<p>I’ve often wondered about this. In general, this phrase is used in a pejorative, weaker way, most often accompanied with “and master at none.” The way people perceive and present this is that if you don’t have an area of speciality and merely do decent in most things, you’ll never get out ahead. </p>
<p>But is this actually the case? </p>
<p>In our higher education system, don’t we have general education requirements so that we can benefit from a well-rounded education? If our universities and colleges do this, then how can it be such an inferior thing? What about all the LAC schools? Can’t they be just as prestigious and opportunity-bearing as a school limited to specialized areas? </p>
<p>Just some food for thought, I guess. Personally, I’ve dabbled with a lot of different concepts and skills that I haven’t “mastered,” but I’m perfectly pleased and proud to be able to adequately play different instruments or to talk about different topics. Some people, however, do feel crestfallen that they’re not “special” enough in anything, and this worries me because I don’t feel people just rate themselves of their mastery (or non mastery) on certain things. </p>
<p>What do you all think?</p>
<p>I have no problem being a jack of all trades, especially with languages. I’m pretty good at learning and remembering them, but for whatever reason, I never stick with just one. I started with German as a baby living in that country, did Spanish in elementary/middle/high school, one year of French in middle school, a semester of German in college, and am starting Russian in the fall. I’m not fluent in any of these languages by any stretch of the imagination, but I can navigate most touristy situations with no problem. </p>
<p>Personally, I like having little bits of knowledge that I can expand on at my leisure- makes for great conversation with other people.</p>
<p>So much depends on context. When I was in graduate school in English literature, after having completed a bachelor’s degree in geology, they thought I was a dilettante. And they weren’t wrong, really. When I left graduate school (without a Ph.D., but having taken an M.A. as “a lovely parting gift,” as they used to say on TV game shows), I went to teach in private schools (where it’s often the case that subject-matter knowledge matters, but certification does not). They valued me there because I could teach a bit of English, a bit of Latin, a bit of science, a bit of math… In private schools I wasn’t a “dilettante”; I was a “Renaissance Man.”</p>
<p>Now I’d like to get into post-secondary teaching. But I don’t want to teach college English any more. I’ve done a little of that, and I don’t wish to do it again. I’d like to teach college math. I have years of teaching experience, including a number of years teaching a lot of the math-for-non-majors classes that they teach in many colleges: college algebra, precalculus, trigonometry, etc. But in this context I’m back to “dilettante,” and I will always be one in this context unless I go pursue an advanced degree in math.</p>
<p>Personally, I love jacks of all trades. I think they’re often interesting people. The trouble is, there aren’t a lot of fields that demand half-deep knowledge of a lot of subjects. Private-school teacher was one, at least for me; Jeopardy! contestant is another. But after that, I can’t think of too many more. It’s hard to make a career of being a raconteur or a scintillating dinner-party guest. </p>
<p>It’s akin to baseball: a relatively small number of players can make a career being utility infielders in Boston one year and St. Louis the next, but they’re never going to get to Cooperstown that way.</p>
<p>This is why that truism about selective-college admissions is true: colleges want to put together a well-rounded class, but they often do that by assembling people with outstanding skills in a wide variety of areas, and not by taking in a horde of accomplished generalists.</p>
<p>People with specialties often land different jobs than people who have a broader knowledge of many things. The world needs both types of people. I feel that a good thing to do is to have a broad knowledge regarding many things that tie together, with a specialty in one of them. Jack of a few trades, master of one. For a simplified example, if you’re equally decent at guitar, drums, and singing, pick one to get really good at. Or if you’re really good at one instrument but that’s all you know, start learning how to play some others in addition to practicing your main one. If you’re great at one instrument, you can land gigs. If you’re pretty good at 3, that would be an asset in being a songwriter or music director. If you’re good at 2 but great at 1, maybe you can do any or all of those things.</p>
<p>I’ve observed that a lot of traditional career paths (the ones business or liberal arts students typically choose) have entry level jobs or internships that are pretty broad, and then some of them branch off into specialty jobs as they (or their employers) begin to hone their strengths and/or notice where they lie. In more vocational skill+talent based fields such as the performing arts, young people work hard on their specialty and find opportunities in that first, and then often move on to broader, more administrative and entrepreneurial roles. Not sure if this is usually the case, but it’s just what I’ve seen.</p>