One of the characteristics of an education at the University of Cambridge is that they push you hard. This is not mere exaggeration but fact, admitted by all - whether they have been here or only know people who have been here. That is not to say that other students at other universities do not work as hard as we do, nor that they have less work. (Notably, it is impossible to know for sure without having physically experienced other universities.)
Regardless, there is a vast quantity of information that is thrown at us. It isn't helped by the short terms (we have two terms of eights weeks supplemented by a four week term before exams for some subjects, including mine). Most universities have considerably longer terms and as a result, the density of the information students have to consume each week is less. Add to this the course content (Cambridge is known for being highly theoretical in most fields of study) and the fact that for some subjects, students are taught to the same level as other universities in multiple subjects concurrently. The most prominent example of this is the Natural Sciences Tripos. I am told that we are taught the same amount of Geology as a student studying Geology full time at another university, except here it comprises only a quarter of the total course load.
All this established, it comes as a surprise to me that in discussion today after being guest-lectured by David Colver from Operis, a notable alumnus of the Computer Laboratory, my colleagues seems to have a very selfish work ethic when it comes to longer term careers. Mr. Colver was invited to speak to us as part of our Business Studies Seminars which are effectively talks by successful Computer Scientists. The teaching committee presumably recognises that not all of the year group has much real world corporate experience; motivation is provided in the form of tangible examples and inspirational stories. (Having heard several of these talks so far, I find myself thinking that their career paths are not for me at all, but that is for another post.)
Mr. Colver described his career path in the city (Operis is a financial consulting firm) and suggested that instead of spending crucial components of our working lives programming, we try to become consultants, followed by an MBA and a career in investment banking. (Again, a topic for another post.) He made a strong point though, that most premier consultancies will demand a tremendous amount of time from young employees.
As we walked out of the lecture theatre, we discussed working hours. Admittedly, the quantity of time devoted by consultants and investment bankers is huge - leaving at midnight or later, and effectively no weekends - but we considered the time that the average technologist would work. My colleagues clearly insinuated their desires for a forty hour week, i.e. 9 to 6 for 5 days. Simon, who interned at a prominent investment bank, said that he worked from 8:30am to 6pm everyday. For comparison, when interning over summer, I worked 8:30am to 6:30pm. My hours weren't (relative to other interns) too bad.
Their unwillingness to spend a greater quantity of time working confuses me. They are clearly not work-shy, several of them attained extremely high marks in past examinations which are not solely attributed to intelligence. The notion that a man must have enough time to experience life is a fair one, but I must question the logic behind this belief. In an increasingly competitive economic climate, surely it makes sense to devote yourself to your livelihood. If you don't, then someone else will, and they will climb. There is clearly a fine line to be walked between enthusiasm and obsession but more often than not there exists free time to follow your passion.
Finally, it does not appear to be a question of enjoyment. My colleagues love and enjoy their subject. So why stray away from spending more time embracing it? Talking to my corridor-mate today, I suspect that it boils down to a cultural factor: work ethic. We were discussing how Indian immigrants to the U.K. have made a substantial amount of wealth out of very little, or even nothing to begin with. There can be no argument that there was an unfair advantage either.
No doubt many (if not all) of my class mates will go onto prosper in whatever field they find themselves in. Most likely they will accomplish this without whittling away their youth in an ofice block. Irrespective, I will try my hardest to get the job done, however long it takes.
