<p>I know my opinion is probably held by a very small minority, but it goes this way: pressuring someone to go into a field they actively dislike or really have no aptitude is misguided. Not going to a field in which a person has spectacular talent and interest is also a wasted opportunity. </p>
<p>In between lies overwhelming majority of the people I know including everyone in my family. For this crowd, “Passion”, as I see it, is grossly over-hyped; for those who are so young to have little experience in the field, passion is even more dubious because the mundane reality of what someone actually has to do for decades in a field is quite often very different from what they experienced in their introduction due to one great teacher, or in a summer project, or in a museum trip, or because of what they saw in a documentary. </p>
<p>To me true passion means that a person will continue to pursue that interest regardless of the tangible returns. Sadly, I know of too many “truly passionate” people who are dying to take early retirement, or already there by age 55 and talk about how lovely their prior job in healthcare, or teaching, or whatever else was. </p>
<p>I’m probably quite a stereotypical cc-Asian parent and our strategy with the kids had been to expose them extensively to fields that we liked - I bought electronic components and designed and built circuits that we connected to oscilloscopes when they were in elementary school. I taught them programming at a young age so they could do things on the web before Geocities or other user friendly tools had been developed. When we went to amusement parks, we made calculations of the mechanics of the rides, calculated momentum, did probability problems in our heads while waiting in long lines, etc. We signed them up in every science contest and designed vacations around a math contest in Boston or Chess tournaments in Florida. </p>
<p>The bottom line was when it was time for them to decide which way they wanted to go, comp sci, medicine, engg, vet, etc were at the top of their choice as careers, while areas like writing or art were hobbies, at best, and fields like history were, “yuk”. </p>
<p>DW & I would never have forced, or even pressured them to go to a specific area, like mandating my son to go to medicine or the daughters to do engg. We certainly had our “A” list of fields we would give them everything we could, a lukewarm list where they better round up healthy amounts of assistance, and some even worse. But the good thing was that our interests were practically identical to how all three kids felt, so there was no conflict. </p>
<p>We realize, of course, that there’s no guarantee that DD’s medical education or DS’s comp sci/engg education will bring them great satisfaction or tangible rewards, but our reasoning was that there was no guarantee that anything else would either, so what’s wrong with this? </p>
<p>I also notice that it’s not uncommon to call salary, “compensation”. Compensation for what? Let me guess, for the time you are asked to give up from doing what you really want to be doing. So to conclude, my feeling is that for the bulk of us who are not Lennon/McCartneys, Shakespeares, or Feynmanns, there’s no great loss to the person or to society in not following the field of passion at age 18 as their career; rather, it makes sense to look at fields where the mediocre person in that occupation has a relatively good life, reject those that you intrinsically dislike or have sub-par talent in, and settle to being reasonably compensated for something that you don’t despise, but not necessarily be passionate about.
[/rant]</p>