Seriously, Reprieve, in London. Send me an email, seekrit one, and I'll hook you up.
Or does it have to be a US entity?
Oh my heavens, I could give you eighty great ideas off the top of my head. But I'm at work and am writing something that needs focus.
A couple of quick questions?
1) Where is the company based? I'm assuming most (not all) of the folks would not want to relocate.
2) What kinds of skills are the folks likely to have? (What does "quantitatively inclined" mean?) Are they business analysts, computer programs, policy wonks? I can think of much better uses for people's time if I know what they're likely to be good at.
Your e-mail, Nápi?
Where is the company based?
All over. Location is not an issue. It's not uncommon for them to relocate temporarily
What kinds of skills are the folks likely to have?
Business analysis skills. Some of them have policy chops as well. All of them will be whiz-bang with Excel and Access, and some may have some SQL and VisualBasic as well. Skills will vary.
All right, I'll be back with some ideas in a few hours when I get home. (E-mail temporarily activated in case you'd rather contact me that way.)
Policy stuff? Email me, seekrit commenter. I know the top folks at this place, which does really fascinating work.
Do political campaigns count? I can see if Mr. B. knows anyone higher up in the Obama campaign. I wouldn't be surprised.
6: I'm guessing that political campaigns do not count, because of campaign finance laws (could be construed as an in-kind corporate contribution to a political campaign).
this program enables them to go off and get a taste of the poverty and frustration they will encounter in a non-profit career, so that they can tire of it and come back to their highly remunerative jobs with no questions asked.
Not to knock the program, but I'm a little sad at this.
Parsimon, see this comment for a small consolation.
But it's delightfully cynical!
Seriously, this seems to me like the best arrangement for everyone. The company gets a less disgruntled workforce, the workers get to see what it's like to do good for a while (and apparently some of them decide to change their careers as a result), and the nonprofits get very talented temporary labor for cheap.
I don't know if this would be an appropriate place or not but I worked for a bit for the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at U.C. Hastings School of Law in San Fransisco and thought they did great work. They can probably sometimes use people who can do interesting work database or other quantitative work and perhaps some policy paper work. Their contact info can all be found here:
http://cgrs.uchastings.edu/
Why, of all corporations, would you want to "stick it" to this one?
Why, of all corporations, would you want to "stick it" to this one?
That was meant a little bit tongue in cheek, eb. As teo points out in 10, it's really a win-win-win. As it happens, I have hooked up some colleagues in the past with some really worthwhile non-profit gigs, and I was looking for some other interesting organizations I could refer people to.
I have interest! First off, this is for a "faith based" organization (a large "mainstream" Christian denomination's "mission" organization) so that may be a dealbreaker. The work would be particularly about youth/young adults, substance abuse and violence. It would not be with actual constiuents, would likely be more research, planning and writing for an emerging program for young people. I understand this is free to the non-profit and the person would live on a mere 20% of their income, a "tithe" if you will? This would also be in NY but the person could really do it from anwhere given phone and internet. I would also need to speak to some higher-ups before I could really commit. Please contact me via email.
The Center for Victims of Torture immediately springs to mind, partly because it's sort of local, and partly because I talked to a staffer (with quantitative background) a couple of months ago. But I don't actually have an inside connection or anything, so I guess it's right out.
http://www.cvt.org/main.php/InsideCVT/ContactCVT
That was meant a little bit tongue in cheek, eb.
I wish I had written a comment in a similar tone.
Seriously, it sounds like a great program, and I have nothing helpful to add.
I understand this is free to the non-profit and the person would live on a mere 20% of their income, a "tithe" if you will?
This is how I read it at first too, but it could also mean that the company pays 20% of their (presumably much lower) new salary set by the nonprofit, which pays the other 80%. Perhaps SC could clarify?
I'll let SC clarify but I bet you're right...otherwise it's a little too good to be true and a little extreme for the employee.
No, the way I've always heard of companies doing it is that they pay you 20% of your income + benefits.
10: While it may not be a huge issue since most of the target audience are Ivy grads (better than average odds of being able to work a nonprofit for a year than the kid that needs to get a job), having this non-profit option might encourage some recent grads who would have dismissed non-profit work out of hand due to the need to make money to try their hand at it, knowing that they have somewhere to jump back to.
It's extreme but it's not terrible, considering what people I know have taken it off to do. I've heard of people with this benefit at other companies that don't require that people volunteer during the time off who have taken the time to backpack around the world, etc. Depending on what you're doing, the money can stretch. Sometimes, if they volunteer during the time, the organization will give them a small stipend that's only enough to cover the very very basics, like your rent if you aren't living large or in an expensive city.
20% of what these people are making is a very different thing from 20% of what, for example, I am making. In fact, I am guessing that my earnings in six months are far less than the 20% of their own earnings they'd make doing non-profit.
The deal is that the company pays the employee 20% of their current salary during the leave of absence. The full salary is healthy enough that a prudent person could live on 1/5 of it for a short period of time, especially if they have a little bit of savings. So effectively the program gives the person freedom to take a job for little or no pay, at least temporarily.
God -- sure, if they're already working at a high-paying job in their mid- to late-twenties, yes, try to channel them to something worthwhile.
who would have dismissed non-profit work out of hand due to the need to make money to try their hand at it, knowing that they have somewhere to jump back to.
A thousand points of light!
Just an optimistic take on it, parsimon. The company's doing it for its own sake, but it's not as though it's going to end up decreasing the number of non-profit workers.
I understand. You understand I'm referring to the privatization of non-profit services.
Ooooh, this is so fun. I spent my whole train ride home brainstorming.
(Of course the trick is to come up with organizations that are genuinely positioned to take advantage of something like this -- they have to have the infrastructure. It's kind of disheartening to think about how much whiter the pool gets when I do that. Pretty stark illustration of the power dynamics in the field.)
Although, on the upside: So many people doing good work! And wow, a free smart energetic young person to help out!
27: If I understand the set-up, the organization is still non-profit and autonomous. Almost like getting a scholarship for doing non-profit work.
It would perhaps be better on some level if all the smart young people wanted to dedicate themselves to improving society, but most don't, and those that do (out of the Ivy League set at least) tend to do one or two years before they start real life and go to law school.
||
Do you know what's seriously the best invention ever? Chocolate cherry fudgy vitamins. So delish.
|>
if all the smart young people wanted to dedicate themselves to improving society
Eh, tonight I'm in the mood to be expansive. They can improve society in lots of ways. Much better for them to get a small taste of a corner of the nonprofit world and take it back with them to their other work.*
What's the alternative? They never leave the for-profit side, the boundaries get less and less permeable, and the nonprofit world gets even more thoroughly stereotyped as a bunch of do-gooder liberal hippy granola types who don't need real salaries or health benefits because they're wrapped in the warm glow of self-righteousness? Phooey on that. I like my health insurance.
(*A very small minority will not draw the conclusions I hope they will draw from their experiences, 'tis true.)
Man, and I get excited about tropical-fruit-flavored Tums. I had no idea the world of vitamin flavor was so vast!
I get my calcium via enriched dark chocolate. Vitamins should always be rendered delicious!
They're great! I always want something chocolatey in the afternoon at work and this way I can feel somewhat virtuous about it. Also, since they're vitamins, I won't eat the whole box because they'll kill me.
Also, since they're vitamins, I won't eat the whole box because they'll kill me.
That logic works even better when deciding to do heroin.
That logic works even better when deciding to do heroin.
I have heard that pretty much the only way to get hospitalized with a marijuana overdose is to eat too many hashbrownies; if you're smoking it, you'll pass out before you do yourself any irreparable harm, but it's alltogether possible to ingest a dangerous amount before you feel anything.
They're great!
I am imagining this said in the voice of the Frosted Flakes tiger.
36: This is why I generally steer clear of liquor, but everything else keeps getting me into trouble anyway, so maybe I should just run with it?
Those Viactiv vitamins are indeed good, though they don't satisfy me if I have a chocolate craving.
But I haven't bought any in a while and am pretty bad about remembering to take vitamins.
so maybe I should just run with it?
Far safer, albeit less exciting, to pay for it at the counter. You're not 19 anymore, AWB.
Back in my day we used to call that "wahooing it" (because you shout "wahoo!" as you run out the door).
What's the alternative? They never leave the for-profit side, the boundaries get less and less permeable, and the nonprofit world gets even more thoroughly stereotyped as a bunch of do-gooder liberal hippy granola types who don't need real salaries or health benefits because they're wrapped in the warm glow of self-righteousness? Phooey on that. I like my health insurance.
Witt, I'm having trouble reading this: I've not been saying that the program SeeKrit describes is BAD. Obviously I'm just sad that it's necessary, and that, in fact, it's described as: Yo! Do-gooding! for, like, the orphans!
It's pretty pathetic as a general reflection on society. But no shit. I suppose I'm a little stunned, to be honest, that large companies are doing so well that they provide stipend-like leaves of absence like this.
The boundaries between the for-profit and nonprofit worlds are plenty fixed already.
Cala at 29 says:
It would perhaps be better on some level if all the smart young people wanted to dedicate themselves to improving society
Why the "perhaps" and "on some level"? Why not flatly: It would be better if all the smart young people, etc.?
I dunno, did I mention I was in a car accident today, so it's conceivable I'm ranting.
42: In the US, I'd be way too afraid of one of those dudes pulling a gun.
I dunno, did I mention I was in a car accident today, so it's conceivable I'm ranting.
Oh, that sucks parsimon! Sorry to hear it and I hope everyone's all right. It was slick here today, and I was convinced I was going to get in an accident, if only because I realized I didn't have my license on me.
43: "Society" should be followed by "through working with non-profits." And why perhaps? Because we need smart young people to do things like medicine and law and business, too. We need *more* doing public service-type stuff, but it's not the only thing needing done. But my focus was more on their *desire* to do good. You can do good in other ways besides non-profits.
Trying to encourage the desire to public service tends to run smack into the cold hard cash in the private sector, for any number of people. I have a friend at Yale Law School. According to her, something like 90% of students come in with expressed desires to use their law degree for Noble Causes, and 90% of them go out into the corporate world. The top schools now offer sliding tuition repayment programs depending on the salary of the job you take, and that helps lawyers who wouldn't otherwise be able to pay back their loans, who might have to take a corporate job, try their hand at something less money-soaked. Desire is more feasible when backed up with money.
Yikes, parsimon, sorry about the car accident. I hope it wasn't too disorienting. And yes, I understand that you weren't saying the fellowship program is bad.
But I guess I don't agree that it would be better if all the smart young people "wanted to dedicate themselves to improving society," unless we go with a super-broad definition of improving society (and smart).
In the first place, I like commerce. I like business. I think it's good that other people care about things much different than the things I care about. I like that I have this cool beautiful fun sweet easy-to-use computer with its elegant features and practical uses. I don't particularly wish that the people who created it had, instead, devoted their sweat and programming hours to something that they thought would improve society.
And in the second place, I think we should hedge. I don't think we should channel all of the "smart young people" into the same general-ish direction. At various points in history reformers have been quite convinced that the One True Way to fix society was to sterilize dumb people, or outlaw alcohol, or whatever. I shudder to think how things could have been if instead of a small subset of the people with elite educations etc., the folks pushing this had been most of the people with elite educations.*
*I dunno, do McNamara et al. count as an example?
And I hope the car accident wasn't serious! You okay?
47 crossed with 46, so I think Cala and I are on the same page, more or less.
Also, seeKRitcommenter, I don't have any specific suggestions on organizations but would like to push for something group that helps get people the benefits they are entitled to, whether it's a place that helps immigrants get and/or stay legal, or a place that helps with taxes without screwing people, or a place that helps the elderly file for medical benefits. Government forms = teh suck, and there's so much out there that people can benefit from if only they know about it.
Plus, then your bright young whippersnappers come back to their place of employment with some actual hands-on experience when they write about policy.
I got caught up in the food thread for a bit.
This:
In the first place, I like commerce. I like business. I think it's good that other people care about things much different than the things I care about. I like that I have this cool beautiful fun sweet easy-to-use computer with its elegant features and practical uses. I don't particularly wish that the people who created it had, instead, devoted their sweat and programming hours to something that they thought would improve society.
Hm. I'm not understanding this. Cool elegant computers do something in their way. It's a question of comparative remuneration for such things, as opposed to that provided to those who save lives.
I'll have to read your second place more carefully; your first place as well. It may be that we have a plain difference of opinion. I'm certainly not averse to commerce or business, but in their current incarnations, it's not clear to me that they're a boon to society overall.
Well, there is food, clothing, shelter, health care, and the like. There's lots wrong with the way we organize our economic life, but we are, in most respects, better off than 99+% of all the human beings that ever lived.
46:
Trying to encourage the desire to public service tends to run smack into the cold hard cash in the private sector, for any number of people.
Yes, I realize that. The idea that we have to encourage the desire to do good in the first place is depressing, but that's the way it is. Money first.
Desire is more feasible when backed up with money.
New mouseover.
52: If that's to me, about my stated reservations about "business" -- we're kind of playing fast and loose with these terms anyway.
Non-profits generally fill in where for-profit companies fall down on the job. Of serving society.
While it's true that we're better off than the mass of humanity, that does not mean that we're okay, and of course this doesn't constitute an overall condemnation of capitalism.
Oh, and the bummer car accident was okay fine. We had a semi-serious snowfall; I left work early. Then I rear-ended someone (mildly!) because I couldn't stop in the snow, my brakes locked and there was naught I could do, I lost traction. It was super slo-mo. When we emerged from our vehicles after the smack,
He exclaimed: "Oh, woman!"
I said: "Shit!"
Well, these things happen. Funny, we were both shaky and uncertain, but it's all good. It took me an hour and a half to get home, bad roads, and I should go to bed now, ya think?
Non-profits generally fill in where for-profit companies fall down on the job. Of serving society.
This seems to imply that "serving society" is part of the "job" of for-profit companies. These are all pretty slippery terms, of course, and much depends on how they are defined, but to me at least this doesn't seem self-evidently true.
"Serving an identified constituency" perhaps?
It's my socialist self, teo: all organizations should serve society without disserving it. I'm not sure what else we should be doing.
(/end lecture)
and good night.
do you know, I truly believe that if all of the enthusiastic, well-educated, "smart" young people in the country were to put their well-paying jobs aside for a while and concentrate their energies on doing their best to improve the lot of those less fortunate to themselves, we could have this country erupting into riots by the end of the week, in Rwanda-style massacres by Tuesday, and devoid of all human life by the end of the month.
I'm largely with dsquared on this one, I suspect.
Not to be overly cynical about it, or nuffink, but i) those enthusiastic young people know the sum of fuck all about fuck all, and ii) are largely in it for the CV-padding/short-term-conscience-salving.
those enthusiastic young people know the sum of fuck all about fuck all
True. But the system relies on the young and naive because too many become old and jaded.
something like 90% of students come in with expressed desires to use their law degree for Noble Causes, and 90% of them go out into the corporate world
This is also in part because they see working with the poor and disadvantaged as exciting, rewarding, and interesting.
Working with the poor and disadvantaged can be all of those things on occasion. But, it is also frequently extremely frustrating and you have to be able to take a bunch of crap from the people that you are trying to help. How long do people stay in social work? Not long.
You have to constantly fight to get people to help themselves and constantly fight to stop them from self-destructive or manipulative behaviors.
It takes a special person to stay with those kinds of jobs for any length of time. Every job has drudgery. But that drudgery is a lot easier to handle when you are getting a big, fat paycheck.
I am not necessarily opposed to the young and enthusiastic volunteering for things in manageable numbers and in the context of functional organisations though, just that old Adam Smith, he wasn't blowing smoke you know.
Not to be overly cynical about it, or nuffink, but i) those enthusiastic young people know the sum of fuck all about fuck all, and ii) are largely in it for the CV-padding/short-term-conscience-salving.
I'm going to step up to the defense of the enthusiastic young people (or at least to a small subset of them that I have been fortunate to know). My colleagues who have undertaken projects like this have been by and large a very impressive bunch, and I know for a fact that some of them have had a real impact. (I wish I could recount more details in this forum, but it would be too personally identifying. Actually, I will recount details of one: a terrifyingly capable young woman who did work on alleviating supply chain inefficiencies that were limiting the effectiveness of a condom distribution program to poor women in rural China.)
When someone like this is out there rescuing people in distress or enabling people to make better lives for themselves, I don't give rat's testicle whether their motivation is CV-padding* or short-term-conscience-salving. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages."
*in the specific case mentioned above, CV-padding would be entirely superfluous, because she has a CV to make the rest of us cry.
I'm not against some people volunteering. It's not the principle of it that's the problem.
I also wonder how much good some of those volunteers do, compared to people who are actually in those professions -- i.e, yer actual nurses, social workers, etc. -- and if, maybe, it would be better to encourage more people to do those things and to pay people better for doing them, rather than to have people 'helping' for a few months here and there.*
* fantasy land stuff, I know.
re: 66
Btw, I suspect i am thinking more of short term projects here in the UK than things like 'condom distribution chains in rural china'.
I am not necessarily opposed to the young and enthusiastic volunteering for things in manageable numbers and in the context of functional organisations though, just that old Adam Smith, he wasn't blowing smoke you know.
I think Seekrit commentator answered this statement in 65. The motivation for many young people may be capitalism in the long term sense.
As Seekrit says, one should not care about their motivation too much.
and if, maybe, it would be better to encourage more people to do those things and to pay people better for doing them, rather than to have people 'helping' for a few months here and there.
These goals are not mutually exclusive. If we're talking about "helping out" in a job that would ordinarily be done by a professional social worker or what not, a short term volunteer is going to be sub-optimal from a resource allocation standpoint. HOWEVER, by acting in that role and coming face to face with the human need (and with the challenges facing the professional social services), you help create a constituency for allocating more public resources.
This is the wisdom of the Service Employee International Union's "Walk a Day in My Shoes" campaign, where each of the presidential candidates had to do the job of a union member for a day in order to compete for the union's endorsement. No one thinks that Barack Obama makes a very good home health aide, but you can bet your ass that he has a better sense of the need for government action than the day before he did that.
Conversely, this is why the Bush administration has only paid lip service to promoting volunteerism and faith-based service organizations. The Republicans preach that voluntary charity can replace government programs, but people who participate in the volunteer sector tend to come away convinced of the need for more government involvement, not less.
A lot of our young employees have unfillfilled longings to do something worthwhile with their lives, and this program enables them to go off and get a taste of the poverty and frustration they will encounter in a non-profit career, so that they can tire of it and come back to their highly remunerative jobs with no questions asked.
So this is like a reverse Rumspringa?
how much good some of those volunteers do
IME, it's heavily dependent on the infrastructure of the nonprofit and maturity of the volunteer. I don't mean the chronological maturity -- I've seen 16-year-olds do great work, and 50-something people stink.
But for a stand-alone, discrete project, that a stretched nonprofit doesn't have the personnel to carry out because funders won't pay for "extraneous" activities that are not programs or services, a good volunteer can be a godsend.
If I had the desk space and the supervision time, I could put a half-dozen folks to work on analyzing public data that I know I could turn into meaningful, powerful reports for policy advocacy.
I will say to 69 though that I generally advise against people with the background and skills that SK describes from trying to do direct-service work. The learning curve is too steep and they can actually do damage to the reputation of the organization, not to mention the human circumstances of the people they are trying to help, by blundering in, even with the best of intentions.
So this is like a reverse Rumspringa?
But for the lamentable paucity of hookers and blow in my professional milieu , it's *exactly* like that.
Totally agree with 72. In any event, the people doing participating in my company's program tend to be more interested in making a lasting impact on the organization itself (e.g. by building up a new service or improving the efficiency of service delivery) rather than doing front line service delivery.
My comment on 69 was more directed at the "weekends ladling soup at the homeless shelter" type of volunteerism.
This seems to imply that "serving society" is part of the "job" of for-profit companies. These are all pretty slippery terms, of course, and much depends on how they are defined, but to me at least this doesn't seem self-evidently true.
We've discussed this before on Unfogged, probably more than once, but one of the arguments for expecting for-profit companies to "serve society" in certain ways is that they are given specific rights and protections (particularly limited liability) by our legal systems and so expecting some responsibilities to also attach isn't unreasonable.
I need a little pop-up programmed into my computer that says something like "Don't argue with Dsquared, he's a troll."
still...what's the argument here? "I can envision situations where large scale acts of generosity cause more harm than good. Therefore everyone should only look after their own self interest"?
if geography doesn't matter
i have no personal contacts though
No one thinks that Barack Obama makes a very good home health aide
Sexist.
It's not because he's a man, Ned, it's because he's black.
How long do people stay in social work? Not long.
That's what frightens me. A couple of people have suggested that I look into careers in social work. You can have flexible hours, you can do clinical work and you can teach.
The people who say this tend to argue that my thoughtfulness and introspective nature would be a real asset in that profession.
I tend to feel Hirshmanian feminist qualms, and I don't want to be broke.
My ideal job would be low stress, short hours, highly remunerative and somewhat prestigious. No such jobs exist of course, and I'm not sure what parts of that I'm willing to compromise on.
We've discussed this before on Unfogged, probably more than once, but one of the arguments for expecting for-profit companies to "serve society" in certain ways is that they are given specific rights and protections (particularly limited liability) by our legal systems and so expecting some responsibilities to also attach isn't unreasonable.
True enough, but it still seems odd to make "performing the work now done mainly by nonprofits" one of those responsibilities. Which is not to say that the current arrangement is ideal, but if anyone other than the nonprofits should be doing those jobs it seems like it should probably be the government.
re: 80
My mother is a social worker. I think you do need to come at it with a certain stoicism. She was a nurse and mental health worker before she became a social worker so was already pretty inured to it.
I don't think it's that badly paid [this is in the UK] relative to the investment required to qualify. But it can be pretty shitty work, I think.
I don't get the impression that being introspective or thoughtful is especially helpful, though. Being a tough bastard who takes no crap and who can help people get their shit together while remaining empathetic and on their side, helps more, I suspect.
81: Yeah, I agree that the government should be the primary provider of a safety net and many other services that are left mostly to nonprofits in the US. It would be odd to expect IBM to actually run soup kitchens or low-income health clinics, rather than just help pay for them.
My ideal job would be low stress, short hours, highly remunerative and somewhat prestigious. No such jobs exist of course, and I'm not sure what parts of that I'm willing to compromise on.
Sure they do, you just have to be already rich/privileged to get them. Being a non-executive director, or sitting on a quango can get you there.
Sure they do, you just have to be already rich/privileged to get them.
Sadly true.
It would be odd to expect IBM to actually run soup kitchens or low-income health clinics, rather than just help pay for them.
Indeed, and while this may not have been what parsimon meant, it certainly sounded like it was.
#76: remember yer kant, yer kant. It's simply to say that there is no general moral rule that enthusiastic young people ought to do voluntary work, that there is no presupposition that enthusiastic young people who volunteer to help the unfortunate should not regard themselves as necessarily morally superior, and as ttaM points out, programs for the upliftment of the underprivileged masses ought to be designed against criteria of operational efficiency, not the maximisation of opportunities for the enthusiastic and educated young to demonstrate virtu.
I need a little pop-up programmed into my computer that says something like "Don't argue with Dsquared, he's a troll."
No, you need a little pop-up programmed into your computer to say "Fuck you, clown".
No, you need a little pop-up programmed into your computer to say "Fuck you, clown".
Who doesn't?
My ideal job would be low stress, short hours, highly remunerative and somewhat prestigious.
sounds boring as fuck.
No, you need a little pop-up programmed into your computer to say "Fuck you, clown".
You misspelled "cunt", dsquared.
89: It would probably involve lots of lunches out with interesting people. Not boring.
My right-wing uncle is a real neat freak, much more so than his girlfriend. It was actually kind of frustrating on Christmas Eve, because my sister and I were heading off to midnight mass, and he felt that he had to do dishes while the rest of us were openign presents.
hang on ...
low stress, short hours, highly remunerative and somewhat prestigious
[...]
It would probably involve lots of lunches out with interesting people
Computer says "Fucking a hedge fund manager". I was right about it being a boring job. I must remember not to take the lowest quote for careers advice software next time.
83: If I understood seKRit correctly, it wouldn't be IBM taking over the local Planned Parenthood as it would be IBM sending over a couple operations people to work out the corporate details that result in the condoms shipments not arriving. Stuff that the social workers need to have done, but aren't trained to do.
My ideal job would be low stress, short hours, highly remunerative and somewhat prestigious.
Supermodel. Added bonus: it's totally compatible with drug abuse. Drawbacks: starvation, and having to work with other supermodels.
91: I knew someone who was compelled to do dinner (preperation) dishes before she could eat the damn dinner.
93 seems fair enough. It doesn't reflect the vast majority of volunteering that goes on, but it seems a pretty good thing to do, if it genuinely helps.
BG, for what it's worth, I wholeheartedly second ttaM's 82.3.
Introspective and thoughtful tends to lead to rumination, depression, and burnout in social work jobs (meaning direct-service caseworker, advocate, and the like). I don't recommend it unless you have an unusually good ability to set boundaries and provide plenty of restorative personal time for yourself.
Well, okay. I have a high tolerance for stress in crisis situations and can be quite calm and collected, but ordinary maintenance-type chronic stress will kill me one of these days. And I hate putting out written work product on a deadline.
I think that the people thought that I might be good as a clinical social worker, or helping the families of sick people in a hospital or teaching. I'd be damn good at helpign people figure out what health benefits they were eligible for.
KR--I've actually heard that super-models work long hours when they do work. The succesful ones liek Cindy Crawford have a tremendous work ethic.
OT: Has anyoen here taken stimulants? Which ones were helpful? I've had bad anxiety and some attentional deficits.
93: Oh, I didn't think that about SC's company's scheme. I was talking about parsimon's comment about non-profits doing the societal work that for-profits should but fail to do.
I've been musing about self-financing something like this, for a while. There are a few problems. One relates to 96, in that I have a dozen years of specialized training which could probably be put to good use somewhere, but it's not completely obvious where. The other problems are more immediate -- The lack of benefits means I pretty much can't /won't do this in the US, and second (worse) the feelers I've sent out about this were all very, very negative from the point of view of not derailing an academic career.
BG, for what it's worth, I wholeheartedly second ttaM's 82.3.
Introspective and thoughtful tends to lead to rumination, depression, and burnout in social work jobs (meaning direct-service caseworker, advocate, and the like). I don't recommend it unless you have an unusually good ability to set boundaries and provide plenty of restorative personal time for yourself.
I agree as well both nattar and Witt. They said it far better than I can.
agrgrgag why doesnt the entire thing get italicized?!?!?
re: 99
Anxiety and stimulants really don't go together.
re: 103
A <P> tag breaks it. You need two separate italicized sections.
OT: Has anyoen here taken stimulants? Which ones were helpful? I've had bad anxiety and some attentional deficits.
BG:
my gf is an anxiety expert and pharmD. I'll ask her and email you some stuff.
I knew someone who was compelled to do dinner (preperation) dishes before she could eat the damn dinner.
I do a lot of clean-up while I'm cooking in the downtime, so often there are no prep dishes left to do by the time dinner is ready. But once dinner's ready, I eat it, whatever the state of the kitchen.
And I hate putting out written work product on a deadline.
This is why I'm no longer a lawyer.
107.1: I do this because having the kitchen be a huge wreck after dinner, with the eating dishes thrown in on top, is a recipe for the kitchen being full of dirty dishes and pans for several days. Chipping away as things get used means that the after-dinner clean-up is a much more manageable task which I'm likely to do then, rather than a huge chore I'll avoid until I have to do it.
107: Yeah, cleaning as you go is a great idea, but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean, she'd put a plate of food on the table, then go back to the kitchen and wash everything that was still dirty before she sat down to eat. If it wasn't too complicated or she had really managed to clean most of it on the fly, then her food didnt' get too cold, I guess.
99: Modafinil is prescribed for ADHD and for narcolepsy, so that might be an option. It's the same drug the military gives to pilots to keep them awake and alert for long periods of time.
94: cf 92, ahhh euphemism.
104: kidding? stimulants are great for anxiety. have a fag it'll calm you down. "stimulant" refers to pharmacology, not necessarily the effect (viz all those twonk teachers who snootily told you "alcohol is a depressant!")
dsquared is right. Ritalin, for example, acts as a make-you-more-hyper drug for people who don't have ADD/ADHD, and for those who do have ADD/ADHD, it doesn't make them even worse, it actually helps them focus.
re: 111
I was thinking more of 'non-prescription' stimulants. Rather than prescribed stuff specifically for anxiety.
In my experience, people who are anxious who take a fair bit of speed, or have heavy caffeine habits find their symptoms getting worse.
I know about Ritalin [overlaps with my academic research again -- is ADHD a disease, etc.].
I was thinkign about adderall. I've heard good things about provigil, but it's expensive as all hell. It would be a low dose. Right now I think that I coudl get ritalin. I have to get my insurance sorted out before I could get adderall or dexedrine.
I do have a prescription for klonopin, and that can help with the anxiety, although I have to be careful, becasue too much of it jsut makes you sleepy. I don't have ADD, but attentional deficits can be observed in people w/ bipolar, but you have to be very careful using a stimulant. It's just that I think a I could use a dopamine or norepinephrine push to keep me on task when reading boring stuff and to help with mental organization a bit.