(For title reference, if you have never seen Lava, a short film created by Pixar that has almost nothing to do with this Ethics assignment, click here)
Have it all? Of course I want to have it all. I want a family (a loving husband, 2 kids, and at least one dog, but would prefer more). I want a job that I am challenged at and am excited to go to most, if not all, mornings. I want to be near my immediate family who has been there for me for all of my life. However, this begs the question of whether or not one can have it all. Do I believe it? I think it is attainable, though not without its obstacles. I look to my mom who had a pretty unorthodox life. She is a divorced, single parent who had to essentially raise my little brother and I by herself. Being a single parent, however, meant that she had to work to pay the bills because there was no other source of income. She didn't love her job, necessarily, but she had great friends there, and her family has always been close (her parents, siblings, and children all lived in Hawaii). It wasn't a typical 9-5 job, so she did work at odd hours. Nevertheless, she always had time to spend with us, and I never felt like I was without her presence. I would even say that she's probably too present, but I've never complained. I love my mom. In 2007, she graduated from the University of Hawaii with a BA in Psychology. It had been her dream to complete it, and like in most aspects of her life, she was an unorthodox student. Yet, she was able to earn her degree while being a full-time mother and worker. She's an inspiration to me. Even though she has pushed me to not fall into my footsteps, I still want to be just like her in other regards. She is a mom who sacrificed her weekends to work more so that she could spend the week with us (we spent the weekends with our dad, for a few years). She is a mom who loved her children unconditionally and pushed us to be the best "us" we could be. She is a mom who, despite not actually liking volleyball, accepted my choice to quit tennis and continue volleyball in high school, working even more to pay for club volleyball. She is strong, and she is an inspiration, and she has (usually) done it with a smile on her face. Seeing that, I think it's definitely possible to have it all. It does not come without its frustration and sacrifices, but it is certainly attainable. It would certainly be easier, however, if companies helped out a bit. I found it extremely surprising to learn that the US is 1 of 4 countries to not mandate paid maternity leave. To implement something like that would make it so much easier to "have it all". There would be less pressure to hold off on having a family (or never having a family). It would give families a chance to spend time with their children while still maintaining a successful career. Sure, it's not a surefire, foolproof solution that will magically make it work for everyone, but it would certainly take a part of the load off. I think companies should be responsible to support their workers to find this balance. I think it's inhumane to force your workers to put work above all other things. I understand that that is, by definition, what work is, but if the CEOs of the companies are allowed time off, then it's only just if their employees, do, as well. Otherwise, I think it feels pretty hypocritical and almost an abuse of power. I also understand that they worked their way to their position, but I don't think others (who, by the way, make up a significant more amount of the population than the few C Suites of major companies) should be penalized because they are not in that position of power. Finally, I find the work-life balance extremely important to my own well-being. Even in college, when I honestly don't really have that much going on, I always try to balance out my life. If, for example, I have a very stressful day and know that I don't have work coming up the next day, I always make it a point to take a break and watch some TV, play a game, read a book, or something just for my own piece of mind. I also like to workout, so I set time aside almost every day to make sure that I can make it to the gym because it's important to me to stay healthy and active. This is generally how I prevent burnout and find balance in my life.
0 Comments
The Manifesto does reflect my thoughts because of the way that we wrote it. It was purposefully written the way it was because my partner and I do not believe that we really fall under the "typical CS student" label. I do not believe that our Manifesto is a war-cry. I think it is emotionally impact in the way that it's more inspiring than anything else. We wanted our Manifesto to convey that we are not a single being that can be easily defined just because we are ND CSE majors. We are more to that. We each have our own stories and our own drives, and we all have different goals in life. Regardless, we are united in our "label", but we do not want to be limited by it.
The general dislikes stem from things that anyone who has dealt with code has felt, so I do think I am very similar there. I am not like the typical ND CSE student; I don't come from a super rich family (I'm here mostly on scholarship, s/o to the FINAID office [I don't know if you share these reflections but pls don't share this fact]); I'm not white; I'm not male. In other ways, though, I am similar: I'm a new Catholic (baptized/first communion/confirmed last Easter); I do lean slightly towards the left being in a college environment and growing up in Hawaii. There are some things that I don't relate to, though -- I dislike that CSE students show up 15 minutes early to class on the first day since our seats pretty much become unassigned assigned seats and we're stuck there. I don't really like to code in my free time at all. I prefer to watch TV, read, work out, or be literally anywhere other than on my computer (I'd prefer shopping at Target than staying in and writing code). I think stereotypes really affect the way that I live my life. Being Asian, I've heard them for all of my life. I milk some of them -- "I'm Asian, I NEED rice with every meal". My roommate and I literally made a canvas thing that says "Rice is Nice" because we just kind of feel that way. I don't like to view the world through stereotypes, but it's hard not to when they exist because they are based on things people have experienced in many circumstances over and over again with the same group of people. I think the presence of a Manifesto or Portrait can be either damaging or beneficial. It really depends on what the content is. I do, however, lean more towards damaging because I don't think that we should really generalize about a population when we can't possibly know everything there is to know about them. I find it difficult to come to grips with that. These writing artifacts only do more to push stereotypes and generalizations down onto a population, and I don't think that's right. ** Hi pbui, I would prefer if you wouldn't share anything I write here to the class **
What has your job (or internship) interview process been like? What surprises you? What frustrates you? What excites you? How did you prepare? How did you perform? What is your overall impression of the general interview process? Is it efficent? Is it effective? Is it humane? Is it ethical? I used to think I was a super smart kid, but I was a big fish in a super tiny pool. I grew up hearing praise from my mom and my teachers, a constant barrage of compliments for my intelligence. My mom thought I was smart and deserving enough to go to private school when I started middle school, so she worked her butt off to send me there. Now, I come from a high school graduating class of 30, and I didn't even graduate as the valedictorian. I mean, I was definitely top three, and I felt good about it, especially with an acceptance letter to Notre Dame to my name. Coming to ND, though, really opened my eyes. I'd say I'm average smart. I don't surprise people with novel ideas or pick up material quicker than my peers. The first word my friends back home would describe me as is "smart". I was the smart friend who went to the fancy school. Here at said fancy school, I know my friends wouldn't first describe me as "smart". Come on now, I think I'd get something a little more substantial than that. Of course, it's not a bad thing to smart. Hell, I wish I was smarter than I am. I wish I could memorize algorithms and ace technical interviews and wow away recruiters. But ... I'm more of a people person. I think of myself as relatively introverted, but if you asked if I wanted to go out with my friends to do something fun or if I wanted to stay home and sit at my computer, I'd be up in a heartbeat. Programming isn't my life. I didn't even know how to do it until my freshman year of college, and even then, I didn't really know anything until sophomore year. It makes it hard to keep up with the kids in CS who have been coding for many, many years. The kids in CS who see programming as their life. The kids in CS who already know what they're doing come graduation. I'm terrified that I won't be able to secure a job before I graduate. I'm terrified I'll be forced to return home and disappoint my mom who's done so much for me. And of course, I blame myself, but I also blame the countless rejection emails I've gotten from the companies I've applied for -- you know the one: "Thank you for your application! Unfortunately, we've decided to continue on with other candidates." READ: You're just not good enough. Unlike a lot of my peers, I didn't have a software engineering or even a code-y internship this summer. I worked for a company that is a computer science company melded with health, but I didn't do any coding. I did what was pretty much grunt work that I felt way over-qualified for, if I'm going to be honest. It was repetitive. Yet, I really enjoyed the work. I learned new things every day. It was a smaller company, so moving around was pretty easy. Everyone knew everyone. The CEO came to eat lunch with us. I loved the family vibe. I liked that it wasn't super duper tech heavy. But the way I felt about it makes me wonder what I'm even doing in this field. Don't get me wrong. I love my major. I think it's super fun and mesmerizing. But sometimes I think my personality deviates so much from your "typical" CS major that I don't really know what to think. Sometimes I think I made a mistake. My job search for post-graduation has been abysmal. I've applied and applied but don't even get a chance because they look at my resume and aren't even close to being impressed. Heck, I'm not even impressed with it. It depresses me. It sucks. Like, I thought I was applying for entry-level positions here? If that were the case, then why am I being rejected for not having experience? And of course, the answer is, they want the best. They don't have time to interview candidates like me. I have a lot of soft skills -- I work well with a team; I'm extremely supporting and empathetic; I'm confident when I speak. But my hard, technical skills fall flat on a piece of paper, and I don't want to be defined by a piece of paper because I know that I am more than that, but companies don't care about that. And I think that's flawed. Yes, it's efficient. There's no doubting that. They will interview the candidates they think will only produce good work, who surpass expectations on those dreaded whiteboard interviews. I think they'd say it's pretty effective, too, since they do eventually hire competent programmers. However, I don't think it's ethical or humane, necessarily. I don't really buy into that meritocratic mindset. I don't think they're giving people a chance. To them, people like me don't deserve a chance. I decided I wanted to study abroad the summer going into my junior year and didn't get job experience. That put me at a disadvantage the next summer searching for an internship. And now I'm just struggling again. I don't think these companies really see their candidates as people. We are commodities, objects. We are something they are going to use. And I get that. But we're more than that. I'm more than that. And I think that the way these interviews are structured and screened won't ever be able to show that, and I guess I'm just SOL, and that really is just unfortunate. Does the computing industry have an obligation to address social and political issues such as income inequality? How well suited is it to meet such challenges? How does the ethos of the computing industry influence its take on "fixing" social, economic, and political problems? Can tech save the world?
I think this is a very difficult question to answer. On the one hand, it's pretty clear that the computing industry has a major impact on society today. The majority of people cannot live without technology, whether that's a smartphone, a car, or the gadgets littered across their homes. We are so deeply involved with technology that I would say it is impossible to wean ourselves from it and completely abandon it. Because of this presence, one must ask if this effect indicates that tech giants should be responsible to address social and political issues. In my opinion, I do not think that they are obligated to do so because I do not think that all companies start and are expecting to have social and political impact like we see today from companies like Uber or Facebook. Sure, that might be some sort of goal in the distant future, but every company takes a little while to start off, and honestly, the founders might not be thinking about the long-term effects their products might have. Some think mostly about the social good that they can do, not the adverse effects their companies might produce. Taking Facebook as an example, they obviously have a very pervasive influence over millions of users. Part of their mission, at least according to Zuckerberg, is to build better services to help more people. For a social media site like Facebook, this, at least surface level, appears to be a pretty straightforward thing to accomplish. Facebook isn't building things that are replacing jobs for other people. They are a means of communication with people all around the world. On the other hand, there are companies that are dabbling with automated technologies such as driverless cars. Clearly this sort of industry can be damaging to anybody who drives for a living (taxi drivers, limo drivers, bus drivers, etc.) A lot of jobs would be lost as a result of successful autonomous vehicles, and these people would have difficulty finding replacement work. Does it become the companies who displace these peoples' jobs responsibility to mitigate the loss of income? That's difficult to say. At present, when a person loses their job, it is not the company's business to financially compensate the terminated employee (aside from their termination package). However, is it a different deal when a company terminates all of its employees because they've found a machine that can do their work for them? I think, to an extent, that it is a different situation. If a company is confident enough to fire that many employees, it means that many companies are willing to do this and that the technology that they are invested in must have been perfected. That means that a lot of people would be losing their jobs and would have no way to find new ones to sustain theirselves or their families. I think that it would almost be inhumane to do this to so many people without some sort of work around to alleviate the stress caused by this problem. That being said, it is one thing to say that they are responsible for helping with this problem and another to say that they are actually capable of doing so. What sort of effects would occur if we force companies to be responsible for the political repercussions their actions have? To be quite honest, I don't know a ton about of government system, but this sounds like something that they should handle and should have the means to handle, whereas companies may not really know what to do in this situation. So it comes down to can tech save the world? Who even knows. In our previous discussion, we asked ourselves whether programming was a superpower. Do programmers have the capability to save the world with the things they create? Maybe, but what we do with the technology must be considered very carefully as we begin to tread waters we never have before. When considering the onslaught of media the average person receives on any given day, it can be pretty overwhelming. For the average college student, one need only to look at how many hours they log, glued to their phones, computers, or tablets to see that we are beings dependent on devices that did not even exist when we were born. It is very easy to disseminate false information in this day and age of instant information gratification. Have a question no one can answer? Google it. Need to know where your friend is? Check "Find My Friend" or Snapchat. We don't even realize how far deep we are in this digital age. Sometimes we can't even see the impact modern technology has on our every day lives. That being said, it begs the question: "Why study ethics in the context of computer science and engineering?" It is not something to be ignored. We cannot forget that, though what we do as computer scientists is primarily performed on a computer, it has a very real and physical (as well as mental) impact on its users. For this discussion, I want to focus in on the smartphone. When you think about how often you find yourself just glancing at your phone, regardless of whether it's lit up with a notification or not, you might come to grips with the fact that you have a sort of addiction. As Jonathan Harris points out in his article, "Modern Medicine", one can compare the dependence on technology to an addiction to drugs. Sure, it may not seem so serious, but have you ever felt the sheer panic you immediately experience shortly after realizing you've left your phone somewhere? Ever felt a little stressed to find an outlet to charge your phone when your battery drains to 1%? It is those reactions, amongst others, that are reminiscent of an addict's behavior. Knowing this, it seems pretty obvious that technological giants should know the effect that their products have on their consumers. In fact, it seems that their sole mission becomes how to manipulate its users to continuously use their application rather than solving any other problems. This, however, makes sense, since it's normal for 80% of users to stop using an application just 3 months after downloading it. Without users, the business flops. Therefore, measures must be taken to ensure that the company retains its users, regardless of what sort of ethical issues might arise. Cigarette companies know their products cause cancer, but they sell them anyway. Fast food companies know their meals cause obesity and diabetes, but they serve them anyway. When something's very good for business, ethics often take a second seat. In the quote above, it stakes claim that ethics in business tend to take a backseat. Since the most important thing to most business these days is money, this is not that surprising. However, it is important to keep these ethical issues into consideration. Without having moral dilemmas within the industry, we can fall into some very dangerous territory. What sorts of long-term effects does an addiction to smartphones carry? There are many facets to consider. This technology is so (relatively) new that it is hard to draw conclusive studies that have data from multiple years.
Because of these reasons, I think it is really important to consider ethics in CSE. There is so much we do not know about these devices that we feel that we cannot live without. Are there ramifications to be considered? At what point do we draw the line between the user being an individual and simply a product? It would be careless to toss aside ethics and morality in the name of material items. The people that are affected by things created by those who pursue CSE are just that -- people. We cannot forget that these are lives being affected daily in significant ways. Hi, my name is Julianna, and I am a CS major from Aiea, HI. I enjoy long walks up and through mountains and laying out on the beach. I never thought I would have ended up in the midwest, but four years later, I'm still here! I am interested mostly in dogs and cannot wait to have my own place that will allow me to have one.
I am a CS major because I love the flexibility of it. You can be in virtually any industry you would like, and that's pretty cool. For me, I would love to eventually be in the healthcare industry. I think in a past life, I would have been a doctor, but in this one, seeing blood (particularly my own) makes me sick, so that's no bueno. In this class, I hope to solidify my POVs on various ethical issues revolving computer science and technology, as well as learn new ones from my peers. I think this class has the potential to be really cool, and I like that we have a platform to discuss new ideas that we would not otherwise have. I think the most pressing ethical and moral issues facing computer scientists at the moment is privacy. Lately I've noticed that my phone seems to be tracking everything I do and even say to the point where I start to get advertisements targeting things that I've only said aloud. I think this is interesting because it touches on how far a company can go in listening in or tracking activity from its users without overstepping a boundary. I think it would be fun to discuss what this boundary even is and what we can do about it. |
AuthorJulianna Yee. Archives
March 2018
Categories |