Are Ivy-League Schools Just A Funnel For Wall Street?

Last week I wrote about a three-year old New York Times article featuring interviews with Ivy-League academics criticizing their female students’ choice to become stay-at-home mothers instead of members of a “diverse professional elite” upon graduation from their elite institutions.

One critic who was interviewed went so far as to question the value of educating females if their only goal was to become mothers:

“It really does raise this question for all of us and for the country: when we work so hard to open academics and other opportunities for women, what kind of return do we expect to get for that?” said Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of undergraduate admissions at Harvard, who served as dean for coeducation in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

Coincidentally, that same Monday my post appeared, a new article surfaced in the New York Times, again tackling the issue of what is expected of today’s Ivy-League graduates. According to the article:

Professor Howard Gardner hopes…seminars will encourage more students to consider public service and other careers beyond the consulting and financial jobs that he says are almost the automatic next step for so many graduates of top colleges.

“Is this what a Harvard education is for?” asked Professor Gardner, who is teaching the seminars at Harvard, Amherst and Colby with colleagues. “Are Ivy League schools simply becoming selecting mechanisms for Wall Street?”

Interesting that a man is questioning whether students (male or female) belong in the boardroom and that a woman is advocating to put more women in it. Why is success always measured by job title and salary? Why are so many young people being blindsided into a handful of careers, simply because these careers are viewed as successful by a handful of adults?

After years of watching friends and family getting laid-off and overworked, many of today’s college students are questioning the true value of corporate life:

As Adam M. Guren, a new Harvard graduate who will be pursuing his doctorate in economics, put it, “A lot of students have been asking the question: ‘We came to Harvard as freshmen to change the world, and we’re leaving to become investment bankers — why is this?’ ”

The official word on the value and purpose of higher education comes from the President of Amherst (also male):

“We’re in the business of graduating people who will make the world better in some way,” said Anthony Marx, Amherst’s president. “That’s what justifies the expense of the education.”

If the purpose of an education is to help its recipients make the world a better place, does the role of parent not fulfill that purpose? Most universities claim that they are training the leaders of tomorrow, but why does their vision of leader stick so narrowly to the C-suite? Isn’t someone who cares for, educates, motivates and encourages considered a leader? Are mothers and fathers not the leaders of a family?

I think it’s time for the elder academics to stop wasting so much time on what their students are accomplishing after graduation and more time ensuring the quality of their education. Trust that the younger generation can decide their future for themselves and stop hovering over us like helicopter parents.

When Working From Home is a Sham

What if you could come into the office anytime you felt like it, or even stop coming in altogether? What if you could take a late morning run or volunteer in an after-school program but still get paid a full-time salary? What if you only had to work 4 hours a day?

Sound like your dream job? Sure, as long as you’re not the manager.

There has been much ado about Results Oriented Work Environments (ROWE), the latest in work/life balance programs. Under ROWE, there are no office hours. As long as workers complete their projects and deliver results, they are allowed to work whenever and wherever it suits them. Most notably being implemented by electronics giant, Best Buy, ROWE is promised to be the panacea for worker (dis)engagement.

Trust workers with their freedom and they will reward the company with riches.

If only business were so simple.

I’ve often fantasized about working from home. How great would it be to sleep in on weekdays, grocery shop without the crowds, never worry about missing a meeting because of a doctor’s appointment? As an employee, the freedom to not work would be an awesome benefit.

But as a manager, I realize that working from home takes discipline, a lot of it, and that most people don’t have the focus to work three feet from a bed and HDTV. This spells disaster for me and my bottom line.

In my own experience, most people who “work from home” (WFH) aren’t really working (exempting people with home offices or special set-ups who actually do work from home). How do I know this? They’ve told me. I once worked in an office with a very liberal WFH policy and the employees abused it so much that upper management had to revoke the policy. Now no one there is allowed to work from home without authorization from the president. Sound harsh? It probably was, but considering employees would send emails like the one below, you can see why they would do that.

Actual example (altered to protect privacy) of an email sent to all employees at my company:

Hello,

I will be working from home today. If you need anything my email is xxxx@notworking.com and my cell is (123) 555-1234.

But I will be watching [insert important sport event here] all day so I probably won’t answer or be much use to you.

See you all tomorrow.

So much for all this extra productivity when working from home. You could make the case that this employee watched the game and then did some work. I can tell you that he most likely didn’t.

In a guest post on Penelope Trunk’s blog, Ryan Healy says this in praise of ROWE:

It’s a win-win situation. Half of the American population will no longer hate their jobs, which will inevitably lead to increased production for the corporations. The only sector that could possibly lose out is pharmaceutical, when clinical depression reaches an all-time low. And that’s just fine by me.

Is freedom from office hours enough of a reason for people to stop hating their jobs?

I highly doubt it. If you hated working in sales because you had to make 50 cold calls a day, would you really be that much happier if you got to make 50 cold calls a day in your bathrobe? If you disliked proofreading press releases, would sitting on a park bench make looking for commas that much more enjoyable? Maybe. Maybe not.

Case in point, the above email writer, someone who took an unlimited amount of “WFH” days to watch football, basketball, soccer or whatever sports event he wanted, with little to no financial or professional ramifications, left after 2 years with the company, allegedly because he felt “unappreciated.”

A change of scenery can’t cure everything.

U.S. Senate Says Women Can Only Sue for Pay Discrimination Within 180 Days

Last week I wrote a very popular post about discrimination based on physical appearance and its negative effect on workers’ salaries. Continuing to build on that theme, I’d like to talk today about the Supreme Court’s ruling on Ledbetter v. Goodyear (2007).

Slate Magazine gives a great summary of the circumstances surrounding the Lilly Ledbetter suit against her employer, Goodyear Tire:

“Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire in Atlanta for almost 20 years. When she retired, she was, according to Ginsburg, “the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236.” So she filed a suit under Title VII, and a jury awarded her more than $3 million in damages. The jury found it “more likely than not that [Goodyear] paid [Ledbetter] a[n] unequal salary because of her sex.” You see, Ledbetter hadn’t just negotiated herself some lame salary. She was expressly barred by her employer from discussing her salary with her co-workers who were racking up raises and bonuses she didn’t even know about. She found out about the disparity between her pay and her male colleagues’ earnings only because someone finally left her an anonymous tip.”

Title VII, one of several legislative measures passed under the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Ledbetter had a strong case for pay discrimination. She was underpaid by a significant amount compared to male co-workers at the same level, even though she was one of the more tenured employees. She could prove a pattern of harassment by male supervisors, several of whom testified to such at trial, and had an anonymous note informing her of almost 20 years of blatant discrimination and withholding of pay toward her.

However, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Ledbetter’s jury verdict should be overturned and her $3 million in back pay and damages returned, because she did not file suit within 180 days of the first occurrence of discrimination (i.e. her very first paycheck).

On April 23, 2008, the United States Senate decided to veto a bill that would overturn the ruling and let the 180 day statue of limitations period on filing for discrimination stand. It seems the lawmakers of our country find nothing wrong with pay discrimination based on gender, asserting that women should be able to pick up on it within 6 months of being hired.

Possible reasons for their decision include:

The U.S. Senate blocked a bill that would allow victims of gender discrimination to learn of and prove discrimination in those rare cases in which their employers don’t cheerfully discuss it with them at the office Christmas party. And the reasons for blocking it include the fact that women are not smart enough to file timely lawsuits, not smart enough to avoid being manipulated by vile plaintiffs’ lawyers, not smart enough to know when they are being stiffed, and—per John McCain—not well-trained enough in the first place to merit equal pay.

The real reason this ruling is so ludicrous and essentially a slap in the face to the “equal pay for equal work” movement, is that most workers, not just women, have no idea what their co-workers make. In some offices, like Goodyear, discussing salary is specifically forbidden.

If you don’t know what your peers are making, how are you supposed to know that you are making less?

How do you prove a pattern of discrimination if you’re only allowed to track 5 – 6 months worth of wages?

I have always been a staunch proponent in keeping your salary to yourself. On the occasion that I do find out what some of my co-workers make, I usually only feel resentful and underpaid. But lately, I’ve been wondering if I should change my stance on that.

The advocates for sharing salary are deeply divided. Some people advocate complete secrecy, while others propose something as radical and open as writing down everyone’s salary on a list and posting it up in the office breakroom.

According to our own laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act, employees are guaranteed the right to know what everyone makes:

The NLRA says employers cannot interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in exercising their rights under NLRA, which protects the employees’ right to discuss their “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment” for their “mutual aid or protection.”

Because, really, who benefits from workers not knowing what others in their field make? Their employers.

With mid-year performance reviews rolling around, I think I might start doing some research on payscale.com. Maybe it’s time for me to negotiate a higher salary.