Job Debates

Right now I am debating job options and possibilities. RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) has offered me a fellowship position that would start this January. The position is temporary, but the opportunity is tremendous. The organizations founder, Amory Lovins, is a genius and has been working on the cutting edge of sustainability for decades. For years the organization developed solutions to energy issues, solutions that often fell on deaf ears. Finally society is ready to embrace increased energy efficiency, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it makes sense financially.

I think the rising generation is facilitating these changes. The youth of today need a cause to call their own, they are the champions of the environment. And it is not just for the "tree huggers", every profession has means to contribute to this efficiency. Students of landscape architecture are demanding to be taught how to implement sustainable techniques. So this takes me back to my original question, which job should I take? I could begin teaching now, and UMC seems like a great option with many opportunities (a permanent position with better benefits, at least initially). Teaching now would allow me to pursue my teaching interests as well as to make an impact on the sustainability front. But I would be on my own. Working at RMI would be an education that has the potential to be second to none: working on the cutting edge, breaking new ground in the implementation of sustainability. Sustainability is the direction society is heading and landscape architects need to be leaders in this movement. I want to be a leader in this movement. Ahh... the debate: cutting edge and uncertainty vs. teaching and stability... this one is going to take some pondering.