As part of my morning routine, I often flip on the television when I first wake up; not to watch anything in particular, just to have a little company while I get ready.
This morning, however, I was affronted by the verbal onslaught I overhead. With my interest peaked, I stepped away from the sink to see what was causing this lingual tumult. Much to my dismay it was not some heated political commentary over the closing of Gitmo, nor was it an avid PETA supporter up in arms over the release of Michale Vick. No, instead the utterance issued from the mouth of Whoopi Goldberg, one of the many loud mouthed co-hosts of The View.
The View began as a program where empowered women discussed current issues and news items on social and political issues as well as celebrity news and tabloid headlines, listening to each other and discussing opinions. Today the show is little more than an hour long gab fest where the co-hosts openly insult their guests' opinions and often times the guests themselves.
Today's unfortunate victim was Glenn Beck, host of The Glenn Beck Program radio-show as well as his self-titled television show featured on the Fox News Channel. Things began to deteriorate immediately as Joy Behar started off the segment by poking fun at Mr. Beck. While the jest was all in good fun, it simply got worse from there. Mr. Beck openly admitted to being more nervous appearing on the show than he was when appearing before the President in the Oval Office. When asked by Barbara Walters why this was so, Beck pointed out that Whoopi Goldberg was glaring at him. The first thing Goldberg said was, "I'm a little pissed at you," and then continued on to say that Glenn Beck is, "a lying sack of dog mess." Now, I'm not a television personality nor the host of a daytime television talk show, but I would venture a guess that a guest on a show would be entitled to a little more respect.
Many of you who are somewhat unfamiliar with the show may pass this off as an isolated incident, but that is far from the truth. When radio-show host and author Laura Ingraham came on the show as a guest co-host, she was openly ridiculed similarly to Glenn Beck. She was cut off again and again by the other co-hosts. Ingraham's book Power to the People was the topic of conversation which Ingraham claims as a rallying point for "disenfranchised" Americans. Ingraham makes the point that young girls are being brainwashed by a culture that elevates celebrity gossip, idolization, and debauchery. While the co-hosts agree, Joy Behar says, "It's pie in the sky to think that we could actually change; this country voted to get out of the war last year, and still we're still there. So if the vote doesn't even count what makes you think a letter will?" Umm, Ms. Behar, are you aware of the principles that this country was founded upon? Our Federal government is built on the basis of its people having the power, to the right of revolution when we believe change is needed. I mean come on! If everyone had that mentality, Dr. King would have never fought for civil rights, Frederick Douglass wouldn't have taken a stand against slavery, and John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and the other fifty-six delegates of the Continental Congress would have never signed the Declaration of Independence.
Sean Hannity was also a guest on The View at one time. While yes, he is a staunch conservative, he is also a very learned man. He is making accurate points and Rosie O'Donnell repeatedly says to his face, you're wrong, not letting him finish his thought. It amazes me that they are still able to persuade guests to be on the show, knowing the oral detraction that awaits them.
I think the show would more aptly be named, The Retort.
May 21, 2009
February 14, 2009
I hate so much about the things that you choose to be.
Fact, the Golden Globes is the pinnacle of achievement in the world of television entertainment.
However, the gala event of prestige and refinement is certainly not the awards show of yesteryear. While the awards shows have long been known for decadent smiles, polite golf claps, and zealous thanks for all the little people, few would expect multiple references to someones "balls", an impromptu flipping of the bird, and a casual taunting by Tina Fey to one of her harsher critics to, "suck it."
While these are terse gestures to grab cheap laughs simply to inflate the already aggrandized egoes of the award recipient, they are not overly reproachful nor unheard of.
This, nevertheless, is not my qualm with this year's Golden Globe awards. Nay, it was the unfortunate love affair between the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and Tina Fey's pet project, 30 Rock. Now don't get me wrong, 30 Rock is not a bad show, but a 5-time Golden Globe winner? Hardly. Tina Fey has her moments where her quirkiness and wit are quite amusing, as are Baldwin's backhanded compliments and neurotic behavior, but the blandness and indistinct characterization of the majority of the cast leaves the audience wanting more.
Herein lies my true issue with this years Golden Globes, The Office was robbed. The Office is a far superior comedy with a paramount cast. What is truly novel about The Office is the variety of every episode. Not only is every character unmistakably unique, each every one delivers a comedic style that is clever and refreshing. Whether it is the subtle nuances of sarcasm extolled by Jim, the defeatist attitude of Toby, or the bizarre and sometimes outlandish claims of Creed, the diverse humor will always catch you off guard and keep you engrossed in the episode.
Now, granted this is just my opinion, but don't think I haven't done my homework. In the last 3 seasons (I only claim 3 since that is how long 30 Rock has existed) The Office has consistently outperformed 30 Rock. As far as viewership, 30 Rock has had 5.8, 6.4, and 7.2 million viewers in its 3 consecutive seasons. In the same 3 seasons, The Office has had 8.8, 9.5, and 10.47 million viewers respectively. Apart from viewership, The Office has been ranked significantly better than 30 Rock in all 3 seasons since 30 Rocks inception.
Statistics courtesy of Wikipedia. "Wikipedia. Is the best thing ever. Anyone, in the world, can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information." -Michael Scott (and just one more reason that The Office is better than 30 Rock).
You may be saying, "Well those are simply statistics." I agree, but if you were to wander over to tv.com or metacritic.com you will find that viewers have ranked The Office higher than 30 Rock. So what does this tell you? It tells you that not only are more people tuning into watch Michael Scott make a fool of himself in front of his employees rather than see Jack Donaghy (Baldwin's character on 30 Rock for those who don't know) belittle people on the set. Also, I realize that it is not the average viewer that votes on the Golden Globes, but 90 international journalists, but one would think that they would tend to agree with the audience.
It killed me to see Steve Carell sit there and smile while Baldwin walked on stage to accept the Golden Globe that, rightfully, should have been Carell's. The character of Michael Scott has evolved greatly from season 1 and has grown more comical by the season. Having won the Golden Globe award in 2006 for Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Musical or Comedy, it would seem apparent that Carell would win it a second time since his character has grown so much more versatile.
The cast has grown together and has such an effective dynamic it would seem inevitable that The Office's cast would take the Best Television Series - Musical or Comedy easily, but alas 30 Rock stole the show again, no pun intended. My favorite part by far was Tracy Morgan's (the self-proclaimed face of post-racial America) slurred acceptance speech, which he declared (with some degree of apparent intoxication) was only possible because Obama had been elected President. I'm not at all sure what he said, but I know one thing for sure, "somebody going to get pregnant." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOhKrL5DB1Y
Lastly, Tina Fey won the Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Musical or Comedy and I can totally agree with this one. What I was appalled by was the fact that Jenna Fischer was not even nominated for the category. Debra Messing however was. Debra Messing? Seriously? She was washed up before the first season of Will and Grace ended.
Oh well, I suppose I can take solace in the fact that The Office was given the coveted spot immediately following the Super Bowl, and not 30 Rock.
And regardless of the fact that I actually do enjoy 30 Rock, I can't be happy for its "apparent" success over The Office. So I guess what I'm saying is...
"Guess what? I have flaws. What are they? Oh I donno, I sing in the shower? Sometimes I spend too much time volunteering. Occasionally I'll hit somebody with my car. So sue me-- no, don't sue me. That is opposite the point I'm trying to make." -Michael Scott
However, the gala event of prestige and refinement is certainly not the awards show of yesteryear. While the awards shows have long been known for decadent smiles, polite golf claps, and zealous thanks for all the little people, few would expect multiple references to someones "balls", an impromptu flipping of the bird, and a casual taunting by Tina Fey to one of her harsher critics to, "suck it."
While these are terse gestures to grab cheap laughs simply to inflate the already aggrandized egoes of the award recipient, they are not overly reproachful nor unheard of.
This, nevertheless, is not my qualm with this year's Golden Globe awards. Nay, it was the unfortunate love affair between the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and Tina Fey's pet project, 30 Rock. Now don't get me wrong, 30 Rock is not a bad show, but a 5-time Golden Globe winner? Hardly. Tina Fey has her moments where her quirkiness and wit are quite amusing, as are Baldwin's backhanded compliments and neurotic behavior, but the blandness and indistinct characterization of the majority of the cast leaves the audience wanting more.
Herein lies my true issue with this years Golden Globes, The Office was robbed. The Office is a far superior comedy with a paramount cast. What is truly novel about The Office is the variety of every episode. Not only is every character unmistakably unique, each every one delivers a comedic style that is clever and refreshing. Whether it is the subtle nuances of sarcasm extolled by Jim, the defeatist attitude of Toby, or the bizarre and sometimes outlandish claims of Creed, the diverse humor will always catch you off guard and keep you engrossed in the episode.
Now, granted this is just my opinion, but don't think I haven't done my homework. In the last 3 seasons (I only claim 3 since that is how long 30 Rock has existed) The Office has consistently outperformed 30 Rock. As far as viewership, 30 Rock has had 5.8, 6.4, and 7.2 million viewers in its 3 consecutive seasons. In the same 3 seasons, The Office has had 8.8, 9.5, and 10.47 million viewers respectively. Apart from viewership, The Office has been ranked significantly better than 30 Rock in all 3 seasons since 30 Rocks inception.
Statistics courtesy of Wikipedia. "Wikipedia. Is the best thing ever. Anyone, in the world, can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information." -Michael Scott (and just one more reason that The Office is better than 30 Rock).
You may be saying, "Well those are simply statistics." I agree, but if you were to wander over to tv.com or metacritic.com you will find that viewers have ranked The Office higher than 30 Rock. So what does this tell you? It tells you that not only are more people tuning into watch Michael Scott make a fool of himself in front of his employees rather than see Jack Donaghy (Baldwin's character on 30 Rock for those who don't know) belittle people on the set. Also, I realize that it is not the average viewer that votes on the Golden Globes, but 90 international journalists, but one would think that they would tend to agree with the audience.
It killed me to see Steve Carell sit there and smile while Baldwin walked on stage to accept the Golden Globe that, rightfully, should have been Carell's. The character of Michael Scott has evolved greatly from season 1 and has grown more comical by the season. Having won the Golden Globe award in 2006 for Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Musical or Comedy, it would seem apparent that Carell would win it a second time since his character has grown so much more versatile.
The cast has grown together and has such an effective dynamic it would seem inevitable that The Office's cast would take the Best Television Series - Musical or Comedy easily, but alas 30 Rock stole the show again, no pun intended. My favorite part by far was Tracy Morgan's (the self-proclaimed face of post-racial America) slurred acceptance speech, which he declared (with some degree of apparent intoxication) was only possible because Obama had been elected President. I'm not at all sure what he said, but I know one thing for sure, "somebody going to get pregnant." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOhKrL5DB1Y
Lastly, Tina Fey won the Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Musical or Comedy and I can totally agree with this one. What I was appalled by was the fact that Jenna Fischer was not even nominated for the category. Debra Messing however was. Debra Messing? Seriously? She was washed up before the first season of Will and Grace ended.
Oh well, I suppose I can take solace in the fact that The Office was given the coveted spot immediately following the Super Bowl, and not 30 Rock.
And regardless of the fact that I actually do enjoy 30 Rock, I can't be happy for its "apparent" success over The Office. So I guess what I'm saying is...
"Guess what? I have flaws. What are they? Oh I donno, I sing in the shower? Sometimes I spend too much time volunteering. Occasionally I'll hit somebody with my car. So sue me-- no, don't sue me. That is opposite the point I'm trying to make." -Michael Scott
February 8, 2009
What kidney punch?
First and foremost, I must preface this by saying I am a die hard, towel waving, Pittsburgh Steelers fanatic. That being said, I will be as objective as possible in this post, but at the same time it is MY blog so if it seems a little subjective, it probably is.
If you are wondering what the title of this post is referring to the James Harrison personal foul unnecessary roughness call during Super Bowl 43. Now first off, I agree, there should be a penalty on the play. However, I think it should have been ruled an illegal block in the back.
I have watched the video of the incident in question at least 50 times now. Aaron Francisco immediately goes for a "chop " or "cut" block. The chop block is a dangerous blocking technique, often resulting in injury, however is not illegal unless "On a kicking play, A1 chops a defensive player while the defensive player is physically engaged by the blocking attempt of A2. On a kicking play in which A2 physically engages a defensive player with a blocking attempt, A1 chops the defensive player after the contact by A2 has been broken and while A2 is still confronting the defensive player. On a kicking play, A1 chops a defensive player while A2 confronts the defensive player in a kick-blocking posture but is not physically engaged with the defensive player (a “lure”). On a kicking play, A1 blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower, and A2, simultaneously or immediately after the block by A1, engages the defensive player high."Courtesy of the 2006 Official Playing Rules of the National Football League.
Since Francisco was the only offensive player to block Harrison, there is no penalty, nor am I implying it was a cheap shot. If you look closely, it appears as though Francisco's right fist goes directly toward Harrison's crotch when he moves to chop block Harrison. Again, I am not implying that this was intentional, however, may explain some of the ensuing entanglement.
Now let's take a look at this from Harrison's perspective. You are James Harrison, the undrafted dark horse out of Kent State. Since 2002, you have been released by your own team 3 times, and did not become a starter until the 2007 season, having only started 8 games in the previous 4 seasons. You've had to earn every ounce of respect through blood, sweat, and hard work. Finally, you are recognized for your accomplishments being named the 2008 Defensive player of the year after recording 93 tackles and 16.0 sacks. You are an integral part of the number 1 passing defense in the NFL, allowing only 178.9 yds/game, the number 1 rush defense in the AFC, allowing only 80.3 yds/game and only 7 TDs, and allowing the fewest total yards of offense in the NFL. You and your teammates are a defensive machine.
Now, enter Super Bowl 43. Kurt Warner is able to compile 377 passing yards and Edge is converting several plays into 1st downs. While the Steel Curtain stood strong throughout the season, it appears to be crumbling around you. With 3:34 left to go, the dominating defense is finding it more and more difficult to stop the Cardinals offense. You are frustrated beyond all means, you feel as though you have to take the entire burden of the defense on your shoulders. You had to swing the momentum just before the half, returning an interception 100 yards for a touchdown. Now you are the one your teammates look to put Kurt Warner on his back.
This is what I believe provoked Harrison to act in the manner he did on the play in question. Being on the number 1 defense, yet being beaten by what many analysts deemed an inferior offense, and not being able to do anything about, even when you have just made Super Bowl history returning an 100 yard interception for a TD, clearly frustrated Harrison beyond belief.
Finally, the defense holds and forces the Cardinals to punt. Harrison comes off the end to bring some pressure and is chopped by Francisco. Francisco's hand, whether intentional or not, finds Harrison's crotch and Mr. Harrison is pushed past the critical mass point. Harrison is irate that Francisco takes a cheap shot (in Harrison's mind) on him and takes out a games worth of aggression on a play.
In anger, Harrison throws his hand firmly down on Francisco's shoulder-pad, albeit aggressive, it is not worth a penalty. Francisco is now essentially out of the play. Francisco then tries to regain his footing and Harrison gives him a big shot to the numbers. As an isolated event it does seem to warrant unsportsman like conduct, I can agree to that. However, in the scope of the play, Harrison is unaware that there is no return on the punt, for all he knows the ball carrier may be coming up behind him and he is trying to keep Francisco out of the play.
As Francisco gets up again, he turns away from Harrison and this is when I believe a penalty should have been called. Harrison with an open hand hits Francisco in the back. Sure, flag that as an illegal block in the back, I can totally agree with that.
Yes, James Harrison is an aggressive player and yes he did put quite a lick on Francisco, but I think people are blowing it way out of proportion, some so far as to say he doesn't deserve a Super Bowl ring and that he is the most disrespectful player in the NFL. C'mon people, it was one bad play. I have been watching the NFL for 10 years, granted I'm no expert, but I have seen many worse and "cheaper" shots...especially from Ray Lewis...and the rest of the Ravens.
James Harrison, I salute you. For taking slandering in stride, for not giving up in the 4th quarter when it looked bleak for the boys in black and gold, and most of all for setting super bowl history. Defense is wild and aggressive, it is primal and instinctive. Players like James Harrison, Troy Polamalu, LaMarr Woodley, James Farrior, Brett Keisel, Casey Hampton, Larry Foote, Aaron Smith, and heck, even Hines Ward, epitomize that attitude.
So maybe I am distinctly biased, but hey, it's my opinion and you know what they say about opinions, everyone has one and only mine is important.
If you are wondering what the title of this post is referring to the James Harrison personal foul unnecessary roughness call during Super Bowl 43. Now first off, I agree, there should be a penalty on the play. However, I think it should have been ruled an illegal block in the back.
I have watched the video of the incident in question at least 50 times now. Aaron Francisco immediately goes for a "chop " or "cut" block. The chop block is a dangerous blocking technique, often resulting in injury, however is not illegal unless "On a kicking play, A1 chops a defensive player while the defensive player is physically engaged by the blocking attempt of A2. On a kicking play in which A2 physically engages a defensive player with a blocking attempt, A1 chops the defensive player after the contact by A2 has been broken and while A2 is still confronting the defensive player. On a kicking play, A1 chops a defensive player while A2 confronts the defensive player in a kick-blocking posture but is not physically engaged with the defensive player (a “lure”). On a kicking play, A1 blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower, and A2, simultaneously or immediately after the block by A1, engages the defensive player high."Courtesy of the 2006 Official Playing Rules of the National Football League.
Since Francisco was the only offensive player to block Harrison, there is no penalty, nor am I implying it was a cheap shot. If you look closely, it appears as though Francisco's right fist goes directly toward Harrison's crotch when he moves to chop block Harrison. Again, I am not implying that this was intentional, however, may explain some of the ensuing entanglement.
Now let's take a look at this from Harrison's perspective. You are James Harrison, the undrafted dark horse out of Kent State. Since 2002, you have been released by your own team 3 times, and did not become a starter until the 2007 season, having only started 8 games in the previous 4 seasons. You've had to earn every ounce of respect through blood, sweat, and hard work. Finally, you are recognized for your accomplishments being named the 2008 Defensive player of the year after recording 93 tackles and 16.0 sacks. You are an integral part of the number 1 passing defense in the NFL, allowing only 178.9 yds/game, the number 1 rush defense in the AFC, allowing only 80.3 yds/game and only 7 TDs, and allowing the fewest total yards of offense in the NFL. You and your teammates are a defensive machine.
Now, enter Super Bowl 43. Kurt Warner is able to compile 377 passing yards and Edge is converting several plays into 1st downs. While the Steel Curtain stood strong throughout the season, it appears to be crumbling around you. With 3:34 left to go, the dominating defense is finding it more and more difficult to stop the Cardinals offense. You are frustrated beyond all means, you feel as though you have to take the entire burden of the defense on your shoulders. You had to swing the momentum just before the half, returning an interception 100 yards for a touchdown. Now you are the one your teammates look to put Kurt Warner on his back.
This is what I believe provoked Harrison to act in the manner he did on the play in question. Being on the number 1 defense, yet being beaten by what many analysts deemed an inferior offense, and not being able to do anything about, even when you have just made Super Bowl history returning an 100 yard interception for a TD, clearly frustrated Harrison beyond belief.
Finally, the defense holds and forces the Cardinals to punt. Harrison comes off the end to bring some pressure and is chopped by Francisco. Francisco's hand, whether intentional or not, finds Harrison's crotch and Mr. Harrison is pushed past the critical mass point. Harrison is irate that Francisco takes a cheap shot (in Harrison's mind) on him and takes out a games worth of aggression on a play.
In anger, Harrison throws his hand firmly down on Francisco's shoulder-pad, albeit aggressive, it is not worth a penalty. Francisco is now essentially out of the play. Francisco then tries to regain his footing and Harrison gives him a big shot to the numbers. As an isolated event it does seem to warrant unsportsman like conduct, I can agree to that. However, in the scope of the play, Harrison is unaware that there is no return on the punt, for all he knows the ball carrier may be coming up behind him and he is trying to keep Francisco out of the play.
As Francisco gets up again, he turns away from Harrison and this is when I believe a penalty should have been called. Harrison with an open hand hits Francisco in the back. Sure, flag that as an illegal block in the back, I can totally agree with that.
Yes, James Harrison is an aggressive player and yes he did put quite a lick on Francisco, but I think people are blowing it way out of proportion, some so far as to say he doesn't deserve a Super Bowl ring and that he is the most disrespectful player in the NFL. C'mon people, it was one bad play. I have been watching the NFL for 10 years, granted I'm no expert, but I have seen many worse and "cheaper" shots...especially from Ray Lewis...and the rest of the Ravens.
James Harrison, I salute you. For taking slandering in stride, for not giving up in the 4th quarter when it looked bleak for the boys in black and gold, and most of all for setting super bowl history. Defense is wild and aggressive, it is primal and instinctive. Players like James Harrison, Troy Polamalu, LaMarr Woodley, James Farrior, Brett Keisel, Casey Hampton, Larry Foote, Aaron Smith, and heck, even Hines Ward, epitomize that attitude.
So maybe I am distinctly biased, but hey, it's my opinion and you know what they say about opinions, everyone has one and only mine is important.
What's it going to be then, eh?
I've been considering starting a blog for a long while now. Each time I've felt prompted by something, I lose the motivation just as quickly as it came. Very often, these whims are brought on by something that has irked me beyond reason, and more often than not for no reason.
Today I was pushed passed the breaking point.
So, you may ask yourself what could it be that finally spurred me on to create this blog. Easy, the job market.
As a soon-to-be college graduate, I am actively in pursuit of a job. The first place they tell you to start, they being employees of my university's career center, is your schools career listing site. I have been hitting that jive up constantly since November of last year, and have yet to find a single job that fits my degree. I will be leaving school with a graduating class of approximately 600-800 students. That is not a ridiculous amount of people, but when combined with the numerous other colleges in the area, the amount of recent grads flooding the market can quickly add up. One other thing I should mention about my schools career listing site, there are only 290 postings available, many of which are teaching English in East Asia.
Is it just me, or does there seem to be some disconnect here? Of the other listings, a great deal of them require multiple years of experience, and others are internships.
Now, I understand that this website was made to serve current students and alumni who are looking for career opportunities. However, I'm going to assume that the majority of people who use this website are CURRENT students looking for FULL TIME employment. Bearing that in mind, one would think that there would be some sort of filter to remove jobs that require years of experience. No, there's not.
That being said, the remainder of postings are local entry level jobs. However, these are the same postings which are being advertised at all other regional schools. So let's do some math. Of the 290 postings, let's be generous and say 200 are local entry level jobs. If we divide that by the number of graduates coming out of my school, that is 200/800, or 1/4, or one job for every four students. Considering the number of other schools in this region, there will be an avg 1000 graduates from 4 different schools. That makes for 4800 graduates in a small, generally rural, area. If each of the respective schools posts an equitable amount of jobs with no overlap, I would say each would have 100 unique posts, making that 500 jobs for 4800 students.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is, the website seems pointless. I thought to myself, "Why not go talk to someone in career services?" So I did, and the first question they asked was, "Are you registered on (insert career listing webste here)?" That's when my faith in the career center crumbled.
Where next does one look for potential job leads? Careerbuilder.net? Monster.com? It's worth a shot, until you realize that all those jobs are either unskilled labor, part-time positions, or some type of pyramid scheme. So why bother?
Well, I guess the whole point of this blog is to say, if you know someone who is looking for a highly-motivated, creative marketing major fresh out of college, let me know.
Today I was pushed passed the breaking point.
So, you may ask yourself what could it be that finally spurred me on to create this blog. Easy, the job market.
As a soon-to-be college graduate, I am actively in pursuit of a job. The first place they tell you to start, they being employees of my university's career center, is your schools career listing site. I have been hitting that jive up constantly since November of last year, and have yet to find a single job that fits my degree. I will be leaving school with a graduating class of approximately 600-800 students. That is not a ridiculous amount of people, but when combined with the numerous other colleges in the area, the amount of recent grads flooding the market can quickly add up. One other thing I should mention about my schools career listing site, there are only 290 postings available, many of which are teaching English in East Asia.
Is it just me, or does there seem to be some disconnect here? Of the other listings, a great deal of them require multiple years of experience, and others are internships.
Now, I understand that this website was made to serve current students and alumni who are looking for career opportunities. However, I'm going to assume that the majority of people who use this website are CURRENT students looking for FULL TIME employment. Bearing that in mind, one would think that there would be some sort of filter to remove jobs that require years of experience. No, there's not.
That being said, the remainder of postings are local entry level jobs. However, these are the same postings which are being advertised at all other regional schools. So let's do some math. Of the 290 postings, let's be generous and say 200 are local entry level jobs. If we divide that by the number of graduates coming out of my school, that is 200/800, or 1/4, or one job for every four students. Considering the number of other schools in this region, there will be an avg 1000 graduates from 4 different schools. That makes for 4800 graduates in a small, generally rural, area. If each of the respective schools posts an equitable amount of jobs with no overlap, I would say each would have 100 unique posts, making that 500 jobs for 4800 students.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is, the website seems pointless. I thought to myself, "Why not go talk to someone in career services?" So I did, and the first question they asked was, "Are you registered on (insert career listing webste here)?" That's when my faith in the career center crumbled.
Where next does one look for potential job leads? Careerbuilder.net? Monster.com? It's worth a shot, until you realize that all those jobs are either unskilled labor, part-time positions, or some type of pyramid scheme. So why bother?
Well, I guess the whole point of this blog is to say, if you know someone who is looking for a highly-motivated, creative marketing major fresh out of college, let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
