Of job-hunts, majors and calling…

The body was a modified ice-cream tub, the blades were borrowed from my dad’s cabinet, and the motor was a simple battery operated device, a treasure that I owned. I used these to make my first working model, a mini-blender, for my doll house. A nidus was planted, which over the next decade took a concrete shape in form of my calling: engineering.

As a five year old, little did I know that I had jet-skied myself to a field, which as the ‘know-it-alls’ of the world claim, most paying. Yes! my 60 month old brain had weighed the pros and cons to spear-head towards a career which would eventually sublimate into my spending a good part of my post-retirement life on my private island in the Bahamas

No. 4.50 AM does not make me crazy.
Internet on the other hand…

There is a notion about certain majors being more paying than others, floating on the web-o-sphere.  I wonder, how people can justify choice of careers based on economic capacities of the same. Surely talent and giftedness cannot be exchanged for monetary compensations?

everybody is a genius…
but if you ask a fish to climb a tree,
it will live its whole life believing it is stupid!

Whatever happened to motivating high schoolers to follow their hearts? Goes to show why many of the best brains of the world, were not graduates! So, when does one follow ones true calling? How does one recognize true calling, in order to respond to it.

I know of individuals who have chosen to follow their hearts. And no, it probably does not monetize as much as the high flying corporate job in a multi-national.

But, it does pay! It pays in the implicit means, rewards difficult to tag.

This post is not to argue about choice majors and careers, this is just to leave my thoughts out in the void, hoping that, for all those articles merging and trending ‘jobs, majors, money and economy’, there is one voice in disagreement.

For, after all, there ARE somethings, money cannot buy…



The terms talented and gifted have been used interchangeably in literature to describe a wide range of exceptional performance.  Talent is often considered to be a specialized ability, a high level of competence in a particular domain while the term giftedness has generally been equated with a high IQ score.  The three necessary elements proposed by different researchers and scientists for characterizing talent are:

  1. high ability
  2. task commitment
  3. persistence

The term talent is thus an umbrella concept to encompass various facets of excellence or potential for excellence.  The exact meaning of the term talented and gifted is an object of constant debate.

Studies on related literature shows that there has been a dissatisfaction with the unidimensional notion of talent and this has led to a concern for individual children’s unique strengths, interests and development and an acceptance of diverse expressions of excellence.  Howard Gardner talks about his theory of multiple intelligence and says,

In the heyday of the psychometric and behaviorist eras, it was generally believed that intelligence was a single entity that was inherited; and that human beings – initially a blank slate – could be trained to learn anything, provided that it was presented in an appropriate way. Nowadays an increasing number of researchers believe precisely the opposite; that there exists a multitude of intelligences, quite independent of each other; that each intelligence has its own strengths and constraints; that the mind is far from unencumbered at birth; and that it is unexpectedly difficult to teach things that go against early ‘naive’ theories of that challenge the natural lines of force within an intelligence and its matching domains.

Another point for consideration in understanding talented children is that while some concede that these children are a distinct group of exceptional children who share certain unique cognitive and socio-emotional characteristics, others think that talented or gifted performance should be understood in a more dynamic context and can be attributed to contextual influences as much as personal characteristics.  Rooted in this dilemma is a more philosophical question…Is it a social construction rather than objective reality?

As the phenomenon of talented and gifted is subject to many interpretations, consequent are the different strategies for assessment.  The traditional approach, which focuses on a set of static attributes or traits largely relies on testing.

In contrast there is the dynamic assessment approach, which looks at processes, strategies, errors etc. and attempts to understand the micro-level analysis and clinical insights regarding child’s performance.

Such an approach raises an issue of subjectivity in measurement and assessment.
Would talent be limited to abilities that can be measured only by objective tests or does it also need to include subjective judgment as well???