“…White, male, nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford…”

Stereotypes can destroy a work environment, classroom, or any other public venue. The stereotype could be harmless (i.e. assuming the man in the business suit and carrying the briefcase is a big-wig business associate) or harmful (i.e. assuming the man in jeans and t-shirt is the pizza delivery boy). Either way, our society is designed to create stereotypes based on all situations. Technology is no different. What’s the stereotype, you may ask. Well, in an article by Laurie Segall (2011), the claim is made that “’the world’s greatest entrepreneurs’ are almost all “white, male, nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford.’”

Shall we examine the validity of this claim?

Mark Zuckerberg:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Facebook
• Male
• Leave of Absence from Harvard
• The Social Network leads us to believe he is, for all intents and purposes, a nerd

Mark Zuckerberg fits the stereotype.

Steve Jobs:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Apple
• Male
• Attended Reed College for a semester
• Designed first computer, consisting of only a circuit board

Steve Jobs fits two of the three stereotypical claims. However, the fact that he did drop out of college after a single semester leads to the same philosophy as a Harvard or Stanford dropout. Jobs is a match.

Bill Gates:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Microsoft
• Male
• 1975 Harvard dropout
• Began studying computers in 7^th grade, which lends toward the title of nerd

Gates is a perfect match.

Larry Page:

• Entrepreneurial claim-to-fame: Google
• Male
• Stanford PhD student
• Author of an algorithm (with Co-Founder Sergy Brin)

Larry Page is another match to the stereotype.

Four of the biggest names in technology fit the stereotypical claim almost to the letter. Should this be startling? Of course not. Seagull states that, with the pattern, investors have no trouble believing the company will take off, despite its construct or usefulness. She goes on to say that, in the technology world, diversity is just not a main focus. However, many are trying to rectify this situation. Some companies/programs are aiming specifically at female students. The problem, however real it may be, needs to be fixed. In a society where the dominant culture is shifting to the minority, companies must look toward new types of entrepreneurs. The stereotype, however accurate it may be, has met its end.

Conveneint or Convenient...Which is it?

At what point is a singular company too large? Too powerful? Too invincible from outside harm? At what point should we—the people—express concern for a company that can do anything? Does such a point exist? Well, technically, but who is to say that a company deserves such scrutiny.

In his CNN article, Matt Rosoff discusses a concept similar to this, except with a major added twist. Instead of the people deciding a company can do too much, the competitors are laying down the law. For instance, Bill Gates with Microsoft was attacked in 1998 for being too powerful of a company. Gates, of course, didn’t understand why people were attacking the company he worked so hard to create. After all, Microsoft was the winner “by being smarter and working harder” than the competition (Rosoff, 2011).

Flash forward: Google is like the new Microsoft. One man, Larry Page, can control every aspect of Google, deciding what to invest in, what to pull away from, and how many engineers to hire (he would like a million). The problem lies with the eminent power Page now holds. Google is a singular company that can offer hundreds of services. When Google acquired a company that offered a similar service to their own, they were required (by law) to sell it.

Ultimately, this all comes down to a supply and demand type of power structure. When we—the people—demand millions of services, a company will step up to provide them, at any cost. Google has developed into that company, understanding exactly what people want and what people don’t want in their Web 2.0 environment. On Google, one can blog (as I am right now), search and navigate maps, photos, scholarly journals, stream music, etc. The list is endless.

Does a solution exist? Not exactly. We have turned into a society where the quickest and most convenient method of delivery wins all. It no longer matters who has the best technology or who can create the best online environment. Now, it’s all about time and money. And really, that isn’t far from the truth. The following article provides a list of tech tips, all dedicated to making technology that much easier. Is that our new goal? Should technology be easy? My opinion, easy technology creates a lazy user. If I have a computer that can do everything for me, what will I learn? For instance, I spelled convenient incorrectly above (conveneint), but the word was corrected due to my spell check. I will not learn how to correctly spell the word because the computer does it for me.

While most laugh at technology making me lazy, others will understand the magnitude of such a claim. Does this stem from one company offering every program needed? Probably not, but the fact cannot help either. Google has become a beacon of technological advancement. Web 2.0 is Google’s domain (in more way than one). And while technology has become as essential aspect of all our lives, we need to learn to let go. I think, in a way, we all need to go back and learn how to spell conveneint [sic] the right way, or we never will.

Rosoff, M. (2011, September 1). The new Bill Gates: Google’s Larry Page. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.cnn.com.