3 ms·

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

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.