seabeckind
seabeckind's JournalI agree
The true innovator may not be able to do the specific task but he knows why that task is important and how it relates to the overall effort. He also knows the principles behind that task.
Based on what I have seen in the workplace, too much emphasis seems to be placed on "how" something is done rather than "why" it is done. And I've noticed that the industry doesn't even realize what they are doing...that they are destroying their own future.
The training proposals I have seen out of this admin reinforce that concept at the expense of academic goals.
If I'm not clear, I'm sorry. I can't seem to find the right way to say it. An example might be the PC guys long ago. They learned, mostly on their own, the concepts and principles of computing on a personal level. Just about all formal education and OJT involved mainframes and analog business machines. These innovators, and there were thousands, me included, managed to adapt those high level concepts to the desktop. In order to do that they needed to be the "jack of all trades" (at least in that arena) and make all the different parts fit together.
They needed to know what was going on in the industrial engineering area, the media lab stuff, the PARC, DARPA's stuff, Usenet, the IBM PC group, etc. And all of that was happening outside the conventional corporate environment.
That's exactly what I said
Eg, "understanding things like basic project management".
That is education that transcends a specific job requirement. If a company needs a bunch of widget constructors, they won't waste time teaching those employees the interaction of that widget with the trivets coming from another factory, nor will they teach that employee or the general concepts behind workflow management.
It's not worth the expense and even worse -- the hidden hazard. After they have taught that employee those things he can leverage that knowlege by threatening to take his talents to another employer. Or, heaven forbid...increase his salary.
But from a macro standpoint...a societal standpoint, that's exactly what WE want.
If you're looking for a new technology you don't focus all your training on the current technology. You teach {on edit, train was the wrong word} for the concepts and principles behind the technology. Corporations make their profit from the current technology. There is no bottom line benefit from something that doesn't exist.
In order to do that you need a force that isn't driven by the profit model. There was no profit from our space race...only afterwards and as a subsidiary benefit.
Obama is wrong. He's not listening to the people who have altruistic motives. He's listening to those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Afterthought...
The GI Bill provided the means for much of our citizenry to obtain an education that prior to the war would not have occurred.
Maybe Obama should quit talking about how much the people need to go get training and provide a strong gov't drive to help give the student a direct incentive. Determine those fields most necessary for our national interest and give aid and fellowships with a contractual obligation to do public work. Eg, medical training with a placement in needed locales that would eliminate the education debt when the contractual period is over.
Next -- start using executive orders to get rid of that old state's rights idea that the corporations use to bypass national interests.
Vouchers indeed -- but this time for societal needs, not some ....
Long ago our entire eduational thrust shifted because of a beep from space.
Specialized training kills innovation
Innovation happens because the education is broad. A person who has specialized training doesn't necessarily see the principles behind the operation. That person also doesn't get the opportunity to see other implementations and is therefore bound to a particular method.
This whole training business is just one more way the corporate culture is trying to shift more of their cost of operation to the employee or our commons. It's a great deal for them and really hurts the macro model.
Maybe Obama might learn more about how to create a good job environment by talking to people other than those who have made the situation what it is. Maybe he needs to offer a little more leadership. Provethose morons who say that gov't can't create jobs wrong. Our entire advancement of the middle class was caused because of gov't leadership and a vision of what we could be.
And then build the infrastructure that those corporations have been robbing to line their pockets. Ala the Rural Electrification Project. The interstate highway system. The canals. The dams.
A new New Deal.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis
Member since: Thu Dec 8, 2005, 10:45 PM
Number of posts: 1,957
