4 ms·

Sorry for a long citation (this is from "Practical Mechanics for Boys"), couldn't help myself: "The American method of teaching the mechanical arts has some di

Sorry for a long citation (this is from "Practical Mechanics for Boys"), couldn't help myself: "The American method of teaching the mechanical arts has some disadvantages, as compared with the apprentice system followed in England, and very largely on the continent. It is too often the case that here a boy or a young man begins work in a machine shop, not for the avowed purpose of learning the trade, but simply as a helper, with no other object in view than to get his weekly wages. Abroad, the plan is one which, for various reasons, could not be tolerated here. There he is bound for a certain term of years, and with the prime object of teaching him to become an artisan. More often than otherwise he pays for this privilege, and he knows it is incumbent on him "to make good" right from the start. He labors under the disadvantage, however, that he has a certain tenure, and in that course he is not pushed forward from one step to the next on account of any merit of his own. His advancement is fixed by the time he has put in at eachp. 2 part of the work, and thus no note is taken of his individuality. Here the boy rises step after step by virtue of his own qualifications, and we recognize that one boy has the capacity to learn faster than another. If he can learn in one year what it requires three in another to acquire, in order to do it as perfectly, it is an injury to the apt workman to be held back and deterred from making his way upwardly. It may be urged that the apprentice system instills thoroughness. This may be true; but it also does another thing: It makes the man a mere machine. The true workman is a thinker. He is ever on the alert to find easier, quicker and more efficient means for doing certain work."

PoachedSausage 9y ago
I'm not sure if the message has become garbled, but I can't seem to get the conclusion there. That the American system instills more innovative thinking at the expense of thoroughness? The original English/European Guild/Apprentice system roughly went Apprentice -> Journeyman -> Master. An Apprentice would learn from a Master and become competent in basic techniques, no innovation was expected at that stage. A Journeyman would travel around and work for different Masters, learning more and different techniques and transferring them between Masters. Finally a Journeyman would produce a "Masterpiece" to become a Master and setup shop somewhere. Innovation was really only expected by Journeymen and Masters.
- theoh 9y ago
  The idea of "making good" right from the start is the thoroughness part. Whatever task the apprentice is set, they think of it as part of their career path and do it absolutely to the best of their ability. That's the idea, anyway. It's like the situation with sushi chefs: they spend years doing little more than washing rice, but it supposedly instills an attitude that even the most trivial task is beautiful and worthy of care -- because they have had time to realise that while focusing on it. That's just my interpretation. The experience I've had in various semi-vocational educational contexts in the UK is that part of the message is that preparatory/ancillary tasks are just as important as the skillful work. Focusing on them is arguably the only way to acquire the attitude needed to do the skilled work.

PoachedSausage 9y ago

I'm not sure if the message has become garbled, but I can't seem to get the conclusion there. That the American system instills more innovative thinking at the expense of thoroughness? The original English/European Guild/Apprentice system roughly went Apprentice -> Journeyman -> Master. An Apprentice would learn from a Master and become competent in basic techniques, no innovation was expected at that stage. A Journeyman would travel around and work for different Masters, learning more and different techniques and transferring them between Masters. Finally a Journeyman would produce a "Masterpiece" to become a Master and setup shop somewhere. Innovation was really only expected by Journeymen and Masters.

theoh 9y ago
The idea of "making good" right from the start is the thoroughness part. Whatever task the apprentice is set, they think of it as part of their career path and do it absolutely to the best of their ability. That's the idea, anyway. It's like the situation with sushi chefs: they spend years doing little more than washing rice, but it supposedly instills an attitude that even the most trivial task is beautiful and worthy of care -- because they have had time to realise that while focusing on it. That's just my interpretation. The experience I've had in various semi-vocational educational contexts in the UK is that part of the message is that preparatory/ancillary tasks are just as important as the skillful work. Focusing on them is arguably the only way to acquire the attitude needed to do the skilled work.