In a blink of an eye, 2 years have passed since I made the decision to switch out of Economics as a major. Since then, it has been a long path that has seen me unofficially switch majors 7 times, eventually returning to Computer Science, the major I had initially switched to.

On hindsight, it has been a pretty good decision. A recent New York Times article writes about the ugly job market that has left Harvard graduates unemployed. Yet for a Stanford CS major, there is a ridiculous talent crunch that has companies competing for qualified talent. I receive an email every other day or so from a recruiter looking to hire (though this does not matter, due to my Police contract).

The Journey

The benefits have been sweet. Yet the journey has been like shitting a pineapple. I have had long periods of self-doubt, especially in the early transition phase, where my newfound mediocrity in CS was painfully juxtaposed against my previous achievement studying the humanities in Junior College. It was tempting to think it had all been a fluke, and perhaps I wasn’t that clever after all. It only got worse when I saw people who I had done better than in the humanities excel and get nice jobs in consultancy and banking, while I struggled to get to the baseline standard in Computer Science. Did I mess it all up?

My social life and GPA are going to suffer, but I’m damned well going to learn how to program

It has taken 2 years to turn the corner. Through this time I’ve learnt that given >baseline intelligence, excellence is a function of perspiration. The marginal ease of learning a new concept increases with each concept already learnt. Roughly 1,400 hours into Gladwell’s 10,000 hours threshold, I’ve become able to pick up a new languages and frameworks in days, though getting good takes much longer. I am far from the finished product, but it is getting easier.

It has been a test of my willingness to let go of everything that got me here. I have drawn inspiration from Tiger Woods, who at the top of his game overhauled his golf swing, leading to a decline before paying off in 1999. In the process, the Chinese idiom  破釜沉舟 (to give up possibility of retreat) has been true. It was not till switching back became impossible, that I was able to find the determination to hunker down and get good.

The Next Phase

Programming as a profession… can be a good job, but you could make about the same money and be happier running a fast food joint. You’re much better off using code as your secret weapon in another profession.

People who can code in the world of technology companies are a dime a dozen and get no respect. People who can code in biology, medicine, government, sociology, physics, history, and mathematics are respected and can do amazing things to advance those disciplines.

- Advice from an Old Programmer, Zed Shaw

‘Oh, you’re sure to [get somewhere],’ said the Cat, `if you only walk long enough.’

- Alice speaks to Cheshire Cat, Lewis Carroll

The worst thing that could happen now is for me, ironically, is for me to begin to think I am a CS person. I am not. I am a social scientist who now knows algorithms, machine learning, and how to code. I am a government person who now knows a little bit of technology and human factors design, and can work with engineers. And perhaps the most liberating: I am an idea person who is now able to make things happen.

The challenge for me now is to continue to develop my technical competencies, while beginning to apply it to the areas that I actually care about.  Part of it requires me to learn and pick up various aspects of the social sciences on my own. I will be writing my senior honors thesis in Political Science under Stanford’s CDDRL, and it is likely to center around network analysis and the spread of political opinion. It’ll hopefully be the first of many things to come from the new skills I’ve learnt.

One of the first things that I had to do was design a resume, something I had never done before (apart from a 3 page list done in high school). I had earlier stumbled across a blog featuring creative resumes, and decided that as someone with zero work experience, I would need my resume to stand out. I also wanted my resume to communicate my diverse education, not wanting to get pigeonholed into just one role.

Planning out my resume

As someone with not much knowledge of resumes, I decided I would design, prototype, test and iterate my resume as I went along the job search. I taught myself Photoshop, and tested out prototypes at Stanford’s career fairs.

2 of the 6 original prototypes I tested. I varied color, and infographic design

I A/B tested different prototypes at job fairs, originally using response rates as a proxy. This turned out to be difficult as most companies responded, so I instead observed references to certain variables (e.g. featuring a particular project or extracurricular) during the phone interview as a proxy, and instead asked them what they found good or bad. As I applied across a wide range of industries, I also figured out which variables to tailor the resume for jobs in different industries, and for different job roles.

v0.90 to v0.91: after feedback from a few job recruiters (holding elements constant)

As the broad features more or less settle into place, I’ve begun to fine-tune various aspects of it like color and which elements to include in the resume. I’ve also realized it is a bit unethical to give recruiters my resume without really wanting to take a job there, so I’ve depended more on heuristic evaluations to fine tune stuff.

v0.92 to v0.94: After testing which elements needed to be replaced

Looking back, I started off the process with too little breadth in design ideas (ideally, given all the time in the world I would have a timeline resume, variations of a traditional resume, a landscape resume, and possibly a comic resume) and then A/B test all of them. The current prototypes are quite limited in terms of the general overarching idea, and at some point I’d like to go back to the drawing board to see what I can come up with. But on overall, the process of prototyping and testing different options has allowed me to know which hunches worked and which didn’t, and design a better product.

Final resume, pending color testing

Through the job search process I’ve also got a better idea of what sort of internship I’m looking for, and at what kind of company. I’ve also realized that interviews aren’t necessarily a test of skill, but rather how much you have “trained” for the sort of things they ask you (especially consultancy interviews, CS interviews). Sitting at the other side of the table has also given me a chance to gain insight into companies, and see the differences in culture, drive, and for a few of them, the “it” factor.

That said, I’ve gone back to a clean slate, and drawn up a list of 20 or so “dream” jobs that I’ll be working my ass off to get an interview for. I realize what I want is an internship that allows me to use my strengths to contribute to an organization- somewhere between interaction design, product development, and software engineering. Ideally, it’d be a small startup where I could get my hands dirty doing everything that needs to get done, though that sort of experience is also possible in larger companies. But if you know any great companies in need of help- here’s my resume!

Designing for extreme affordability brought Banny Banerjee of the Stanford Design School, Krista Donaldson of D.Rev, and Peter Frykman of Driptech in one panel. I had heard Peter speak years earlier as a freshman, and it was fascinating to see how Driptech had grown over the last 3 years.

The design thinking process was ultimately the topic of the day- prototyping, testing, and dealing with ambiguity. What was also interesting was that while all three had largely similar methods, each had developed “nuances” of their own, often drawing from techniques of other disciplines. Most interesting: Donaldson’s take on using market demand as an approximation of need and sustainability, regardless of any other indicator.

I was most interested in hearing Peter’s own account of starting up Driptech. 2 years earlier I had watched him talk about and demonstrate a rudimentary version of his irrigation system. Hearing him recount how he had to take into account (in designing the manufacturing process) the local manufacturer’s skill levels, and the electrical instability in the manufacturing plant, I was impressed by how much more he understood his market, and what he was doing- and I honestly believe his work will ultimately be much greater than just Driptech.

They also talked about the changing demographic of people in development. The increasing trend of ex-McKinsey consultants moving into development had brought a lot of business strategies and ideas to development groups. And there was the lack of technical people in development, a very relevant topic because all three came from engineering backgrounds. I was personally really interested to see how hear their experiences of the huge cultural gaps between people who “fundamentally saw the world in terms of technical challenges”, and the rest of the development community, and hear some of the failures that arose out of those challenges.

I wasn’t able to listen to all the speakers, but dropped in on the Extreme Affordability panel, as well as the Communication Technologies panel. Central to both was the two fields of technology and development, and the nuanced difficulty of applying the former to the latter situation.

Here are some highlights from the Communication Technologies panel. I’ll post up my notes from the Extreme Affordability panel once I’m done with my problem sets.

Communication Technologies:

Kentaro Toyama, on the importance of technology: “It is not technology which is the fundamental agent of change… but education, and jobs. Unless those are there, technology will not be the agent of change”

Christine Martin, on the culture of development: “It is [often about] putting your technology on the ground, spending 4 weeks there and then leaving. [It usually doesn't succeed] unless you’re sitting there and watching the technology. Someone has to be there to really understand these things. [And this not only] applies to the culture of the engineering discipline, but the general development mindset as well”

Toyama, on how intent drives technology adoption: he raised the example of Bluetooth mobile phone transfers, where in some market (India?) there are little shops selling videos which you can load onto your phone for a small sum. Thus people “pirate” files, by using Bluetooth to transfer to each other and friends. The process to initiate or receive a Bluetooth transfer is quite complicated (19 steps), but yet people who were hardly educated will know how to set it up using their phones.

His point: rather than talk about doing “design in a local way”, the crux of the issue was that if you meet a strong desire that people have, people will use it. The question of intent precedes the question of design.

Toyama, on what is a good designer: “A good designer is usually someone who can adapt to other cultures quickly… [picking up] on the nuances of that culture”

Toyama, on the downside to the mobile phone: Certain segments of the population spending the small amount they have on their mobile phone, as opposed to on education for children, etc. “In the larger picture, [there may be] larger negative side effects, that may overrun positive side effects”

Tapan Parikh, on the need for appropriate representation: He raised the example of the redesign of a children’s park. Instead of just redesigning it, they got children to annotate paper maps. The results were very interesting- the children were able to document their space (e.g. this is where the cool kids hang out by the slides, this place is where a drug addict comes every Monday etc), making the redesign much more effective.

His point: there is a great need for appropriate representation in gathering feedback, from the correct target group.

I’ve been following American football since coming to the US, having read about it in Singapore, and playing flag football (a non contact version of football) with my friends. Stanford’s amazing prowess at football this year, where our team won the Orange Bowl, has definitely played a part as well.

I had the opportunity to play fantasy football with a bunch of friends this year, which started out as “hm let’s just try this” sort of thing. While figuring it out I had the chance to read up quite a bit about the game, distill its ethos, and see the way things were organized. Following this season through the eyes of a amateur anthropologist has left me with a respect for the game- and also a deeper understanding of the American culture. In a country as disparate and diverse as America is, its sports are a common institution that binds people together, and gives insight into the ethic and values of the country.

That said, I won my fantasy football league without really knowing what a Tight End was (why would you ever, ever call a grown man that?). I didn’t know how to draft, lost for a few weeks, and then figured out a algorithm to figure out who to play/claim off the waiver wire, and then didn’t lose after that (and didn’t have to spend time picking, either). I eventually ranked pretty high in scoring, and I’ll post the algorithm up here someday.

“Text messages save lives”- An example of how technology is a “game changer”

This year has also been one for changes. My academic paths as well as interests have changed over the past year, perhaps due to the exposure (for the first time) to many other areas other than the humanities. Classes such as Technology for Social Change and Liberation Technologies has shown me how technology and the sciences can change the world. I have also come to appreciate the field of engineering, especially the way engineers think. I may now be pursuing a degree in Computer Science or Computer Systems Engineering.

This change in direction comes at a good time; I am thankful for the flexibility of Stanford’s system, which allows for it. The ensuing journey, though, is tough. I am letting go of my progress in the Economics major, which I had been doing relatively well in. The engineering classes I am taking now take up far more time than last year’s courseload, and I have to work twice harder than anyone else to bring myself up to speed on physics and math. Yet in doing so I have come to appreciate the way both the humanities and sciences view the world; in a way I cannot put in words, they are incomplete without the other.

How will this impact my future in the civil service? To be frank, I have no idea. Yet I believe strongly in the ability of technology to change societies and communities for the better. The newfound ability to be able to build tools that can make life easier for everyone else is liberating, as compared only being able to analyze them and affect them through policy. I realize, increasingly, that the world needs both, and thus an understanding of both is increasingly important.

During freshman orientation, Stanford’s Vice Provost Dean Julie said that we should not expect to leave Stanford the kind of person we came in as. Back then I had assumed it meant that we would graduate with more head knowledge about the subject we were to study; what I had not grasped was that the college experience might irrevocably change our interests and mindsets. As Dean Julie said, “your college experience WILL change you,” and perhaps it has- hopefully, for the better.

I’m taking 4 classes this quarter: a history class (Making of the Modern World), a writing class (Rhetoric of Crisis), Econ 52 (Macroeconomics) and CS106A (Fundamental of Programming). Almost all of them are enjoyable and this should be a good quarter, academics-wise.

But most of my efforts will be spent on the open infobase project, which we’re working on now. The team is now 4 people strong, and we’ve got interest from a few key players in the industry- all this with nothing more than personal pitches to people and a few emails.

However I hope to hold of all the hype for a while. It is of paramount important that we develop a product that is actually useful to the people on the ground; very often we fall into the trap of developing what we want for the world, and not what the world needs. Thus we will be  talking to NGOs and individuals to learn what they need. Only when we have a clear idea of what we are doing will we go and ask for money and support from others.

I do feel guilty, however, for not enjoying freshman year as it should be enjoyed. But sometimes the burden of an idea which could do something to make all of us better off weighs on your back, and again I dive into another project. Here we go.

Tech for Change

Google.org would better be named philanthropy@google.com, and google donates 1% of equity, 1% of profit, and 1% of employee time. Given google’s sheer scale, this is still a huge amount. They use the sheer power of technology and money to do good- they fund so many amazing things. They have interests in clean energy, global health, and information services; you can see the list of projects here. Some of the projects they do are simply amazing, such as the tool which predicts flu trends 2 weeks before it strikes. It also funds Dr. Nathan Wolfe of TED fame, whose work you can read about here.

Virgance, Activism 2.0

Virgance is “Activism 2.0″, and uses web technologies and the silicon valley energy to empower activism. It has pretty amazing projects, like the 1BOG (One block of the Grid) which uses a combination of collective bargaining and solar power to take “one block off the energy grid”, promoting solar power. They shared many new ideas with us; though I had some reservations about the effectiveness of some ideas it was refreshing to see someone bring such a breath of fresh air into an otherwise stale industry devoid of innovation.

I was particularly interested in what Virgance’s founder Steve Newcomb had to say about his company. He had been in 5 startups, and just sold Powerset to Microsoft. He talked about his HR strategy: to get hired at Virgance, you had to have all the current staff there unanimously decide that you should be hired, after a 1 month trial “interview”. The idea was that he only wanted “A team” people, and that a strong, united team would move faster than a disunited, bulky one.

He also had a “handshake agreement”: he believed that all the people he hired were so good, that he knew he would lose them eventually. Thus employment was more of a 1 year contract, for his employees to give him their very best, and then leave. In turn he would train and mentor them from his experiences in startups for that 1 year. Virgance was also a “teaching company”, where everybody taught the others what they knew, so everybody would be well rounded. They had common lunch discussions, open workspaces, dorm-room like offices. Interesting culture of an interesting organization.

826 Valencia was started in 2002, and is essentially a nonprofit tuition centre cum playground, even though its stated mission is to “support students ages 6 to 18 with their writing skills, and to helping teachers get their students excited about the writing”. Its design is amazing: on the outside, it is a pirate shop- but once you go in, it is a classroom. The founder told us it was because the building was supposed to used for retail; thus they had to have a shop in there in order to get it. The proceeds from the shop go to fund the tuition center inside.

The center is essentially run by a few staff, and many, many volunteers. Parents can bring their children in any time for tutoring in math, science and/or (most importantly) writing; it all happens on a free-rolling basis (not set classes). Volunteers drop in whenever they like to tutor the kids, and they ranged from recent college graduates to retirees, and a kindly old man who said he knew Ho Kwon Ping from his Stanford days.

They also had a cool ‘world table’ that displayed google maps on the face of a table. You rolled the table clockwise to zoom in (and vice versa), and moved left and right by tilting the table from side to side. I shot a video of it here:

Upwardly Global on the other hand seeked to train “highly skilled immigrants” and equip them with job skills, and cultural skills to be able to get a job and keep it here. I talked to some of the people there- met people with PhDs who were unable to get a job beyond being cashiers because they spoke English with an accent; also met several Iraqis who were refugees in the USA. One man ran a huge business in his native Peru, and knew more about environmental engineering that the Stanford students; he was only able to get a job at Wal-Mart because of his thick accent.

I couldn’t help but feel that perhaps there should be a similar program for international students like myself. Getting used to the American culture is sometimes a shock; perhaps having a course to equip ourselves with “cultural skills” would be a great help in our integration into America, however short a period that we may be here.