Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

activevoice.charlesbivona.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 152 posts

Re: If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

#121

Post by Mongoose »

dstorrs wrote: post #88
run4yourlives wrote: post #42

I'm 35. I'll try not to be too critical. Moral of the story: Being educated doesn't say anything about you being smart. Here's the rub. A college degree is a specialization. That's why you "major" in something. It was never designed to be an extension of high school. So, you should get a degree in something that you are both passionate about and also accept the limited career paths that come with that particular pass…

Personally, I have a BA in English with a minor in CS. Except for my first year out of college (performance analyst at a pension consulting firm -- I had applied to their computer department!), I've spent my entire career in computers. I've ticked most of the boxes -- coding, junior DBA work, junior sysadmin work, spec / doc writing, system architect, team lead, Director of Programming, and now Co-Founder. I am incre…

Humanities academics can obfuscate meaning just as proficiently as any engineer. See: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html

Re: If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

#122

Post by jqueryin »

ulf wrote: post #8
edw519 wrote: post #6

Let's see now... You took bad advice from the wrong person. You dumbed yourself down. You played the role of some other person, not yourself. You played someone else's game without expressing what you were really thinking. You settled for an inappropriate job. You're bored to death and wasting time in a dead end job for 6 months now. And you call that "Damn Smart"? [EDIT: The only smart thing you did (following up wi…

I think the title was supposed to be the train of thoughts for everyone who got his original application. They thought he was too smart to apply for that given job, so they did not even invite him for the interview, since he would have to be rich, if he was as smart as his application implied, in THEIR opinion.

All I took out of reading this article is that he should have been looking for higher level positions based on his qualifications. If he was so smart, he should've set his sights a little higher for a more rewarding and/or challenging position.

Re: If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

#123

Post by sharpn »

run4yourlives wrote: post #119
sharpn wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've really never seen anyone hired primarily for their communication skills?

Not without any other relevant experience to speak of, no. I've seen good communicators beat out poor communicators, but there is almost always something else that makes them attractive to the employer as well.

There are many fields (for example media, PR, some civil service positions) where communication is the primary skill being assessed - written in the CV & spoken in the interview. If you have a non-maths written component to your interview, you're being judged on your communication skills/literacy.

I agree there is often something else required too - but not always in a 'first' or 'graduate' position.

Re: If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

#124

Post by run4yourlives »

sharpn wrote: post #123
run4yourlives wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not without any other relevant experience to speak of, no. I've seen good communicators beat out poor communicators, but there is almost always something else that makes them attractive to the employer as well.

There are many fields (for example media, PR, some civil service positions) where communication is the primary skill being assessed - written in the CV & spoken in the interview. If you have a non-maths written component to your interview, you're being judged on your communication skills/literacy. I agree there is often something else required too - but not always in a 'first' or 'graduate' position.

To be honest, I thought it was rather obvious to those of us in this thread that if the primary technical skill for the job is communication, then having good communication skills is having good technical skills.

I believe the topic however centred around communications skills as ancillary to other technical skills that were part of job description.

Sorry if I caused confusion.

Re: If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

#125

Post by bitwize »

dstorrs wrote: post #88
run4yourlives wrote: post #42

I'm 35. I'll try not to be too critical. Moral of the story: Being educated doesn't say anything about you being smart. Here's the rub. A college degree is a specialization. That's why you "major" in something. It was never designed to be an extension of high school. So, you should get a degree in something that you are both passionate about and also accept the limited career paths that come with that particular pass…

Personally, I have a BA in English with a minor in CS. Except for my first year out of college (performance analyst at a pension consulting firm -- I had applied to their computer department!), I've spent my entire career in computers. I've ticked most of the boxes -- coding, junior DBA work, junior sysadmin work, spec / doc writing, system architect, team lead, Director of Programming, and now Co-Founder. I am incre…

I am incredibly glad that I majored in English and not CS or something "more practical." English in particular and Humanities in general teach you the most valuable skill there is: effective communication.

Indeed. Norman Mailer believed that the highest moral good was to follow your own passions -- and if you happened to kill a few people along the way, so much the better. Serves 'em right for falling lockstep into the dangerous and dehumanizing machine of American culture. But despite this moral reprehensibility... damn, what a communicator he was!

(Yes, one of my undergrad English profs was a total Mailer fanboy.)

Re: If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

#126

Post by sharpn »

run4yourlives wrote: post #124
sharpn wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many fields (for example media, PR, some civil service positions) where communication is the primary skill being assessed - written in the CV & spoken in the interview. If you have a non-maths written component to your interview, you're being judged on your communication skills/literacy. I agree there is often something else required too - but not always in a 'first' or 'graduate' position.

To be honest, I thought it was rather obvious to those of us in this thread that if the primary technical skill for the job is communication, then having good communication skills is having good technical skills. I believe the topic however centred around communications skills as ancillary to other technical skills that were part of job description. Sorry if I caused confusion.

No apology needed - thanks for the clarification.

Re: If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

#127

Post by Tycho »

dstorrs wrote: post #88
run4yourlives wrote: post #42

I'm 35. I'll try not to be too critical. Moral of the story: Being educated doesn't say anything about you being smart. Here's the rub. A college degree is a specialization. That's why you "major" in something. It was never designed to be an extension of high school. So, you should get a degree in something that you are both passionate about and also accept the limited career paths that come with that particular pass…

Personally, I have a BA in English with a minor in CS. Except for my first year out of college (performance analyst at a pension consulting firm -- I had applied to their computer department!), I've spent my entire career in computers. I've ticked most of the boxes -- coding, junior DBA work, junior sysadmin work, spec / doc writing, system architect, team lead, Director of Programming, and now Co-Founder. I am incre…

Lest anyone get carried away here I'd like to say that my Eng Lit Honours degree from a prestigious British university consisted of writing 2 papers every 3 months, listening to seminar presentations which were often copied wholesale from Wikipedia, and participating in 'discussions' where 90% of the people had nothing to say but still graduated. The idea that it turns you into an elite analytic/communicative essay writing engine was in my case pure fiction. I did write some high quality critical essays but it wasn't exactly a habit. I think I got by on previously acquired abilities. I deeply regret taking that course.

Re: If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

#128

Post by ams6110 »

jseliger wrote: post #112
starkfist wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it really take this long to get a "Master's in Humanities?" It only takes 3 years to get a law degree. FWIW, my sister has what effectively has a "master's in humanities." It took her 18 months and she makes 6 figs working at some sort of think tank in DC, so I think the individual matters a lot more than the degree...

Most M.A.s in humanities disciplines take two years, although many students stretch it to three; PhDs take somewhere between five and ten. Ten is the median for English PhDs and many others these days, according to Louis Menand in The Marketplace of Ideas ( http://www.amazon.com/Marketplace-Ideas-Resistance-American-... ): "People who received their PhDs in English between 1982 and 1985 had a median time to degree of…

10 years to get a PhD!! Ten years is about 1/4 of your "working" life....

Re: If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

#129

Post by barkmadley »

jqueryin wrote: post #122
ulf wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the title was supposed to be the train of thoughts for everyone who got his original application. They thought he was too smart to apply for that given job, so they did not even invite him for the interview, since he would have to be rich, if he was as smart as his application implied, in THEIR opinion.

All I took out of reading this article is that he should have been looking for higher level positions based on his qualifications. If he was so smart, he should've set his sights a little higher for a more rewarding and/or challenging position.

intelligent people tend to undervalue themselves while unintelligent people tend to overvalue themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re: If You’re So Damn Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?

#130

Post by nazgulnarsil »

Kisil wrote: post #109
ergo98 wrote: post #63

While I think this story is largely fictitious, when someone argues that they're downtrodden and victimized because they sound smart -- in verbal or written form -- they're often missing the forest for the trees. Unless you're debating esoterica of a specialized domain, the smartest people manage to communicate in a simple, effective manner(1). The person accused of using too many syllables, in contrast, tends to be…

>> When someone says "you're too smart", or "you sound too smart" or "try to dumb yourself down", most of the time they're not really saying that you're too smart. They're saying "can the act." Perhaps some people who use big words are putting on a show, but that's far from universal. Big words stay in our language because they convey subtly different meanings than their simpler synonyms. But there's a trade-off betw…

I can attest this is true. While I use a much broader vocabulary then most people, I don't often get criticized for it. I think this is because I don't use my vocabulary as a tool to condescend to people. I don't throw big words into small talk, I use big words when I have to to explain complex subjects. This makes it feel more inclusive than exclusive.
Post reply on HN