it, their "business" model is set up to support a revenue stream no matter how much it degrades the product.  It really is that simple.  If you're a corporation, you're in it for the money anything else is just marketing.

This actually speaks to the flawed logic of people who believe that government should be run like a business.  It just doesn't work simply because where business exists for the enrichment of itself, government exists for the public good (or at least it used to).

Government that exists for the betterment of itself usually has a dictator at the helm and that's not good for anybody. 

The logic fits for education as well.  Hopefully my point is a bit clearer now.