3 ms·

I think this article is not advocating for the legal apprenticeship, but instead for the theory behind. A _good_ apprenticeship would not need pay because the e

I think this article is not advocating for the legal apprenticeship, but instead for the theory behind. A _good_ apprenticeship would not need pay because the education side would compensate the work side. But of course then lots of "entrepreneurs" would take advantage of this, and so it's not possible to do it for free. As a closely related example, internships can be free in Spain, and it happens quite often that the business just rotates interns without teaching them anything. So when the maximum legal time of unpaid internship is over, they just find a new intern. Sometimes they do pay, but pennies on the dollar because there's no minimum requirements.

ken 7y ago
That sounds like making up a new definition of "apprenticeship". Why would an apprentice not need to be paid? Is this only for the independently wealthy, or do they have to get a second job on the side in order to eat?
- franciscop 7y ago
  Because they would be actively taught. It's somewhere between a university class (where the student pays) and a job (where the employer pays), the question is more IMHO about where the line of learning vs working falls. Apprenticeship seems to be catalogued as more work than learning, but that's exactly what the article discusses, how it didn't use to be this way. It seems like this now*: -$$$ focused tutoring, maximum learning -$$ cram schools, high focused learning -$$ private schools, good learning -$ public schools, mediocre learning (US-based) ?? apprenticeship +$ 0-1 internships, learn by following +$$ normal job, no specific learning time +$$$ senior/executive, just work Note: I'm not 100% confident with these numbers since in my home country things are a bit different, e.g. public university is better than private one, and internships are normally free. Example: I taught in a bootcamp. Students paid a non-trivial amount of money for learning, and they were taught in classes of ~20 students. I think that would have been the perfect situation for an apprenticeship. I would not mind teaching someone programming if they help me with design for example. Help going both ways seems just like a normal exchange.

ken 7y ago

That sounds like making up a new definition of "apprenticeship". Why would an apprentice not need to be paid? Is this only for the independently wealthy, or do they have to get a second job on the side in order to eat?

franciscop 7y ago
Because they would be actively taught. It's somewhere between a university class (where the student pays) and a job (where the employer pays), the question is more IMHO about where the line of learning vs working falls. Apprenticeship seems to be catalogued as more work than learning, but that's exactly what the article discusses, how it didn't use to be this way. It seems like this now*: -$$$ focused tutoring, maximum learning -$$ cram schools, high focused learning -$$ private schools, good learning -$ public schools, mediocre learning (US-based) ?? apprenticeship +$ 0-1 internships, learn by following +$$ normal job, no specific learning time +$$$ senior/executive, just work Note: I'm not 100% confident with these numbers since in my home country things are a bit different, e.g. public university is better than private one, and internships are normally free. Example: I taught in a bootcamp. Students paid a non-trivial amount of money for learning, and they were taught in classes of ~20 students. I think that would have been the perfect situation for an apprenticeship. I would not mind teaching someone programming if they help me with design for example. Help going both ways seems just like a normal exchange.