3 ms·
> You could give up training for storms or fires to run liquefaction drills, Why do you have to do one or the other? ¿Por que no los dos?
by craftyguy 8y ago
> You could give up training for storms or fires to run liquefaction drills,
Why do you have to do one or the other? ¿Por que no los dos?
- village-idiot 8y agoMoney.
- dredmorbius 8y agoTime. Training time is limited, nonfungible, and rivalrous. Adding material at one end sacrifices it at another, ssomething has to give: other parts of the curriculum, or prodctive time. There's a similar problem, at scale, for civilisation as a whole. Given a lifespan of 85 years, and working span of 65, we spend 18 years on basic education. The managing/professional class need another 4-6 for undergraduate education, plus 2 for professional degrees, 6-12 for engineering and some medical specialties. We're drawing people into the workforce in their late 20s, early 30s, and hope to get 30-40 years contribution. At the same time, technology, or practices, or standards, obsolete much that information in 10-15 years. How many times do you, and can you, effectively retrain someone before their prior knowledge is an inescapable impediment, and there's no useful retraining benefit regardless. Confound further with the distiction between explicit (book-learned) and taxit (experiential) knowwledge. The first can be effectvely taught through technical reproduction: lectures, books, A/V, computer-distributed or aaided materials. The latter requires small-ratio master-student raatios for transmission. Skills lacking sufficient masters (or those effective at training) die out.