I have mixed feeling about this. Having worked at {big defense Corps}, I knew that some extremely competent technical people were technicians. I also discovere

I have mixed feeling about this. Having worked at {big defense Corps}, I knew that some extremely competent technical people were technicians. I also discovered that back in the 60's or 70's, if you showed a spark, they'd pay for you to go to school while you worked. Today, you can't get your foot in the door without a technical degree, AND you will be constantly dismissed even if you are right. Oh, the engineers know when a technician is right, showing initiative, and absolutely killing it - but I saw Senior Management actively disregard them, because they aren't engineers. The engineers had to say, "hey, he's right, we should all listen". This happened multiple times. It used to be at some places that every X years as a technician (I think it was 4?) was ranked as 1 year as a full engineer. Sure that's slow - but you got heard, and combined with the "bright spark" incentive above, was a great way to identify talent that didn't take the traditional channels. I think "moving fast and breaking things" is a feel-good way to paper over incompetence and poor planning, but I've also seen the degreed set not be as competent as the technicians. I have no idea what the right answer is - except to say that industries where lives are on the line (medical devices, aerospace, etc) do have strict guidelines, responsibilities and take it very seriously - this makes me think the author is just taking a dig at people - it appears as discord without direction, to those in the field.