Part of a man-made waterfall in the Bois de Boulogne.

Information Technology. I'm probably being unfair, judgmental and snotty below, but it's what I'm thinking right now and I feel the need to get it out. Comments and responses welcome, as always.

A follow-up to this article has been added to this site.

I went back to school January 1999 after a 10-year absence to finish the bachelor's degree. In anything.

Most people assume that a 29-year-old returns to school for a retooling in order to make more money.

For me, returning to school was not a vocational activity, to learn a profitable trade. I have all the trades I can handle, backups in case this school experiment should fail, and failing all that, I can always go back to fast food. I'm not proud. Or not that proud. I just won't be drinking Mad Dog in the Wal-Mart parking lot, that's all.

Most people seem to be more prepared to accept a sudden return to school from a septuagenarian than from someone in their twenties. An old person, after all, has nothing to do with their time. The subtext is, Sure, it's a waste of resources and money to teach anything to somebody who could die any day now, but if they're happy and don't impinge on me, in fact, if they don't appear on my radar at all, then they should go for it. But a young kid, well, it's now or never, and once now is over then it must be never. Going back to undergraduate school after age 18 is like trying to climb back into the womb.

That's what I think they're thinking, anyway.

I'm not noble. You won't catch me talking about returning to school as a pure search for man's essential nature and a communion of mind and self, and then see me sending my pop culture, consumerist dirty laundry into town like Thoreau did. I don't have any higher ideals about this. I'm not returning to school for the "joy of learning", although I've lied and said that a few times. I've got that already: I buy books, I read them, I buy more. Doesn't require $800 a credit hour in tuition. Having professorial guidance is nice, but not necessary.

Here's the simple reason why I went back to school: I was in information technology and I found it boring.

Let's call it the computer business, the digital trade, consulting, whatever. I'm talking specifically about the work done by people who install, wire, upgrade, troubleshoot and fix computers, networks and software. Not programmers, not web site producers, not PowerPoint slide builders. The geeks. Like I was. Am.

I don't tell people about the information technology boredom anymore because I can't stand the responses.

The responses are usually nothing but greed, springing from a nation of people saying to each other, "I've got one word for you: Computers. A young man could make a good living in computers. You should think about the future." When I explain how I left the computer business, people look at me like I've cracked my crankcase and am dribbling fluids on the rug in the good room. How could I leave all the money?

Maybe there's a shortage of information technology people, or just good information technology people (my choice), but too many people going into information technology work have a greed-based ambition so blatant and overwhelming it makes me blush when I think about it.

I made great money. I really did. I'm not bragging, but trying to put this into perspective. You need to understand what it was I left and what is possible in the information technology field.

— For a while, I made more money per year than each of my friends. At one time, I made more money than my father, sister and brother-in-law combined. True, I was in New York and they were in the Midwest, but if you ignore the government's bogus cost of living comparison tables, it's still a lot of money. Real money, even. No matter where you live. Books and overseas trips and digital toys cost the same or cheaper in New York as they do anywhere else. Plus, no car, no kids, no wife, company-paid insurance, great medical benefits, no mortgage, four weeks off of work a year, good holidays, company parties and free soft drinks in the office kitchen.

— I had responsibility. Depending on the job, I had people working for me, keys to everything, access to all systems, control of my budgets and purchasing and inventory. I ran departments. I made rules and broke them at will.

— I usually set my own hours, which usually meant working when no one else was around, evenings, weekends, holidays, those times you can shutdown networks and servers without inconvenience, the times the phone stops ringing. If I wanted, I came in late, left early, took long lunches.

— I wore whatever I wanted. T-shirts, moleskin shorts, sandals, three-day whiskers.

But I quit the work. Some people's faces screw up in a disbelieving grin, like they're being had, when I tell them I quit computer work. You can see the wheels turning: "Okay, you were making a good salary. You were good at your job. You could do what you wanted. The world is dying for computer people. And you left because you were bored. Come on... That can't be right."

They think maybe I got fired, but it's pretty obvious I didn't. Too many jobs chase after me, too much work calls me up on the phone and begs.

A second factor compounded that boredom: I can't stand the many bad people in the information technology business, examples of stupidity catalyzed by greed.

To me, there is a clear distinction here between good geeks and bad geeks. The good geeks learned how to use computers by screwing them up and then cleaning up, by downloading and installing every demo, beta and bootleg they could find, by mooching time on friends' computers, by sneaking into the office after hours to fool with the high-end machines. That's how it's done. That's how the best geeks are made. All the good computer people I know started in some other job, started jerking around with computers, got good at it, and never looked back.

I was a small-time journalist. One guy I know was a PowerPoint slide builder. There's a lot of humanities majors in there, die-hard gamers, musicians, I don't know what all. Most of us made the transition because there was a hole to fill and we had the knack.

But the kind of geeks I dislike are the sharpsters who are supposedly school-trained, supposedly took a few classes, have their Apple or Novell or Microsoft certification. Maybe even have computer science degrees. But despite this and because they went into the business for the money and the job security and not for having the knack, their work sucks. It's like training to be a jockey: at some point, if you don't have the right weight, you're never gonna get on a horse, and the only way you'll get work is to starve yourself, vomit before weigh-ins or else head for rigged tracks in backwater parts of South America. I think there's a certain kind of natural, perhaps genetic, wiring that makes good information technology people and the geeks I don't like don't have it.

This is not an argument between theory and practice, books and experience. I believe in both sides equally. I really do.

This is an argument against the kind of people who seek the safety of the computer trade. They are the new civil service workers. They seek the security of the boredom I'm fleeing. I'm speculating here, but I'm thinking of a good 20 or 30 guys I know (and they're all guys) who fit this description.

These are the people you see reading computer manuals on the subway. This is an opinion of mine that friends have argued with, saying that it's unfair, that the desire to get ahead and achieve is natural, and in New York City, a necessity. I maintain that anyone reading an out-of-the-bundle Microsoft SQL manual on public transportation hasn't a clue in the world what they're doing. You've got to be at the terminal. You've got to do it right now, as you read it. The manual is a reference, a go-to source, not a tutorial. Even the tutorials aren't tutorials: they're step-by-step guides to doing exactly what you should be doing on your own: fooling with the software.

I think these types are convinced computers are their ticket to the good life, the second house, the boat. They've seen Bill Gates on the cover of Newsweek. He's rich, he's in computers, QED, they can get rich in computers. If they had half a brain, of course, they'd realize that there's a better living in coding and programming, not in pushing beige boxes around on wheeled carts all day. You can't fake coding and programming for long, though.They'd make a sight more money in pharmaceuticals or genetics start-ups, too, but then there are no how-to's for those industries at Barnes and Noble, are there?

These bad geeks creep me out because there's no magic happening when the mouse and keyboard are in their hands. Intuitive understanding is replaced by paperwork, bureaucracy and clock-watching. I once met a joker who was hired at a largish mid-size advertising agency as the second in command of information technology. In an office where the work is never done, where the computer boys often work evenings and weekends, where everything is always due now, he asked his subordinates for written progress reports.

Small thing, right? Not really. In the half-hour, hour it would take to write those reports, jobs would be stacking up like airplanes over JFK during a blizzard. He hadn't a clue.

A real Number Two would have been in the trenches, doing the work, filling in for his coworkers and subordinates, and so not require written reports. A true Number Two should be capable of doing not only his job, but the job of everyone else in the department, and should be training for the Number One job. No progress reports required: if he knows how do everything, then he knows what's working and what isn't. He is an interchangeable part.

I've been freelancing at that company doing information technology work for years and I've seen the freelancers and employees come and go and it's always the same: the worst ones don't check details. A good example, and the first detail they don't check, is putting new employee names in the half-dozen or so different systems. A simple thing done right, a hassle and time-waster when done wrong. The idiot geeks always muck it up.

Another thing about the bad geeks: they have no initiative. There are a few, key sites in the computer world that are fundamental to the computer tech trade. They have the latest bug reports, updaters, drivers, etc. They've got new product reviews, troubleshooting forums, tips on deals and bargains. But I can't tell you of the number of information technology geeks who don't check those sites. They're digital humans. It's their work. They've got the whole Internet at their disposal. They don't use it. You know what they do? They call technical support and wait on hold for eternity, getting nowhere slowly. A waste of time.

These are they guys who sit down at a computer and ask all the wrong questions. If you tell them your keyboard's not working, then they bring it up to the office rather than make sure it's plugged in first. I've seen this sort of jerk actually call a computer in for manufacturer repair when all it needed was to have the little red button reset on the power strip. It's too common. The mouse is jerky? They replace it rather than clean the fuzz out of the rollers. They don't know any better.

The bad geeks use delay tactics, obfuscation, lies and diversion to avoid getting work done, mainly because they don't manage time well. They don't know how long tasks should take because they don't know how to do those tasks. These are the people who set up arbitrary deadlines. Any company geek who tells you they will help you with your computer in a few days or weeks instead of today or right now is the kind of loser I'm talking about, and if the whole information technology department is like that (they are legion), it's time to fire the information technology boss. If you have to make an appointment to see your information technology people, then the whole lot should be canned: somebody isn't managing budgets, personnel or time well at all.

It's as much an education-based job as it is a service-based job. You should hear some of the lies certain geeks tell the customers. They make things up or generalize to the point of stupidity: "You can't use your email because the Internet is down." No, the DHCP server is being rebooted and your computer can't get an address. "The network is really slow because the server is really full." No, the network is slow and the servers are full because people have just discovered MP3s. One is not causing the other.

What I always tell trainees is this: even if your customers don't all understand you, some of them will. That's a few less people to re-explain it to later. You are not better than these people. "Just because" and "trust me" are near lies.

I remember getting a bit of a power buzz at one of my first contract IT gigs. One of the partners of this major, world-wide consulting firm was having problems with his laptop. He was frustrated. Here he was, worth millions, making millions, friends to Henry Kissinger, his kids in all the right schools, partner before 45, not able to handle a simple machine. Instead, he had to ask a 23-year-old in jeans and t-shirt for help. He asked that I explain the solution to the problem (switching network settings between the office and dial-in) and how to fix it himself. He never called about that problem again. He learned, as most customers will when given the right information. Explaining rather than just doing it for him saved us both time later. He knew it, too, and that's when I first learned it.

The bad geeks are incapable of troubleshooting over the phone, while all the best good geeks can. Most times, they can sit at their desks or on a plane, eyes closed or working on something else, and tell you step by step how to solve your problem. They've done it a million times and they know it by heart.

I knew this one bad geek who, besides insisting on face-to-face visits to every person he had to help, thought he could fool them into thinking he was actually doing something by making the mouse jump all over the screen, clicking on random menus, opening and closing windows. Up and down, side to side, as fast as possible. I hope he's been squashed by a 21-inch monitor.

The last company I worked for full-time hired a kid (23) to take the my job as information technology director when I left to go back to school. In a company of less than 60 people, he installed beta software that would allow him to see and control office computers. Why? Among other reasons, it allowed him, in an office where creative types often work until 9 or 10 in the evening, to leave as soon after 5 p.m. as possible and still have a presence. It also allowed him to avoid daytime in-person calls, the other extreme of the moron above, though you could walk to any desk in the office in four minutes. Lots of points for use of technology, minus ten thousand for bad customer service, poor responsiveness and weak common sense. In addition, the new program ran constantly in the background, consuming memory and processor cycles. Not clean. Not efficient. Not finely tuned. Not well-thought out. Not even the best tool for the job, in my opinion, if one really wanted to install that sort of software.

A setup like his was specifically designed to maintain the current situation, not plan for improvements or arrange new infrastructure for growth. It was for him, not the company or his customers. Not elegant, as a friend and former boss says. As a result, the kid wasn't putting in the hours, the face time, or pro-actively solving problems. So when he asked for a raise, they denied it, and he quit shortly thereafter. I'm sure I worked too much when I had that job, sometimes 60 or 70 hours a week, but when my time came, they handed me a fancy five-figure raise, a smaller one six months later, and then a pleasant Christmas bonus. And I didn't have to ask for it.

The losers in the business like the concepts "shrink-wrapped" and "turn-key." If it's not in the catalog, they don't buy it or use it. They don't use shareware, freeware, betas, time-limited demos or something cobbled together by a friend. I know one or two old-timers who have biases against freeware and everyone's wary about betas, but even so the good geeks will give anything a shot on a standby machine or their personal computer. I've known old-timers to wipe their office computer clean just to try out a new operating system. Bad geeks are the kind of people that never check for service packs or updates and so run everything as it came from the manufacturer.

The bad geeks are like the dork whose job I took over last summer as interim information technology director. He only knew how to manage Windows NT mail systems, so he spent $5600 on an NT mail server—in an otherwise 99% Macintosh office. There were 22 people at that ad agency, maybe 30 nodes. I'm all for hybrid vigor, but he had an old PowerMac 6100 sitting idle on the shelf. It would have taken him less than an hour and zero dollars to install the free version of the Eudora Internet Mail Server to do the exact same thing, more reliably.

The bad geeks are the kind who still kid themselves about the value of going to trade shows. They try to pass on the lie "If you pay the $1200 fee, I can go and learn about this very important thing we might be able to start doing here." The good geeks know trade shows are frauds. They don't lie to themselves or anyone. They go for the swag, the mini-bar, the pre-parties and ongoing parties and post-parties, ideally paid for by the company, but if not, hey, it's time off. The old ones also go to trade shows with specific tasks in mind: they bring lists of complaints and bug reports and wishes to vendors, then demand action. Good geeks use those four-day conferences like a military campaign, with constant sorties into enemy territory to spy and deliver explosives, to recruit allies and to shake the hands of the troopers who write the software they love.

The losers go to the conference and are too ashamed to admit to the boss back home that the two-hour session they sat through was actually a barely disguised pitch for a new product that won't hit the market for another year, if then.

For me, a lot of what I decide to do and not do in the world is about the company I'll be keeping. I stopped doing computer consulting for lawyers after the first experience because I couldn't stand a roomful of young people acting like old men, refusing to change, refusing to cooperate, insisting on trying the mouse wrong-handed because then they could take notes with the other hand and have the phone on a shoulder, and bill three clients at once. I'm not kidding.

Information technology work is like plumbing, well-paid but repetitive in that unrewarding blue-collar sort of way. It subsidizes some of the nicer things in life but it, itself, is not one of them. With the influx of those people with dollar-sized eyes and sweat-stained cheap collars, it is even less so. I'm glad I left.

A follow-up to this article has been added to this site.

—Grant Barrett
29 July 2000